Studies show that air pollution from port activities results in adverse health impacts and premature deaths, contributes significantly to climate change, and detrimentally impacts the marine environment. Evidence across Europe points to air pollution in ports being a systemic issue, and early warning signs are emerging regarding the inability of the industry to meet legal air pollution limits.

How big is the problem in European ports?

In 2021, three ports (Antwerp, Marseille and Naples) were found to exceed the EU’s legally binding 2030 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit. Meanwhile, in Rotterdam, shipping accounts for nearly a quarter of NO₂ levels in the city centre and over half in the local port area, with concentrations exceeding World Health Organization (WHO) air quality guidelines and EU 2030 limits in some areas. Similarly, in Southampton, annual nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations are three times higher than WHO guidelines, with cruise ships responsible for roughly half of port-related emissions.

Future projections suggest that emissions from shipping will soon play an even bigger role in determining health impacts. For example, in the UK, nitrogen oxide (NOₓ) emissions from road transport have fallen sharply between 2000 and 2023, but those from shipping have not kept pace. By 2035, domestic shipping alone is expected to emit more NOₓ than all road vehicles – a trend that could make shipping the leading source of air pollution-related health impacts in Europe’s coastal cities by 2030.

 

However, air pollution in ports is not only a health or environmental concern. It is a matter of human rights law, engaging legally binding obligations of states under international agreements. Governments have a legal duty to prevent port pollution from harming human life, health, and the environment.

 

On top of this, litigation and regulatory trends indicate that private entities are increasingly being held liable for their role in human rights violations. This means that companies must also reckon with the growing legal risks associated with air pollution in ports – risks that are both direct (the risk of legal action), and indirect (risks from governments tightening regulations to meet their own legal commitments). 

Where does the law stand on ports and human rights?

Under Article 2 (the right to life) and Article 8 (the right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, governments must take practical measures to safeguard individuals from known environmental risks, including air pollution and climate change.  

The precise contribution of European ports to local air quality is often difficult to quantify, which is in part due to limited air quality monitoring. However, Europe’s highest arbiter of human rights matters, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), has clarified that obligations persist, even where pollution sources are diffuse and there is no definitive proof of specific medical harm caused (Cannavacciuolo v Italy; Pavlov and Others v Russia).

These rulings established that governments cannot rely on data gaps to justify inaction, and that the failure to monitor air quality itself may breach human rights obligations. Where air pollution is identified, case law provides that governments are obliged to assess its extent and impacts, inform affected communities, regulate public and private polluters, take mitigation measures, and provide suitable remedies to those affected.

The ECtHR has also established that countries have specific human rights obligations to mitigate climate change by lowering their greenhouse gas emissions (KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland). A recent advisory opinion by the world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has confirmed this beyond any doubt. This has direct implications for the shipping sector, which is responsible for 3% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions.

Similarly, the right to health (enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – ICESCR) requires countries to improve “environmental and industrial hygiene”. The ICESCR requires the use of maximum available resources to meet each country’s obligations. This amplifies the responsibility of some of Europe’s most advanced economies, which house some of the largest and most polluted ports, including Germany, the Netherlands, France and the UK.

There is also rapidly growing recognition of a standalone right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. The International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s acknowledgement of this right marked an important turning point, though at that stage most European countries had already recognised this right, with many incorporating it into their national laws and therefore making it directly justiciable in the courts. Indeed, national case law is emerging where specific industrial sectors are being held accountable for local air pollution, which exposes ports to the risk of increased scrutiny. 

In the EU, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) further confirms that individuals enjoy an enforceable right to the air quality levels mandated by the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive. With the 2024 recast Directive tightening pollutant limits to align more closely with WHO standards, and introducing a right to compensation for affected individuals, governments that fail to address port-related emissions face tangible legal exposure. Companies operating within those jurisdictions may also be on the hook through a tightening regulatory landscape.

False solutions

Compliance with human rights law requires not just action, but coherent action. Caution must be exercised to ensure that air pollution reduction measures do not adversely impact the climate, and vice versa. The growing reliance on liquefied natural gas (fossil LNG) as an alternative shipping fuel is a perfect example.

Although fossil LNG combustion can produce less air pollution compared to conventional marine fuels, its lifecycle methane emissions negate those benefits, since methane is a greenhouse gas over 80 times more potent than CO₂ in the short term. This means that fossil LNG remains an environmentally harmful fuel with devastating effects for the climate.

A rights-compatible approach must integrate both air-quality protection and climate mitigation, favouring genuine solutions, including shore-side electrification and sustainable marine fuels, such as green hydrogen.

Cleaner ports ensure human rights compliance 

Developments in human rights and environmental law are transforming polluting ports into sites of legal accountability. For governments, this means establishing comprehensive monitoring systems, implementing and enforcing rigid national air-quality standards, and ensuring that affected communities have access to information and effective remedies. For industry, it means undertaking rigorous due diligence, investing in genuine zero-emission technologies, and avoiding false solutions that merely shift the harm. The legal trajectory is clear: inaction on port pollution is no longer tenable.