International Conference On The Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea
Report 24, 25, 26 November 2008 Hôtel de Région - 27, Place Jules Guesde - Marseille - France Under the High Patronage of the French Minister for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Town and Country Planning, French Presidency of the European Union In partnership with the Région Provence - Alpes - Côte d’Azur, Marseille Fos Port Authority and the UN Secretariat of the Basel Convention The Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea
THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT OF WASTE GENERATED AT SEA 1
Opening Remarks 5 Frédéric MEYER 5 Regional Councillor, in Charge of Maritime and River Transport Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Region 5 Roy WATKINSON 6 Chairman 6 Vincent JUGAULT 6 Representing the Executive Secretary Secretariat of the Basel Convention 6 Christophe PILOIX 6 Deputy General Manager, Marseille Fos Port Authority 6 Caroline DEMARTINI 7 Representing the French State Minister for Ecology, Energy Sustainable Development and Town and Country Planning 7
SESSION 1: THE CURRENT SITUATION GAPS AND CHALLENGES 9
International Perspectives 10 Pierre PORTAS 10 President, WE 2C, France 10 Four Key Messages 10 Universal Principles 11 Concluding remarks 11
Regulatory Perspectives and Experience 11 Louise DE LA FAYETTE 11 Visiting Professor, Maritime Institute, University of Greenwich, UK 11 Challenges to be Addressed 12 The Waste Management Conventions 12 Future Measures 13 Information and Communications 13 Certification 14 Capacity Building and Technical Assistance 15 Conclusions 15
The Need for Adequate Port Reception Facilities 15 Captain David CONDINO 15 OCS/MARPOL, Manager, Safety Branch, US Coast Guards 15 The COA Programme 15 US Ports Structure 15 Adequacy Criteria 16 Inadequacy Reports and Investigations 16 Conclusion 16
Maritime Industry Perspectives and Experience 17 David BOLDUC 17 Coordinator, Green Marine, Canada 17 Green Marine Overview 17 Waste Management Issues 17 Future Challenges 17
Q&A Session 18
Challenges Faced by Ports (1) 20 Lieselot MARINUS 20 Policy Advisor, European Sea Ports Organisation, Belgium 20 Directive 2000/59 20 The Role of Port Authorities 20 Fee System 20 Notifications 20 Waste Handling Plans 20 Cargo Residues 21 Conclusion 21
Challenges Faced by Ports (2) 21 Maurits PRINSSEN 21 Project Manager, Strategy, Port of Rotterdam, The Netherlands 21 The Port of Rotterdam Management System 21 Demand Versus Availability 21 Future Developments 21
Expectations, Barriers and Opportunities for Maritime Operators 22 Tim MARKING 22 Deputy Secretary General European Community Ship Owners Associations (ECSA), Belgium 22 ECSA Overview 22 The View of the Shipping Industry 22
Q&A Session 23
SESSION 2: DRIVERS FOR CHANGE 24
Experience in the Implementation of European Directive 2000/59/EC on Port Reception Facilities 25 Arnaud LEROY 25 Project Officer, Environment Protection European Maritime Safety Agency, Portugal 25 Directive 2000/59/EC 25 Cost Recovery Systems 25 Systems in Operation in Europe 26 Exemptions 26 Enforcement 26 Waste Management Plans 26 EMSA Activities on Port Reception Facilities 27
Best Practices for the Collection and Management of Residues Generated On Board Ships 27 Magali DEVÈZE 27 Manager Ship Residues, Marseille Fos Port Authority, France 27 Overview of the Port of Marseille 27 Private Service Providers 28 Conclusion 28
Applying the Principles of Environmentally Sound Management to Waste 28 Eelco LEEMANS 28 North Sea Foundation, The Netherlands 28 The Operational Effects of Shipping 28 Clean Shipping Solutions 29
Q&A Session 29
Cooperation and Regional Partnerships 31 Frédéric HÉBERT 31 Director, Regional Maritime Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea, Malta 31 Review of Port Reception Facilities 31 Financing of Port Reception Facilities 31 The Way Forward 32
International Cooperation to Improve Capacities to Manage Residues Generated On Board Ships 32 Vincent JUGAULT 32 Programme Officer, Secretariat of the Basel Convention, Switzerland 32 The Case of Dumping of Hazardous Waste in Abidjan 33 Future Collaborative Efforts 33
Q&A Session 34
SESSION 3: OPTIONS FOR MANAGING RESIDUES AND THE ROLE OF WASTE MANAGERS 37
The Waste Contactor’s Perspective 38 Guido VAN MEEL 38 Secretary General, Euroshore International, Belgium 38 Euroshore Overview 38 The Industry View Point 38 Conclusions 39
Options for Managing Residues Generated On Board Ships (1) 39 Greg VOGT 39 Managing Director, International Solid Waste Association, Austria 39 Trends in Solid Waste Management 39 Challenges for Waste Generated at Sea 40 Conclusion 40
Options for Managing Residues Generated On Board Ships (2) 40 Martin CLERMONT 40 President, Gedden (Environmental Management Information Systems), Canada 40 Gedden Overview 40 Tracking Solutions 41 Conclusion 41
Q&A Session 41
WORKSHOP SESSIONS 44
Workshop 1: Certification of and Standards for Port Reception Facilities 44 Moderator: Nikos MIKELIS 44 Senior Implementation Officer, IMO, UK 44 Panel Members were: Arnaud Leroy, Eelco Leemans, Frédéric Hébert and Koichi Yoshida 44 Discussion 45
Workshop 2: Traceability of Waste 49 Moderator: Greg VOGT 49 Managing Director, International Solid Waste Association, Austria 49 Panel Members were: Guido Van Meel, Martin Clermont, Maurits Prinssen and Sylvain Perrier (Ship-Waste Agency, France) 49
Workshop Reports 55 Chair: Roy WATKINSON 55 President, Roy Watkinson Environmental Consulting Ltd, UK 55 Workshop 1: Certification of and Standards for Port Reception Facilities 55 Workshop 2: Traceability of Waste 56
Concluding Remarks: Moving the Agenda Forward 57 Lucien CHABASON 57 President, Blue Plan, France 57 The Need for Reliable Data 57 The Political Agenda 58 The Role of REMPEC 58 Adjacent Seas 58 Conclusion 58 Under the High Patronage of the French Minister for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Town and Country Planning, French Presidency of the European Union In partnership with the Région Provence - Alpes - Côte d'Azur, Marseille Fos Port Authority and the UN Secretariat of the Basel Convention
Opening Remarks
Frédéric MEYER Regional Councillor, in Charge of Maritime and River Transport Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Region
I am pleased to welcome you here today to the Regional Council building of the Provence- Alpes-Côte d'Azur Region. The theme of this meeting, the environmentally sound management of waste generated at sea, is particularly pertinent to the Mediterranean region where the meeting is being held, as this is a region that is highly impacted by all the related issues.
Each day, 250 ships travel along our coast line, carrying 360 million tonnes of oil. Several times each year, our coasts are soiled by illegal de-bunking. We therefore face the challenge of setting up systems for the prevention of maritime pollution while at the same time encouraging maritime traffic. At the regional level, we have initiated a number of programmes and devoted significant funds to our ambitious maritime policy. The aim is to act in a more global and integrated fashion in responding to these challenges. Since 2001, the region has committed to undertaking a concerted action in its territory. To this end, it is for example developing equipment for de-pollution, including in leisure ports.
Of course, the issues can only be properly addressed by action that is taken throughout the Mediterranean basin, a closed-in and therefore fragile sea. The Mediterranean represents 1% of the world’s seas but 30% of its long-distance oil traffic. The Barcelona Convention demonstrates how far these challenges have been taken on board by the international community, and the Provence- Alpes- Côte d'Azur Region has been very involved in this work. Mediterranean regions have adopted a common declaration, stressing the need to take into account maritime policies in the Mediterranean. Four prerequisite conditions have been imposed. • First, reform of the legal status of Mediterranean waters. De-pollution, maritime security and safety require measures to be undertaken beyond territorial waters, for example, by the creation of ecological protection zones. • Second, devoting an adapted budget to the acute nature of de-pollution problems in the Mediterranean. • Third, the improvement of the multilateral governance of Mediterranean maritime policies. The regions consider that only a new and close governance between the various regional and local levels will result in the necessary responses. • Fourth, the setting up of an integrated maritime policy for the whole Mediterranean area.
Within this framework, we immediately accepted the invitation to host this meeting today. I would like to thank the organisers for all their work in making this conference possible. I would also like to welcome all participants to our region. The Provence- Alpes- Côte d'Azur Region will be particularly attentive to the outcomes of this meeting, and I wish you all a great success for your conference – a success that it truly deserves.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p5/59 Roy WATKINSON Chairman
I would like to welcome you all to this conference on the environmentally sound management of waste generated at sea, which is being held under the Haut Patronage of the French Minister for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Town and Country Planning, and in partnership with the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Region, Marseille Fos Port Authority, and the UN Secretariat of the Basel Convention.
Vincent JUGAULT Representing the Executive Secretary Secretariat of the Basel Convention
The Secretariat of the Basel Convention is extremely supportive of this initiative. On behalf of the Executive Secretary, I would like to thank the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Region for its interest in and for its organisation of this conference, and for having a vision of these issues. In particular, I would like to note that Pierre PORTAS’ expertise and experience has made this meeting possible.
The Secretary of the Basel Convention has decided to support this initiative, which results from the Secretariat’s mandate on the issue of the coordinated implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements that are relevant to the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and other waste. The parties to the Basel Convention have noted the need to reinforce the cooperation between the Basel Convention and the International maritime Organization with regard to the latter’s regulation on prevention of pollution from ships and, identify possible grey areas – overlaps or gaps – that may exist between those instruments, and any option for addressing these gaps. The Basel Convention itself targets the strengthening of the ability of member states to deal with waste in an environmentally sound way by following a life cycle approach.
The Basel Convention does not only provide for a control regime for transboundary movements of hazardous waste and other waste. It is also the only global forum dealing with hazardous waste and other waste that provides for the development of the normative framework for the environmentally sound management of those wastes. The Convention can therefore play an important role in addressing the priorities identified above. As such, the Secretariat wishes to play a full role within the framework of the reflections that will be held over the coming three days.
Christophe PILOIX Deputy General Manager, Marseille Fos Port Authority
The Port of Marseille-Fos is very pleased to see that the conference organisers have chosen its region for this meeting. We were in fact one of the first to support the initiative when the conference was first proposed. The port’s experience in waste management plans has led us to a better understanding of the day to day problems of port authorities, in particular in the area of waste management. This is a complex issue, and one that the public is very aware of. Regulations have been reinforced over time, in particular with the EU 2005 Directive, which makes it mandatory for port authorities to implement waste management plans. Nevertheless, few port authorities in the Mediterranean region have implemented such plans.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p6/59 Over the past four years, the Marseille Fos Port Authority has developed a number of initiatives. • First, a capacity to deal with solid and liquid wastes, and oil residues. • Second, the use of software to deal with stop-overs ( escales ) and which allows real time exchanges to take place between ships and land. • Third, the setting of incentive tariffs for ships that proceed with elimination of waste in Marseille. To that end, we have reinforced the de-bunking installations in Marseille and Fos. In parallel, ports should extend their installations in a reliable manner, and thereby become subject to certification.
These evolutions also respond to the desire of our ports to evolve and be able to cater to an increasing number of ships. We must provide quality services to those ships – services that are environmentally sound. Ports are ideal locations to develop reflections on shared issues, such as evacuating waste, which have not yet been resolved. They are also ideal for intra- regional reflections. This therefore means that the next three days should lead to fruitful exchanges with the other Mediterranean ports present at this meeting.
Caroline DEMARTINI Representing the French State Minister for Ecology, Energy Sustainable Development and Town and Country Planning
The so-called Grenelle de l’Environnement – or French Environmental Forum – is a multi- partite reflection on sustainable development that has been undertaken by the French government. It led to the development of a road map for sustainable development which includes measures for fighting against global warming or preserving biodiversity.
Protection of the marine environment was at the very core of these concerns. The prevention of pollution generated at sea is crucial to protecting the marine environment, and this is an area that lies at the cross roads of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the Basel Convention.
The environmentally sound management of waste concerns all matters that go to protecting human health and the environment. It was originally designed by the UNEP and then taken up by the Basel Convention. After the tragic Erika accident, the Directive picked up on various conventions, and required ships to alert a port before their arrival of the waste they are carrying. France implemented the approach in its national law but was reprimanded by the European courts because one-fifth of the country’s port installations did not have the facilities that were required by the Directive.
Since then, considerable efforts have been made by all stakeholders to bridge this gap and, today, all of France’s ports enjoy such facilities. Going forward, the waste management plans that have already been approved in principle must be implemented in reality. To this end, several options are possible. The services can be managed in a general manner or out- serviced to a third party. Liquid waste such as sludge and used oil is in fact usually taken care of by outside contractors. The fee system can play a valuable role here, as ships are required to pay even if they do not use the facilities. This acts as an incentive for them to use the relevant installations. The implementation of the directive has increased the quantity of waste deposited in ports – the quantity of used oil and sludge deposited has doubled in the port of Marseille. This demonstrates how the management of ship waste is a genuine challenge for the 21 st century.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p7/59 The Union for the Mediterranean is aimed at creating an area of shared peace, stability and prosperity. This requires the enhancement of multilateral links to promote balanced and sustainable development in the region. The Union for the Mediterranean will be based on the implementation of practical projects in which all member countries can participate. In order to gain credibility with the public, it must be given real meaning through concrete actions. I will conclude by saying that the Minister for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Town and Country Planning provides his full support for this conference, and looks forward to following its outcomes.
The Chairman thanks the distinguished speakers and open Session I on the current situation, gaps and efforts. He informed the participants that record of the meting will be taken under the rules that interventions will be reported but not attributed to individuals. The meeting agreed to this proposal.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p8/59 Session 1: The Current Situation Gaps and Challenges
In brief
In the past 30 years, many efforts have been made at an international level to de-pollute the seas. However, the same efforts have not always been made on land. As a result, many ports around the world do not have the facilities they need to deal with ship residues and discharges. In addition to regulations, and in support of those regulations, there was an opportunity to explore some mutually supportive and complementary tools, namely: • The development of an ISO standard or standards for port reception facilities. The development of ISO standards would be a base upon which to design a certification system for port reception facilities. • The improvement of the traceability of the residues generated on board ships once they have been collected by port reception facilities until they have been treated, recycled or disposed of on land.
When it comes to improving the situation, four main challenges were identified: • Improve the availability of port reception facilities. • Improve of the availability and quality of information that is provided about port reception facilities. • Determine that port reception facilities are effectively integrated into the general waste disposal systems of the port state. • Guarantee the environmentally sound management and disposal of the ships’ residues in the land based general waste management and disposal system of the port state.
The availability of port reception facilities is essential to the implementation of the MARPOL Convention.
The US response to MARPOL has been implemented in the US Coast Guard Certificate of Adequacy (COA) programme. Ports and terminals are required to have a certificate of adequacy. However, most terminal operators do not provide waste reception facilities themselves. Instead, arrangements are made directly between ship owner/operators and independent waste reception providers. The US maintains a robust MARPOL reception facility programme aimed at meeting its international stewardship responsibilities.
Green Marine, an industry driven programme set up between Canada and the US, demonstrates another complementary way of moving forward. It covers the Great Lakes and St Lawrence region, and came into play in 2008. It has 6 priority issues: invasive species, air emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, oily water, cargo residues, and port impact. The objective is to develop collective and corporate action plans for each priority issue.
On the European front, the collection of ship residues in ports has been discussed at the European level since the 1980s. The European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) developed the 1994 Code of Environmental Practice and the 2000 ESPO guidelines on waste management plans. In this context, the Port of Rotterdam is meeting the demand for discharge of oily residues and cargo residues. In addition, new waste streams are emerging such as ballast related waste.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p9/59 The European shipping industry represents about 23% of the world fleet. 90% of Europe’s external trade is transported by ship, and 41% of intra-European trade is sea borne. Globally speaking, up to 90% of world trade is transported by sea. Suggestions for improvement include better availability of reception facilities and flexible delivery times. For ship owners, it is the availability of adequate reception facilities that is crucial. The European Community Ship Owners Association (ECSA) is promoting a closer dialogue between ports, and with ship owners, to understand needs and develop best practices.
International Perspectives
Pierre PORTAS President, WE 2C, France
First of all I wish to thank heartily all the partners who made this conference possible. The Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Region was chosen because we truly believe in the role that can be played by regions in moving the agenda forward. Marseille is the world’s third largest oil terminal, and we felt it was important to hold this conference here, where the action is. I would also like to thank our distinguished speakers and Chairman, Roy WATKINSON, for having responded positively to our invitations. We are very privileged and honoured by their presence. Four Key Messages
I would like to begin my presentation by conveying four messages. • First, environmental protection is not only a constraint; it contributes to building bridges, in this case, by building a bridge between the sea and the land. • Second, we can refer to a number of universal principles for dealing with residue at sea. These include the environmentally sound management principles. • Third, we can use this conference to explore the tools that could be used to improve the situation and, moreover, to improve environmental performance. • Fourth, it is clear that unless we all work together – all the players in this field – we will not be able to progress.
In the past 30 years, many efforts have been made at the international level to de-pollute our seas. However, the same efforts have not always been made on the land. This means that there is a disparity between measures taken at sea and those taken on land. As a result, many of our ports do not have the facilities they need to deal with ship residues. This is clearly an area where bridges have to be built.
In order to improve the situation it is necessary to improve port reception facilities and their use. The system of reporting inadequacies in such facilities is not working adequately, and there is a need to enhance requirements, improve communications between different actors, and improve communications between the sea and the land. The EU database system, for instance, could help improve the traceability of residues. Industry has also been working at measures to allow the certification of operators according to the ISO 14000 series.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p10/59 Universal Principles
Regarding environmentally sound management, the universal principles are being applied by more than 180 countries today, in particular those that are party to the Basel Convention. The principles provide that every waste has to be managed properly, everywhere and at all times. The environmentally sound management principle means that it is necessary to consider the entire life cycle of materials. It is also based on the waste hierarchy: avoid, recycle, recover, re-use, and dispose. An international normative process is aimed at creating a level playing field. This has the ultimate goal of achieving greater transparency and predictability in the waste area. Regarding the available tools, reference can be made to a number of approaches that could prove to be useful in moving forward. These tools can be divided into two categories. • First, tools for the certification of port reception facilities based on an international standard. This raises the issue of whether such a certification scheme should be voluntary or mandatory. Similarly, should an international organisation be responsible for certifying? Who will determine the criteria for certification? • Second, tools for improving the traceability of residues once they have been collected in a port reception facility until they have been treated, recycled or disposed of on land.
The two workshops that are to be held tomorrow will address these two approaches. Concluding remarks
I believe that we have the keys to help us move forward: we are aware of the issues; we know the relevant actors; we know the solutions. However, for this conference to be a success, we are relying on your experience and your ideas to move this process forward. The idea during these next three days is not to dwell on the past, but to discuss ideas for the future. Alone we cannot progress, but together we can meet the challenges that lie ahead.
I hope that this conference will contribute to improving our environment, and I will conclude with a slogan that was particularly inspiring in recent times – Yes, we can!
The conference continued with a presentation by Louise DE LA FAYETTE that went to the heart of the regulatory issues. Those issues act as a framework for all of the discussions on the collection and management of oily residues and cargo residues generated on board ships.
Regulatory Perspectives and Experience
Louise DE LA FAYETTE Visiting Professor, Maritime Institute, University of Greenwich, UK
The purpose of my presentation is to outline the global legal requirements for the environmentally sound management of wastes generated at sea, and to identify some issues not covered by current requirements. The presentation will focus on the gaps and challenges within the system, providing a regulatory perspective on the issue.
As background, you should bear in mind a few simple facts. First, ships operate on the oceans. Second, during their voyages, they generate waste. Third, that waste accumulates on board. Fourth, ships have minimal space to hold their waste. Fifth, eventually the waste
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p11/59 will have to be discharged. Sixth, there are only two places in which waste can be discharged: into the sea or into the port. The only environmentally sound solution is obviously at the port level. However, in many ports around the world, reception facilities are either non-existent or inadequate. Challenges to be Addressed
When it comes to dealing with these issues, we face four main challenges.
• First, we have to improve the availability and adequacy of port reception facilities. • Second, we have to improve the availability and quality of information that is provided about port reception facilities. • Third, we must ensure that port reception facilities are effectively integrated into the general waste disposal systems of the port state. • Fourth, we must ensure the environmentally sound management and disposal of ships’ waste in the land based general waste management and disposal system of the port state.
The global rules on the environmentally sound management of wastes generated at sea are contained in the International Convention International for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978), commonly known as MARPOL. MARPOL is the main IMO convention relating to the protection of the marine environment. It addresses both accidental and operational pollution from ships in six annexes, dealing with:
Annex I. Oil Annex II. Noxious Liquid Substances Annex III Harmful substances carried in packages Annex IV Sewage Annex V Garbage Annex VI Air pollution
Apart from Annex III, all the annexes contain provisions for the environmentally sound management of wastes on board the vessel, and requirements to discharge some wastes and residues into port reception facilities. All states parties are required to provide port reception facilities for ships normally visiting their ports. Once the wastes are taken off the ship, MARPOL no longer has any formal role to play. Nevertheless, IMO is interested in the fate of the waste because it realises that the environmentally sound management of wastes requires a life cycle approach. Such a life cycle approach must extend from the generation of waste on board the ship; through its discharge either into the sea or into waste reception facilities in port; its transportation to inland waste management systems; and ultimately to reuse, recycling or final disposal. For the process to encompass land-based waste management and disposal, it must be based on cooperation between IMO and the Basel Convention, which deals with waste management on land. The Waste Management Conventions
There are three global waste management conventions: the London Dumping Convention (1972) and its London Protocol, 1 MARPOL, and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. All three conventions aim to protect human health and the environment from harm caused by hazardous wastes.
Both the London Convention and the Basel Convention apply to waste that is transported by
1 The Protocol supersedes the Convention, which should eventually fall into disuse.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p12/59 sea as cargo . They do not apply to waste generated on board ships, which is covered by MARPOL. The Basel Convention controls the export of hazardous waste generated in one state shipped to another state for recovery or disposal. A shipment from one state to another is termed a “transboundary movement”. The Basel Convention discourages transboundary movements and requires wastes to be disposed of close to their place of generation, if possible. In recent years the parties have adopted guidelines on methods of disposal of various kinds of wastes and have engaged in capacity-building in developing countries to assist them in developing environmentally sound waste management systems.
MARPOL recognises that most waste generated at sea is harmful to the marine environment. For this reason, the deliberate discharge of waste from ships into the sea is strictly controlled or, in some cases, even prohibited. Waste generated on board ships cannot be managed in the same way as waste generated on land. On land, there are several options for re-using, recycling or disposing of waste. For wastes generated at sea, there are only two main options: discharge into the sea or into port reception facilities. 2 Furthermore, as space is limited, waste can only be held on board ships for a limited amount of time. Finally, because ships are engaged in constant transboundary movements between ports, often changing their itinerary along the way, it is necessary to have suitable port reception facilities available anywhere and everywhere that ships are likely to operate.
For all these reasons, the availability of port reception facilities is essential to the implementation of MARPOL. If such facilities are not available, ships’ operators will be tempted to discharge harmful wastes into the sea, a result that MARPOL was designed to prevent. Under MARPOL, ships’ operators are responsible for the management of waste on board their vessels, and port states are responsible for ensuring that adequate port reception facilities are available to ships that call. The obligations of ship operators and port states are reciprocal and mutually dependent. Despite these clear legal requirements, many states still do not have the necessary port reception facilities.
In recent years, IMO has adopted a number of measures to improve the provision and adequacy of port reception facilities. In particular, it has adopted guidelines and a manual on port reception facilities; and has designed forms for reporting inadequacies, for ships to report to ports the wastes that they wish to discharge and for waste delivery receipts. In addition, IMO has integrated a Port Reception Facility Database (PRFD) into the IMO Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) in order to provide information to ships’ operators on the facilities available in the ports of member states. Finally, IMO is in the midst of implementing an Action Plan to tackle the inadequacies of some port reception facilities. This Action Plan is being worked on by a Correspondence Group, which is being coordinated by Captain Condino, the next speaker.
The IMO port reception facility database is available on the IMO website, and contains basic information that is entered by port states. Unfortunately, the information that has been provided to date is not very comprehensive. It has been recommended that ports create a link on the site to their own waste management plans. Future Measures
Information and Communications
One of the main issues is the current lack of information and communication between ships and port reception facilities in some places. The exchange of information and better communications among ship operators, port operators and waste management facilities is crucial to the environmentally sound management of wastes generated at sea. Ship operators need to know which facilities are available at which ports and whether those
2 In some cases, wastes may be vaporised or incinerated.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p13/59 facilities are adequate to handle the wastes they wish to discharge. The solution suggested by IMO is to provide information about port reception facilities on its GSIS database, and for ships to provide advance notice about the types and volumes of wastes they wish to discharge to port reception facilities.
Ship operators and the operators of port reception facilities should work closely together in order to make the system work. Ship operators should provide timely, advance notice of waste that they want to discharge, while ports should provide information in advance of the facilities available, and of the types and amounts of waste that can be discharged. If ships visit particular ports on a regular basis, it may be useful to enter into standing arrangements with reception facilities in those ports. In general, a more pro-active approach to the exchange of information is desirable.
Certification
The certification of port reception facilities has been suggested as the best solution to the problem of obtaining information about port reception facilities. The fact that facilities may be listed in the IMO database does not always mean that in practice they really do provide an adequate, environmentally sound service for the types of wastes and residues sought to be discharged by visiting vessels. This is true even in developed countries. How then is a ship’s operator to know with any confidence whether he will be able to safely discharge his ship’s wastes in a particular port? One solution is a scheme for certification of port reception facilities. I fully support this idea.
Certification could serve two functions. First, it could raise standards, as operators of port reception facilities would strive to demonstrate their adequacy to potential users by meeting the international standards. Thus, certification could be used as a marketing tool by ports. Secondly, certification would respond to the need for greater certainty and confidence by ships’ operators in the adequacy of the port reception facilities actually provided.
How could a certification scheme be established? The IMO Voluntary Member State Audit Scheme could act as a model. The standards are set in the various IMO instruments, which are listed in the Code for Implementation. Member states volunteer to be audited; audit teams visit the country; and investigate whether the Administration is implementing the relevant IMO instruments. Although at present, the scheme is voluntary, in the future, it could be made mandatory.
While the requirement to provide port reception facilities is currently included in the IMO Audit Scheme, the audit does not include a detailed investigation of the facilities concerned. What would be required for certification would be: first, technical standards for the construction and operation of such facilities; and second, a detailed expert audit of the facilities, comparing them against the standard. Thirdly, the fact of certification and the details of what facilities are available could be posted on the IMO database.
What aspects of the wastes’ life cycle should be included in the certification scheme? Ships are already certified and inspected to ensure that they comply with the requirements of MARPOL. Therefore the scheme should focus on the system and operation of the port reception facilities themselves. In most cases, port reception facilities simply collect waste, which is then taken elsewhere to be entered into the general waste disposal system of that state. Therefore, there has to be a legal and physical link between the port reception facility and the inland infrastructure for waste management and disposal. The existence of such a fully functioning link should be one of the criteria for certification of the port reception facility. The general national waste management system of the state then deals with the waste, but this would be beyond the purview of certification.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p14/59 Capacity Building and Technical Assistance
Another issue is the need to provide assistance to states to improve both their port reception facilities and their general waste disposal systems. The environmentally sound management of ships wastes has to include their environmentally sound management and disposal after they are discharged from the ship. Otherwise, pollution would simply be transferred from the sea to the land. However, as already noted, the management of wastes on land is beyond the scope of MARPOL, whose mandate ceases once the wastes are removed from the ship. This where UNEP and the Basel Convention can help, by adopting guidelines for the management of ships’ wastes in inland disposal facilities and by participating in joint projects for capacity building in countries requiring assistance. Such cooperation among IMO, UNEP and the Basel Convention has already begun.
Conclusions
As explained in the preceding paragraphs, MARPOL does not provide all the answers to the issue of the environmentally sound disposal of wastes generated at sea. In particular, it does not ensure that the facilities provided in ports will be adequate to the needs of ships and it does not provide detailed standards for the construction and operation of port reception facilities. Furthermore, MARPOL does not cover the management of the wastes after they leave the ship. The purpose of this conference is to find solutions to resolve these problems.
The next presentation considered the US response to providing adequate port reception facilities – a response for which the US Coast Guard is responsible.
The Need for Adequate Port Reception Facilities
Captain David CONDINO OCS/MARPOL, Manager, Safety Branch, US Coast Guards
It is up to individual member states of the IMO to implement requirements with respect to adequate reception facilities. I will be discussing the U.S. response to MARPOL, which has been mandated to the U.S. Coast Guard and which has been implemented in the US Coast Guard Certificate of Adequacy (COA) programme. The COA Programme
The programme implements MARPOL in US regulations and policies. The aim is to develop national guidance for field units and industry that ensures that U.S. ports and terminals meet adequacy criteria through COA certification. The programme monitors the COA application process, reviews all reports of inadequacy, and maintains a public database of port reception facilities, which can be accessed through the IMO’ s Global International Shipping Information System (GISIS). Finally, it conducts an outreach programme for domestic and international industry groups, end users and port operators.
The US law implementing MARPOL is the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), which confers authority on the U.S. Coast Guard to enforce MARPOL. The U.S. is party to Annexes I, II, III and V of MARPOL, and has recently ratified Annex VI. (The Maritime Pollution Protection Act 2008 amends the APPS to include Annex VI.)
US Ports Structure
There is no national port authority in the U.S. and organisation and jurisdiction varies from
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p15/59 port to port. Most U.S. ports are publicly owned by the relevant state or municipal authority. The port authorities own the land and property, and lease the marine terminals out to terminal operators who conduct the actual business of loading and unloading cargo. Ports and terminals are required to have a certificate of adequacy. However, most terminal operators do not provide waste reception facilities themselves. Instead, arrangements are made directly between ship owner/operators and independent waste reception providers.
Adequacy Criteria
The minimum criteria used for determining adequacy are those contained in the IMO guidelines, and include timeliness, capacity and equipment.
Additionally, a facility must hold all federal, state and local permits and licences required by environmental and public health laws relating to the handling of waste. The facilities must be conveniently located so as not to discourage their use. They must also be situated so that wastes and residues removed from ships cannot readily enter into the water.
Obtaining a COA is a step by step process. The facility submits a COA application to the Captain of the Port (COTP) for review. If the application meets the necessary requirements, the COTP conducts an inspection of the port or terminal. If all is found to be in order, the COTP issues the COA. Annual inspections are encouraged, in conjunction with mandatory safety inspections, for example. Inspectors record results of inspections using the Coast Guard’s Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement System (MISLE).
Inadequacy Reports and Investigations
We encourage inadequacy reports from ship owners by telephone or email, using the standard reporting format. Field units copy Coast Guard HQ in Washington, DC, on any inadequacy investigation. The investigation involves an examination of the relevant facilities’ waste stream logs for waste streams from vessels, uniform hazardous waste manifests, and declarations of inspections. The identity of the reporting party is not necessarily made known.
If the facility is found to be inadequate, we can send a letter of warning, make recommendations to correct inadequacies, revoke the COA, deny vessel entries to the port, or take legal action under US law.
To provide an idea of the dimensions of the US system, 146,756 vessels arrived in US ports in 2007. There are 35,611 different types of facility in the US, with 2,230 facilities holding a COA (As of November 2008). 17,259 inspections were conducted in 2007. Reports of inadequacy and investigation results are provided to the IMO’s Legal and Regulatory Compliance Division. Conclusion
The goals of the COA programme are to promote safety and environmental stewardship. We want to promote and encourage pollution prevention policies internationally, nationally and locally. We want to keep industry on the move with minimal delays – this is a key point for us. We want to encourage best practice methodology and the use of technology by working with industry and IMO member states. Our ultimate goal is to achieve and maintain 100% MARPOL compliance.
The US maintains a robust MARPOL reception facility programme aimed at meeting our international stewardship responsibilities. We own the problem and we want to own the solution.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p16/59
After this consideration of the U.S. response, it was the turn of various industry and regulatory organisations to provide their point of view. The first presentation gave an overview of an industry-driven programme set up between Canada and the U.S..
Maritime Industry Perspectives and Experience
David BOLDUC Coordinator, Green Marine, Canada Green Marine Overview
Green Marine is a voluntary, bi-national industry sustainability initiative set up between Canada and the United States. It covers the Great Lakes and St Lawrence region, and came into play in 2008. It is therefore a young organisation but we are extremely proud of what we have achieved to date.
Green Marine has 43 participants, including 16 ship owners, 8 terminals and 17 ports, representing over 50% of trade in the region. It is a voluntary programme. It has 6 priority issues: invasive species, air emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, oily water, cargo residues, and port impacts. The objective is to develop collective and corporate action plans for each priority issue.
All of our indicators follow the same format of 5 levels: regulatory compliance, the systematic use of best practices, integrated management system, introduction of new technologies, excellence and leadership. Our short term goal is that the majority of our participants reach level 3.
Each participant is responsible for evaluating its own performance. The first self-evaluation exercise will be handed in on 1 April 2009, with certification issued by 20 May 2009. Results will be made public. Waste Management Issues
I will focus on two issues: cargo residues and oily water. In the St Lawrence-Great Lakes region, there is no port involvement in waste management.
In this area, collective actions include the production of an inventory of polluting materials, and of reception and treatment facilities. They also include the promotion of cargo residues by recovery services provided by ports, terminals and ship operators. In terms of corporate actions, the Environmental Programme requires actions that minimise the quantities of waste produced at the source.
An example of a performance indicator for ship owners is provided with respect to cargo residues. The objective is to improve all loading and unloading procedures. The performance indicator for ports and terminals requires them to have a management plan and a collaborative procedure for ship owners and crews. When it comes to oily water, all of the actions target improving best practices on board ships. Future Challenges
The most important short-term challenge is to obtain the adherence of international ship owners and operators transiting through the region. To this end, we are developing
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p17/59 equivalencies tables between Green Marine provisions and the four main environmental programmes that apply to global traders: ISM Code, ISO 14001, Clean Cargo Working Group, and Green Award.
New issues that we may consider in the future include spills, storm water runoff, and snow melt management. We also want to improve air emissions, and we want to include new participants in our group, for example, shipyards and cruise ships. Our success to date is due to our credibility, which has been achieved through concerted efforts, support from champions, and a rigorous and concrete approach. I would invite you all to consult our web site for further information on our programmes: www.green- marine.org .
Q&A Session
The Chairman opened the floor for discussions. The following interventions and exchange were recorded:
From the floor
The presentations referred to a number of tools that would be needed in the future. However, such an analysis should begin with a consideration of the tools we already have. These include the IMO port reception facility data base, or standard reports for reporting and notification. All of these form a unit, and help contribute to the efficiency of the whole. Annex II includes very specific provisions with respect to cargo washing. Inadequacy reports are made by ships to the flag state, which then reports officially to the port state. It takes three months for the report to become public on IMO’s Global International Shipping Information System (GISIS). The statistics show that the level of reporting is very low (1 in 10,000). This means either that there are very few problems or that people are not reporting.
Regarding the collection of waste in US ports, I believe that one of the constraints is cost. Should ships pay for discharge or should this be part of the harbour fee? Second, is household waste included in the Green Marine categories?
This is an extremely valuable conference. Regarding a point made by David CONDINO, I understand the importance of not interrupting operations at a port facility, but I am not sure how this ties in with MARPOL adequacy requirements.
Panel Member
I agree that there is a problem with the under-reporting of inadequacy. It would appear that some ship owners are afraid to report inadequacies for fear of retaliation. It may also be that flag states do not pass such reports on to port states. Annex II is indeed very specific, and IMO recommends that the types of facilities available should be made clear on the database.
The Chairman noted that it would be interesting to see whether any studies have indeed been made with respect to reporting levels.
Panel Member
Regarding tariffs, it is often said that the polluter should pay. I personally believe that we all own the problem. It is generally accepted that the cost should be borne by the producers of the waste, partly through the price that is paid for the shipment of goods. Ship owners should at least be responsible in part for the waste they generate, and it is probably fair that
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p18/59 they bear the bulk of the cost. Ports should provide the relevant facilities for waste disposal, and ship owners should probably cover the bulk of the cost when they use that facility.
The Chairman asked whether that meant that charges were levied on ships.
Panel member
That is correct. However, port authorities and terminals are not left out of the cost equation, as the relevant costs are higher than what is charged to the ship; the costs also include infrastructure costs. Regarding the point on not interrupting operations at port facilities, we consider that this is a business decision between port authorities and ship owners. Nevertheless, in our own guidance to inspectors, over-charging and interference with business are matters for consideration.
Panel member
We did not consider household waste as a priority issue. Other issues such as invasive species or emissions were much more crucial in the short term, and that is why we have focused on them and not on household waste.
From the floor
How is the US Coast Guard planning to promote various behaviours, given that it is guided by free market principles? Green Marine is regulating on substances that could be harmful. What criteria are used to determine what “could be harmful”? Is anyone present at the conference able to provide further information on de-ballasting stations?
Panel Member
We want to make it as easy as possible for ship owners and port authorities to do business with each other in an environmentally sustainable way. Any rules should be understandable and should facilitate compliance. It is more about providing information than conferring fiscal incentives.
Panel Member
In fact, we have not been able to define potentially harmful substances. We wanted to set up a committee that would be responsible for defining harmful substances, but this has not proved to be possible.
From the floor
Some ship operators process their waste on board in incinerators. What are your views on this?
Panel Member
As this conference is concerned with the treatment of waste by port facilities, I did not explore this point in my presentation.
The meeting then turned to a consideration of the challenges faced by ports. To what extent is there a gap between the demand for reception of residues generated on board ships and the collection facilities available in ports? The Belgian and Dutch experiences provided answers.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p19/59 Challenges Faced by Ports (1)
Lieselot MARINUS Policy Advisor, European Sea Ports Organisation, Belgium
The European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) was founded in 1993 and currently represents over 800 European port authorities, handling 3.5 billion tonnes of cargo and 350 million passengers each year. The collection of ship waste in ports has been discussed at the European level since the 1980s. ESPO policy was established in the 1994 Code of Environmental Practice. Since then we have been actively involved in further steps at the European level. We were, for example, involved in EC Directive 2000/59, and the 2000 ESPO guidelines on waste management plans. Directive 2000/59
Directive 2000/59 works to achieve a level playing field and increase stakeholder involvement. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement. The directive involves several actors: environmental authorities, port authorities, waste contractors, port users, and port state control. Given that the ownership, status and responsibilities of port authorities are very different within each member state, it is up to members to define their competent authority.
The Role of Port Authorities
The CarlBro study recommends a more active and central role for port authorities. They should control and manage waste notification and manage the outsourcing and prices of waste operators. At first sight, this makes sense, but there is a risk of overlap with the responsibilities of other government agencies, and undue bureaucratic burden and costs. ESPO therefore recommends that the active role of port authorities should be encouraged with respect to the provision of adequate facilities, the creation of transparent fee systems, the information provided to users, and the terms of reference for waste operators.
Fee System
Regarding the fee system, it should always ensure that all costs – direct and indirect – are recovered from the ship. The “no less than one-third” principle constitutes a fair compromise and should be maintained. There should not be a mandatory 100% indirect fee system; nor should there be any mandatory reductions for “green ships”. As a minimum, all EU ports should apply the “no less than one-third” principle.
Notifications
Regarding notifications, it should be noted that not all port authorities are involved in receiving notifications to the same extent. It is not up to port authorities to police missing or incomplete notifications. ESPO recommends a more harmonised notification system, preferably at the IMO level. More information on the categories of ship generated waste would also be helpful.
Waste Handling Plans
Two major matters should be considered when referring to waste handling plans. • First, the information in Annex I of Directive 2000/59. ESPO recommends that users should indicate which information they need in a plan. The information should also be linked to existing databases such as GISIS or EHMC. • Second, the relationship with the competent authorities. Here, ESPO recommends
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p20/59 better harmonisation between legislation on the collection of ship waste and legislation on land waste. ESPO shares consensus that some definitions such as “regular” or “short sea shipping” should be clarified. We recommend that the exchange of best practice and guidance represents the way forward.
Cargo Residues
Finally, cargo residues, where there are some elements of uncertainty as to compulsory discharge, storage capacity etc. In this area, ESPO recommends a more harmonised approach through an exchange of guidance and best practice. Nevertheless, the subject should principally be left to MARPOL. Conclusion
ESPO believes that ports can play an active role in the area of ship waste collection, where this is positive and efficient. The Directive contains fair compromises on a number of matters, notably the fee system, and this should be maintained.
Challenges Faced by Ports (2)
Maurits PRINSSEN Project Manager, Strategy, Port of Rotterdam Authority, The Netherlands
The Port of Rotterdam Management System
The Port of Rotterdam Authority defines waste streams and financing on the basis of definitions set out in MARPOL. The reception facilities in our port are all owned by private companies. Fees, disposal discounts and processing rights are based on the main engine capacity (MEC) of the vessel. In 2007, the total collected fees amounted to about €7 million. Cargo residues are not included in the fees. A report is made every year to the relevant Ministry as to waste disposal in all sea ports of the Rotterdam-Rijnmond region. Demand Versus Availability
For ship related waste, we do not face any difficulties in meeting demand, and this is also the case for cargo related waste. Disposal and washing depends on time, other cargo, terminal availability and the next port of call. We could see the emergence of new waste streams in the future, for example, ballast related waste.
The processing of waste depends on other land-based waste streams. Other issues include the responsibility of port authorities vis-à-vis the government, or of private players vis-à-vis public, subsidised parties. In my experience, reporting of inadequacy does not occur as ship owners consider this a bothersome process. The obstacles to handling residues include possible changes in the regulations, or various commercial considerations. Future Developments
A new indirect fee system is being developed, as are new regulations for permit collectors. At the European level, EMSA is carrying out a review which could include cargo residues. The IMO may be involved in defining new waste streams.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p21/59
Further to the consideration of the issues faced by ports, the conference addressed the perspectives of ship owners and operators. To what extent is the information about port reception facilities available to operators, and how could it be improved?
Expectations, Barriers and Opportunities for Maritime Operators
Tim MARKING Deputy Secretary General European Community Ship Owners Associations (ECSA), Belgium ECSA Overview
ECSA has 23 members and is based in Brussels. Its aim is to promote and defend the interests of European associations in the European Council, European Commission and European Parliament. It also provides information to those institutions.
The European shipping industry represents about 23% of the world fleet and is notably a major player in cross trades between different continents. 90% of Europe’s external trade is transported by ship, and 41% of intra-European trade is sea borne. Globally speaking, up to 90% of world trade is transported by sea.
Directive 2000/59 on Port Reception Facilities is aimed at reducing discharges of ship- generated waste and cargo residues into the sea, improving the availability of port reception facilities, and improving the use of port reception facilities. The Directive is fully supported by industry and we believe it has had a positive impact ever since its launch. The View of the Shipping Industry
For ship owners, it is the availability of adequate reception facilities that is crucial. We receive few complaints about difficulties experienced using those facilities. The shipping industry believes that charging must be transparent and workable.
Problems that have been reported include the compulsory delivery ashore of all waste even if the vessel has enough capacity on board to store the waste. Insufficient account is taken of the operation of on board waste management plans. In some cases, waste that has been segregated on board is lumped together into one container on land. It is also difficult to obtain exemption certificates for regular services. Further complaints have been received as to charging where it is based on GT, for example, rather than the actual cubic metres of the vessel. Finally, there is no standardised, electronic delivery format for Europe. We have in fact made a proposal for such a standard note, which is currently under consideration by the IMO.
Suggestions for improvement include better availability of reception facilities and flexible delivery times. A closer dialogue is needed between ports, and with ship owners, to understand needs and develop best practices. A smoother procedure for exemption certificates for regular callers is also needed. Rebates could be considered for ships that have invested in on board waste treatment systems. There is a feeling that the indirect fee system is probably preferable but may not be achievable, and the “not less than one-third principle” may be a more pragmatic solution. ECSA supports strict penalties for illegal dumping.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p22/59 With respect to improving the Directive, we are pleased to see that the Commission will soon be producing its evaluation report on the operation of the directive to date. In that context, it is planning to undertake a consultation with stakeholders in 2009.
Q&A Session
The Chairman opened the floor for discussions.
From the floor
The Ionian Sea is an extremely polluted area due to illegal discharges. Without the compulsory discharge of even small quantities of waste in ports, areas such as the Ionian Sea cannot be protected.
From the floor
A review is currently underway of MARPOL Annex V residues, and could lead to a total prohibition of discharges at sea. With respect to the use of forms, there is in fact a harmonised form that is available, and which should be disseminated.
Panel Member
I would hope that the national authorities could keep control of ships in the Ionian Sea. The Directive in fact allows member states to act in cases where there is a risk of discharge.
Panel Member
What made you decide that privately owned port reception facilities were preferable to government owned ones?
From the floor
What kinds of difficulties arise between land and maritime definitions of waste?
Panel Member
We did not switch from public to private port reception facilities; that is an issue for the government to decide. More and more private companies are involved in waste treatment. Regarding the definitions, the same processing equipment is used for waste that is defined differently under the land and maritime legislation.
The Chairman concluded by bringing the first day’s proceedings to a close.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p23/59 Session 2: Drivers for Change
In brief
This session began with a presentation on the far reaching efforts undertaken by the European Union Member States in addressing the issue of the adequacy, availability and use of port reception facilities. Europe has a specific instrument to deal with port reception facilities in the form of EC Directive 2000/59, which was set up in response to the difficulties faced in the implementation of MARPOL. The purpose of the directive is to reduce discharges of ship generated waste and cargo residues into the sea. In contrast to MARPOL, the European text applies to all ships irrespective of their tonnage and types. Notably, it also includes leisure and fishing vessels. The European text also applies to all ports, irrespective of size.
The directive requires the development and implementation of an appropriate waste reception and handling plan for each port. The plans are developed in consultation with the relevant parties, in particular, port users. Member states must evaluate and approve plans, monitor their implementation, and ensure that they are kept up to date. Plans must be re- approved every three years; the second generation of plans is now emerging. The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) has evaluated 129 plans against the requirements of the Directive. It found that quality differed greatly among Member States, although the majority of plans have fulfilled most of the mandatory requirements.
For example, the Port of Marseille Fos hosts about 10,000 requests per year, a figure that has remained constant over recent years. The Port Authorities began undertaking audits of users in 2001 in order to develop a management plan that would meet the requirements of those users. This led to the setting up of a qualification system, bringing together all of the requirements that are imposed on service providers under the European Directive. In addition, there are further requirements that are specific to the Port of Marseille, notably due to the high presence of oil.
The North Sea Foundation looked at the operational effects of shipping that include garbage, bilge water and sludge, and cargo residues. Garbage includes plastics, refrigerators, batteries, engine parts, barrels, wire and even washing machines thrown overboard. It remains difficult to dispose of such objects in ports. While 70% of all waste may sink to the bottom of the ocean, the “big blue bin” is obviously not a solution to these issues. About 500 oil spills are detected each year in the Dutch part of the North Sea. The volume of oil spills resulting from operational discharges are in fact much greater than from actual accidents. Clean shipping solutions are possible through technological innovation, regulation and enforcement, financial incentives, market mechanisms, education and awareness raising. Solutions on board include prevention of waste, waste segregation, and the use of biodegradable lubricants. Having clean ports is also crucial. Port reception facilities should be of good quality, with differentiated harbour dues, logistic planning and cold ironing.
The session then addressed the issue of cooperation. An EC/MEDA financed project on port reception facilities in the Mediterranean was carried out in 2004 by REMPEC in Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey and Syria to assess the situation and identify the needs of these countries. The study also looked at how to design the optimum solution for the collection, treatment and disposal of residues generated on board ships. 56 oil terminals in the Mediterranean Sea were visited, 28 of which had adequate facilities or facilities that required only minor improvements. For garbage, only three ports did not have adequate facilities and a further four required minor improvements.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p24/59 In 2005, it was estimated that it would cost €23 million to improve port reception facilities in the region.
The Secretariat of the Basel Convention has undertaken work with UNEP to enhance the capacity of the Ivory Coast to manage hazardous waste in an environmentally sound manner through the development of a management plan for the Abidjan district. This plan includes residues generated on board ships and the project involves IMO in assessing capacities for the management of MARPOL residues that are collected in the port of Abidjan.
The Chairman opened the meeting and informed participants that the morning session would continue with a series of presentations. To start the day off, he passed the floor to Arnaud LEROY from the European Maritime Safety Agency.
Experience in the Implementation of European Directive 2000/59/EC on Port Reception Facilities
Arnaud LEROY Project Officer, Environment Protection European Maritime Safety Agency, Portugal
The presentation focuses on an overview of the actions taken by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) in the area of waste management. Directive 2000/59/EC
Europe has a specific instrument to deal with port reception facilities in the form of EC Directive 2000/59, which was set up in response to the difficulties faced in the implementation of MARPOL. The purpose of the directive is to reduce discharges of ship generated waste and cargo residues into the sea. In contrast to MARPOL, the European text applies to all ships irrespective of their tonnage and types. Notably, it also includes leisure and fishing vessels. The European text also applies to all ports, irrespective of size.
I will now refer to two major components of the directive: cost recovery systems and waste management plans. Cost Recovery Systems
The cost recovery system provides that the costs of port reception facilities shall be covered through the collection of fees from ships – the polluter pays principle. All ships calling at a port of a member state shall contribute significantly to the cost of port reception facilities, irrespective of the actual use of those facilities (incentive). The part of costs not covered by indirect fees is covered on the basis of the types and quantities of ship generated waste actually delivered by the ship (direct fee).
In 2004-2005, we reviewed 50 major EU ports with respect to oily waste. The majority of ports dealt with direct fees, or direct fees plus incentives. Similar proportions applied to cost recovery with respect to garbage.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p25/59 We acknowledge the efforts make by ports and member states to establish systems that comply with the directive. An impressive array of systems has been established, even within the same country. Member states have requested a degree of flexibility with respect to the system, and the review of the directive will take this into account. Clarifications are however needed in certain areas to ensure fair and transparent competition between waste operators at the EU level. Similarly, fairness should be ensured for all port users.
Systems in Operation in Europe
We can find a wide range of cost recovery systems in operation in Europe today. These include a 100% indirect fee with no limitations on waste volumes; a 100% indirect fee with limitations on waste volumes; indirect fixed fees for garbage and a direct charge for other waste types; a direct charge and payment of a fixed deposit which can be partly reclaimed; or a direct charge or payment of fixed tariff (penalty) where ships do not deliver waste. Efficient waste handling does not depend on the type of cost recovery system alone, but also on the procedures in place and the general attitude of the port. In addition, a particular cost recovery system may work well in one port but be less efficient in another.
Exemptions
Exemptions apply to ships that are engaged in scheduled traffic, with frequent and regular port calls, where there is sufficient evidence of arrangements to ensure the delivery of ship generated waste and the payment of fees along the ship’s route. There is no harmonisation on the duration, scope and conditions that apply to exemptions, and no communications between the actors involved.
Enforcement
Member states must ensure that any ship may be subject to inspection, with particular attention given to ships that have not complied with notifications or have notified suspicious information. In the majority of cases, there is no specific enforcement based on the notifications, and inspections are conducted under MARPOL, in line with the PMOU guidelines. Notification is a strong element of the EU system. Notifications are not automatically provided to inspection authorities, and this aspect will be considered during the review. Waste Management Plans
The directive requires the development and implementation of an appropriate waste reception and handling plan for each port. The plans are developed in consultation with the relevant parties, in particular, port users. Member states must evaluate and approve plans, monitor their implementation, and ensure that they are kept up to date. Plans must be re- approved every three years, and we are now seeing the second generation of plans emerge. The directive applies to all ports, and the waste management plans have proved to be an issue for smaller marinas. This requirement is now being reviewed by the Commission. EMSA has evaluated 129 plans against the requirements contained in Annex I. It found that quality differed greatly among member states, although the majority of plans have fulfilled most of the mandatory requirements.
The directive also makes it mandatory to provide certain information to port users. This includes the location of equipment, the type of waste accepted at the port, the list of contact points etc. In over one-half of cases, we found that no information was provided to users.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p26/59 EMSA Activities on Port Reception Facilities
On behalf of the European Commission, we have visited 12 member states to date, and our inspection visits to member states have included all types of ports. The Commission recognises the important progress that has been made to date by member states and stakeholders in implementing MARPOL and the Directive. Nevertheless, further efforts are required to improve the efficiency of the system, and to ensure better coordination between authorities, in particular with respect to monitoring and enforcement. Furthermore, greater harmonisation is needed with respect to definitions, exemptions and delivery requirements. Finally, the availability of information must be improved.
With respect to the review of the Directive, consultations will be organised in 2009, in particular regarding the simplification of existing procedures. A decision will be made as to whether the Directive needs to be modified. Any proposal could be tabled in 2010, and EMSA will assist the Commission and member states in this process.
This presentation of the EC Directive was put into practical focus by the next speaker who provided details of the day to day experience of the Marseille Fos Port Authority.
Best Practices for the Collection and Management of Residues Generated On Board Ships
Magali DEVÈZE Manager Ship Residues, Marseille Fos Port Authority, France
My presentation will provide an overview of how the Marseille Fos Port Authority has implemented the directive since 2000. Our facilities are divided between two sites – the East Basin and the West Basin – which deal with different types of shipping traffic producing different types and quantities of waste. The East Basin, for example, is more concerned with cruise ships and passengers. The Marseille Fos Port is a major oil platform, and waste facilities are organised around oil and cargoes. Overview of the Port of Marseille
In terms of waste, Marseille hosts about 10,000 calls per year, a figure that has remained constant over recent years. We began undertaking audits of our users in 2001 in order to develop a management plan that would meet the requirements of those users. This led to the setting up of a qualification system, bringing together all of the prescriptions that we must impose on service providers under the Directive. In addition, there were further prescriptions particular to the Port of Marseille, notably due to the high presence of oil. Waste notification is included in the software used in the port, and this software is available to all our users. The plan was approved in January 2004, and was up and running as of April 2004. Each year we bring together all users and providers to review the past year and make any changes that are needed.
In 2007, we held an audit to see how the plan was being implemented. This led to the development of a new plan, which was approved in February 2008. The software identifies the main categories of waste and their quantities, and the relevant page can be consulted by the maritime affairs authorities. In 2007, 96% of ships entering the Port of Marseille filled in the notification form. This tool also allows port officials to check the data provided. When
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p27/59 data appears to be incomplete or incoherent, the ship owner can be called upon to provide further information. This occurs in about 1 out of every 1,000 cases, and can lead to an on board inspection. Private Service Providers
The services carried out in the Port of Marseille are provided by ten private service providers. Standard types of services are provided, including containers and barges. In order to be authorised to treat waste in the port, service providers must satisfy a comprehensive set of criteria before becoming qualified. In particular, the traceability of waste must be ensured. Service providers must also issue regular reports on their activities throughout the year. In terms of quantities, one call out of three unloads solid waste, with an average volume of 10-11 m3. For liquid waste, under 20% of ship calls result in unloading, with 22 m 3 being the average amount unloaded. In this context, it should be noted that the quantities of de- ballasting are on the decline.
Exemptions are possible for ships that can justify a contract with an approved service provider in application of the plan, or that have a certificate from a previous port of call. Our tariff policy aims to encourage ships to unload waste in our installations, and a failure to make a declaration gives rise to a higher fee. Fees are based on the volume of the ship, as is the case for port fees. Our philosophy was to tax only those ships that did not want to unload their waste at the facility. Fees are paid directly to the service provider, and the port is entirely transparent with respect to this aspect of the matter. Conclusion
We believe that we are lacking in guidelines or shared information with respect to interpreting the Directive. For example, exemption methods vary greatly among the different ports, as do the discounts that apply to those ship owners that set up good practices. We would appreciate advice or guidelines from the Commission on all of these matters.
The application of the principles of environmentally sound waste management and clean ships was provided by the next speaker from a Dutch NGO.
Applying the Principles of Environmentally Sound Management to Waste
Eelco LEEMANS North Sea Foundation, The Netherlands
The North Sea Foundation is a Dutch NGO working on the sustainable use of the North Sea, and of all seas. We consider the impact of shipping, sustainable fisheries, and spatial planning. Shipping is obviously an important global economic activity, and we have seen an enormous increase in the volumes of cargo being shipped around the world. The Operational Effects of Shipping
The operational effects of shipping include garbage, bilge water and sludge, and cargo residues. Other operational effects include air emissions, ballast water and noise, but these will not be discussed today. Garbage includes plastics, refrigerators, batteries, engine parts, barrels, wire and even washing machines thrown overboard. It remains difficult to dispose
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p28/59 of such objects in ports. While 70% of all waste may sink to the bottom of the ocean, the “big blue bin” is obviously not a solution to these issues.
Shipping is a major source of marine litter. The OSPAR beach litter monitoring programme has found that much of the waste that turns up on beaches comes from shipping. More importantly, OSPAR has seen no reduction in beach litter over the past few years. The extent of the problem can be demonstrated in a well-known case of a container full of 29 000 toy ducks, which fell overboard in the Pacific Ocean. 16 years later, these ducks are now entering our European waters.
About 500 oil spills are detected each year in the Dutch part of the North Sea. The volumes of oil spills resulting from operational discharges are in fact much greater than from actual accidents. Clean Shipping Solutions
Clean shipping solutions are possible through technological innovation, regulation and enforcement, financial incentives, market mechanisms, education and awareness raising. Solutions on board include prevention of waste, waste segregation, and the use of biodegradable lubricants. With respect to raising awareness, the Marine Awareness course ( www.prosea.info ) is now available for shipping companies. The STCW Convention will be revised next year to include such awareness raising.
Having clean ports is also crucial. Port reception facilities should be of good quality, with differentiated harbour dues, logistic planning and cold ironing. The user pays principle could be interpreted in a number of different ways. For example, a ship that enters a port without any garbage has probably dumped its garbage at sea. However, a ship entering a port with large quantities of garbage is usually seen as a polluter. I would argue that it is the former case that represents the real polluter.
With respect to clean cargo, the Swedish Clean Shipping Project has developed a clean shipping index to compare the environmental performance of transporters. Companies wishing to ship goods can therefore choose those carriers that pollute less. In terms of best practice, Gothenburg Port, for example, has set up an excellent system.
In conclusion, I believe that we have made much progress on clean shipping. However, we still have a long way to go.
Q&A Session
The Chairman opened the floor for discussion.
From the floor
I understood from the presentation that ships are penalised for not delivering waste to the Port of Marseille. We had a similar system in place in our country but were required by Europe to change our system. Reference was also made to the concept of “sufficient storage capacities”. However, this remains a difficult concept to define.
Panel Member
We have not have had any comments from the European Commission with respect to our tariffs. We believe that our system plays a valuable role in providing incentives to ships to
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p29/59 discharge waste at ports.
Panel Member
The Directive will be reviewed in 2009, and the definition of storage capacities will be one of the items considered.
From the floor
It may be that the problem lies in the rest of the world and not in Europe – the lack of appropriate port reception facilities in other areas of the world may be contributing to the problems. Europe could lead the way to finding a solution worldwide, for example, by calling on the IMO to disseminate best practice, notably by extending GISIS and ensuring that all member states contribute to it. I suspect that part of the solution could lie in promoting common efforts, and this can only be achieved if we have access to all the relevant data.
Panel Member
Europe does indeed play such a role today, and will continue to do so in the future. Europe already has many good practices in operation, and many of the major players are located here.
From the floor
How do you recognise the role of local government in the process of organising ports to handle waste? How does the role of the port or the service provider integrate with the role of local government?
Panel Member
Much of the wealth of a town is generated by its port activity and, without the port, the level of the town’s wealth would be considerably diminished. It is therefore necessary to take responsibility for the negative side effects of shipping as well. Local authorities therefore have a high level of responsibility, notably in ensuring that ships are able to offload their waste.
Panel Member
In our system of qualification, it is necessary for providers to be in compliance with the regulations. Our waste management plan requires approval from local government representatives. The two do therefore coordinate with each other.
Panel Member
The power and role of local authorities is quite different in each member state. Licensing is often the purview of local governments, as is the monitoring of compliance.
The Q&A Session was followed by two presentations on regional and international cooperation.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p30/59 Cooperation and Regional Partnerships
Frédéric HÉBERT Director, Regional Maritime Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea, Malta
After the discussions held on the first day of this conference on the sound management of waste, I will now return to first principles: the availability of port reception facilities. The Regional Maritime Pollution Emergency Response Centre (REMPEC) was established in 1976 under the Barcelona Convention. It is administered by the International Maritime Organisation and operates within the framework of the Mediterranean Action Plan. Its field of activity is ship generated pollution.
The contracting parties to the Barcelona Convention adopted a new protocol that goes beyond emergency response issues and also deals with the prevention of pollution from ships.
Dealing with port reception facilities means dealing with MARPOL. Up until now, we have been mainly concerned with Annex I (oily residues) and Annex V (garbage). For both of these Annexes, the Mediterranean Sea is considered a special area and stricter regulations apply. MARPOL requires that all that cannot be discharged at sea should be retained on board. Oily waste has to be delivered to a port reception facility. To accede to the MARPOL Convention, it is necessary to establish port reception facilities. However, this is what the Convention provides and it does not necessarily concord with the reality of the situation. Review of Port Reception Facilities
An EC/MEDA financed project on port reception facilities in the Mediterranean was carried out in 2004 by REMPEC in Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey and Syria. We aimed to identify the existing situation and needs with respect to port reception facilities in each of these countries. We also undertook a study on how to design the optimum solution for the collection, treatment and disposal of waste. We visited 56 oil terminals in the Mediterranean Sea, 28 of which had adequate facilities or facilities that required only minor improvements. For garbage, only three ports did not have adequate facilities and a further four required minor improvements.
In 2005, it was estimated that it would cost €23 million to improve port reception facilities in the region. A regional seminar was held to consider the findings and explore issues such as fee systems, institutional frameworks, and the financing of the establishment of port reception facilities. REMPEC’s 8 th meeting held in Malta in May 2007 considered giving effect to the special area status of the Mediterranean Sea under MARPOL Annex V. As a result, as of 1 May 2009, only food wastes can be discharged at sea, if more than 12 nautical miles away from land. Financing of Port Reception Facilities
REMPEC commissioned a study on possible sources of financing for port reception facilities in the area. It was found that port reception projects were too small to be financed through direct project finance. Financing limits could be met where sponsors could group projects together. Port reception projects make ideal investments for the private sector.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p31/59 The sustainability of projects depends on their profitability, and the adequacy of port reception facilities is related to traffic flow. In most cases, the cost of building, maintaining and servicing of facilities will exceed potential income that could be generated through fees, taxes and dues.
Resolution MEPC 83 (44) provides that port waste management planning on a regional basis can provide a solution when it is undertaken in such a manner as to ensure that vessels do not have an incentive to discharge wastes at sea. The MEPC 55 action plan aims to tackle inadequate port reception facilities and to develop guidelines for establishing regional arrangements for reception facilities.
The EC/MEDA/SAFEMED study on maritime traffic flows assessed traffic by port and by type of ship. This data will be used to characterise sub-regional traffic in areas that need to improve their existing port reception facilities. For Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, Syria and Turkey, we considered all ports in these countries in groups of ten. It was found that the first ten ports in these countries attracted over 60% of ships calling into ports in the region. The Way Forward
How can we take a realistic approach to encourage investment in port reception facilities? We believe that one way forward is to pursue the concept of sub-regional agreements, for example, by building a mandatory ship waste collection plan among the countries concerned. It is necessary to differentiate between ports where facilities should not be included in a sub- regional or regional plan – for example, major oil loading ports. A few ports, which concentrate traffic at the sub-regional level, could be selected. It will then be necessary to make a call for interested sponsors. It may be that this is an appropriate case for a PPP project.
This presentation of regional partnerships naturally led to a consideration of international cooperation, with a presentation by a representative of the Basel Convention Secretariat. The development of a technical assistance programme to assist port states was described.
International Cooperation to Improve Capacities to Manage Residues Generated On Board Ships
Vincent JUGAULT Programme Officer, Secretariat of the Basel Convention, Switzerland
Decision VIII/I on the Ivory Coast conferred on the UNEP a mandate to assist Côte d’Ivoire in implementing its emergency and prevention plan that was developed further to the dumping of hazardous waste in the agglomeration of Abidjan, in August 2006. This led to the setting up of the Special Trust Fund by the Executive Director of UNEP at the occasion of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention. The Trust Fund received bilateral donations from the Dutch government mainly, as well as the Government of Sweden. A specific assistance program has since been developed under the auspices of UNEP and the SBC and in close consultation with the Government of Côte d’Ivoire and is currently being executed.
The main objectives of this program are to enhance the capacity of Côte d’Ivoire to manage hazardous waste in an environmentally sound manner through the development of a hazardous waste management plan for the Abidjan district. That plan includes ‘waste’ generated at sea under the form of cargo residues, slops or noxious substances.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p32/59 The program is composed of mainly four components, one of which aiming at assessing and strengthening the capacity for the management of MARPOL residues that might be going through Abidjan Port. This specific task is being carried joint in collaboration with the IMO. The program also contributes to capacity building. Based on the project findings, recommendations will be made to improve the management of hazardous waste in the port, including with respect to the application of relevant MEAs. The technical and financial support to be provided will also help improve infrastructure, reception facilities and equipment. In addition, health and safety practices, communications procedures and protocols relating to health will be addressed through the conduct of joint activities with the WHO.
With respect to capacity building, the aim is to review legal and institutional gaps, and enhance the consolidation of regulatory and policy frameworks. The aim is also to enhance collaboration and provide support to national approaches in a coordinated regional approach. To this end, four French-speaking countries in Africa have been selected, including Côte d’Ivoire, for the conduct of national enforcement projects. The Case of Dumping of Hazardous Waste in Abidjan
The local situation in Abidjan represents a disaster scenario that we do not want to see repeated: the lack of port reception facilities, un-transparent tariff structures, and overall local dysfunctions for the environmentally sound management of hazardous waste. The case occurred during a particularly troubled time in the country in political terms. Nevertheless, some of these deficiencies that appeared are shared by other African countries and by other developing countries in general.
Problems have been experienced in implementing MARPOL and the Basel Convention in a coordinated manner in developing countries. It was a MARPOL channel of communication that was followed to authorize the ‘waste’ in question to be discharged in the port of Abidjan, and it is a poor enforcement of the Basel Convention procedures that led to its disastrous handling. The Basel Convention provides for a legal regime for the control of transboundary movements of hazardous and other waste. But the convention also represents a global policy instrument that contributes to developing the normative framework on environmentally sound management of waste. MARPOL 73/78 is a tool for the prevention of pollution from oily residues from ship engine rooms and cargo residues.
The two conventions share the same goal in terms of protection of the environment and have much in common. Some areas of concern however include the notion introduced in Article 1.4 of the Basel Convention of the “normal operations of a ship”, which is not recognised by other conventions. Furthermore, Article 4.2 under this convention states that appropriate measures should only be taken where there is reason to believe that hazardous waste will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner. Future Collaborative Efforts
In my own capacity, I would like to share some suggestions for future collaborative efforts in this matter: • First, the need to highlight the need to follow a life cycle management approach when facilitating the coordinated implementation of existing instruments There are serious communications problems in developing countries, between those authorities that deal with MARPOL and those authorities that deal with the Basel Convention. • Second, the standardisation of documentation, for example, that is being used in Annex VII and non-Annex VII countries. Again, the whole life cycle should be covered. This would not be an easy task.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p33/59 • Third, to strengthen national policy frameworks and enforcement capacities of developing countries for the environmentally sound management of waste generated at sea by following a life cycle approach. This requires both technical and legal assistance for the coordinated implementation of MARPOL, the Basel Convention and other MEAs of relevance to the international transport of hazardous substances, including the Rotterdam Convention and the Stockholm Convention.
Finally, I believe that the situation is maturing, and regional or sub-regional initiatives could see the light of day. These could provide valuable and visible examples of best practices that could then be put in place, such as the creation of certification schemes for environmentally sound management that would help monitor products and waste throughout their life cycle.
Q&A Session
The Chairman opened the floor for discussion.
From the floor
Within the framework of life cycle management, what are your views of the responsibility of the waste generator?
Panel Member
This is an important question that I did not address in my presentation. I believe that, in this respect, and in many developing countries, we have a MARPOL Convention that does not work and a Basel Convention that does not work. On one hand, it would be necessary to encourage generators of ‘waste’ (at sea) to get rid of their waste at the port – that makes much sense in terms of environmental protection, whether it be the marine or land environment. Regarding who should pay, this is always a question of balance and the EU concept of no less than one-third is probably worth exploring.
From the floor
Guidelines are very helpful for local organisations. However, how they can help with respect to cases of exceptional amounts of waste that have nothing to do with the normal operations of vessels?
Panel Member
The Basel Convention has spent the past ten years in strengthening the normative framework. The guidelines are either sectoral or by type of management operations. They help define the objectives, principles, and standards relating to the environmentally sound management of hazardous waste. With respect to MARPOL Annex I and Annex II, there is clearly a need for guidelines on how to manage these residues/slops/substances once they are discharged on land and they are clearly in great demand by users.
From the floor
The waste industry is made up of mostly legitimate companies doing things in the legitimate way. You were reluctant in your presentation to name names. However, I believe that that is exactly what should be done. Legitimate companies want to ensure that their businesses are not tainted by those who are doing things in an illegitimate way.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p34/59 Panel Member
Such market based tools are not yet available today, and this could be an area for collaboration among all stakeholders.
From the floor
I must challenge you on your statement that the MARPOL Convention does not work. The extraordinary case you presented is surely not a reflection on MARPOL. What do you mean when you say that MARPOL does not work?
Panel Member
I stated that there were difficulties in implementing MARPOL in developing countries, primarily because of the lack of port reception facilities, for Annex I slops/residues for example, in a large number of countries which may claim they possess these facilities. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the type of waste that was produced and dumped in Abidjan was not an isolated case. Again, in my own opinion, the extraordinary case presented in my presentation reminds us of the urgent need to enhance the coordinated implementation of MARPOL 73/78 and the Basel Convention in developing countries.
Panel Member
The Ivory Coast incident demonstrates the need to develop mechanisms to deal with emergency situations. A similar situation arose with the sister ship of The Prestige which was planning to go south from Estonia, transiting off the French, Spanish and Portuguese coasts. There is therefore a need to focus on such extreme cases. Regarding special area treatments and regional approaches, this is of concern to EMSA and the European Commission. We have to be cautious when we allow regional planning for waste disposal facilities. Do we understand that regional plans only address MARPOL Annex I and Annex II, leaving responsibility for reception facilities for garbage in the hands of governments?
From the floor
I have been involved with the IMO for some time, and it does in fact undertake activities on capacity building and technical assistance for the so-called developing countries. Much work can be done in this area, for example, with respect to oil spills, prevention or treatment.
Panel Member
MARPOL is very good as a legal instrument, and the problem does not lie with MARPOL per se . It is not that MARPOL does not work; the problem lies in the fact that it is not being implemented. Some states are just not capable of implementing MARPOL, and this is where technical assistance and guidelines have a role to play. In addition, MARPOL is getting better all the time, as it is constantly being revised. It has become more and more environmentally sound. For example, in the recent revision of Annex II, which came into force in January 2007, the amount of residues allowed to remain in tanks has been drastically reduced. That is an example of the reduction of waste at source. The latest revision of Annex VI also drastically reduces the amount of air pollution.
The Chairman emphasised that the other outstanding issue is the interface between MARPOL and the Basel Convention.
From the floor
REMPEC has been doing a tremendous job since 2004 but there is a lack of political will to
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p35/59 put that experience into practice. This is extremely frustrating. Regarding the Mediterranean Region, certain facilities exist but we do not know what is happening with that waste once it is collected onshore. This is a major issue. Furthermore, GISIS is not being used properly by member states. As a result, ship operators in the Mediterranean cannot know where the relevant port facilities are located.
Panel Member
To date, we have only worked on Annex I and Annex V, which is why my presentation focused on these two annexes. However, if we try to characterise the traffic of the main ports, we will find that some ports may need to consider special facilities for Annex II products, for example. My aim was to present the start of an approach that we could use to go much further in this process. Regarding sub-regional or regional approaches, the idea is to ease the way for ships to find appropriate port reception facilities. The ultimate aim is to ensure that each port has adequate port reception facilities.
From the floor
We have heard that the adequacy of port reception facilities is a crucial factor. However, it is not a sufficient factor for ensuring the success of the system. The fee system should ensure not only that ships have no incentive to discharge at sea; they should have an incentive to discharge at port. Similarly, ships should be rewarded for using port reception facilities; they should not only be punished for not using those facilities. The IMO could play an important role here by considering the fee system as a tool in improving the adequacy of port reception facilities.
Panel Member
I am slightly dubious. It is necessary to first of all set up a structure; only then can we begin setting up a fee system.
The Chairman concluded by urging participants to sign up for one of the two workshops to be held in the afternoon.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p36/59 Session 3: Options for Managing Residues and the Role of Waste Managers
In brief
The last Conference session began with an examination of the waste contractor's point of view. According to one industry player, 50% of the information required in the MARPOL or European Directive forms is not workable for contractors with regard to notification. Regarding fee systems, if the port reception facility is in competition with the port reception facility of another port, the national fee system can have an impact on the environmental performance of the facility. Implementation of fee systems is not harmonised throughout Europe. For certain types of residue or waste, the cost is calculated on parameters for which an analysis is required.
Collection systems include waste containers, trucks and barges. For instance, the port of Antwerp is currently testing the use of receptacles or bins that are boarded onto the ship, and are replaced with empty bins. A chip is included in each bin as a way of ensuring traceability.
Euroshore promotes a unique numbering system that will include country codes and licence numbers for waste reception facilities. Coordination between the collector and the ship is operated through a waste delivery receipt, and the waste that is transferred is described using EURAL codes. For example, the port of Antwerp has developed a web based tool for notifications with the Port Authority. When it comes to certification, most of Euroshore’s port reception facilities are certified by ISO 9000, ISO 14001, EMAS and SQAS. A statistical analysis shows that, overall, the volumes of waste delivered are continuing to rise. In the context of improving the situation, Euroshore welcomes any measures towards the certification of port reception facilities.
Waste managers recognised that once waste lands at the dock the most likely scenario is that it will end up in a landfill. Fully engineered sites where biogas is captured are now typical of the types of landfill structures to be found. Composting is also another growth area. In Europe, thermal treatment facilities are dominant. While they are expensive to establish, they offer higher levels of efficiency and lower emissions. However, attention must be given to the removal of small hazardous waste quantities from the solid waste stream. Levels of recycling are also on the rise, and currently, amount to close to 40% by weight. The ultimate aim is to keep recyclables out of the waste stream, and to keep waste out of the recyclables stream.
Regarding residues generated on board ships, waste managers would like to see comparable emission and energy recovery requirements for at-sea incinerators and land incinerators. Technical guidance and port by port databases could help ship owners and operators, port managers and waste disposal companies to better handle ship generated residues, hazardous waste and solid waste. Finally, waste managers believe that certification of port reception facilities could be beneficial in raising standards.
The use of tracking tools to improve the traceability of residues and consider the life-cycle of such residues generated on board ships is critical. The ultimate aim is to track oily residues and cargo residues produced by ships up until they are properly disposed of on land. This is not yet entirely possible but efforts are being made to achieve a uniform and global approach that would comply with both international and national rules and procedures and also fulfil the needs of the different stakeholders.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p37/59 The Chairman opened the session, which began with three presentations from representatives of industry associations and the private sector.
The Waste Contactor’s Perspective
Guido VAN MEEL Secretary General, Euroshore International, Belgium Euroshore Overview
Euroshore is an association of port reception facilities made up of two types of members: national associations and individual companies. It is present in most European countries and major ports. Its aims are to promote the use of its members’ port reception facilities, to promote the efficient and environmentally sound disposal of ship wastes, and to promote the relevant international policies, procedures and standards. We are also in favour of the healthy and fair competition between port reception facilities.
Our principles means that we care for the environment, and our Ethics Code will be adopted in the next few weeks. As a minimum, we guarantee full compliance to all application legislation. We seek to achieve good citizenship with all stakeholders involved. We invest in the best available technology, and are aware of the life cycle costs of all waste that we handle. The Industry View Point
With respect to notification, 50% of the information required in the IMO or European Directive forms is not workable for contractors. For example, we are required to provide the origin of liquid waste waters, including their scientific name.
Regarding fee systems, if the port reception facility is in competition with the port reception facility of another port, the national fee system can have an impact on the success of the facility. Implementation of fee systems is not harmonised throughout Europe. For certain types of waste, the cost is calculated on parameters for which an analysis is required. Export of ship generated waste is allowed under MARPOL. However, the definition is not completely clear, as witnessed by the Probo Koala case.
Collection systems include waste containers, trucks and barges. The Port of Antwerp is currently testing the use of receptacles or bins that are boarded onto the ship, and are replaced with empty bins. A chip is included in each bin as a way of ensuring traceability. Collection by tank barge is cross-checked by the skipper, with three samples of waste taken and countersigned. In the European context, we are required to keep registers of what is coming in and where it goes. We are sometimes asked by other organisations such as the US Coast Guard whether a given ship has been through our facilities. We therefore promote a unique numbering system that will contain country codes and licence numbers of the waste reception facilities. We coordinate the collector and the ship through a waste delivery receipt, and the waste that is transferred is described using EURAL codes. The receipt is signed by the collector and by a representative of the ship. Analysis results for samples taken are binding. The waste collector is required to register all that has been collected. This is controlled by the competent waste authority in each country. The Port of Antwerp has a web based tool for notifications with the port authority.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p38/59 Regarding enforcement, we believe that the success of waste disposal at a port reception facility depends on the efficiency and adequacy of the facility. It also depends on the level of cooperation between ship owners and facilities. Investigations are carried out by port state control authorities, using a checklist. In 2005, the Port of Antwerp carried out 1,467 inspections. 719 ships landed their waste on a voluntary basis. 17% of inspected ships were obliged to land their waste before being allowed to sail.
When it comes to certification, most of Euroshore’s port reception facilities are certified by ISO 9000, ISO 14001, EMAS and SQAS. Euroshore welcomes certification by competent authorities.
If we consider the statistics, we can see that, overall, the volumes of waste delivered are continuing to rise. Conclusions
We believe that EU Directive 2000/59 is not perfect, but it is nevertheless having a positive impact and awareness of the environmental impacts of shipping is growing. The Directive could be improved or harmonised with respect to a number of specific matters such as notifications, fee systems, waste delivery receipts, clear definitions. Finally, Euroshore welcomes any measures towards the certification of port reception facilities.
The next speaker provided the viewpoint of the international association of waste managers on how overall standards in the industry could be raised.
Options for Managing Residues Generated On Board Ships (1)
Greg VOGT Managing Director, International Solid Waste Association, Austria
The International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) is made up of national and international solid waste associations. It aims to foster higher standards in waste management, and to promote sustainable waste management. Advocacy is one of our major functions. Trends in Solid Waste Management
Our guiding principles include waste management planning, integrated waste management, the polluter pays principle, cost recovery systems, and local government responsibility. Solid waste generation is generally linked to population and strength of economies. There has been some stabilisation in waste generation rates in recent years. In addition, the increased use of separation and recycling programmes means that the demand for waste disposal is more predictable.
The types of waste materials that have to be dealt with are changing, for example, we now have to deal with LCDs or plasma screens. We are also seeing more plastics and less glass. The responsibility for waste and recyclables collection is often divided between two independent systems.
Once waste lands at the dock, the most likely scenario is that it will end up in a landfill. Fully engineered sites where biogas is captured are now typical of the types of landfill structures we find. Composting is also another growth area. Thermal treatment facilities are
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p39/59 dominant in the EU. They are expensive to establish but offer better efficiency and low emissions. Attention must, however, be given to the removal of small hazardous waste quantities from the solid waste stream. Levels of recycling are also on the rise, and currently amount to close to 40% by weight. The ultimate aim is to keep recyclables out of the waste stream, and to keep waste out of the recyclables stream. Challenges for Waste Generated at Sea
25% of at-sea solid waste comes from cruise ships, with 1.5 kg of waste generated per person per cruise day. Regulatory frameworks allow for some at-sea disposal of raw solid waste, and port reception facilities have to be able to receive solid wastes and recyclables. There is no real consensus on the issue of hauler responsibilities: when does the hauler become responsible for the waste – at the time of pick up? We would like to see comparable emission and energy recovery requirements for at-sea incinerators and land incinerators. We also face a number of social and cultural issues, and some business issues. These include the need to train crews and port managers. It is also important to consider product design with a view to achieving waste minimisation from the very beginning. Conclusion
We believe that the delayed development of international laws may postpone the development of improved waste management standards. Guiding principles for the shipping industry should track conventional waste practices. The management and disposal of ship waste should conform to government regulations at the receiving port – we would all agree on this principle but we are not always seeing it implemented in practice. Technical guidance and port by port databases could help ship owners and operators, port managers and waste disposal companies to better handle solid waste. Finally, we believe that certification of port reception facilities could be beneficial in raising standards.
This presentation led to a consideration by the next speaker of how innovative IT tools could also help waste managers improve their operations.
Options for Managing Residues Generated On Board Ships (2)
Martin CLERMONT President, Gedden (Environmental Management Information Systems), Canada
We are all aware that the world is changing, in environmental and financial terms. Gedden is involved in developing solutions to improve traceability in the world of waste. More and more waste is being produced each year, and there is more and more exchange of waste between the different players in the market. Gedden Overview
In 2003, we developed a city portal to trace waste. By 2005, we had already obtained recognition for our work and were invited by various organisations to take part in their actions. We also won a number of awards. By 2007, we were seeing that demand was catching up with us.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p40/59 Our solutions are based on procuring “air miles” for those who advocate sustainable development. This refers to citizens, industries, municipalities and governments. We are therefore dedicated to the gathering of valuable information that will enable us to measure environmental performance. That information can then be exchanged for money, leading to a more rapid return on investment (ROI).
Our core technology is used for tracking dangerous goods. Our portals are available on ASP or the intranet, and are both scalable and flexible. We have provided a direct electronic link between stakeholders. We own all the intellectual property contained in our solutions. However, we use technology not for its own sake but in order to find the best and most efficient way of resolving the issues we face.
The ultimate aim is to track oil and cargo residues produced by ships up until they are properly disposed of on land. This is not yet entirely possible and we are therefore pursuing a uniform and international approach that also respects national differences. Tracking Solutions
The concept of sea/land transportation tracking should be customised to meet various and specific needs. There are many systems up and running today. We have to determine the availability of data, and then determine access management for ship owners, port authorities and all other players in the waste management process, at the local, regional and national levels. This all requires the development of an electronic security system. It is then necessary to develop methods to prevent the wrong data from entering the system. We use communication gateways to connect stakeholders, through XML or other protocols. Finally, we have to integrate the specifications of each jurisdiction involved: codification, hazard class, transportation codes, etc.
With respect to technical specifications, the use of electronic systems is absolutely essential. We can use the global positioning system, RFID tags, WiFi or other wireless communications networks. We also have to ensure the operational durability of online systems. To this end, we are currently negotiating solutions with companies such as Orange. Conclusion
There is obviously a need for electronic sea/land tracking solutions. Such solutions must be scalable – for greenhouse gases or other regulated substances. The solutions represent tremendous opportunities and clearly have a potential for return on investment. We have many customers in the industrial, municipal, and international sectors. The MET-R-I-S portal, for example, is used by municipal markets.
Q&A Session
The Chairman opened the floor for discussions.
From the floor
What is the percentage of waste generated by ships that could in fact be re-used or recycled? Has anyone carried out any studies on this matter?
From the floor
You have presented a very ambitious programme, but is it a feasible one? Is the information that you require in the pre-notifications in line with what was meant by the European Union
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p41/59 concept of notification? The aim is to provide an idea of what waste is contained on board; it is not meant to make life easier for collectors.
Panel Member
I have not seen much data on the percentage of recyclable waste. Cruise ships do carry out some recycling, to the order of 30%, and that proportion provides some indication of the levels involved.
Panel Member
Some of the suggestions made come from the ship owners themselves. For passenger ships, we are seeing an increase in the use of plastics. As a sector, we try to recycle as much as possible but when this is not feasible, at a reasonable price, there is a tendency to fall back on incineration. We are also confronted by national legislation which may not allow certain types of treatment for food waste coming from other countries – for example, to prevent the spread of bird flu. Finally, regarding notification, some of the information required may not be relevant to ship owners. In the worldwide context, we would like to see a few additional items added to the waste delivery receipt. This does not conflict with the work undertaken by the IMO or by EMSA.
The Chairman provided a clarification. A distinction should be made between what could be recycled in theoretical terms and what is actually being recycled in practice. The two could represent very different volumes. It also depends on what you are comparing it with. If you consider domestic, municipal waste across Europe, the figure would be in the region of about 70%. If you consider targets for food waste in the land fill directive, you will see that some strict standards are coming up. Different sectors could have very different ratios. This is clearly an area that would deserve a more comprehensive analysis and assessment.
Panel Member
Regarding material safety data sheets, there is a need for qualified transport equipment. EURAL codes provide more information than simply saying that something is Annex I waste, for example.
From the floor
Regarding the definition of recycling, this term is usually used for waste streams that can be re-used such as glass or metal. However, other wastes can be used as fuel. Do you believe that the burning of wood, paper or plastic for heat generation also qualifies as recycling?
From the floor
Micro-plastics are another major problem for the ocean, ending up in the food cycle. It is suggested that the shredding of food waste and discharge into the ocean, also contains such micro-plastics. Is anyone aware of any evidence of this?
From the floor
Are there any estimates of how much waste generated on board ships does not end up in proper disposal or recovery?
Panel Member
The incineration of waste for energy generation is not generally considered as recycling but as recovery or diversion.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p42/59 Panel Member
Nevertheless, it is clearly preferable to incineration without energy recovery.
From the floor
When plastic degrades in the ocean it forms pellets, which are then eaten by marine animals. Furthermore, these pellets have a tendency to attract hazardous materials that are not soluble in water, such as PCBs or DDT. As a result, these latter materials are entering our food chains. This issue is emerging as a serious global concern and would definitely merit its own conference.
Panel Member
A new study by the Ocean Studies Board on marine debris includes information on where such debris comes from and on what should be done to collect the relevant data. . I would urge participants to consult the report, which has just been released and is available on www.nationalacademies.edu. Nothing has come out about how much of this pollution is produced on land as opposed to at-sea.
Panel Member
I hope that we will be able to determine a definition of recycling. Clearly, oily wastes and cargo residues represent a very significant issue. However, the importance of garbage and solid waste should not be ignored. Fishing debris and waste is also an important matter that deserves our further attention, especially in the context of the Mediterranean basin.
From the floor
I referred to a paper by the Australian Maritime Authority that was submitted to the IMO Annex V Policy Group. On the basis of a survey of 30 ships, the report found that 87.4 m 3 of waste was discharged at port, and just over 118 m 3 was discharged at sea. That is, over one-half of the total amount of waste generated was discharged at sea. While the survey was based on a relatively small number of ships, it is probably quite indicative of the general situation.
From the floor
Much information is available on the notification forms sent to ports. However, no one is involved in collating or analysing this information. This could be a suggestion for the IMO or the EU to carry out this type of work.
From the floor
It was stated that collectors and treatment units would all benefit from more information on waste and garbage. I do not understand this approach, as the European Directive does not require such information to be provided. Euroshore considers that the European Directive is a good tool that acts as a framework for ship owners, ports, and reception facilities. It could however be improved by feedback from all those involved in this area in practical terms in the field. We all want results from the legislation – that is why we are here today.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p43/59 Workshop Sessions
Workshop 1: Certification of and Standards for Port Reception Facilities
Moderator: Nikos MIKELIS Senior Implementation Officer, IMO, UK
Panel Members were: Arnaud Leroy, Eelco Leemans, Frédéric Hébert and Koichi Yoshida
The Moderator introduced the relevant issues. The MARPOL Convention includes six annexes, five of which contain requirements for port reception facilities: Annex I (oil), Annex II (noxious liquid substances), Annex IV (sewerage), Annex V (garbage), and Annex VI (air pollution). MARPOL also requires that reception facilities be adequate to meet the needs of ships, without causing undue delay. However, MARPOL does not provide an explicit definition of the term “adequacy”. Adequate facilities have been defined elsewhere as requiring the port to have regard to the operational needs of users, and provide reception facilities for the types and quantities of waste from ships that normally use the port.
This leads to the following four conclusions. • MARPOL does not set prescriptive standards for port reception facilities, other than the requirement that they be adequate. • The term “adequate” is defined in a qualitative manner in the MEPC resolution, which is not a mandatory instrument. • MARPOL does not set any certification requirements for port reception facilities. • MARPOL does not set any requirements for the environmentally sound management of residues or garbage delivered to a port facility. Only the MEPC resolution, which is not mandatory, requires that facilities should allow for the ultimate disposal of ship waste in an environmentally appropriate way.
The sovereign state, where the reception facilities are located, should ensure that the chain of responsibility is not broken beyond the reception facility. MARPOL’ s requirements concern port reception facilities and not waste treatment facilities.
MARPOL does not envisage the certification of port reception facilities. It may be of interest to consider the US example, which introduced the certificate of adequacy programme over 20 years ago. This appears to be a particularly effective system. This workshop will explore the feasibility of developing a certification scheme for port reception facilities based on an international standard or on agreed norms.
Koichi YOSHIDA, Director, International Cooperation Centre, National Maritime Research Institute, Japan (Lead Speaker)
ISO/TC8 for ship and marine technology was established in 1947. Sub-committee N°2 (SC2), which I chair, is concerned with Marine Environmental Protection. It includes four working groups on discharge control, operations-disposal of ship generated garbage, environmental response, and anti-fouling systems for ship hulls.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p44/59 SC2 is currently developing a draft international standard (DIS21070) on the management and handling of ship generated garbage. The background to the standard is MARPOL Annex V, which partially restricts the discharge of garbage. The daily collecting of garbage generated on board often fails because there are no general international regulations or standard for handing-over criteria and procedures at international ports. It has therefore not been possible to achieve optimal levels of environmental protective recycling. The standard should enable the development of the necessary guidance for this purpose.
The standard will apply to the management and handling of shipboard garbage as defined in MARPOL Annex V. It contains procedures for the management, handling, collection, and separation of shipboard garbage. The standard should be finalised during 2009.
There is also a future possible new ISO on the interface and delivery of shipboard garbage from a vessel to the shore reception facility and on the port reception facilities (preparation of reception containers and bins). An ISO standard of reception bins at port for receiving shipboard garbage will facilitate the ship-side unloading of segregated garbage. The standardised bins in fact act as the interface between ships and land.
Today, the handling of garbage on land is regulated by each nation’s own system, practices, and regulations. When ISO establishes a standard for interface between ships, land and port reception containers/bins as mention above, it should facilitate both ships and portside. Such ISO standard can be used in the nation’s own system, practices, and regulations.
It should also be noted that the quantity of garbage generated by ships is very small when compared to garbage generated on land by cities. Discussion
The Moderator opened the floor for an exchange of views between panel members and workshop participants. Several participants expressed their views and raised questions, which included the following.
The first question that comes to mind is whether ISO should create standards for the design and construction of new reception facilities, and for the operation and management of existing or future facilities. Is a certification scheme appropriate here? It could be that governments could also set up their own systems, as was the case for the United States.
We applaud efforts to develop a standard for port reception facilities that matches what is happening on board ships. The certification process itself is a separate issue. IMO does not define or even mention certification. In addition, any standards would still be subject to regulation by each nation. IMO does however refer to licensing systems, and the US developed its system on the basis of these provisions.
Clearly, all countries have systems for authorising and controlling the companies that operate in their territories, and this includes companies that deal with waste collection, management and treatment. What we are exploring here is whether we need a common system of certification that applies beyond national boundaries.
The ISO standard represents a voluntary approach. Therefore, even if ISO is tasked to develop standards, that does not mean they will become the norm. The other question is to whom the certificate would be beneficial. First, it will raise the level playing field among operators. Second, ship operators and ship users will be in a position to make an informed choice. The various licensing and permit systems that apply to operators are quite different from the proposed approach.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p45/59 It is obvious that certification is a good thing, as is having a standard type of equipment or facility. However, I can imagine that some countries already have waste systems in place that work very well, and they may be reluctant to replace them with a new system.
This raises the question of what we want certification to achieve. Is it the port reception facilities that will be certified, or the actual waste collecting company? Certification is a long process, which involves a certain bureaucratic burden. The standard that has been presented is only one part of the story. In certain ports, we are trying to promote quality processes by contractors, as was shown by the Port of Marseille this morning.
Certification is one way of implementing the MARPOL requirements. The question that arises is what is meant by adequate. There are two possible answers to that question. On the ship side, ships want to be able to unload their garbage, and adequacy refers to their ability to do that. On the land side, adequacy means that the facilities are able to satisfy local rules and regulations.
It may be logical to consider environmentally sound management systems for reception facilities.
Yes, it is logical, and some countries have already established such systems on land. The limitation on ISO is that it provides voluntary standards only. Certification is more of a government activity and is beyond the scope of ISO. However, in many case, ISO standards have been used under various national regulations as mandatory or recommended reference. IMO mandatory instruments also have done so
Speaking from a non-professional perspective, it seems that a certification scheme based on international standards could create a level playing field. It could also act as an incentive to discharge waste and residues at port facilities. Certification schemes could also act as an incentive to upgrade existing facilities.
If I understood correctly, waste contractors also need to be certified. In Greece, private companies are responsible for port reception facilities. Should they also be certified?
This raises the difference between certification, on the one hand, and the authorisation to operate (permit, licence), on the other.
It is a voluntary, business-to-business scheme. ISO TC8 has developed total management system for maritime security (ISO 28000 series) and ship recycling (ISO 30000 series). These include a certification scheme done under the established quality control system according to the standard, and have been used in the relevant industries.
Certification is a government-to-business scheme. Whatever term we use, it is clear that private companies can only operate in any given country if they have the necessary permits or licences. MARPOL does not impact on how that is done, and countries are free to develop their own permit/licence systems as they like. The question here is: do we perceive a need in the industry for a common system that applies throughout the world?
In the US, “ports and terminals” is the entity that is certified to collect waste from ships. To obtain certification, they must submit a plan for approval which includes the fact that private contractors are part of the scheme. Those private contractors must hold all the relevant permits and licences, and our Coast Guard inspectors, who determine the adequacy of a port or terminal, are able to verify all of those permits and licences.
I believe that we do need a common system. Ships themselves are certified for compliance with MARPOL, an international standard. Ships trade internationally and they want to be assured that port reception facilities meet some sort of global standard. For ports, such a
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p46/59 standard could provide marketing and promotional benefits. I believe that such a system should be voluntary, at least initially, and that it should be run by IMO. The standard itself could be devised by ISO, with other organisations responsible for auditing.
IMO is not necessarily the natural aegis for such a land-based system, and this is probably where we shake hands with the Basel Convention.
I believe that this is an issue for IMO, given that it is MARPOL itself that requires adequate port reception facilities. The EU has the necessary infrastructure to enable it to run such a scheme, which could act as a model for the rest of the world.
Certification by member states should be done under the authority of the MARPOL convention. The Ship Recycling Convention approved one month ago also includes a certification scheme by member states.
I agree that IMO’ s aegis goes beyond ships and also applies to port reception facilities. Regarding certification itself, before designing a scheme it would be worth considering how such a scheme would be applied in practice. There could, for example, be a conflict between certification and national legislation. If an operator obtains a permit under national law, does that mean it is automatically certified? Will users favour certified or non-certified port reception facilities?
In the context of MARPOL, adequacy is concerned with volumes of waste and the need to operate in a timely manner. It is not concerned with what is done with the waste afterwards.
A certification scheme should bring added value to an existing situation; it should not simply confirm that existing situation. Certification should be the result of a national scheme but based on an international standard.
I did not mean to suggest that certification should include the whole of a country’s national waste management system. Once the waste leaves the port and joins the country’s general waste stream, IMO is no longer concerned.
Ship owners clearly want to know that port reception facilities meet certain requirements, and I am in favour of any such system. However, in practical terms, I have never seen a report of inadequacy posted on GISIS where a ship owner has complained that waste is not handled in an environmentally sound manner. Instead, ship owners complain that a facility is not adequate if they are not able to get their waste on the pier fast enough or cheaply enough.
I have heard complaints from ship owners on the absence of standards, and on communications problems between sea and shore. Complaints are also made about the bureaucratic burden of having to fill out a host of different forms for different ports. Finally, ship owners complain when they make efforts to segregate garbage on board, and then see that the port collects all garbage in a single bin. I have therefore seen quite a lot of frustration among seafarers.
When a country wants to set up a port reception facility, it needs standards to help it do so, and this includes technical standards.
The Green Lead initiative, as an example, is moving towards a certification scheme, pushing the industry to boost its environmental performance. We are in a similar situation, where we need a tool to boost our environmental performance. Certification is one way of achieving this. It would also push out unscrupulous operators who would not be able to meet the relevant standards.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p47/59 We should be able to provide assistance to countries wanting to set up new port reception facilities.
The discussion so far has not demonstrated great enthusiasm for an international standard. It would seem that a ship that arrives in a country is not interested in what happens to the waste that it off-loads in that country. This is not an issue that concerns ship owners.
The point of having certification is that the ship owner does not have the worry or wonder about what happens to that waste once it is off-loaded. Ship owners want to know what they can and cannot get off their ship, quickly and efficiently. In some ports, they may not be able to get any of their waste off the ship; in others, they might be able to off load some material but not others.
In some cases, ship owners would be well advised to consider how their waste is handled. There is a grey area in the law as to whether ship owners remain liable for waste up until final disposal. This is a particular issue for certain highly hazardous waste. Regarding the next steps to be taken, I am keen to do work on the MARPOL Special Areas. For example, we could invite ISO to work on developing a standard for the construction of new port reception facilities in the Mediterranean area. Today, there is no guidance on how those facilities should be built. If we could point to a standard that would enable ports to attract business, that would be beneficial.
ISO would be quite pleased to respond to such a demand.
Should ISO do this on its own or in conjunction with other bodies, for example, the EU?
EMSA would be pleased to participate in a collective approach, and REMPEC has also done some work in this area.
ISO is supported by the national standardisation bodies operating in each country, but is also quite open to other bodies including NGOs.
A certification scheme would have to be voluntary. First, it would be necessary to develop the standards or protocols themselves. This could be done by ISO and IMO, and it could be industry-driven or the result of a public-private partnership. Certifying that a particular facility meets those standards is a second step in the process. Again, this could be done by various organisations.
The matters for consideration on the engineering side are quite clear. These are practical matters that will depend on the port, its traffic, waste volumes etc.; it cannot be treated in a theoretical way. There is then a need for legal certainty for ships that are discharging waste to know that the waste is being disposed of correctly. I believe we should promote a voluntary scheme of best practices on how to handle waste.
We could also follow the US model of a government initiated scheme. Similarly, we could envisage a scheme undertaken by a limited number of countries only.
Any developments would have to result from a step by step process. We could begin with action in the Mediterranean area, as this would allow us to bridge the gap in development between the north and south shores. In addition, the Mediterranean is a particular vulnerable area in ecological terms. It is therefore an ideal area with which to begin.
I believe that the IMO can and should play a prominent role here. We agree on the concept of a certification process, and are now talking about how to certify the certification process.
It should be remembered that developing a global standard can take a very long time.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p48/59
Governments must play some sort of role in this process. IMO does not have the authority to do this; it is the member states that have authority. I agree that this is a complicated process, which could take time.
I see that our discussion really took off when we began talking about technical cooperation, which is a matter of solving other countries’ problems. To take this forward, we would need one or two “godfathers”.
Due to the calibre of the different partners present, the report of our meeting will have some influence in other forums, including in the IMO Correspondence Group dealing with port reception facilities.
There is no doubt that we will be taking this discussion back to the Correspondence Group, and I commit to bringing it to the attention of the Group. I am keen to obtain the relevant information from REMPEC, on which we could provide our constructive opinion.
I believe that we have made genuine progress, and I would personally, and on behalf of the US, thank WE 2C and Pierre PORTAS for providing us with the opportunity to have this very important discussion. We – all the people in this room and beyond – own this problem, and it has been a great pleasure to participate in this meeting.
Workshop 2: Traceability of Waste
Moderator: Greg VOGT Managing Director, International Solid Waste Association, Austria
Panel Members were: Guido Van Meel, Martin Clermont, Maurits Prinssen and Sylvain Perrier (Ship-Waste Agency, France)
The Moderator opened the meeting by noting that the workshop would be devoted to considering the traceability of waste or residues, culminating in positions, key points, or ideas for further workshops. Participants were invited to take these issues forth to other parties or within their own organisations. Speakers would explore the feasibility of developing tools that would allow the management of residues to be clarified.
Martin CLERMONT, President, Gedden (Environmental Management Information System), Canada (Lead Speaker)
Traceability can be seen as a tool that bridges the gap between national and international regulations. It is an electronic tool that can help all stakeholders along the waste management chain: the waste generator, the port, the carrier, and the treatment, sewerage and disposal (TSD) site. In addition, having a fiscal or economic incentive will make it easier to implement this type of tool.
We have not yet developed an international solution. Nevertheless, the ability to place shared information on-line for the different stakeholders represents a productivity gain. It would be more complex to achieve this at the international level, but the technology can help us to make more information accessible on-line. We could envisage having separate tracking systems in each country or having an international system that acts as an umbrella, connecting with existing national systems.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p49/59 Discussion
Further to the presentation, the Moderator opened the floor for discussions.
A first question was put to the panel: are we talking about tracking the containers rather than the waste?
At the front end, we are talking about the container that is holding the waste. The container is tagged with the waste type and properties. The next question is what we do with respect to that waste once it has been pumped out of its container in the port. It is clearly much easier to track containers, but we could imagine the development of biological trackers as the next step.
Waste can be tracked from generation to the storage site, and then to the treatment site, and finally to the final disposal site. This can be done by using electronic documents. However, you cannot track the waste itself and this can pose difficulties when it arrives in sorting plants. We know that 94% of waste in sorting plants goes to market. The remaining 6% goes to land fill. You can therefore have an approximate idea of how your waste is managed.
When waste is dumped on land or at sea, we want to be able to identify the responsible party. For waste dumped on land, there would appear to be a pathway to find where that came from through existing investigation techniques.
In my experience in the insurance industry, it is easy to track land-generated waste, provided that everyone has good intentions. However, as soon as those intentions are motivated by profit, it is no longer as easy to do so.
We are in fact concerned by those who are responsible for misdeeds. In that context, tracking containers will not be very productive.
How could we improve tracking on the basis of the current IMO system of record keeping and notifications?
We are about to launch a voluntary internet system that will act as a tool for all players in the waste sector. It will not act as a certificate, but as a source of information about the player’s activities. Delivery receipts will be nominative, and all information will be available online, subject to restrictive access.
The idea is to provide the whole life cycle of waste delivery on-line. On one hand, you have MARPOL which concerns what is happening on board the vessel. On the other hand, you have the Basel Convention which is concerned with what is happening with the waste. All countries have their own treatment systems, and what we need is a link between those different systems. Having a system of on-line information is the best way to develop a system of traceability.
The global idea is to follow the ship worldwide, and provide information on what has occurred during the trip: where the ship stopped, where the waste went, etc. In the next ten years’ time we will be able to compare the volumes of waste produced and discharged. The system will be operational in July 2009.
Which organization is best placed to manage or control this system ?
That is an issue we face. We are a private company, providing a tool that allows ship operators and ports to provide information on waste collected. We are not certifying or regulating anything. Instead, we are trying to provide services to ship owners. We will end
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p50/59 up with a waste delivery receipt that can be interfaced with local systems. The system is not yet perfect but it represents a way of taking matters forward in the area of traceability.
The Port of Antwerp has an internet system and we require port facilities to enter their information into that system. Without a mandatory system, it will be difficult to ensure that the information is provided.
Only about 20% of ports have their own IT systems up and running. With our system, ship owners are able to show what they have done with respect to their waste, not only in Europe where ports have IT systems but also in other areas of the world.
I do not see any other way of linking MARPOL and the Basel Convention. If a paper form is used, it could be lost. In addition, it would not enable the different actors to be linked together.
Electronic tools have the advantage of making communications easier between stakeholders. In the US, for example, about 5 million manifests are produced each year. A study has estimated that the overall cost for US society of using paper forms is about $700 million per year. The aim was therefore to connect the different stakeholders electronically .
If the system is voluntary, you will have problems with people filling in the information in a timely way. Such problems would not arise if the system was mandatory.
I will provide an overview of the paperwork and inspection system in the Netherlands. We rely on a paper system, although a few inspectors also check inside the containers or sludge tanks. In Europe our port state control authorities control the contents of the notification form, and approve the waste management plans for all ports. The Ministry of the Environment also carries out inspections, and issues permits for waste collectors (for land and sea generated waste streams). The Ministry issues general rules for all waste collectors, and a distinction is no longer made between those who collect land generated waste and those who collect sea generated waste. As port authorities, we do not wholly agree with that view. Finally, the Ministry of the Environment inspects the whole waste chain, from collection to treatment.
We also have a regional environmental protection agency, which issues permits for treatment plants on land. The port authority receives notification forms, but is unable to control quantities. Nor can we control that notification forms are working in other ports. The port authority issues permits for the collectors operating in the port
With respect to improving inspections, during the pilot programme we found that 10% of calling vessels did not intend to dispose of their waste at the port, but ultimately did so. Port authorities cannot force disposal; only the port state control can do this. We found that in 50% of cases, the actual situation differs from the information provided on notification form. 50% of vessels therefore received warnings from port state control. For the collectors, 60% of notifications forms complied with the actual disposal. Regarding treatment facilities, these always use an electronic waste registration system. They therefore know exactly what is coming in and what is coming out.
The same waste notification form is used in all ports in the Netherlands and Belgium, and it requires more information than under the European Directive. During the pilot programme between the Ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp, we compared the notification system and developed a new notification form that could be used by all ports in Europe. We compared the information on ships that departed from Antwerp on their way to Rotterdam or other European ports. For the 150 ships analysed, only 60 ships (40%) arrived in the next port as planned. In conclusion, I believe that the use of the notification form can lead to significant improvements.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p51/59
Ship masters have an obligation to retain the notification form until arrival in the next port of call. Who controls this matter?
The port is not obliged to control this. Some ports such as Rotterdam or Amsterdam carry out this kind of inspection. Does that mean that all ports should do it?
Can we say that the sea represents the planet’s largest recycling plant?
I do not agree. Some vessels have their own waste treatment facilities on board, such as incineration.
We face a chicken and egg situation here, with respect to certification and traceability. The certification system should perhaps include the responsibility of port authorities to ensure a certain level of traceability. That would lead to a clearer operational mandate. This workshop could perhaps recommend a list of elements that need to be provided in terms of certification to ensure that traceability is workable and enforceable.
When ship masters arrive in a port, they often do not know where they will be going next. Therefore they are not necessarily being uncooperative when they fill in the form with an erroneous destination.
We found that many crew members do not know why they are filling in the notification form. It would be useful to provide more explanation and information on this. Treatment systems are very different among the different countries, and they also need this type of information. It would only take a few minutes to explain all of this on board, perhaps by using a DVD.
In my experience as a waste collector, information relating to Annex I tends to be very accurate. In contrast, information relating to Annex V is generally inaccurate.
I am not surprised as it is sometimes very difficult to estimate the quantities of waste involved.
We provide financial incentives for ships to supply correct information.
I understand that the situation in the US is much more controlled. However, the system itself is as efficient as in Europe.
The US aims to control all goods and waste that enter into the country before they arrive.
Do we have to wait for a disaster to occur before we can achieve such control? Today, the system is based on the good will of operators. In France, for example, there are only eight inspectors for the whole system, which is obviously inadequate.
We are trying to monitor those who are not doing things right. You do not need a lot of inspectors when most people are doing things right. Perhaps we are wrong, and many more people are discharging waste at sea than we think.
It is a question of maturity and good will. Today, everyone is aware of the implications of waste, and there has been a real improvement over the years with respect to land based waste. It is a question of time before the situation improves at sea. We are in the initial stages of developing good practices for waste management, including traceability. This is a communication and transparency problem.
I believe that it is difficult enough to know what is happening with our waste on land, and it is even more difficult to know what is happening at sea. This is a question of resources and
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p52/59 monitoring and, for the moment, countries are not able to control or track waste in an efficient way.
It is easier to trace certain types of waste, for example Annex V wastes, than others.
It could be argued that once the waste has been given to an approved hauler, it is no longer necessary to track it.
In the Port of Marseille Fos, it is the port that licenses the contractor. In most cases, it is the generator who is responsible for the elimination of waste, and it is therefore the generator who should be able to control the contractor. In France, when it comes to hazardous waste, we have a traceability form or manifest that follows the waste throughout its transport and discharge. The final actor in the chain has to return the document to the generator in order to prove that the work has been done. This system works relatively well but is not recognised internationally.
We have a similar system in the Netherlands. However, in the Netherlands, the final document is not sent back to the generator but to the Ministry of the Environment, which is responsible for the chain.
In Greece, it is the port that is responsible for this information.
It would appear that traceability works quite well in the case of hazardous waste, regardless of whether the system is based on paper or electronics. The question is whether we should adapt this very manual approach to other types of Annex waste that are much larger in volume.
The system seems to work well in France. Are there instances where it is not possible to trace the chain?
Of course accidents do still happen. The information may already exist in most countries. The problem may be how to get that information back to the generator.
A solution could lie in making the final treatment feedback mandatory. This is the case for land based waste, and there is no reason why it should not apply for sea generated waste. With such a legal requirement we could reach a high level of traceability.
I agree on the value of having a final treatment document that goes back to the waste generator. However, in most cases waste is collected from a number of vessels onto one barge. It is unlikely that the treatment facility would be able to provide a final treatment document for every cubic metre of waste collected.
In France, both bulk information and information on each cubic metre collected is provided.
I feel we are drifting away from the original topic of our workshop, which was the traceability of marine waste. Once the waste is discharged, it enters the land waste system and should be considered as such.
I think we should come back to the simple problem of the traceability. To that end, we can use the MARPOL registries for each ship. I suggest that we can only go forward by considering some initial, small and simple steps.
It is also necessary to consider ships that operate both at sea and on rivers. These ships represent a specific problem in that they do not necessarily stop in sea ports. Are the Rotterdam or Antwerp ports concerned by the waste generated by such ships?
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p53/59 The Moderator provided some concluding remarks. He summarised the discussion as highlighting the following issues. • There is obviously a lack of data throughout the system. One of the benefits of the inspection programmes that have been presented is the fact that they provide the industry with data that it would not otherwise have. We would therefore support rigorous inspection programmes. • The issue of paper versus electronics was not resolved, and we saw some examples that worked both ways. It would seem, however, that electronic methods are easier and faster. The real issue is whether such systems should be voluntary or mandatory. • We discussed whether this is an issue of mass balance or of tracking flows. Once the waste is given to an international hauler with a certain reputation, the ship operator can feel comfortable that he or she has done what is expected. It is not necessary to continue tracking the waste after that. Many of these issues could therefore be resolved if ports were able to pre-approve waste handlers. • We also considered emerging technologies or other ways of tagging cargoes. • Another point raised was that these issues could not be resolved independently of the certification issues. There is a tie-in between the two. • The idea of partnerships was raised as a way forward. He then opened the floor for additional comments.
A participant noted that the issue of characterisation was discussed, for example, by having a list of wastes that would lead to a better understanding of the key components of waste. It would also enable the identification of the key wastes that need to be provided. Overall, this would lead to a clearer understanding of all the relevant issues.
The Moderator closed the meeting, thanking all panellists and participants for their contributions.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p54/59 Workshop Reports
Chair: Roy WATKINSON President, Roy Watkinson Environmental Consulting Ltd, UK
The chairman opened the meeting and said that this morning’s session will be devoted to a review of the outcomes of the workshops, and a series of closing remarks. Participants will then be taken on a visit of the Port of Marseille Fos.
Workshop 1: Certification of and Standards for Port Reception Facilities
The Moderator introduced the outcome of Workshop 1 to plenary. He said that the discussions during the workshop covered much ground and many issues. The participants considered whether there should be a common standard, international certification, voluntary schemes, or mandatory schemes. He then focused focus on the way forward.
He informed the meeting that the workshop participants agreed that, on matters of technical assistance, there was a need for an internationally agreed methodology to assess requirements for port reception facilities. More specifically, such a methodology would be useful for the assessment of the capacity of new reception facilities, of the equipment needed, and of the services required so that the facilities would fulfil the requirements of adequacy. Furthermore, it was agreed that the methodology should additionally consider the management and operation of existing port reception facilities.
He stressed that the assessment could consider, as part of any port reception facility adequacy determination, the impacts of port reception facilities on land-based infrastructures to link collection of residues with their treatment, recycling or final disposal.
The Moderator noted that the workshop considered that there is a common interest to develop the proposed methodology of assessment under ISO with input from IMO and EMSA.
He then proposed a stepwise approach as a way forward. The first step would be to review the study done by REMPEC on “Port reception facilities for collecting ship-generated garbage, bilge waters and oily wastes” that is considered as a useful background, especially its section on technical requirements for port reception facilities. An informal consultative group (who would operate for a short period of time) would be set up to provide input on the usefulness of the REMPEC study for the proposed methodology of assessment. The consultative group would be composed of EMSA, the IMO FSI-17 Sub-Committee Correspondence Group working on the Action Plan to Tackle the Inadequacy of Port Reception Facilities, the ISO representative and REMPEC.
The Moderator also explained that the work done during this conference may help fulfil two requirements of the Action Plan of IMO' s Correspondence Group (items 4.2 and 6.1).
As a second step, the consultative group would discuss the feasibility of developing an ISO standard for building new port reception facilities and for operating and managing existing ones. Finally, if the methodology is appropriate and developed, it would be useful to initiate a pilot project in the Mediterranean Sea (MARPOL Special Areas) to test this methodology and even to consider whether this could support a possible certification scheme for port reception facilities.
The Chairman thanked the Moderator and emphasized the excellent outcome from the workshop.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p55/59 Workshop 2: Traceability of Waste
The Moderator explained that the goal of the workshop was to avoid or eliminate purposeful waste discharges at sea, and unacceptable treatment or disposal facilities once the waste reaches land. We also wanted to raise awareness of the issues, as some countries or regions do not see traceability as a major issue. We want to separate the universe of bad actors from those, the majority, who are working well. We want to create incentives for proper practices, and improve legal recourse for misdeeds when they occur.
With respect to tracking schemes, it is necessary to determine whether we want to implement a mass balance approach (how much waste is moving from A to B?) or more of a waste flows approach (is it flowing to the right party or facility?). We considered manifest- based systems, and on-line reporting systems, the latter perhaps being the preferred tool for moving forward. Another major issue that emerged was whether reporting systems should be mandatory or voluntary. One of the benefits of on-line systems is to better link ship waste to land treatment/disposal sites.
Other tracking schemes include tracking containers using existing numbering and scanning systems. Tracking waste cargoes is also possible, for example, by adding micro markers or chemical fingerprints. Other possible tools are satellite imagery or GPS systems. This raises the question of whether our waste industry needs such elaborate and expensive tools. The increased human factor showed that more inspections and cameras helped provide more information for the industry. However, instead of inspecting everyone, the focus should be on generators that have had problems in the past.
Certain steps could be taken to avoid elaborate tracking schemes: for example, the use of improved certification, or the use of pre-approved haulers and service providers, as was the case for the Port of Marseille. This saves time and keeps things going in the right direction. Partnerships between shipping companies and waste service providers could also be considered. Finally, a unified waste classification system would be helpful to both shipping owners and ports. In terms of moving the issues forward, it was noted that waste handling standards and tracking mechanisms appeared to be improving. The trend is therefore in the right direction.
Nevertheless, there is a need for greater clarity with respect to responsibility issues, particularly for ship owners. The good expertise demonstrated at certain ports (Rotterdam, Antwerp, Marseille) should be leveraged to improve regional or global systems. Participants in the workshop reached a consensus on the urgency of the problem and the need for action to be taken on a larger scale.
We could envisage the development of pilot projects within territories or regions. This would be an excellent way of demonstrating what works and what does not work. In this context, on-line tracking/monitoring should be the lead approach, and would be relatively low in cost. Capacity building for ports is another important focus. We could also transfer technology and know-how to developing countries, for example, in the form of guidance documents.
We decided on the principle of setting up a Working Group that would help clarify the position and advocate it to the main parties. Such a group could be tasked with considering a unified approach for waste classification under MARPOL and the Basel Convention. It could also clarify the responsibility issue that needs resolution.
Some reactions came from the floor regarding the reference to the human factor, in the form of increased inspections and cameras, which reflects a lack of trust. Would it not be possible to see this in a more positive way and work to raising awareness among professionals? The Moderator responded by agreeing that raising awareness would obviously have more of a positive impact than inspections.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p56/59
The Chairman concluded that the two workshops clearly covered a great deal of ground, and have given us much food for thought as we go forward. I would like to thank all participants and speakers for their involvement and input.
Concluding Remarks: Moving the Agenda Forward
Lucien CHABASON President, Blue Plan, France
My comments will bear in mind my previous responsibilities as coordinator of the Action Plan for the Mediterranean, which includes the REMPEC and the Blue Plan. It also includes the protection of the marine environment from pollution from both land-based and maritime activities. I will also be speaking a President of the Blue Plan, a research centre concerned with the Mediterranean basin.
The REMPEC was established as a major element of the Blue Plan as a way of preventing maritime disasters in the Mediterranean. That was its primary concern in the 1970s. The fact is that no major accidents have occurred in the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, Erika was a vessel bearing the Mediterranean flag, sailing towards a Mediterranean port, and inspected by a Mediterranean country. As such, it was a vessel entirely of Mediterranean inspiration, and the accident could just as easily have occurred in the Mediterranean, which gave us much food for thought. It also led to a revamping of REMPEC’ s activities and the issue of a new protocol, the Malta Protocol of 2002.
I have had the opportunity of visiting many ports in the Mediterranean, including the Piraeus port in Greece, which is the region’s third largest port. These visits demonstrated that the creation and management of port reception facilities was of concern for all ports. Traceability is not only a question of knowing how waste circulates, but also of determining its final destination. The Need for Reliable Data
My work has led me to make the following conclusions, which are also linked to the two workshops. First, it is necessary to improve the quantitative knowledge we have at our disposal in relation to all of these phenomena. Currently, we are forced to work on the basis of limited and inconclusive data. For example, at the time of the Erika disaster in 1989, it was reported that 800,000 tonnes of oil were discharged in the Mediterranean each year – that is 20-times the volume of Erika . I was surprised by this figure, and the figure referred to in the reports of this conference is 80,000 tonnes, a significant difference. This demonstrates how unreliable our data is.
As well as maritime trade, the Mediterranean is also the site of two major sources of maritime transport. First, leisure traffic, which represents a significant amount of waste for the leisure ports that must treat this waste. Second, war ships are also very present in the Mediterranean. These vessels are excluded from the Conventions although it is recommended that they comply with them as far as is possible.
I believe that we have to consider the whole picture: pollution is pollution whether it is generated by commerce, leisure or defence activities. Given that we cannot develop policy in the absence of proper statistics, what can we do to improve the information at our disposal? We can do this by improving the situations in our ports, both in terms of facilities and personnel. Certification would also improve our knowledge on flows of waste.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p57/59 The Political Agenda
Second, we must address the political question of the status of these issues on the Mediterranean political agenda. The answer to that question is that they are very low on the agenda. We are much more interested in land pollution, and the priorities of the Union for the Mediterranean do not include the question of pollution linked to maritime activities. All stakeholders are very aware of the issues related to urban pollution, which is seen as everyone’s responsibility. There is a high level of transparency with respect to land source pollution. In contrast, maritime pollution occurs in ships or in ports where the general public or the media does not have access. As a result, no one is aware of what is going on and these issues are largely ignored by the general public and by political decision makers. All of these issues are left to technicians and experts, and the issues are not very high up on the political agenda. The industry is not well known by the political world and the general public. Nevertheless, the question of maritime source pollution is extremely important and can no longer be relegated only to the technical level. We must deal with these wastes; we must have sanctions to deal with illegal dumping. Regrettably, it is only after accidents such as Erika or The Prestige that people become interested in maritime pollution. The reality is that these issues are just as important as waste treatment in our towns and cities. The Role of REMPEC
Third, we have existing structures such as REMPEC, which is an excellent centre that enjoys a good reputation both North and South of the Mediterranean. It also enjoys the confidence of private shipping operators. Going forward, we must therefore base our work on REMPEC. We must take advantage of REMPEC to improve the availability of data, and we must extend the organisation’s mandate. Given its experience and know how, REMPEC can act as a support for cooperation, bringing together all the relevant players. It should be noted that there are many disputes in the Mediterranean with respect to territorial borders, and we therefore need to enhance cooperation among all the countries involved.
What conditions would allow us to progress? There is the question of funding, which is a major issue. Increased funding is crucial to substantially increasing the resources available to ports in the Mediterranean. Without minimum levels of staff in these ports, we cannot hope to develop an adequate certification scheme. Adjacent Seas
Finally, we must consider adjacent seas. Is it possible to discuss the Mediterranean without discussing the Red or Black Seas? Can the Mediterranean be treated in an isolated way? I believe that Mediterranean traffic cannot be disassociated from traffic in the Red or Black Seas. At the same time, we do have to place some limits on our work but it is difficult to draw the boundaries. In this context, it should be noted that Egypt is in fact in the process of setting up a REMPEC type centre in the Red Sea. Conclusion
This Conference has placed all of these questions on the table for discussion, giving them the consideration they deserve – something that has been lacking to date. I am very pleased to see that maritime pollution is finally receiving the attention it needs at the national and international levels.
Concluding remarks by Pierre PORTAS
The meeting has been very instructive and constructive, helpful and useful. It has also brought together people and ideas, which is always a very good thing. The workshops
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p58/59 demonstrated the existence of a certain momentum that we should now build on. I feel the conference has achieved its purposes because it has provided an opportunity to pursue discussions that are ongoing in international forums. It has also highlighted a number of possible ways forward. I believe that the way forward can also unfold towards more concrete actions. From that point of view, the work undertaken in the workshops was extremely helpful. For example, assessing the feasibility of developing an ISO standard and piloting it in the Mediterranean Sea is a promising idea that is worth pursuing.
WE 2C is very pleased to contribute to this process and to help follow up on the outcomes of the workshops and the conference. With the help of its friends, WE 2C will try to pursue a number of actions that have been raised over the past three days.
I would therefore like to thank you all for your contributions to such a fruitful meeting.
Chairman Roy WATKINSON
Over the past three days, we have heard some 15 presentations and had the benefit of two workshops. We have heard a good cross section of viewpoints concerning legal and regulatory issues from national, regional and international perspectives, and from the point of view of port operators, ship owners, waste managers and NGOs. We have perhaps only scratched the surface of these issues, but we can, nevertheless, draw some general observations.
While we have seen that there is much information available, we clearly also face some substantial data gaps. Nevertheless, we are reasonably confident that our main legal instruments – MARPOL and the Basel Convention – are fit for purpose. However, their implementation may be in issue in some cases, and it may be necessary to review some of their provisions. Shore side infrastructures beyond port reception facilities may not be sufficiently well developed in a number of cases. This indicates that more harmonisation is needed, which could impact on fee structures, the use of forms, and the descriptions of waste.
We saw that there are some good examples of best practice, which could perhaps be widely employed elsewhere.
Improvements in the data will help us to better understand where the real gaps and needs lie. The issue of dealing with garbage may be a more significant problem in terms of volumes in comparison to the smaller, more specialised chemical processing of cargo residue wastes.
We are not entirely sure how much waste or garbage escapes the system as a whole. This is another issue concerning data and information. Significant differences remain between operations in different countries.
In terms of the way forward, I would sum up the discussions in three words: information, integration, and implementation.
I would like to thank you all for your active involvement in the discussions, the speakers for their excellent presentations, the interpreters, supporting organisations and partners, and our patronage from the French Minister for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Town and Country Planning.
The chairman declared the meeting closed.
International Conference On the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Generated at Sea p59/59 ANNEXES
Speakers Presentation
The Conference’s Partners
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT OF WASTE GENERATED AT SEA
SPEAKERS PRESENTATION
Highly qualified and distinguished personalities from Asia, Europe and North America responded to WE 2C’s invitation to come to Marseille to share their knowledge and experience. Their contribution was determinant to exploring solutions and designing workable tools to improve the collection and management on land of residues generated on board ships. It is with great pleasure that WE 2C presents these personalities, the Chairman of the conference, the Speakers and Moderators of the workshops:
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Roy WATKINSON President of Roy Watkinson Environmental Consulting Ltd United Kingdom
Roy Watkinson is an environmental specialist, currently serving through his own Consulting Firm. As the Environment Agency's Hazardous Waste Policy Manager, he was responsible for regulatory development on hazardous waste and international shipments of waste, specialist advice on waste management policy and legislation nationally and internationally, to combat environmental crime. Formerly the UK Department of the Environment's Deputy Head of Wastes Technical Division, he was responsible for the UK programme of research and guidance on waste management and a Principal Inspector in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. He previously held posts in local government in waste management, at both District and Country Council level. Roy was also Chair of the UNEP Basel Convention Compliance Committee and Basel Convention representative for the UK on the Joint Basel Convention/IMO/ILO Working Group on Ship recycling and Chair of the National Household Hazardous Waste Forum.
WE 2C’s PRESIDENT
Mr. Pierre PORTAS President of the Waste Environment Cooperation Centre (WE 2C) France
Biologist by training, Pierre Portas joined the international office of WWF in 1976, and then worked for the World Conservation Union (IUCN) from 1979 to 1988. In 1989 he was asked to set up the Secretariat of the Basel Convention administered by UNEP, where he held various functions until February 2007. He left the Secretariat as Deputy Executive Secretary. He also carried out teaching on strategies for conserving natural resources at the University Institute of Development Studies in Geneva.
Page 1
SPEAKERS
Ms Louise de la FAYETTE Visiting Professor, Maritime Institute, University of Greenwich United Kingdom
Louise Angélique de La Fayette is an international lawyer and diplomat, currently Visiting Professor, Maritime Institute, University of Greenwich. She holds several degrees from the Universities of Toronto and Cambridge. From 1981-1997, she worked in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, mainly on the law of the sea and international environmental law. In the mid-1990s, she was also responsible for Arctic issues. From 1997-2002, she was an academic at the University of Southampton, while also working pro bono on marine issues for IUCN, representing it at international meetings and conferences. From 2002-2006, she was Principal Officer and Head of International Cooperation and Coordination in the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. She is now International Legal Adviser for the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea, and a member of the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law, and the ILA Committee on Legal Aspects of the Outer Continental Shelf. She has published many articles on the law of the sea, and served as counsel for Canada in the Gulf of Maine Maritime Boundary Case and the Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v. Canada ) before the ICJ and the Canada/ France Maritime Boundary Arbitration .
Captain David A. CONDINO OCS/MARPOL Manager, Safety Branch, Port and Facilities Division, United States Coast Guards United States of America
Capt. David Condino, Master Mariner, is a Maritime Transportation Specialist and Project Manager for MARPOL Programs in the Office of Port and Facilities Activities, Cargo and Facilities Division, within the Office of the Director of Prevention Policy at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC. Before coming to the Coast Guard, Capt. Condino was a project manager, Ship Disposal Programs, within the Office of Ship Operations, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Capt. Condino has over twenty five years seagoing experience on all types of vessels including in-shore and off-shore fishing vessels, deep sea research vessels, energy industry support vessels, naval auxiliary vessels, and commercial cargo vessels and tugs. Capt. Condino holds a U.S. Coast Guard License as Master, Oceans, Unlimited and a Class 1 U.K. CeC as Master, Oceans, Unrestricted. Capt. Condino’s most recent seagoing position was as senior deck officer with Maersk Line, Ltd. Capt. Condino attended the State University of New York and the University of Connecticut early in his career and Glasgow Nautical College where he studied UK Maritime Legal and Administrative Practice prior to receiving his UK CeC. Capt. Condino has continued university studies in the field of Marine Environmental Management at University of Maryland. Capt. Condino’s shore side experience includes a stint as General Manager of a ship yard and as a designer/builder of small commercial vessels and principle of a marine survey and consulting firm. Prior to entering government service, Capt. Condino lectured extensively on Marine Science and Navigation at institutions around his native New England and taught classes and demonstrations in boatbuilding in his home port of Gloucester, MA, on the New England Coast.
Page 2 Mr. David BOLDUC Coordinator, Green Marine Canada
David Bolduc completed a Bachelor of International Studies at York University in Toronto and a Master in international relations at Laval University in Quebec, Canada. After several years as researcher and political advisor in Quebec and Ottawa, he joined the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council in 2005 where he held the position of environmental and economic coordinator. His major achievement is the preparation of the environmental policy for the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes maritime industry. Since January 2008, he is also the coordinator of Green Marine. Green Marine is a voluntary commitment on the part of the marine industry business for whom improved environmental performance is a key priority. As of today, Green Marine has 43 members (shipowners and ports and terminals in Canada and the USA). It groups eight professional maritime industry associations. It involves marine industry sectors on the St. Lawrence in Canada and the Great Lakes in the USA.
Ms. Lieselot MARINUS Policy Adviser, European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) Belgium
Lieselot Marinus started working for the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) in 2004. ESPO represents all seaports of the European Union and ensures they have a clear voice in Brussels. As a policy advisor Lieselot Marinus is responsible for port & transport policy, intermodal files, marine affairs and security issues; she coordinates ESPO’s Intermodal and Logistics Committee, Port Governance Committee, Marine Affairs and Security Committee and Legal Committee. Before working with ESPO, Lieselot Marinus worked as a trainee for a Member of the Transport Committee of the European Parliament, which made her familiar with European transport policy and the practical functioning of the European Institutions in Brussels. After obtaining a Masters in law at the University of Antwerp, Lieselot successfully finalised a Postgraduate diploma in international law at the University of Brussels.
Mr. Maurits PRINSSEN Project Manager Strategy, Port Planning and Development, Port of Rotterdam The Netherlands
Maurits Prinssen completed his study in chemical technology in 1992 and environmental technology in 1993. In 2002 he also became a Master of Safety, health & Environment. From 1994 till 2004 he worked at the Staff of the Ministry of Defense as an environmental and safety advisor in The Netherlands. Since September 2004 Maurits Prinssen works at the Port of Rotterdam Authority as an environmental project manager at the department of port planning & development/shipping. Main topics are air quality & climate change and ships waste. He is responsible for following the implementation of the EU directive for the ports of Rotterdam-Rijnmond: formulate Indirect Fee System, draw up Waste Reception Plan, and coordinate yearly reports to National Authorities, advisor for National delegation IMO and EU.
Page 3 Mr. Tim MARKING European Community Shipowners' Associations (ECSA) Belgium
Of British nationality and after studying law, Tim Marking worked for the UK Chamber of Shipping before joining ECSA in the 80s. Now deputy Secretary General, he has focused on safety and environmental issues over the last few years; through ECSA’s Safety and Environment Committees and other specialized working groups comprising experts from our members (the national shipowner associations of EU member states and Norway), Shipping industry views on the EU regulatory proposals in these areas have been developed and discussed/promoted with the EU institutions.
Mr. Arnaud LEROY Project Officer, Environment Protection, European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) Portugal
Arnaud Leroy was born in France in 1976. He studied public law and political sciences at the University of Lille and he is a holder of a LLM on Maritime Law and Law of the Sea from the School of Law of Nantes. He joined the European Parliament as advisor in 2000. The files he handled included the development of EU maritime legislation (Erika packages), and other transport and environment related matters. He joined EMSA in February 2004 as Project officer and is dealing with Environment Protection, more particularly Directive 2005/59/EC on port reception facilities and Directive 2005/33 on marine fuels.
Ms Magali DEVEZE Manager Ship's waste/Residues, Marseille Fos Port Authority France
Magali Devèze is a Civil Engineer from the National Water and Environment Engineering School (Strasbourg - 1991 to 1994). She, then Post Graduated on “Water Treatment Engineering”, in INSA, Toulouse. Magali joined the Marseille Fos Port Authority and currently works as Head of the Planning and Sustainable Development Department of the Port. In charge of the port’s regulatory environment monitoring (water, air, soil, risk, noise, waste…), Magali Devèze is also Prescriber on environmental and planning matters for the whole of the Maritime Public Field and its installations. Expert on issues related to all discharges in the environment, she deals with the institutional and European Partners of the Port. She is in charge of the environment programme and planning scheme until its implementation by the different operational departments (especially waste management plan from ships).
Page 4 Mr. Eelco LEEMANS Co-ordinator of the Clean Shipping Campaign, North Sea Foundation The Netherlands
Eelco Leemans graduated in 1988 from the nautical college in Enkhuizen and has worked as an officer and skipper on various ships, worldwide. He obtained a degree in Environmental Sciences in 1998 with a paper on the attention given to environmental issues in the curriculum of the Dutch nautical colleges and has worked for NGOs ever since. Since 2001 he works for the North Sea Foundation as Co-ordinator of the Clean Shipping Campaign. At the IMO Mr. Leemans leads a group of environmental NGO's in a campaign on Clean Shipping. Apart from this he gives lectures in the international circuit on protection of the marine environment. From 2005 Eelco is hired by the ProSea foundation as a course instructor for the ProSea Marine Environment Awareness courses and as international shipping specialist.
Mr. Frédéric HEBERT Director, Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC) Malta
Born in 1962 in Paris, Mr. Hébert, after graduating in law and politics, joined the French Navy Supply Corps where he served up to the rank of Commander, first on board several battle ships, then in the staff of the Admiral, Préfet Maritime de la Méditerranée, REMPEC’s local focal point, where he was in charge of pollution response and preparedness. He, then, joined the Ministry of Finance, as a civil servant (“administrateur civil") where he headed the Office of International Law at the Ministry’s legal department. In that position, he dealt with major recent maritime incidents (“ERIKA”, “IEVOLI SUN”, “PRESTIGE”). In his capacity, Mr Hébert participated in the IMO Legal Committee and IOPC Fund’s meetings. Mr Hebert assumed the duties of Director of REMPEC in January 2006.
Mr. Vincent JUGAULT Programme Officer, Secretariat of the Basel Convention (SBC) Switzerland
Mr. Jugault is graduated as Mechanical Engineer (MBA). He started his career in the radioactive waste management sector before joining the UNEP at the Secretariat of the Basel Convention (SBC) where he has filled several positions relating to project development and technical assistance in the field of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and the environmentally sound management of such waste. In the aftermath of the incidents of the dumping of hazardous waste in the district of Abidjan in August 2006, Mr. Jugault has coordinated the development of UNEP’s technical program in Côte d’Ivoire, in consultation with the IMO, to prevent that such events do not occur again.
Page 5 Mr. Guido VAN MEEL Secretary General, Euroshore International Belgium
Graduated in “Applied Economics” (1974), and in “Economic Models and Development” (1975), he then postgraduated with a master degree in “Environmental Sciences” (1991). Since May 1989, Mr Guido Van Meel is working as a policy advisor for the Antwerp Port Authority in the field of European and international affairs and environment. He joined the Community port working group on ship’s waste in 1990 and was 7 years chairman of the marine and port security committee of ESPO. Mr Guido Van Meel was involved in a few research project on ships’ waste ECOWARE and ECOPORTS. Highly involved in the subject, he is author of a few articles on ships’ waste. Mr Guido Van Meel represented ESPO in Port Reception Facilities Forum and in the meetings on the implementation of the EU- directive 2000/59. Since June 2007, Mr Guido Van Meel is Secretary General of EUROSHORE.
Mr. Greg VOGT Managing Director, International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) Austria
Mr. Vogt was named the Managing Director for ISWA in 2007. As the chief executive for the Association, he is responsible for administration of the ISWA General Secretariat, including advocacy and organizational functions to serve the membership and the waste industry overall. ISWA’s mission is to promote sustainable solid waste management worldwide. To this end, Mr. Vogt participates in quorums, scientific panels, training courses and grant projects for the largest global solid waste management associations. ISWA’s General Secretariat is based in Vienna, Austria. He was honored to receive the President’s Award in 2008 from the Chartered Institute of Waste Management (U.K.). Prior to his appointment as the ISWA Managing Director, Mr. Vogt served as vice president with USA-based SCS Engineers, one of the leading environmental engineering consultancies emphasizing in the solid waste management field. With a strong background in solid waste management, waste characterization, and landfill gas (LFG), Mr. Vogt specialized in waste management planning, waste collection and transfer, field investigations, air sampling programs, leachate characterization, gas emissions, corrective action technologies, and alternatives analyses for public/private partnerships. Much of his consultancy work involved international waste management projects and studies. Prior to working as a consultant, Mr. Vogt worked for toxicological division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Page 6 Mr. Martin CLERMONT CEO, Gedden Canada
Mr. Clermont works in the environmental field for more than 20 years. International expert in the waste management, he carried out several hundreds of environmental assessments for various industrial sectors. He worked on several occasions as expert in the name of the Secretariat of the Basel Convention (Division PNUE: Program of the United Nations in Environment), in European, African and Latin American countries. Since 1997, Mr Clermont devotes himself to the development and the marketing of Web based solutions dedicated to the tracking of environmental data and environmental compliance.
Dr. Nikos MIKELIS Senior Implementation Officer, Marine Environment Division, International Maritime Organization United Kingdom
Dr Nikos Mikelis is graduated in naval architecture from the University of Newcastle and obtained Master’s and Doctorate degrees from London University. In the past, Dr Nikos Mikelis has worked in ship classification; for a shipping company as superintendent, technical manager and then director; and as an independent consultant. Currently he is Senior Implementation Officer in the Marine Environment Division of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Dr Nikos Mikelis has written around 50 learned papers and numerous articles in the maritime press. He is a freeman of the City of London.
Mr. Koichi YOSHIDA Director, International Cooperation Centre, National Maritime Research Institute Japan
Koichi Yoshida, Director of International Cooperation Centre of National Maritime Research Institute (NMRI) of Japan, is a naval architect. He has joined activities of IMO (International Maritime Organization) since 1980. He chaired Fire Protection Sub- Committee of IMO from 1994 until the end of 2003. He has been involved in the marine environment protection activities of IMO since the 1990s. He is now the chairman of the working group on Green House Gases (GHG) issues for ships in the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of IMO. Under his chairmanship, IMO is now developing a system for control and reduction of GHG emission from international trading ships. Koichi Yoshida has joined also activities of ISO (Organization for International Standardization) since 1980. He is now chairing Sub- Committee for marine environment protection (SC2) of TC8 (Ship and marine technology). Under his chairmanship, ISO/TC8/SC2 is developing various ISO standards including ISO/CD 21070 “Management system for shipboard garbage”, and ISO 21072 series for “Oil recovery operation – oil skimmers”, and new work item for ISO standard for “port reception facilities for shipboard garbage and waste”.
Page 7 Mr. Sylvain PERRIER CEO, Ship Waste Agency France
After 8 years spent as project manager to implement ship waste collection and treatment centers worldwide, he understood that even if mentalities had changed regarding ship waste traceability, a monitoring tool was missing. Moreover, this action to succeed might have to be based on voluntary action instead of law enforcement. In 2006 he set up a private company SHIP WASTE Agency in order to provide the first monitoring system for transparency in oily residues management from the ship to the treatment center with personal web services access: the www.ship- waste.com website. - Registration, consultation and management of waste delivery receipt, - Qualification of participants in accordance with their transparency and operational quality - Realization of reliable and precise statistics for simulations and modeling in the matter of management of hydrocarbon residues.
Mr. Lucien CHABASON President, Blue Plan France
Born in 1941 in Paris (France), Lucien Chabason, Former Coordinator of the Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP) in Athens from 1994 to 2003 studied law, economics and sociology at the University of Paris before entering the Ecole Nationale d’Administration (1968). Since 2004, he is Senior Adviser, IDDRI (Paris) and President of the Blue Plan for the Mediterranean. He followed environmental issues in the Prime Minister’s Office, then was the Division Head for land and landscape planning in the Ministry of Environment (1978-1984) and the Director of the Research Division (1984-1988). Between 1988 and 1990, Lucien Chabason was Director of the office of the Minister of Environment and the person in charge of the preparation of the Green Plan for France, adopted by the Government in 1991. He was an expert to OECD for the evaluation of environmental performance of Portugal, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Czech Republic, Switzerland. Finally, he is a Professor of Environmental Policy at the Political Studies Institute of Paris since 2004.
WE 2C thanks the Chairman, the Speakers, and the Moderators for their participation!
Page 8
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT OF WASTE GENERATED AT SEA
Our Sponsors and Partners
WE2C would like to thank all his sponsors and partners for their support. Without them, it would have been impossible to reach our goals. Thank you!
The Conference is placed under the High Patronage of: The French Minister for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Town and Country Planning The French Presidency of the European Union
In partnership with: Region Provence – Alpes - Côte d'Azur Marseille Fos Port Authority Secretariat of the Basel Convention
With the support of: Lloyd’s List event Gedden
Page 1