Our region’s low-lying ports face a climate adaptation imperative

The big climate problem facing ports: Many of the world’s oil ports are threatened with flooding with as much as a meter rise in sea level. At risk is major infrastructure damage due to rising sea levels, leading to flooding, storm surges, increased waves and wind intensity, and increased precipitation, according to a 2020 report (pdf) by the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure.

The risk is real: At least 13 ports — out of the top 15 ports in terms of super tanker traffic — are at risk of major infrastructure damage from a one-meter rise in sea levels, according to analysis by Zero Carbon Analytics seen by The Guardian. In our region, four low-lying ports fall in this category: KSA’s Yanbu and Ras Tanura, along with UAE’s Khor Fakkan and Fujairah ports.

What timeline are we talking about? A one-meter sea level rise is now inevitable within a century, and it could happen as early as 2070 if ice sheets continue to collapse at predicted rates and emissions remain on the same trajectory, according to a 2024 report (pdf) by the International Cryosphere Climate Initiative.

Core port functions could be undermined: Various processes at the ports could be impacted by the forecasted infrastructure damage. Navigation and berthing are set to become more challenging due to changes in wind patterns, water agitation, and increased water depth. Loading equipment, storage, and hinterland connectivity are also set to be disrupted by flooding, rising heat levels, irregular wind, lower visibility, and overtopping.

What can be done? Owners and operators need to embrace a two-pronged approach to adaptation for what’s yet to come — “soft” and “hard” adaptation, according to a 2022 report (pdf) by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The report puts adaptation costs for all ports at-risk of rising sea levels at USD 4-6.8 bn per year.

“Soft” adaptational measures for ports focus on the administrative, policy, and organizational changes. For port operators, this includes evacuation plans for personnel or the relocation of goods during flooding or storm events. Governments may consider zoning or restricting areas prone to sea level rise, and providing financial grants or subsidies to support resilience investments.

Meanwhile, “hard” adaptation measures comprising structural modification to ports should also be on the table, the EDF said, adding that these measures can usually be summarized as adopting one or more of these three tactics: Elevate, defend, or retreat.

#1- Elevating port infrastructure: This strategy of “elevate” prescribes raising port surfaces and infrastructure, implementing fill materials, and reconstructing facilities at a higher elevation. A number of infrastructural components are raised, including piers, yard areas, roads, and warehouses.

Some issues to expect: Environmental compliance as well as demolition costs, erosion control, and reconnecting electricity and rail infrastructure are likely to drive up the cost of this type of adaptation measures, the report says. For example, some ports may not possess locally available fill material needed for elevation, in which case, trucking the materials would inflate the bill considerably.

A case in point: A study into the cost of elevation in the Los Angeles Port revealed that elevation measures would require an annual investment of USD 100 mn per year.

#2- Raising defenses against rising water levels: Measures of “defending” ports include establishing dikes, seawalls, floodgates, breakwaters, and drainage systems, among other defenses. These systems aim to bolster a port’s formidability against rising storm surges that are caused by the combined effect of rising heat and sea levels.

The drawbacks: In addition to their high cost of construction, similar defense structures may disrupt surrounding marine ecosystems, which may in turn create new problems for a port’s infrastructure through increased erosion or altered soil salinity. Storm-surge barriers and similar defenses can also restrict ship traffic, leading to delays and reduced operational efficiency.

#3- Strategically retreating: Relocating ports away from possible danger zones may ostensibly be less cost-intensive than other “hard” adaptation measures, but no existing studies have established definitive cost estimates, the EDF report says.