Environmental Compliance and Practices of Cruise Ships in Iceland an Exploratory Case Study - Port of Ísafjörður

Master’s thesis

Environmental Compliance and Practices of Cruise Ships in Iceland An Exploratory Case Study - port of Ísafjörður

Sheng Ing Wang

Advisor: Catherine Chambers, Ph.D.

University of Akureyri Faculty of Business and Science University Centre of the Westfjords Master of Resource Management: Coastal and Marine Management Ísafjörður, May 2020

Supervisory Committee

Advisor: Catherine Chambers, Ph.D.

External Reader: Auður H. Ingólfsdóttir, Ph.D.

Program Director: Catherine Chambers, Ph.D.

Sheng Ing Wang Environmental compliance and practices of cruise ships in Iceland An exploratory case study – port of Ísafjörður 45 ECTS thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of a Master of Resource Management degree in Coastal and Marine Management at the University Centre of the Westfjords, Suðurgata 12, 400 Ísafjörður, Iceland Degree accredited by the University of Akureyri, Faculty of Business and Science, Borgir, 600 Akureyri, Iceland

Printing: Háskólaprent, Reykjavík, May 2020

Declaration

I hereby confirm that I am the sole author of this thesis and it is a product of my own academic research.

______

Sheng Ing Wang

Abstract

The drastic growth of cruise tourism in the world, while potentially beneficial for economic growth in local communities, can also bring many problems and concerns, especially regarding impacts to the environment. This research took the port of Ísafjörður, Iceland, a recent hotspot destination for cruise ships, as a case study for better understanding the potential environmental impacts from cruise ships. The study’s aims were: 1) to determine how much and what kind of waste generated from cruise ships had been discharged to the shore facilities in Ísafjörður in 2019, and 2) to explore the compliance behaviour of the ships in adhering to Icelandic and international environmental regulations. To do this, quantitative and qualitative questions were assessed by interviewing officers from 40 cruise ships, accounting for 87% of the total ships that docked and anchored in Ísafjörður in the 2019 cruise ship season. The interview questions were designed based on the convention of MARPOL and the law of Iceland, and these questions were compared with the ship’s statutory record or ship’s certificates to strengthen the reliability and correctness of the data. The interview questions covered five categories: emissions, waste oil, wastewater, garbage and food waste, and ballast water. Results showed that very little garbage and food waste had been discharged to shore facilities, and this was likely because Ísafjörður is one of several stops for many cruise ships in Iceland and the waste had simply been discharged elsewhere. However, in assessing the other four categories, eight out of 40 cruise ships carried out illegal activities, including 12 specific violation cases. This thesis discusses three primary possible reasons for those violations: accessibility, inconsistency, and monitoring, and then gives three examples of incentive for improving compliance behaviour in the cruise industry without imposing a law. Interested parties such as local communities, national decision makers, tourism boards, municipal planners, and environmental agencies must use the best available knowledge such as this study to manage the positive and negative aspects of the growth of cruise ship tourism.

v Útdráttur

Gríðarleg aukning í ferðaþjónustu skemmtiferðaskipa í heiminum hefur mögulega jákvæð staðbundin efnahagslega áhrif en getur á sama tíma haft í för með sér vandamál og áhyggjuefni, einkum hvað varðar umhverfið. Í þessari rannsókn er Ísafjarðarhöfn á Íslandi, sem er ört vaxandi áfangastaður skemmtiferðaskipa, notuð sem tilviksrannsókn til að skilja betur möguleg umhvefisleg áhrif skemmtiferðaskipa. Markmið rannsóknarinnar voru eftirfarandi: 1) að ákvarða magn og tegund úrgangs sem skemmtiferðaskip losuðu við höfn á Ísafirði árið 2019, og 2) kanna hver vel skipin fylgja íslenskum og alþjóðlegum umhverfisreglugerðum. Megindlegar og eigindlegar spurningar voru metnar með viðtölum við yfirmenn 40 skemmtiferðaskipa, eða alls 87% allra skipa sem komu í höfn á Ísafirði á komutímabili skipanna árið 2019. Viðtalsspurningarnar byggðu á MARPOL sáttmálanum og íslenskum lögum. Einnig voru spurningarnar bornar saman við lögboðnar skrár skipanna eða vottorð þeirra, til að styrkja áreiðanleika og nákvæmni gagnanna. Spurningarnar í viðtölunum náðu yfir fimm flokka: Útblástur; úrgangsolíu; skólp; rusl og matarúrgang og kjölfestuvatn. Niðurstöðurnar sýna að mjög lítið af rusli og matarúrgangi er losaður á Ísafirði. Líklegt má telja að ástæðan sé sú að Ísafjörður er aðeins einn af mörgum áfangastöðum skipanna á Íslandi og að þessi hluti úrgangs skipanna sé einfaldlega losaður annarrstaðar. Þegar hinir fjórir úrgangsflokkarnir voru metnir kom í ljós að átta skip af fjörtíu framkvæmdu ólöglegar aðgerðir í tólf tilvikum. Í ritgerðinni er fjallað um þrjár mögulegar meigin ástæður fyrir þessum brotum: Aðgengi; óssamræmi og eftirlit. Í framhaldinu eru sett fram þrjú dæmi um hvata fyrir skipin til að fara að lögum án þess að breyta þeim lagaramma sem nú þegar er til staðar. Mikilvægt er að hagsmunaaðilar, á borð við vöktunar- og rannsóknaraðilar umhverfisins, nærsamfélögin, skipulagsyfirvöld og ferðaþjónustan, nýti sér nýjustu fáanlegu þekkingu, á borð við þessa rannsókn, til að stýra jákvæðum og neikvæðum áhrifum fjölgunar skemmtiferðaskipa.

Thanks for my left ankle, without hurting you, this thesis won’t exist

vii

viii Table of Contents

Declaration ...... viii

Abstract ...... v

Table of Contents ...... ix

List of Figures ...... xi

List of Tables ...... xii

Glossary/ Abbreviations ...... xiii

Acknowledgements ...... xv

1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Cruise ship tourism ...... 1 1.2 Ísafjörður as a cruise ship destination ...... 3 1.3 Research aims, justification, and outline of the thesis ...... 6

2 Conceptual and Literature Review ...... 9

2.1 Environmental impacts of cruise ships ...... 9 2.2 Overview of international regulations ...... 11 2.3 Icelandic legal framework for preventing pollution from ships ...... 13 2.4 Regulation of vessel-source pollution in Iceland ...... 14 2.4.1 Emission/ Air pollution ...... 14 2.4.2 Oil ...... 15 2.4.3 Wastewater (Icelandic: skolp) ...... 15 2.4.4 Garbage and food waste ...... 16 2.4.5 Ballast water ...... 16 2.4.6 Summary of the rules within territorial water ...... 16 2.5 Comparison between Icelandic and international rules ...... 18 2.5.1 Definition Comparison ...... 18 2.5.2 Regulations Comparison ...... 19

3 Methodology ...... 23

3.1 Informant enrollment, informed consent, and protection of sensitive data ...... 23

ix 3.2 Semi-structured interview design ...... 24 3.3 Data Analysis ...... 26 3.4 Limitations and author positionality reflections ...... 27

4 Results ...... 29

4.1 General characteristics of cruise ships ...... 29 4.2 Waste discharged to the shore facility ...... 30 4.3 Rule compliance and practices ...... 32 4.3.1 Emission/ Air pollution ...... 32 4.3.2 Oil ...... 36 4.3.3 Wastewater (skolp) ...... 37 4.3.4 Garbage and food waste ...... 39 4.3.5 Ballast water ...... 41 4.4 Feedback from interviewees ...... 44 4.5 Results Summary ...... 44

5 Discussion ...... 47

5.1 Reasons for non-compliance ...... 47 5.1.1 Accessibility and publicity of law ...... 47 5.1.2 Inconsistency ...... 49 5.1.3 Monitoring ...... 53 5.2 Limitations and inadequateness of the legislative system ...... 55 5.2.1 Inadequateness of a comprehensive policy ...... 55 5.2.2 Limited boundary ...... 56 5.2.3 Other potential pollutants ...... 56 5.3 Beyond restriction - Incentive ...... 57

6 Conclusion ...... 59

References ...... 61

Appendix A Act 33/ 2004 ...... 66

Appendix B Research ethics training and clearance ...... 96

x List of Figures

Figure 1 Growth of worldwide passengers carried from 2000 to 2019 ...... 1 Figure 2 The location of Ísafjörður ...... 3 Figure 3 Two cruise ships stayed and anchored in the port area. Their massive body shapes covered the background of city of Ísafjörður ...... 4 Figure 4 The distribution of dock and anchorage area for cruise ship in the Ísafjörður ...... 5 Figure 5 Fast-growing number of passenger and cruise ship from 2010 to 2019 ...... 5 Figure 6 Distribution of year built of cruise ships ...... 30 Figure 7 Distribution of gross tonnage of cruise ships ...... 30 Figure 8 Garbage disposal from a cruise ship ...... 32 Figure 9 Compliance behaviour of fuel using in the territorial water of Iceland ...... 34 Figure 10 Compliance behaviour of fuel using in the port area of Iceland ...... 35 Figure 11 Compliance behaviour of oil discharge ...... 36 Figure 12 Compliance behaviour of black water discharge ...... 38 Figure 13 Compliance behaviour of grey water discharge ...... 39 Figure 14 Compliance behaviour of food waste discharge ...... 40 Figure 15 Case A: The location of the intake ballast water. The place located 80.3 NM from the nearest land (Aberdeen, UK) in the North Sea ...... 42 Figure 16 Case A: The location of the discharge of ballast water. The place located 17.7 NM from the nearest land (Hraunsvík) ...... 43 Figure 17 Case B: The location of the discharge of ballast water. The place located 18.6 NM from the nearest land (Hornstrandir Nature Reserve) ...... 43 Figure 18 Number of violations in each category ...... 45 Figure 19 Comparison of number of violations in national and international law ...... 49 Figure 20 Screenshot from the content of marine fuels in the guideline. It appears the inconsistent limitation from Reg. 124/ 2015 ...... 50 Figure 21 Screenshot from the website of Environmental Agency of Iceland ...... 51 Figure 22 Screenshot from the sewage regulations in the guideline (page 9) ...... 51 Figure 23 Painting working was carrying out by two crew hands from a cruise ship...... 57

xi List of Tables

Table 1 The translation of title of Icelandic law and regulations ...... 14 Table 2 Limitation of sulphur content in ship‘s fuel under different conditions ...... 15 Table 3 Description and Condition of Method of D1 & D2 ...... 16 Table 4 The limitation of fuel oil use and waste discharge on the cruise ship (over 15 passengers) in Icelandic territorial water ...... 17 Table 5 The differences term used in Iceland in comparison with MARPOL ...... 19 Table 6 Simplified overview of the comparison with International and Icelandic rules (in the port/ anchor area) ...... 20 Table 7 Simplified overview of the comparison with International and Icelandic rules (within territorial water) ...... 21 Table 8 Interview questions guide ...... 25 Table 9 The strictness of shipping rules in Iceland in comparison with MARPOL ...... 53

xii Glossary/ Abbreviations

BWM Convention - Ballast Water Management Convention

GT – Gross tonnage

IMO - International Maritime Organization

MARPOL - International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

MEPC - Marine Environment Protection Committee

NM - Nautical mile

PSC - Port State Control

UNCLOS - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

xiii

Acknowledgements

I would like to deeply thanks to my thesis advisor, Catherine Chambers, for her support and encouragement. Without her help and cheer, I would not able to make this thesis done. And a special thanks to harbor master of Ísafjörður, Guðmundur M. Kristjansson. He and his team helped to make this project become a reality. I would also like to thank Þórný Barðadóttir for the very helpful advice and thank you for sharing your experience with me.

Thank you to all the participants in the interviews, for your precious time and feedback. Thanks to my classmates, especially Jamie, Eliza, and Celeste who bear with me and listen to my constant whining during the thesis writing.

And finally, thanks for my parents who always support my decisions even they may disagree with.

1 Introduction

1.1 Cruise ship tourism

Tourism has been growing continually, it contributes to local economies and is a source of many jobs all over the world. According to the 2017 annual report of the World Tourism Organization, the growth rate of tourism has never been higher, and has exceeded the average rate of the past eight years (World Tourism Organization 2018). The tourism business has fueled over 10% of global GDP and provides one in ten jobs (Crotti & Misrahi, 2017). Among the types of travel industries, cruise tourism is one of the fastest-growing sectors in recent years. The number of cruise passengers has been climbing steadily with approximately 6% in annual growth rate since 2000 (Cruise Market Watch, 2019)(Figure 1). The cruise industry can expect 27.6 million passengers in 2020 (Cruise Market Watch, 2019), and 19 new cruise ships are scheduled to operate by the end of 2020 (CLIA, 2020).

Figure 1 Growth of worldwide passengers carried from 2000 to 2019(Cruise Market Watch, 2019)

The factors behind the rise in cruise ship tourism are complex and include economic growth, increased leisure time and salary, flexible destination choices and hop on/hop

1 off options, and the introduction of new destinations (Singh, 2000; Technavio Research, 2018). Another major factor leading to the increase in passenger numbers is the expansion of cruise companies’ marketing efforts to younger age demographics. To draw the attention of generation Z and millennial travelers, cruise companies advertise unique onboard facilities and attractions or exotic destinations. The ideas of an “expedition” or “once-a-life-time” trip have become a strong attraction for people who like to experience out-of-the-ordinary vacations. The growth of cruise passenger sailing to exploration destinations (for example, the Arctic, the Galápagos Islands, and Antarctica) has increased by 43% in 2017 (Molgo & ETFI, 2020). This growth trend is present especially in the “last chance” areas affected by climate change, for example, Antarctic cruise ship passengers tripled from 2000-2007 (Eijgelaar, Thaper, & Peeters, 2010). The cruise market, therefore, is expected to shift from older to younger demographics and destination of ports will be replaced likely from tropics to the polar regions to continually attract new customers (Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association, 2018; Nordblom, 2016).

These expedition packages to polar regions can be sold and operated all year-round from the North to South hemispheres to chase the summer times, creating profitability for the cruise companies. In the Arctic, ports of call are usually remote and sparsely populated, such as Greenland, north Norway and Iceland. Although cruise tourism is thought to boost local economies through harbor fees and ancillary job opportunities in the tourism and service industry, it can also come with negative social impacts such as crowding, intrusion to the locals’ privacy, and increased traffic danger (Magnúsdóttir & Hallgrímsdóttir, 2019). Furthermore, because of a lack of long-term experience with the cruise industry, and several other structural and institutional barriers, rural communities can face challenges in cruise ship management that would ensure against negative environmental impacts from cruise ships (Dawson, Johnston, & Stewart, 2014). Cruise ships can affect the environment on many scales, but major environmental impacts include introduction of invasive species by ballast water, air pollution, and the discharge of human and oily waste (Herz & Davis, 2002).

2 1.2 Ísafjörður as a cruise ship destination

Ísafjörður is located in the Westfjords of Iceland (Figure 2) and is the largest town in the region with around 2,600 residents. Fisheries have been the main industry, and other industries include services, several high-tech companies, and tourism. Ísafjörður is an attractive destination for travelers as it has various outdoor activities such as hiking, fishing, and skiing, two cultural museums, and the gateway to the isolated Hornstrandir Nature Reserve which has diverse and abundant wildlife (Renita, 2014). According to Icelandic Tourist Board, approximately 198, 600 international tourists (accounting for 10% of the national total amount) from the Keflavík airport visited the Westfjords in 2019 (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2020), whereas cruise ships contributed about 97,900 visitors from the port of Ísafjörður (Guðmundur Kristjánsson, Harbourmaster logbook).

Iceland

Figure 2 The location of Ísafjörður. Image adopted from Landmælingar Íslands, IS50V

Cruise ship tourism has been growing in Iceland, from 195 calls for all of Iceland in 2011, with a sharp increase from 285 calls in 2014 to 876 calls in 2019 (Barðadóttir, 2017; Cruise Iceland, 2020). The Port of Ísafjörður is the third busiest port for cruise ships in Iceland (Cruise Iceland, 2019) (Figure 3), and the income from cruise ships contributed up to 20% of the total income of the municipal harbour in 2015(Huijbens, 2015). The port area surrounds the town centre and there are four capable piers to receive the cruise ships (Figure 4), each pier has different berthing limitation determined by a ship’s draft and ship length. A designated anchorage area allows the ship to drop the anchor and stay when it exceeds the pier limit or piers are occupied. The port has welcomed 126 calls of cruise ships with about 97,900 passengers from May-September 2019 (Guðmundur Kristjánsson, Harbourmaster logbook). In contrast,

3 only 38 calls and 42,300 passengers visited in 2013 (Óladóttir, 2015) (Figure 5). Due to escalated cruise activities, the port sometimes needs to accept three to four cruise ships at a time. For example, on 3rd August 2019, between 7:00 and 18:00, there were three ships that arrived and carried a total of seven-thousand passengers and crew members into the town.

Figure 3 Two cruise ships stayed and anchored in the port area. Their massive body shapes covered the background of city of Ísafjörður. (photo credit: the author)

4 Anchorage Area

Ísafjörður

Ásgeirsbakki Mávagarður

Sundabakki 2

Sundabakki 1

Figure 4 The distribution of dock and anchorage area for cruise ship in the Ísafjörður. Image adopted from Landmælingar Íslands, IS50V

Growth of Cruise Ship visiting in port of Ísafjörður

Number of passenger Number of cruise ship call

120000 140

100000 120 100 80000 80 60000 60 CALL

PASSENGER 40000 40 20000 20 0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 YEAR

Figure 5 Fast-growing number of passenger and cruise ship from 2010 to 2019. Data of chart is adopted from the Ísafjörður Harbormaster logbook (data of 2018~2019) and Tourism in Iceland in Figures 2012, 2015 and 2018(data of 2010~2017)

5 From Figure 5, we can see a leap in cruise tourism from 2014 following with a steady raise until the present day. A carrying capacity survey of cruise tourism was conducted in Ísafjörður in 2013 that examined the effect on the local community of the drastic growth of cruise ship tourism (O'Brien, 2014). The survey indicated that the most concern from the inhabitants was in relation to negative impacts on the natural environment, rather than economic, social, and development aspects. Another study found the similar results when comparing the impacts of the cruise industry on other forms of tourism (Renita, 2014). A recent study also indicates that local attitudes remain similar to O´Brien’s study, with highest concern for environmental impacts (Magnúsdóttir & Hallgrímsdóttir, 2019). These studies point towards growing potential issues for the social carrying capacity of cruise tourism, however, little research has been done to investigate the environmental impact or pollution from cruise ships in Ísafjörður.

1.3 Research aims, justification, and outline of the thesis

According to the trend of cruise tourism worldwide, Ísafjörður can most likely expect more visits until it reaches the capacity of the port in the future. With current plans to extend the port to allow for berthing of larger vessels, it is urgent and vital to understand what and how much the waste and potential impact have been brought from cruise ships to the local community and the local environment. Thus, this research assesses the issue and presents the finding to respond to the voice of the locals from previous studies (O´Brien 2014, Renita 2014, Magnúsdóttir & Hallgrímsdóttir, 2019). This thesis aimed to explore the environmental impact from cruise ships in the port of Ísafjörður in 2019 by interviewing cruise ship’s officers and engineers in the port of Ísafjörður. Because environmental impacts are many, the thesis narrows in specifically on waste, defined for this thesis as air pollution, oil, wastewater, garbage, and ballast water. The two major aims were to:

• Document what and how much waste from cruise ships is discharged to the shore facility in Ísafjörður

6 • Assess the compliance of cruise ships calling to Ísafjörður in meeting the required Icelandic rules in the territorial waters

Cruise ship tourism and management can be a sensitive topic, as local municipalities and residents try to balance potential economic benefits with potential negative environmental impacts (Harkison & Barðadóttir, 2019). It is essential to include the quantitative value when we try to assess the impact, because first of foremost, it can define the degree and level of effect, then it assists the municipality and harbour sector to evaluate the importance and priority, and finally, local communities will able to grasp the real picture of the situation. Data generated from this thesis also could be the reference information to estimate the quantity for developing and mitigating the predictably increased waste from cruise ships in town in the future.

We can say there is no perfect method to document all the pollution from a cruise ship precisely. A ship is a complex and dynamic unit, and it contains various factors and different circumstances to influence the data. However, the law is a fundamental and compulsory instrument; if a foreign ship plans to pass or berth in the territorial water of Iceland, she has to be capable of complying with the requirement. It is possible to neglect the pollutant that we cannot sense and see, however, the law offers a comprehensive coverage due to the organized legislation system. Therefore it is essential to understand the compliance behaviour and pattern, after all, environmental regulations can only be effective if ships adhered to those regulations (Silber, Adams, & Fonnesbeck, 2014).

Chapter One of the thesis has outlined the major topics in this thesis and the aims of the research. Chapter Two documents and explores more in-depth definitions and states the terms and rules of Icelandic regulations and then presents and compares the differences with international prevention pollution law. Chapter Three details the methods for, and limitations of, interviewing the cruise ship officers and engineers. Chapter Four presents the research results through charts and tables to illustrate the findings. Chapter Five discusses the potential issues of compliance behaviour based on the findings and provides each corresponding practical suggestion and feasible management. Finally, Chapter Six overviews the important findings, addressed the limitations of the research method, and offers advice on the importance of continuing the study.

8 2 Conceptual and Literature Review

2.1 Environmental impacts of cruise ships

Unlike the majority of other marine transportation vessels, a cruise ship is designed for pleasure voyage with the intent to carry as many passengers as possible. It is a floating city that provides luxurious services and leisure amenities and shops, which requires substantial resources to maintain the operation. However, this requirement can result in harmful disturbance to the environment and human health that can be divided into two major categories: operational impacts, and human-made waste by the source of generating from the vessel.

Operational impact includes (but is not limited to):

• Air pollution: The combustion of marine fuel for the ship’s engine and generator

emit various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and particles (Jun, Gillenwater, & Barbour, 2002). This large volume of emission could, directly and indirectly, pollute and harm the air quality and the human body (Winebrake, Corbett, Green, Lauer, & Eyring, 2009). • Oily waste: Waste oil is generated and produced from the by-product of operating ship’s engines and generators, and from the residual products of the purifying system, and other components of ship operations. If not properly disposed of, it can cause disaster to many life stages of different marine and coastal species, even in small amounts (Herz & Davis, 2002). • Introduction of non-indigenous species: Ships dump ballast water, which can transport non-local marine life to different regions. Ships can also carry attached species on the hull and pipes. Non-indigenous species can disorder the local ecosystem, wipe out native animals, and even could be a threat to global biodiversity (Bax, Williamson, Aguero, Gonzalez, & Geeves, 2003). • Underwater noise pollution: The noise produced from rotating and operating the propeller and engine is associated with the physiological stress of fish and marine mammals (Rolland et al., 2012; Wysocki, Dittami, & Ladich, 2006).

9 • Ship strikes on marine species: Marine animal collisions with the ship’s bow or propeller can cause severe injury or death, for example to marine mammals (Laist, Knowlton, Mead, Collet, & Podesta, 2001). • Anchor scour: When the vessel drops an anchor, the anchor and its chain can swipe and scour on the seafloor and can damage benthic ecosystems (Davis et al., 2016).

Human-made waste includes (but is not limited to):

• Wastewater: The wastewater (from toilets, hospital, kitchen, dishwasher, laundry, and showers) could consist of bacteria, faecal coliform, pharmaceutical residue, food waste, cooking oil, detergents, and personal cleaner. It could threaten public health, marine nutrient balance, and spread toxic chemicals into the marine ecosystem (Herz & Davis, 2002). • Solid waste: Domestic garbage, such as plastic, food waste, glass, and cans can impact the marine environment, especially plastic. Sea Birds and marine animals can be killed from becoming entangled in plastic bags and nets, or ingesting plastic (Valavanidis & Vlachogianni, 2012). • Hazardous waste: Toxic chemicals and heavy metals can be released from the wastewater of cruise ship hair salons, photo processing labs, and dental clinics (Schulkin, 2002). A recent study indicates that heavy metals have been detected from the ship’s ballast water (Dobaradaran, Soleimani, Nabipour, Saeedi, & Mohammadi, 2018). Heavy metals tend to accumulate in marine organisms and elevate concentration toward to the top of food chain, thus, it can affect humans health and marine ecosystem (Velusamy, Kumar, Ram, & Chinnadurai, 2014).

Massive human-made waste from cruise ships is one of the principal pollution sources of marine ecosystems (Carić & Mackelworth, 2014). It can be difficult to compare or rank the severity/likelihood of the above environmental impacts to each other or to other maritime or even land-based industries, but to give one example, cruise ships contribute 25% of all waste generated by the merchant fleet (defined as cargo or passenger carrying vessels and therefore not including fishing boats or naval vessels), whereas cruise ships represent approximately only 1% of the global merchant vessels (Butt, 2007). For example, a cruise ship with 3000 passengers and crew can produce

10 approximately 1,290.7 M3 (341,000 gallon) of wastewater per day. This quantity outnumbers the total daily wastewater ( 1161.9 M3 , 307,000 gallon) in a small city with about 1,325 residents (Herz & Davis, 2002). This wastewater will end up in the sea eventually according to the international maritime regulations. Therefore, it is important to understand the regulatory structures around cruise ship tourism management. How cruise operators comply with the rules and manage the waste becomes a fundamental element to assess the potential environmental issues they bring.

2.2 Overview of international regulations

Shipping is a global industry; thus, it relies on an international standard and template to operate and implement under the regulatory regimes of many jurisdictions (Togan, 2016). The International Maritime Organization (IMO) under the United Nations, provides and maintains the fair and effective regulations of safety, security, and environmental performance to govern international shipping. States are encouraged to develop national legislation according to the individual circumstance and situation (IMO, 2019b).

In 1967, the tanker Torrey Canyon ran aground at the coast of Cornwall and spilled approximately 120,000 tons of crude oil off southwest England (Nanda, 1967). Tens of thousands of seabirds and marine creatures were killed (Bourne, Parrack, & Potts, 1967). Furthermore, the use of toxic detergents -to emulsify and disperse the oil- even caused more harm to marine flora and fauna (Cooper & Green, 2016). This disaster was the most significant oil pollution ever recorded at that time. It became the incentive and catalyst to lead the IMO adopted International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) in 1973.

MARPOL aims at preventing pollution from ships on both causes, accident and operational, and it has been amended to cover many more items and measures from time to time. For instance, the MARPOL Annex VI - Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships was entered into force to reduce ship’s emission in 2005 (IMO, 2019a). The content of MARPOL focuses closer on direct pollution, whereas indirect impacts can be proposed and addressed by IMO’ s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).

11 However, the process of establishing new international regulations can be a very long period of preparing and negotiating. Take the issue of invasive species for an example, there was a gap of 26 years between the first preventing unwanted aquatic organism guideline (RESOLUTION MEPC.50 (31)) adopted by MEPC at the year 1991 and the Ballast Water Management Convention (BWM Convention) fully entering into force with mandatory implementations to tackle this problem in the worldwide. In the meanwhile, a study assessed the invasive species had already introduced over 80% of marine ecoregions (Molnar, Gamboa, Revenga, & Spalding, 2008). Furthermore, not all the impacts mentioned in Chapter 2.1 were regulated by IMO, whose priority is to address general issues that occurred in the high seas.

This prolonged process and basic prevention regulations can rely on specific laws employed by coastal States or regions and voluntarily self-regulation from shipping companies to govern and mitigate the environmental impact. Alaska is one of the busiest and famous destinations for cruise ships in the U.S. The U.S. government has enforced stricter rules to prohibit wastewater pollution from growing activities of cruise ships and to guard the life quality of the residents. Several cruise companies have raised the environmental policy levels exceeding the international vessel norms to attempt to respond to the public concern (Sweeting & Wayne, 2006). The measures and policies tend to reduce the ship-generated waste, such as using cleaner fuel or exhaust gas cleaning system to decrease air pollution, implementing garbage recycling programs, replacing low-flow showerheads and faucets, installing advanced wastewater purification system to process and reuse the wastewater, and providing biodegradable cleaning products (CLIA, 2019; Paloti & Garay, 2018).

On the aspect of controlling the impact, IMO is playing a role to set the standard to lead the nations and international shipping industries. Each country is responsible for implementing the rules, monitoring compliance, and has the right to develop its regional marine laws (Schulkin, 2002). Finally, the companies can provide advanced policies to minimize the disturbance to the sea and the destinations.

12 2.3 Icelandic legal framework for preventing pollution from ships

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Nandan, 1995), which Iceland has signed and ratified, clearly defines that “Each State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles (NM), measured from baselines…” (UNCLOS Art. 3), and further explains the right of the State that “the coastal State that may adopt laws and regulations…in respect of the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the prevention, reduction, and control of pollution thereof” (UNCLOS Art. 21 (1) (f)). The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereignty of the coastal State and has its jurisdiction (UNCLOS Art. 2). The research scope, therefore, was set within the area of the port of Ísafjörður and 12-nautical-mile from baseline of Iceland water to scale down the measure and to clarify the prescribed obligation of the foreign ship.

Icelandic laws and regulations that this thesis refers to are Act No. 33/ 2004 which covers the Regulation 515/ 2010, and the Regulation 124/ 2015 (Table 1). Act No.33/ 2004 has entered into force on 1st October 2004, with frequent amendments, and it has designated the Environment Agency of Iceland (Umhverfisstofnun) to supervise the implementation of the Act. The Icelandic Coast Guard is assigned to monitor the pollution activities from the ship entering pollution jurisdiction of Iceland; the area includes 12 NM territorial waters and the 200 NM exclusive economic zone, Iceland’s continental shelf and the uppermost layers of soil (Act No.33/ 2004 Art. 3[12] & Art. 4). There are two main tasks for the Icelandic Transport Authority (Samgöngustofa): it is responsible for conducting regular inspections to all foreign ships in the Icelandic ports (Act 47/ 2003 Lög um eftirlit með skipum Art. 11); it also handles the review and approval of the ship’s equipment and system to ensure all ships reach the required standard.

13 Table 1 The translation of title of Icelandic law and regulations

Icelandic title of the law English translation

Act Lög um varnir gegn mengun Law on prevention of ocean 33/ 2004 hafs og stranda and coastal pollution

Regulation Reglugerð um kjölfestuvatn Regulation of ballast water 515/ 2010

Reglugerð um Regulation Regulation of sulphur content brennisteinsinnihald í tilteknu of the specific liquid fuel 124/ 2015 flhótandi eldsneyti

2.4 Regulation of vessel-source pollution in Iceland

Act 33/ 2004 is applied to any activity related to business operations, ships, and aircraft within the pollution jurisdiction of Iceland. Therefore, there are exemptions and exceptions built into Act in particular circumstances (Act 33/ 2004 Art. 6& 8). Some regulated pollutants and waste which are little related to the cruise ship were excluded in this thesis, such as waste fish oil, transport of oil and toxic substances. As a result, I selected five categories of vessel-source pollution from Act as follows: emission/ air pollution, oil, wastewater, garbage, and ballast water.

2.4.1 Emission/ Air pollution

The regulation uses limited sulphur content in the ship’s fuel oil to control air quality and reduce the emission of sulphur oxides. Table 2 shows the difference limitation of sulphur content (% by mass) under a particular area and condition. The ship is allowed to use emission abatement methods as an alternative to burn the higher sulphur content of marine fuel to meet the requirements. From 1st January 2020, the sulphur content shall not exceed 0.5% (mass/mass) for all ships entering the pollution jurisdiction of Iceland (Reg. 124/2015 Art. 4 & 11).

14 Table 2 Limitation of sulphur content in ship‘s fuel under different conditions

Max. sulphur Condition/ Circumstance Exception content (m/m)

Approved and recognized Pollution jurisdiction of Iceland 2.0% abatement methods is used

Passenger ship (more than 12 passengers) on regular service to EU Approved and recognized 1.5% ports in the pollution jurisdiction of abatement methods is used Iceland

Approved and recognized Shoreside abatement methods is used At port / Anchor electricity Use fuel under 0.1% sulphur content

Source: Authors own compilation adapted from Reg. 124/ 2015 Art. 3, 4& 11

2.4.2 Oil

Oil is defined as any form of liquid oil, such as crude oil, heavy fuel, lubricating oil, and waste oil. Oily waste is a common operational waste in the ship’s engine room, it can be generated and results from operating oil purification, lubrication, oil filtering machinery and equipment (Marine Environment Protection Committee, 2008). It is prohibited to discharge oil into the sea within 3 NM of the baseline of territorial waters unless oily water separator is used to control the oil content under 15 ppm (part per million) (Act 33/ 2004 Art. 8 & 3[15]).

2.4.3 Wastewater (Icelandic: skolp)

Wastewater generated from toilets, kitchens, laundry rooms, bathrooms, and any other water mixed with it is defined as wastewater (Icelandic: skolp) (Act 33/ 2004 Art.3[21]). Vessels over 400 gross tonnage (GT) or a vessel carries 15 persons or more is prohibited to discharging wastewater (skolp) in the port area, and within 12 NM from the baseline. It is allowed to discharge wastewater (skolp) outside 3 NM only when it is treated by an approved wastewater treatment plant (Act 33/ 2004 Art. 8).

15 2.4.4 Garbage and food waste

Garbage means all kinds of domestic waste, food waste, and operational waste onboard. Disposal of persistent synthetic substances, such as plastic and fishing net, is forbidden in the sea; other garbage may not allow dumping within 12 NM from baseline, but disposal of comminuted food waste outside the 3NM from baseline is permitted.

2.4.5 Ballast water

Ballast water is the water taken and held from ships for controlling ship‘s trim, stability, list, and draft (Act 33/ 2004 Art. 3[8]). It is prohibited to discharge ballast water within the pollution jurisdiction of Iceland unless it has managed or treated the following methods of D1 (ballast water exchange) or D2 (treatment) (Table 3). If the situation does not allow the discharge of ballast water outside the assigned area, the master of the ship should request an authorization for an exemption from the Icelandic Coast Guard in advance (Reg. 515/2010 Art. 3, 4 & 7).

Table 3 Description and Condition of Method of D1 & D2

Method Method description Condition / requirement

D1 Exchange method - At least 95% Exchanged water in open seas volumetric of ballast water is should be chosen, ideally, at least exchanged. 200 nautical miles from land and depth at least 200 meters. Pump though method - pumping through three times the volume of each tank.

D2 Use approved ballast water treatment “Indicator Microbe concentrations shall not exceed: a) toxicogenic vibrio cholerae (O1 and system O139): 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 millilitre or 1 cfu per gram of zooplankton samples; b) Escherichia coli: 250 cfu per 100 millilitre c) Intestinal Enterococci: 100 cfu per 100 millilitre.“(OSPAR Commission, 2012)

Source: Author’s own compilation adapted from the guideline of the OSPAR (OSPAR Commission, 2012) and Icelandic Regulation 515/ 2010 Art. 7

2.4.6 Summary of the rules within territorial water

The thesis is focusing on cruise ship routine compliance behaviour within 12 nautical miles from the baseline and the area of the port of Ísafjörður. Table 4 illustrates the

16 relevant rules that have been applied to organize the research and to give a clear limited scope.

Table 4 The limitation of fuel oil use and waste discharge on the cruise ship (over 15 passengers) in Icelandic territorial water

Within 12 NM from baseline Category At port / anchor (territorial water)

1. Shoreside electricity 1. Below 2.0% Emission / 2. Use fuel sulphur content below 2. Below 1.5% Air 0.1% (passengers ship on pollution 3. Allow to use above 0.1% when an regular service to EU approved abatement method is ports) implemented. 1. Outside 3 NM 2. No distance limitation Oil Discharge prohibited when oil treated, and its content below 15ppm

1. Outside 12 NM Wastewater Discharge prohibited 2. Outside 3 NM when (skolp) wastewater is treated

1. Non persistent material may discharge outside Garbage / Discharge prohibited 12 NM Food waste 2. Comminuted food waste outside 3NM

1. Prohibit to discharge untreated ballast water 2. Permit to discharge clean ballast Ballast water treated with method D1 or D2 Same condition as ship in 3. Can discharge untreated ballast water the port or at anchor water only when an exemption is obtained from Coast Guard

Source: Act 33/ 2004, Reg. 515/ 2010, Reg. 124/ 2015*Excluded from exemption and exception in particular circumstances

17 2.5 Comparison between Icelandic and international rules

Cruise shipping is an international business involving in many coastal States, flag States, and ship’s owners, and it requires an international regulatory regime to govern effectively. Ideally, we need a consistent approach to implement compliance and enforce shipping standards (Chircop, 2009). However, inconsistent and insufficient regulations among nations and wealth disparities among States can lead and shift vessel-source pollution to other lower standard jurisdictions easily (Schulkin, 2002). This situation could be an environmental disaster for a country which has lower discharge standards, because these countries can become a foreign ships’ “favourable dump sites” (Schulkin, 2002). Therefore, I compared the inconsistency between Icelandic law and intranational maritime law with the five categories reviewed above. The rules of MARPOL and the BWM Convention apply for non-special areas have been used as a basis of comparison to Icelandic rules.

2.5.1 Definition Comparison

Language can be a gap or obstacle in comprehending for a non-native speaker, and this situation suits the maritime shipping industries as well. According to the 2012 Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V (Resolution MEPC. 219(63)), wastewater consists of black water (sewage) and grey water; grey water is defined “drainage from dishwater, shower, laundry, bath, and washbasin drains....“; “Sewage means drainage from toilets, urinals, hospitals, and animal spaces “(Resolution MEPC. 219(63). However, the definition of wastewater (skolp) in Iceland (Act 33/ 2004 Art. 3[21]) are almost equivalent meaning of MARPOL‘s sewage and grey water, except wastewater from hospitals is not explicitly addressed in Act. Interestingly, grey water is not considered pollutant in the MARPOL yet (IMO, 2017), whereas Act 33/ 2004 regards the same restriction for all kinds of wastewater (Table 5). The thesis will use the term wastewater (skolp) to distinguish the international terms of black water and grey water.

18 Table 5 The differences term used in Iceland in comparison with MARPOL (Resolutions MEPC. 219(63) & Iceland Act 33/ 2004 Art. 3[21])

The term according to The term according to Source definition of MARPOL definition of Act 33/ 2004

Toilets Sewage Wastewater (skolp)

Kitchen/ Dishwash Grey water Wastewater (skolp)

Laundry Grey water Wastewater (skolp)

Bath/ Shower Grey water Wastewater (skolp)

Hospital Sewage Not define in the Act

2.5.2 Regulations Comparison

To simplify the comparison and focus on the targeted cruise ships, I would only examine the regulations for ships that carry more than 15 passengers and are up to 400 GT in size. The smallest cruise ship visiting in the port of Ísafjörður carries about 30 passengers and is up to 674 GT. Table 6 (in the port) & Table 7 (within territorial water) outline and summarize the comparison between international and Icelandic pollution prevention laws, and the bold font is used to represent stricter standards. In Table 6, Icelandic Act stipulates more stringent regulations of marine fuel using to reduce the air pollution in the port. Furthermore, Iceland has a higher discharge standard for grey water, whereas MARPOL has not recognized grey water as pollution to implement any rules. Similarly, the stricter restriction in grey water and fuel oil using in territorial water is highlighted on Table 7. However, the standards for oil and garbage discharge are lower than the international rules (MARPOL Annex I Reg. 15A & Annex V Reg. 4). General speaking, states should adopt not only international norms but also develop regional provisions to govern the sovereignty. This lower-standard-problem can lead to the shift and accumulation of disposal waste in the Icelandic territorial water, and it could impose a severe unseen threat to marine pollution. For example, ship operators always tend to find the easiest and cheapest way to reduce operational costs. To offload

19 waste oil to the shore facilities will bring a service fee for the ship in most ports of the world, but to dump it to lawful water is free. Moreover, a ship is designed with holding tanks to store waste, so the crew can wait and find a suitable port or water area to dump the waste. As a result, this directly encourages ships to hold and dump the waste to the State that has the least strict restriction.

Table 6 Simplified overview of the comparison with International and Icelandic rules (in the port/ anchor area)

Use/ discharge at port and anchor area Category Iceland IMO/ MARPOL 1. Shoreside electricity Below 3.5% Emission / Air pollution 2. Below 0.1% Below 0.5% after 1st January 3. Approved abatement methods 2020 Oil Discharge Prohibited Discharge Prohibited Black Discharge Prohibited Discharge Prohibited Wastewater water (skolp) Grey Discharge Prohibited Grey water is not regulated water Garbage / Food waste Discharge Prohibited Discharge Prohibited 1. Only treated ballast water Only treated ballast water Ballast water 2. Can discharge untreated ballast water only when an exemption is obtained from Coast Guard Source: Act 33/ 2004, Reg. 515/ 2010, Reg. 124/ 2015, MARPOL Annex VI Reg. 14.1.3 (Emission/ Air pollution), Annex I Reg. 15A (Oil),), Annex IV Reg. 11 (Black water), Annex V Reg.4 (Garbage), and BMW Convention Reg. B-4, D-1, & D-2 (Ballast water)

* bold font = stricter standards

20 Table 7 Simplified overview of the comparison with International and Icelandic rules (within territorial water)

Use/ discharge within territorial water Category Iceland IMO/ MARPOL 1. Below 2.0% Below 3.50% 2. Below 1.5% (passenger ship Below 0.5% after 1st January services EU ports) 2020 Emission / Air pollution 3. Approved abatement methods 4. Below 0.5% after 1st January 2020 1. Outside 3 NM 1. Discharge prohibited 2. No particular distance Oil 2. No particular distance limitation limitation when the effluent is when the effluent is below 15ppm below 15ppm Untreated: Outside 12 NM, Untreated : Outside 12 NM Black with ship speed up to 4 knots water Treated: Outside 3 NM, with Wastewater Treated: Outside 3 NM (skolp) ship speed up to 4 knots Grey Untreated : Outside 12 NM Grey water is not regulated water Treated: Outside 3 NM 1. Discharge any garbage is prohibited, except cleaning 1. Non persistent material may agent, cargo residues and discharge outside 12 NM Garbage additives and animal carcasses 2. Comminuted food waste outside 2.Comminuted food waste 3NM outside 3NM 1. Only treated ballast water allow to discharge 1. Only treated ballast water Ballast water 2. Can discharge untreated ballast allow to discharge water only when an exemption is obtained from Coast Guard Source: Act 33/ 2004, Reg. 515/ 2010, Reg. 124/ 2015, MARPOL Annex VI Reg. 14.1.3 (Emission/ Air pollution), Annex I Reg. 15A (Oil),), Annex IV Reg. 11 (Black water), Annex V Reg.4 (Garbage), and BMW Convention Reg. B-4, D-1, & D-2 (Ballast water) * bold font = stricter standards

22 3 Methodology

This project aimed to determine the quantity of offloaded waste from cruise ships and explore the ships’ compliance behaviour in the port of Ísafjörður in 2019. To obtain quantitative and qualitative data, the research relied on the information obtained directly from the ship’s officers and cooperated with the port authority of Ísafjörður. Semi- structured interviews with officers and engineers were designed to collect both quantitative data and qualitative data related to environmental compliance on cruise ships. Very few research studies have been published on this topic by collecting information from individual ships in one port of call, so we aimed to interview as many ship’s officers and engineers as possible to conduct this project.

3.1 Informant enrollment, informed consent, and protection of sensitive data

Due to security and hygienic reasons, almost all cruise ships do not allow any visitor attending onboard without authorization from the ship’s captain or ship’s security officer. I proposed and discussed the project and potential obstacles with the Harbor Master of Ísafjörður, Guðmundur M. Kristjansson in March 2019. In the beginning, I suggested that I could send an interview request mail to the ship’s captain for security authorization, but we tried to send one email and the captain did not reply in time. Then the Harbor Master and the local pilots assisted me in informing the ship’s captain orally and tried to get their permission while guiding the cruise ship into the port. This is a smooth solution; however, this meant I could only survey one ship at a time in person and therefore was not able to survey all ships since often there is more than one vessel arriving at port at one time. Additionally, because I was working for port of Ísafjörður, the Harbor Master designated my job title as Environmental Officer of the Port Authority of Ísafjörður, and with that title I was able to introduce my purpose of visiting with each cruise ship’s officer on the gangway. Following the informed consent process and social science research ethics protocols, I explained that the purpose of the interview was to collect baseline data for a university project in cooperation with the port authority, the interview would take around 30 minutes, and the informant had the right to refuse participation or stop the interview anytime. All data from the interviews

23 were stored in password protected files and no data from individual ships are shared in this thesis. This was especially important in compliance research, because although the research aimed to study compliance, the research was not meant to “expose” certain ships or companies, rather to understand the situations under which environmental non- compliance behaviours exist.

3.2 Semi-structured interview design

The quantity of waste can be acquired from the ship’s logbook; nevertheless, a ship’s compliance behaviour is more variable and complex to determine. Thus the method of semi-structured interview was chosen because it is suited for exploring content and guiding informants with productive conversation (Bernard, 2006). The interviewer (author) is an experienced ship’s captain, familiar with the seafarer terms, and capable to respond to contingencies in the interview. Shipping and cruise companies can freely appoint suitable and qualified persons in charge with ship’s routine businesses. Thus, it is not always clear which person on the ship is responsible for specific environmental compliance categories. For example, one company may appoint an engineer to monitor ballast water intake yet another company may leave the chief officer in charge. This meant that in practice in the interviews, I needed to talk to at least two up to five specific rank seafarers to complete the questions. The participants included ship’s staff captains, environmental officers, chief officers, chief engineers, engineers, and captains with different nationalities. Therefore, the unit of analysis was the ship at that point in time, rather than the individuals themselves.

The interview guide consisted of five main sections with closed and open-ended questions (Table 8). The questions were carefully designed, intending to strengthen the reliability of information and data based on the ship’s statutory documents. As listed in Table 8, the survey was designed with logical sequence on the section of emissions, oil, wastewater (skolp), garbage, and ballast water. In the section of emission/ air pollution, the data of sulphur content of oil was verified by the Bunker Delivery Note (BDN). BDN is a document provided by oil suppliers to guarantee the quality of fuel oil in each bunkering service. It contains standard information of the delivered fuel oil according to the regulation 18 in Annex VI of MARPOL. Through recording the information of sulphur content, it was possible to assess and determine the pattern of compliance

24 among the cruise ships. Next, the interview asked if any waste deliver ashore service was to be arranged in the harbour, and if yes, the further questions would determine the quantity of waste referring to the statutory record books. The next questions aimed to understand each ship’s waste policy in Iceland, it helped to explore the compliance behaviour. Finally, informants were asked to present the records, and the record would support/ reveal their compliance/ violation in detail with statutory evidence. The questions of the amount of average consumption/ generation assisted in understanding the degree of violation by its quantity.

Table 8 Interview questions guide (the development of questions and topics depended on differential ship‘s policy)

Please provide the type of fuel oil for main engine and auxiliary

engine, and the detail of sulphur content from Bunker Delivery Note (BDN) Do you need to exchange oil while docking? If yes, please provide the detail of sulphur content from BDN Does the ship have any approved abatement system to control the emission (scrubbers)?

Please provide the average consumption fuel per hour in the harbor Emission/ air pollution pollution air Emission/ Does the ship have shore power system available? (power and voltage) Does the ship arrange or plan to discharge oily waste in the port of Ísafjörður? (oily bilge / sludge) Does the ship arrange or plan to discharge sludge in the port of

Ísafjörður? Oil Can you explain your ship's oily waste policy in Iceland?

Please provide the latest record for reference

Does the ship arrange or plan to discharge sewage in the port of

) Ísafjörður?

skolp Please provide the average generation quantity of sewage per day

Can you explain your ship's sewage policy in Iceland?

wastewater ( wastewater Does the ship arrange or plan to discharge grey water in the port of Ísafjörður?

25 Please provide the average generation quantity of grey water per day

Can you explain your ship's grey water policy in Iceland?

Please provide the latest record for reference

Does the ship arrange or plan to discharge garbage in the port of Ísafjörður?

If yes, please provide the categories and amount of garbage

garbage Can you explain your ship's garbage policy in Iceland?

Can you explain your ship's food waste policy in Iceland?

Does the ship need to discharge ballast water in territorial water of Iceland? water Ballast Ballast If yes, please provide the ballast water record

3.3 Data Analysis

Data were collected primarily using a paper-and-pencil record during the interview. Besides with the responses of the questions, I also received and recorded any additional valuable initiative feedbacks from participants. The responses and feedbacks were transcribed and digitalised from the handwriting notes to the Excel spreadsheets. I used a free distance calculator from the website of see-seek.com (See-Seek, 2019) to determine the distance between the nearest land and GPS coordinate on the ship’s record book if further assessment is needed.

Both quantitative and qualitative data analyses were performed on the information gathered from the interviews. To answer the research question concerning waste discharge to the shore facility, I calculated each quantity and type of waste and summed up the number. To answer the qualitative questions, I processed each ship’s data to determine the compliance or non-compliance behaviour. Then, I assessed the group compliance pattern on each topic within the interviews by ship and illustrated the results by pie charts. Finally, I summarised the findings and feedback from the respondents to attempt interpret the patterns.

26 3.4 Limitations and author positionality reflections

This project involved several practical and theoretical limitations. During preparing the interview guide, there were difficulties in understanding the precise Icelandic regulation due to inconsistency and translation issues. During the data collection, I also had tried a few attempts to find the best approach to be granted access onboard and undertake the interviews. For example, as noted above, emailing the cruise ship’s captains for interview permission was ineffective due to delayed response.

Because of time limitations, I decided to interview each ship only once although ships can call to the same port multiple times in one season. The data I collected from each interview should be representative of the average of the ship because policies on board ships do not change. It should be noted that the rapid increase in cruise ships calls in Iceland is due not so much to the addition of new ships, but to the same ships calling to Iceland more often (Barðadóttir, 2017). Therefore, it would have been interesting to interview the same ship multiple times and this may present a small limitation in the data.

In terms of theoretical limitations, the range of the questions on the survey was based on the enforced rules in Iceland, which means it cannot assess all environmental impact from the cruise ship beyond the regulatory system. A case study will not able to reflect on the extensiveness of compliance across the world cruise industries. However, a case study can emphasize the problem of a single case or place, and the value of this could outweigh the costs of generalized information (Stake, 2005). In terms of validity of data, it is difficult to prevent or identify a forgery or fraud of responses from interviewee even with considering measures. Despite well-designed interview questions in this research, a record book can still be intentionally made with fraudulent information, and evidence can be hidden purposely.

Finally, interviews are a complex social and interact method, so the data could vary from the personal perspective of participants and their relationship with the interviewer (Bernard, 2006). I was in a unique position to conduct this research because as noted above, I am an experienced ocean-going ship’s captain and spent 14 years working onboard as licensed seafarer. Therefore, I am aware of the regulations and intricacies of

27 ship operations. However, I was boarding the vessels from the site of the port authority, and thus was not able to form a relationship of trust with the interview subjects. At the same time, they were informed that I was a student and this was my own research associated with the port authority, so it could also have been less serious for them to present potentially non-compliant behaviour.

28 4 Results

I completed 40 cruise ship interviews which accounted for 87% of the total 46 different ships that visited the port of Ísafjörður from May to September 2019. None of the interview requests were rejected; the six ships not included in the interviews was due to schedule conflicts. Thirty-seven cruise ship officers granted our request in the first place through the three methods aforementioned; three cruise ships asked for postponing the interviews to the next ship call. Postponed and scheduled interviews might influence the trustworthiness of data, appropriate interview style and questions were carefully designed to meet the variance accordingly.

Although there were 46 different ships, there is a wide range of the number of times a single ship calls to the same port. In the 2019 season in Ísafjörður, some ships visited one time, and others visited up to 10-15 times. The 40 interviews conducted represent ships accounting for 115 out of the total 126 calls, or 90% of the total calls in the port of Ísafjörður (Ísafjörður Harbormaster logbook). To protect the privacy of the cruise companies, the results in this survey will not report the details of individual ships such as how often they call to Ísafjörður. Therefore, it can be said that I succeeded in collecting individual 40 records that give a snapshot of the cruise ships calling to Ísafjörður. However, there was one record of ballast water that I was not able to note down since the interviewee rejected to provide further information.

4.1 General characteristics of cruise ships

Figure 6 and Figure 7 (Marine Traffic, 2019) illustrate the distribution detail of ship’s age (year of built) and ship’s size (gross tonnage). The newest ship was two years old (built in 2017), and the oldest ship was 71 years (1948). About 90% of the ships are over ten years old. Furthermore, over half of the data (57.5%) were from ships older than 20 years (built in the 1990s – 1940s). We used the unit of gross tonnage (GT) to represent the size of cruise ships because GT is an official measurement for the regulations of MARPOL and the Icelandic Act. The smallest ship was 674 GT, and the biggest one was 139,072 GT. Almost half of GT of ships (42.5%) ranged from 10 thousand to 50 thousand. Therefore, all ships fall under the same standard of the Icelandic Act and MARPOL for the ship over 400 GT.

29 Distribution of year built of cruise ships 14

0 1940s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

Figure 6 Distribution of year built of cruise ships (Own compilation adapted from the Website of Marine Traffic Vessel databases, www.marinetraffic.com)

Distribution of gross tonnage of cruise ships 18 k = 1000 GT 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1k 1k - 10k 10k - 50k 50k - 100k 100k up

Figure 7 Distribution of gross tonnage of cruise ships (Own compilation adapted from the Website of Marine Traffic Vessel databases, www.marinetraffic.com)

4.2 Waste discharged to the shore facility

The first research question was to determine how much and what waste is discharged to the shore facility in Ísafjörður. Surprisingly, only two out of 40 cruise ships that I had interviewed had arranged the disposal of ship-generated waste in the port of Ísafjörður.

30 The two arrangements brought 5 and 40 cubic meters (m3) of waste to the shore respectively, and the type of the total 45 m3 waste is garbage. According to both ships‘ garbage record books, the waste from the ship that contributed 5 m3 of garbage consisted of 1 m3 of food waste, 2 m3 of plastic, and 2 m3 of paper. On the other hand, the ship with 40 m3 of garbage could not provide the amount for each garbage type. The only information I recorded was that it contained about 10 kgs of used batteries. Figure 8 demonstrates how garbage is discharged and stored on the pier. With the two cases, all garbage was well-packed and compressed, then the ship‘s crew hand-loads it to the cart owned by the company called Terra umhverfisþjónusta (known as before Gámaþjónustan).

Many cruise ships chose the port of Akureyri and Reykjavík to arrange the waste disposal instead of Ísafjörður. One of the common reasons for this as discussed in the interviews is that Ísafjörður has shorter turnaround time in the harbor. The ships have longer turnaround time in the port of Reykjavík or Akureyri, thus crew members have sufficient working time to sort and discharge the garbage and other waste to the shore (Huijbens & Gunnarsson, 2014). Furthermore, some side doors of the ships (for example, Figure 8) can only open in limited period time due to the tide condition in the port. Turnaround time becomes essential factor for many ship‘s officers to decide upon the arrangement of waste disposal.

Figure 8 Garbage disposal from a cruise ship (photo credit: the author)

4.3 Rule compliance and practices

4.3.1 Emission/ Air pollution

For ease of access, the emission regulations are:

At port/ anchor: Use shoreside electricity, use fuel sulphur content below 0.1%, or allow to use above 0.1% when an approved abatement method is implemented.

Territorial water: Use fuel sulphur content below 2.0%, and 1.5% for passenger ship on regular service to EU ports.

(Reg. 124/ 2015 Art. 3, 4& 11)

The regular service to EU ports could be ambiguous for some cruise ships that have a flexible passage plan. Therefore, I used the fundamental limitation for sulphur content of 2.0% for all ships to avoid inaccurate results. The restriction of 1.5% for passenger ships on regular service to EU ports is excluded in the assessment.

32 I found that two out of 40 ships violated Regulation 124/ 2015 Art. 4, using above 2% sulphur content fuel in the territorial water. The two ships used sulphur content with 2.38% and 2.16% respectively without employing the abatement method (for example, advanced air quality systems). Moreover, I found that one out of 40 ships was not able to provide the proper evidence to prove the fuel was switched to the low-sulphur oil (from below 2.0% to 0.1%) in the harbour. The interviewee was familiar with the air control protocol. However, the record was blank on the engine logbook, which is potential but not complete evidence to prove that fuel had not been switched in the port. They claimed that they forget to record it on time, but the failure of recording on time could count as a deficiency from an international perspective. It is against the Regulation 17 Art. 6 in MARPOL Annex I, “The oil record book Part I shall be kept in such a place as to be readily available for inspection at all reasonable times…”. (IMO, 2017)

In this research, none of the vessels had used alternative fuel other than marine fuel oil. Besides the two violation cases in the territorial water, 35 ships were using fuel lower than 2.0%, and the rest of three ships were employed the abatement technique method to allow them to burn high-sulphur fuel (see Figure 9 for a summary). To meet the more stringent emission limitation (0.1%) in the harbour, 19 out of 40 ships needed to exchange and switch to lower sulphur content fuel oil when berthed or anchored in the port area. I recorded the time of conducting oil exchange and the time of completed change over from the engine logbook according to the questions. I noticed that five ships changed fuel after berthed, 13 ships had changed the oil before entering the harbour, and one ship showed the empty record on the engine logbook. These 19 ships carried both low-sulphur and high-sulphur fuel oil on board to follow the two-stage of limitation. 18 out of 40 ships used only one low-sulphur fuel below 0.1% for both circumstances, and the rest of the three ships employed the abatement technique method just like how they did in the territorial water (see Figure 10 for a summary).

33 Sulphur content ablove 2%, Abatement 2 ships (5%) technique method, 3 ships (7.5%)

Sulphur content below 2% , 35 ships (87.5%)

Figure 9 Compliance behaviour of fuel using in the territorial water of Iceland. The colour red represents violation of the rules, and blue and green represent the adherence to the rules with different behaviours.

34 No change over record found , 1 ship (2.5%) Abatement technique method, 3 ships (7.5%) Switch after berthed, 5 ships(12.5%)

Switch lower-sulphur fuel, 18 ships (45%) Sulphur content below Switch berfore 0.1% , 18 ships (45%) berthed, 13 ships (32.5%)

Figure 10 Compliance behaviour of fuel using in the port area of Iceland. The colour red represents violation of the rules, and blue and green represent the adherence to the rules with different behaviours

Seven out of 40 ships have the shore power system onboard, and four ships were capable of providing the details of the system. The maximum watt required for the system of each ship is 5MW (megawatt), 6MW, 7MW, and 9 MW respectively. Even the port of Ísafjörður does not have the corresponding system to provide shore power to the cruise ships so far, but this information can be valuable reference for further study and future development.

I noted two similar and related feedbacks with this topic:

• To switch the shore power onboard includes various risks for the ship, such as accidental blackouts or unstable power supply. If the ships are damaged due to issues of the shore power, it will be controversial for the port. • It is complicated and risky for a cruise ship to switch the shore power frequently. Therefore, even if a port provides the shore power system, they still prefer to use fuel oil to reduce the error and risk onboard.

35 4.3.2 Oil

For ease of access, the emission regulations are:

At port/ anchor: Discharge oil is prohibited.

Territorial water: Discharge oil is allowed when the distance is outside 3NM from coastal line, or to discharge treated oil (oil content below 15 ppm) without distance limitation.

(Act 33/ 2004 Art. 8 & 3[15])

All ships were fully compliant with higher standards under Act 33/ 2004 Art. 8. According to the data, 12 out of 40 ships policies chose to discharge the waste oil to the shore facilities, and other 28 ships chose to discharge the treated waste oil (below 15 ppm) overboard (Figure 11).

discharge to the shore facilities , 12 ships (30%)

Discharge into sea when oil content below 15ppm, 28 ships (70%)

Figure 11 Compliance behaviour of oil discharge. The colour red represents violation of the rules, and blue and green represent the adherence to the rules with different behaviours

We know that waste oil can be generated and resulted from oil purification, lubrication, oil filtering machinery and equipment (Marine Environment Protection Committee, 2008). According to comments from a few participants, clearer fuel oil can lessen the

36 production of oily waste. Consequently, fewer oily waste needs to be handled by the ship’s crewmembers.

I noted two similar and related feedback items with this topic:

• Many companies assigned the ship with the particular ports to deliver the oily waste ashore, due to considering the difference of service fee. • Few ports would not charge but pay for the delivery of the oily waste and waste oil from the ship. And the waste oil is recycled and reused to minimize the disposal to the sea from ships.

4.3.3 Wastewater (skolp)

For ease of access, the wastewater (skolp) regulations are:

At port/ anchor: Discharge wastewater (skolp) is prohibited

Territorial water (12NM): Discharge wastewater (skolp) is allowed when the distance is outside 12NM from coastal line, or to discharge treated wastewater (skolp) outside 3NM.

(Act 33/ 2004 Art. 8)

I found that six out of 40 ships violated the Act 33/ 2004 Art. 8. Based on the responses, all interviewees were not very familiar with the definition and regulations of wastewater (Skolp). I used the international term to overcome this issue, therefore, the results separated and represented in two sections: black water (sewage) and grey water.

Black water

One ship could not provide any black water (grey water too) activities record and failed to explain the Icelandic or international regulations. The chief engineer claimed the treatment plant onboard allows the ship discharge wastewater anytime at any circumstances. As far as my research and understanding, no treatment plants have the exception of discharge restriction under Act 33/ 2004 and MARPOL Annex IV. This unqualified response and knowledge was recorded from a vital and high rank position on a cruise ship, and the ship carries numerous passengers travelling around the world.

37 The other 39 ships complied with the regulations with differential policies. 28 out of 40 ships chose discharge treated black water outside the territorial water, and other 6 and 2 ships chose discharge treated black water outside 4NM and 3NM respectively. 3 out of 40 ships chose discharge raw (untreated) black water outside the territorial water (see Figure 12 for a summary).

Treated, Discharge anytime, 1 ship (2.5%) Treated, 3NM, Raw, 2 ships (5.0%) 12NM, 3 ships (7.5%)

Treated, 4NM, 6 ships (15.0%)

Treated, 12NM, 28 ships (70.0%)

Figure 12 Compliance behaviour of black water discharge. The colour red represents violation of the rules, and blue and green represent the adherence to the rules with different behaviours

Grey water

Figure 13 presents the results of the compliance behaviour of grey water. A significant number of violations were found. Six out of 40 ships violated the Icelandic rules that discharged untreated wastewater (skolp) within 12 NM from the coastal line. 18 out of 40 ships chose to treat the grey water before discharge into the sea outside the 3NM. 14 out of 40 ships chose to discharge untreated grey water outside the territorial water. I recorded the estimate generation rate of grey water from each ship. Based on the data they provided, the total amount of grey water discharged illegally into the water of

38 Iceland by ships docking in Ísafjörður in the summer of 2019 is estimated at approximate 625 M3 per day.

Treated, Raw, 3NM, Discharge 2 ships anytime, 1 ship (5.0%) (2.5%) Raw, 4NM, 3 ships (7.5%)

Treated, 12NM, 8 ships (20.0%)

Treated, 4NM, 8 ships Raw, 12NM, 17 ships (20%) (42.5%)

Treated, 3NM, 1 ship (2.5%)

Figure 13 Compliance behaviour of grey water discharge. The colour red represents violation of the rules, and blue and green represent the adherence to the rules with different behaviours

Comparing with the two sections; I noticed that 22 ships discharge raw grey water, in contrast, only three ships discharge raw black water. Furthermore, the violation numbers of grey water discharge are six times higher than black water discharge. It must be noted that all participants were not familiar with the regulations and definition of wastewater(skolp).

4.3.4 Garbage and food waste

For ease of access, the garbage regulations are:

At port/ anchor: Discharge garbage is prohibited

39 Territorial water (12NM): Disposal of persistent synthetic substances into the sea is forbidden. Other garbage may not allow dumping within 12 NM from baseline, and disposal of comminuted food waste outside the 3NM from baseline is permitted.

(Act 33/ 2004 Art. 3[22])

All ships were complying to the rules with higher standards under Act 33/ 2004 Art. 8. I found that all ships prohibit the disposal of any garbage other than food waste into the sea. This finding appears to match the higher standard rules of MARPOL, which prohibits the discharge any garbage (except cleaning agent, cargo residues and additives and animal carcasses). On the result of food waste policies, three out of 40 ships chose to discharge food waste to the shore facilities to be the only means, and other 37 ships chose to discharge comminuted food waste into the sea outside 3NM or deliver to the shore facilities if necessary (Figure 14).

Discharge to the shore facilities , 3 ships (7.5%)

Discharge comminuted food waste into the sea outside 3NM, 37 ships (92.5%)

Figure 14 Compliance behaviour of food waste discharge. The colour red represents violation of the rules, and blue and green represent the adherence to the rules with different behaviours

40 4.3.5 Ballast water

For ease of access, the ballast water regulations are:

At port/ anchor: Discharge untreated ballast water is prohibited, unless it has managed or treated by D1 (ballast water exchange) or D2 (treatment) methods. Discharge untreated ballast water is allowed only after an exemption is obtained from Icelandic Coast Guard.

Territorial water (12NM): Same condition as ship in the port or at anchor

(Reg. 515/2010 Art. 3, 4 & 7)

I found that two out of 40 ships violated Regulation 515/ 2010 Art. 6 &7. A total of only three out of 40 ships planned and arranged to discharge ballast water in Iceland. One ship had received the permit from Icelandic Coast Guard and recorded on the ballast water record book. The other two ships violated the regulation of discharging untreated ballast water in the pollution jurisdiction of Iceland. With the 2 cases, I succeeded to record one ship’s (case A) time and GPS coordinates of ballast water intake and discharge. However, I only recorded the information of ballast water discharge from the other ship (case B).

According to the information from the ship record book, the ship (case A) pumped in 126 M3 on the location shows on Figure 15 (GPS: 56-43.5N, 000-17.6E). The place located 80.3 NM from the nearest land (Aberdeen, UK) in the North Sea. Then, the ship sailed to Iceland and pumped out this 126 M3 untreated blast water on the location shows on Figure 16 (GPS: 66-25.1N, 020-05.1W). The place located 17.7 NM from the nearest land (Hraunsvík). With the other non-compliance case (case B), I could only record the GPS position of ballast water discharge in Iceland because the interviewee rejected to provide the record book further after he checked the position on the Electronic Chart. There is no evidence (a record) to show that the water was treated or exchanged before discharge. 87 M3 untreated ballast water was pumped out at the location shows on Figure 17 (GPS: 66-31.6N, 021-34.1W). The place located 18.6 NM from the nearest land (Hornstrandir Nature Reserve).

41 Both ships neither used exchange methods to treat ballast water nor requested permission from the Coast Guard before the discharge. This suggests that the two ships were not familiar international and Icelandic regulations, because both rules hold almost the same standard. Assessing this adverse environmental impact is beyond the scope of this study, but a total of 213 m3 unclean ballast water dumped in the pollution jurisdiction of Iceland is affirmed from these two case points in time.

Figure 15 Case A: The location of the intake ballast water. The place located 80.3 NM from the nearest land (Aberdeen, UK) in the North Sea (tool and map source: Sea- Seek.com)

Figure 16 Case A: The location of the discharge of ballast water. The place located 17.7 NM from the nearest land (Hraunsvík) (tool and map source: Sea-Seek.com)

Figure 17 Case B: The location of the discharge of ballast water. The place located 18.6 NM from the nearest land (Hornstrandir Nature Reserve). (tool and map source: Sea- Seek.com)

43 4.4 Feedback from interviewees

Open-ended questions allow the informants to detail and expand on the information freely. It also allows the researcher to ask probing questions to delve into the qualitative data (Turner III, 2010). Therefore, during the interviews there was often spontaneous feedback and more in-depth responses. During the interviews, I didn’t show any sign to informants of their non-compliance behaviours but kept going on next questions. Without knowing the Icelandic law, many ship’s officers complained that there are difficulties in obtaining the Icelandic shipping regulations from the local agents or local websites. Some ship’s officers explained further that they had tried to email to local agents to request the Icelandic environmental requirements, but they received incomplete and ambiguous information instead. According to the articles of minimum standards for shipping agents (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 1988), an agent should be observe all national laws and other regulations relevant to the duties he/she undertakes (Art. 5 (iii)), and should be responsible for providing local knowledge and requirements relating to the port (FONASBA, 2020; Gára, 2020).

Nevertheless, from the notes of complaints, local agents seemed to fail with this task. Some participants also mentioned they had no idea where to find the information from the internet. This substantial feedback points out issues that this study had not been concerned with in the first place: namely the information flow from Icelandic authorities to the cruise captains. Furthermore, this information somewhat fills the gap and links one of the possible explanations of compliance and non-compliance behaviour.

4.5 Results Summary

A total of 45 M3 of garbage was arranged and discharged by two ships to the local waste management company, Terra umhverfisþjónusta. The data represents 87% of the cruise ships calling to Ísafjörður in the year 2019. Therefore, the concern of waste disposal from cruise ships appears not an urgent issue to the local environment in Ísafjörður at the current moment. However, this finding should be followed up with systematic long- term data collection in Ísafjörður and other ports around Iceland to determine the behaviour and trend of waste disposal from cruise ships.

44 Twelve violation activities were found by eight different ships. Put another way, eight out of 40 ships violated Iceland’s environmental law. There is no clear and specific trend in connection with violations and the ship’s age. Although newer ships are built with higher environmental standards, older ships need to be retrofitted to meet with higher environmental standards to operate as well. Therefore, the age of cruise ships should not be a main factor to influence the result of compliance and violation. There is no specific trend in connection with violations and the ship’s size due to the insufficient numbers of cruise ship involved to determine the relation in this thesis.

One ship violated three different items in this study, and their highest rank of engineer seemed unfamiliar with neither international nor Icelandic law. To evaluate the situation of this one ship is beyond the scope of this exploratory study, but taken as a whole case study, the research can still link the valuable findings and data to deduce the possible reasons of violations.

Figure 18 shows the number of violations in each category. The categories of oil and garbage and food waste were fully compliant. The grey water category accounts for six cases which contributed half of the violations. According to the interviews, it appears that few ships were able to distinguish the definition of wastewater (skolp) in Iceland. This unexpected finding exposes the gap of publicity or accessibility between Icelandic law to foreign ships.

0 Emission / Air Oil Wastewater Wastewater Garbage and Ballast water pollution (skolp) - Black (skolp) - Grey food waste water water

Figure 18 Number of violations in each category

45 In contrast, the results of this compliance study found that many cruise operators have taken the initiative to implement stricter environmental policies onboard. Up to this point, these results are consistent with those of a similar study with shipping companies (Lai, Lun, Wong, & Cheng, 2011). For example, many ships chose to dump treated black water far away from the standard distance (3 NM). To deliver waste oil to shore facilities only is also another piece of evidence to demonstrate the higher standard compared with international or Icelandic law.

46 5 Discussion

Although using interviews to assess ship’s compliance might be not convincing in some perspectives, the results of this study offer the best information available at this time and reveal some unexpected issues in Icelandic cruise ship management. The findings are valuable for better understanding the compliance behaviour of cruise ships and also provide a glimpse of quantities and types of waste discharged to the shore in Ísafjörður. This chapter focuses on interpreting the possible explanations of non-compliance based on the recorded violation cases and suggests feasible solutions to increase compliant behaviour. Other unknown violations cases may have occurred that this study simply was not able to capture, and therefore exploring and understanding non-compliance as the deliberate choice of ship’s officers to break regulations and/or deceive the researcher is beyond the scope of this study. Three issues of accessibility, inconsistency, and monitoring are highlighted, and for each, a feasible solution is discussed based on the findings and the difficulties confronted during the research. Although the data in this study were collected in one port in Iceland, the issues are universal and worthy of learning lessons. Therefore, these suggestions could likely be referred to as the compliances and problems from other states and regions. Finally, the discussion expands the scope to discuss the inadequateness of the legislative system and give three incentives-based strategies to demonstrate mitigation of the impact of non-compliance without imposing regulations.

5.1 Reasons for non-compliance

5.1.1 Accessibility and publicity of law

“The coastal State shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations” (Art. 21.3 UNCLOS).

The results of this study unexpectedly reveal that many participants had difficulties in obtaining and understanding the Icelandic Act correctly. According to the feedback from many participants, ship’s officers were not able to get sufficient information from neither the internet nor local agents. It was beyond this study to substantiate their

47 statements, but this statement is linked with the results and supported with the trustworthiness of the feedback.

One of the most challenging tasks in this research was verifying the Icelandic Act. The latest related Acts and regulations in the English version are not available online, and the rules are only available in Icelandic on the website of Icelandic Parliament. The author undertook the translation task by referring to Google translate (https://translate.google.com) and consulting with Icelanders. Furthermore, to confirm the correctness of translated articles, I emailed the Environment Agency of Iceland, Icelandic Transport Authority, and local ship agent (Eimskip) to confirm my understanding of law. I spent more than two months to verify the rules for this research, and I have both the knowledge of the general IMO regulations that all ships captains, and also access to academic and local Icelandic resources, which is more than could be expected of the cruise ship industry.

To further link the relationship between accessibility and compliant behaviour, I assessed the compliance of 40 ships with international regulations thoroughly. Figure 19 shows that only three violations were against the international rules, whereas 12 violations of Icelandic law were found. The rules of emissions and grey water are fully compliant, whereas nine violations were found under Icelandic standard. One of the reasons could associate with the less restrictive limitation on MARPOL in emission and grey water (see Chapter 2.3.2). On this premise, it could be assumed that the other 9 cases did not intend to break the law because they comply with the international standard. This information affirms the strong relationship between the interviewee feedback about accessibility and the 12 cases of non-compliance patterns.

48 7

0 Emission / Air Oil Wastewater Wastewater Garbage and Ballast water pollution (skolp) - Black (skolp) - Grey food waste water water

Violation of Icelandic law Violation of International law

Figure 19 Comparison of number of violations in national and international law

Another evidence indicates that all interviewees were not capable of explaining the rules of wastewater (skolp), so this led the highest violation cases amount the category. When foreigners have an obligation to comply with national or regional regulations, the State should be considered the accessibility and publicity of law to the subjects. Art. 21.3 of UNCLOS also addresses the importance of publicity. It would have been better if the official organization provide a comprehensive guideline (or other convenient forms) to all related sectors, include shipping companies, local shipping agent companies, and the port authorities. It is also considered the education and training programs for onshore operators to improve related knowledge (Herz & Davis, 2002). Finally, the information should be accessible to every citizen and everyone involved with these foreign industries and make the law be observed.

5.1.2 Inconsistency

During the research, the inconsistent and ambiguous information from the government sectors was highlighted. Three violation cases show the issues between the Icelandic Act and the official websites and publication. With this situation, the responsible sectors seem to have problems in promoting consensus legislative knowledge in Iceland. This is similar to a report on cruise ships in Iceland from 2014, stating that “…the option of the National Audit Office on Iceland’s attitude towards [international environmental protection agreements] is striking and unequivocal: The division of responsibilities

49 between the Ministry of the Environmental and the Environmental Agency is unclear and communication and information flow between them is insufficient” (author’s own translation, Huijbens & Gunnarsson, 2014).

A guideline called “Guidelines for masters of cruise and passenger ships arriving in Iceland” (Environmental Agency of Iceland, Icelandic Coast Guard, & Icelandic Transport Authority, 2019) was published on the website of Icelandic Coast Guard. It released in 2019 during the interviews for this research. However, non-compliant cases had been found still even interviewees claimed that they followed this guideline. I quickly noticed that the content of the guideline was not consistent with its regulations of marine fuel limitation and wastewater (skolp).

According to the regulation 124/ 2015, the sulphur content of marine fuels used on vessels in Iceland and within the pollution jurisdiction of Iceland shall be a maximum of 2.0% (m/m). However, the information from the guideline on page 10 indicated 3.5% as the limitation (Figure 20). Although most of the cruise ships were using lesser sulphur content fuel in this study, the point is the problem of inconsistent information.

Figure 20 Screenshot from the content of marine fuels in the guideline. It appears the inconsistent limitation from Reg. 124/ 2015 (Environmental Agency of Iceland et al., 2019)

The Environmental Agency of Iceland, the sector is responsible for supervising the implementation, also found the same inconsistent information on the official website (Environmental Agency of Iceland, 2020)(Figure 21). Although it could be that the information on the website may not updated with the most recent information, it should be noted that this is the most natural path for foreigners to get related information.

Figure 21 Screenshot from the website of Environmental Agency of Iceland. (https://www.ust.is/english/chemicals/fuel/sulphur-in-marine-fuels/) Accessed 01 Feb 2020.

The guideline also contains misleading information related to wastewater (skolp); it might misguide the masters of cruise ships and the waste policies onboard. As was addressed the definition differences in Chapter 2.3.1, the definition of wastewater (skolp) means in terms of the definitions of black water (sewage) and grey water from MARPOL. The knowledge of MARPOL is included as basic training for ship’s officers (Rojas, 2002). Therefore, the description in Figure 22 implies that the problem of translation can lead masters to consider the limitation of sewage but not include grey water. This might be one of the reasonable explanations that half of the number of non- compliance were caused by violated the rules of grey water in this study.

Figure 22 Screenshot from the sewage regulations in the guideline (page 9). (Environmental Agency of Iceland et al., 2019)

51 The purpose of this guideline is to assist that masters of cruise ships understand and comply with Icelandic law and regulations. However, the inconsistent and misleading information did not achieve the intention, instead it can lead ships to violate the rules in Iceland. Moreover, the guidelines, carrying false information, might spread incorrect standards into the global shipping industries.

Regarding the finding and results, this inconsistency issue appears to highlight:

l inconsistencies with international maritime legislation; l lack of legislative and maritime knowledge

Therefore, I suggest that the authorities should:

l recognize and avoid the unnecessary differential definitions between international maritime regulations (Schulkin, 2002; Togan, 2016), such as wastewater(skolp); l educate the related government sectors; and l design a specific sector to publish the rules in order to keep and monitor the consensus information.

In addition, the government should amend the less restrictive rules to higher or consistent with international or neighbouring States standards (Svaetichin & Inkinen, 2017). This can help to avoid the situation of “favourable dump sites” (Schulkin, 2002) from foreign ships. The consequence may devastate the environment with increased shipping activities in the near future. Table 9 reemphasizes the less strict shipping rules in Iceland in comparison with MARPOL.

52 Table 9 The strictness of shipping rules in Iceland in comparison with MARPOL

Use/ discharge within territorial water Category Iceland IMO/ MARPOL 1. Outside 3 NM 1. Discharge prohibited 2. No particular distance Oil 2. No particular distance limitation limitation when the effluent is when the effluent is below 15ppm below 15ppm 1. Discharge any garbage is prohibited, except cleaning 1. Non persistent material may agent, cargo residues and discharge outside 12 NM Garbage additives and animal carcasses

Refer from Table 7 * bold font = stricter standards

5.1.3 Monitoring

Without this exploratory study, we might be not able to perceive and problems of the non-compliance. The violations could increase by the likely rise of many cruise ships in the future. The environment, of course, would enlarge the adverse impact in Iceland. Monitoring compliance is a crucial element to ensure law enforcement because studies showed that the places with regular monitoring has higher compliance behaviour (Cohen, 1998; Lähteenmäki-Uutela, Yliskylä-Peuralahti, Repka, & Mellqvist, 2019). Therefore, besides accessibility and consistency, the final suggestion I recommend is to establish an effective and efficient monitoring system.

There are many ways to monitor the compliance; one of the effective monitoring approaches is to conduct the inspection (Vickers et al., 2003). The Port State Control (PSC) inspection is designed to undertake the periodic inspection to ensure compliance (IMO, 2020). In Iceland, Icelandic Transport Authority is responsible for the PSC inspection to all foreign ships (Act 47/ 2003 Lög um eftirlit með skipum Art. 11). In 2018, a total seven cruise ship inspections ( includes passenger ships and Ro-Ro passenger ship) were conducted in Iceland, when all cruise ships contributed 762 calls (Cruise Iceland, 2020; Paris MoU, 2020a). Surprisingly, only four cruise ship inspections were conducted in 2019 in Iceland. It is beyond this thesis to assess the

53 system of PSC inspections. Thus, below I address the benefits and suggest the tools to point out the importance of compliance and inspection.

Carrying out an inspection, just like an interview with direct questions, is not only to find the deficiencies, but also could obtain valuable insight, such as incentives of violations, potential violators (Gavin, Solomon, & Blank, 2010), and unexpected feedbacks. Another monitoring tool, such as satellite pictures and air quality sensors, could also contribute to the detection of the violations and save the workforce for each inspection. However, some activities like the discharge of unclean ballast water, untreated grey water, and combustion air are difficult to collect the evidence and prove the violations. Furthermore, the area of jurisdiction of Iceland is massive, thus, to understand the root cause of non-compliance and incentive of compliance will be the most effective key solution to the problems (Lähteenmäki-Uutela et al., 2019). For example, to understand the causes of inaccessibility and inconsistency of Icelandic law could improve to the current situations.

Iceland is the member State of the Memoranda of Understanding Paris (Paris MoU), an organisation that aims to eliminate the operation of sub-standard ships through a harmonized system of port state control (Paris MoU, 2020b). Using the inspections database and blacklists providing from Paris MoU can assist in identifying the high-risk ships. The database highlights the performance of shipping companies, and the details of detention and deficiency in each case. The list, distinguished by white, grey and black codes, ranks the performance of inspection by each ship’s flag. Therefore, to utilise the information from Paris MoU can be very helpful and efficient to target the objects (Tsou, 2019). Furthermore, organising consistent standards and developing a systematic framework of inspections can control the quality and avoid the unnecessary manpower as well.

Although some studies question the imperfection of inspections, such as falsified records (Rakestraw, 2012), and unqualified treatment equipment (Klein & Roberts, 2003), I still recommend the onboard inspections. This might be not the best way to monitor compliance, but it is a critical approach to reveal the problems according to my experience. It also raises the awareness of rules and compliance for foreign ships.

54 Further study is needed to design and develop the proper monitor and inspection system for Iceland.

5.2 Limitations and inadequateness of the legislative system

5.2.1 Inadequateness of a comprehensive policy

Through this study, the practices and regulatory compliance on cruise ships in the port of Ísafjörður were analysed. However, we must bear in mind that those regulated pollutants do not include all adverse impacts from cruise ships. There are much more harmful impacts that have been recognised and discovered, but it is not drawing the attention of international and Icelandic policymakers and local citizens yet. The impact of grey water and super low sulphur fuel were newly discussed and proved that harm the lives and environment severely (Messner, 2020; Vard Marine Inc., 2018). Take super low sulphur fuel as an example to glimpse the problem in the international legislative system. From 1st January 2020, the fuel of sulphur content shall not exceed 0.5% (mass/mass) for all ship entering pollution jurisdiction of Iceland and outside the designated emission control areas (Reg. 124/2015 Art. 4 & 11, MARPOL Annex VI 14.1.3). Is this a huge step to reduce the impact of air pollution? Unfortunately, the latest report of IMO’s sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR 7/8) revealed that new blends of marine fuels with 0.5% sulphur content contains a much higher percentage of aromatic compounds in comparison with the heavy fuel (IMO, 2019c). The increased compound will lead to a massive increase of black carbon emissions by up to 85%, and black carbon is one of the main source cause local and global warming (Messner, 2020). Some environmental organizations have submitted and urged IMO to implement the new policies to address the black carbon issue in the Arctic region (Humpert, 2020). The connection with global warming and black carbon is discovered for some time (Bond et al., 2013), but the leading international organization just left another problem to the Arctic region by reducing sulphur in general.

Developing a norm needs a long progress of negotiation and compromise, then to be given an acceptable buffer period of time to put into force. Like I mentioned in the first

55 chapter, invasive species had already introduced over 80% of marine ecoregions in the ocean before the BWM Convention finally came into force. It resulted in massive economic loss and ecological catastrophe in many areas in the world. Setting a standard is never an easy task; new regulations even may deviate the initial intention or accidentally create another issue. Therefore, we cannot only concern with the impact that we perceive it by our sense or focus on the trends. Policymakers should take environment and human as a whole to consider the environmental legislation comprehensively and promptly.

5.2.2 Limited boundary

The purpose of Act 33/ 2004 aims to protect the marine environment and prevent pollution to the targeted subjects within the jurisdiction of Iceland. However, a sea connects to other seas, and water is mixed by the current system, wind, and many effects. The sea is globally connected, hence, a limited scope and jurisdiction of national prevention law for the marine environment will lead to those nations becoming the ship’s favoured dump sites. With differential standards between coastal nations, it will eventually contaminate the global marine environment. The marine environment needs an international and consensus solution to expand or break the boundary (Cullinane & Cullinane, 2013; Schulkin, 2002).

5.2.3 Other potential pollutants

I noticed that three unregulated potential pollutants were generated by operation of cruise ships. They are 1) air pollution from combustion of tenders, 2) unclean fresh water from deck wash work, and 3) toxic ship’s hull painting from hull maintaining work. There is no specific restriction to these three potential pollutants in Iceland so far, but in my point of view, there is a need to understand degree of impact to local environment system and sensitive marine life.

Due to the limitation of capacity of the Ísafjörður harbour, some cruise ships will not capable to berth and instead drop anchors at an assigned position (Figure 3). According to the Harbourmaster logbook, 26 calls were arranged to anchor in year 2019 in the port of Ísafjörður. In this situation, cruise ships use small tender boats to transfer passengers and crew members to the shore. Tenders can carry up to one hundred and fifty people,

56 and the service can be very intense. Two to four tenders undertake the service at the same time to ensure the convenience to their guests. Needless to say, it causes busy traffic sometimes when two cruise ships are anchored outside the harbour and need to tender. The marine fuel of tender boats is not regulated in Act 33/ 2004, and frequent tender service could influence the air quality in the harbour. Furthermore, washing and painting the ship’s hull are very common maintenance work that many cruise ships undertake in the harbour (Figure 23). However, the wastewater and dropped paint just goes to the harbour directly, the ship’s hull could be covered in ashes from the ship’s funnel, and oil-based ship’s paint is more toxic than household paint. Further research is needed to evaluate the necessity of improving regulations.

Figure 23 Painting working was carrying out by two crew hands from a cruise ship.

5.3 Beyond restriction - Incentive

As we know, the motivation for compliance is complex and dynamic. Nevertheless, both empirical evidence and studies indicate that cost-saving is one of the main drivers to influence ship’s environmental policies (Bloor et al., 2013; Sampson, Walters,

57 James, & Wadsworth, 2014). Thus, creating economic incentives can be an alternative strategy and policy to encourage ships to go beyond the regulatory requirements. An effective incentive may contribute to the environment and mitigate the regional specific impact.

Besides law enforcement, I give three examples around the world by creating incentives-based strategies from governments and private organisations. First, the port of Helsinki, Finland, provided special reductions on cruise ship waste fee if they are discharging wastewater at the port. This policy encourages the disposal of wastewater in ports instead into the sea, and it also helped to remove incentives for illegal discharge (Svaetichin & Inkinen, 2017). Second, in the port of New Orleans, USA, to recycle cooking oil from cruise ships is free to charge, and the oil will be reproduced to the biofuel (New Orleans Grease Trap Cleaning, 2020). The benefit is that the waste from cruise ship will become recyclable and reusable resources when the shore services are available. These two cases demonstrate how economic incentives could create more sustainable work without imposing a law. Although it needs a comprehensive assessment to evaluate the worthiness under each condition of the port, a suitable incentive can be an efficient and effective instrument.

Finally, Friends of the Earth, a worldwide environmental organization, ranked the most environmentally friendly cruise companies every year. The evaluation of the cruise ship report card includes five main factors, sewage treatment, air pollution, water quality, transparency, and criminal violations. Cruise ship record card has assessed over 185 cruise ships last year and published the full report on the website (Friends of the Earth, 2020). Through the ranking list, it not only provides the information for cruise travelers, but also stimulate the shipping companies to develop stricter environmental policies onboard.

58 6 Conclusion

This exploratory case study provided substantial and practical information related to compliance to environmental standards through interviewing and interacting with cruise ship’s officers and answered two major research aims. First, results show that ship- generated waste is not a main issue currently in the port of Ísafjörður. Furthermore, many cruise ships were willing to abide by the law and even taken the initiative to implement stricter policies onboard. Second, assessing the compliance of the ships in following Icelandic law revealed 12 distinct violations related to fuel, wastewater, and ballast water regulations. An unexpected finding based on both feedback from the ship’s and the author’s exploration of Icelandic and international law suggests that issues related to accessibility, consistency, and monitoring could have led to non-compliance. Therefore, I recommend practical suggestions and feasible management to minimize the violations (both intentionally and accidentally) in the future in Iceland.

Based on my results and findings, I conclude that the government of Iceland can:

• update consistent definition with international terms to decrease the misunderstanding, • amend consistent or stricter regulations in comparison with international norms to strengthen current requirements, • promote and promulgate consistent information and guidelines from a designed authority, • educate related government sectors and businesses, • implement an effective monitoring system, • organise the systematic research and data collection to fully understand the impact in all aspects, and assess each negative externality, • create and assess appropriate incentives-based policies such as alternative approaches, • share research results and cooperate with neighbouring States to develop consensus regulations, and,

No doubt increased cruise business fuels the national and local economy. Still, it brings negative impacts at the same time. How to manage and mitigate the issues and retain the

59 benefit will be a challenge to the policymakers and local communities. Many of the suggestions above are rather easy to implement immediately; some might need a long- term effort to see the difference. However, understanding the total environmental impact from cruise ships is still limited to the assessing regulations under the Icelandic law. If the law is inconsistent or inadequate, there may be unknown impacts that are simply not considered or monitored. Therefore, the interview methods for a study like this should be improved to ensure comprehensive coverage of potential negative impacts. To face a rapidly changing situation such as the growth of cruise ship tourism can be very challenging, but studies like this thesis should continue to attempt to collect data and provide best available data. This study shows the value of continuing further practical case studies and in-depth research to provide updated data for the management to the fast-growing cruise tourism in Iceland and worldwide.

60 References

Barðadóttir, Þ. (2017). “… það er bara, hver á að taka af skarið? “ Móttaka skemmtiferðaskipa við Norðurland: niðurstöður viðtalsrannsóknar. Bax, N., Williamson, A., Aguero, M., Gonzalez, E., & Geeves, W. (2003). Marine invasive alien species: a threat to global biodiversity. Marine Policy, 27(4), 313- 323. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Interviewing: Unstructured and semistructured. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, 21. Bloor, M., Sampson, H., Baker, S., Walters, D., Dahlgren, K., Wadsworth, E., & James, P. (2013). Room for manoeuvre? Regulatory compliance in the global shipping industry. Social & Legal Studies, 22(2), 171-189. Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T., DeAngelo, B. J., . . . Koch, D. (2013). Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118(11), 5380-5552. Bourne, W. R. P., Parrack, J. D., & Potts, G. R. (1967). Birds killed in the Torrey Canyon Disaster. Nature, 215(5106), 1123-1125. doi:10.1038/2151123a0 Butt, N. (2007). The impact of cruise ship generated waste on home ports and ports of call: A study of Southampton. Marine Policy, 31(5), 591-598. Carić, H., & Mackelworth, P. (2014). Cruise tourism environmental impacts–The perspective from the Adriatic Sea. Ocean & Coastal Management, 102, 350-363. Chircop, A. (2009). The growth of international shipping in the Arctic: Is a regulatory review timely? The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 24(2), 355- 380. CLIA. (2019). Environmental stewardship Retrieved from https://cruising.org/about-the- industry/policy-priorities/environmental-stewardship CLIA. (2020). State of the cruise industry outlook 2020. Retrieved from https://cruising.org/-/media/research-updates/research/state-of-the-cruise- industry.pdf Cohen, M. A. (1998). Monitoring and enforcement of environmental policy. Available at SSRN 120108. Cooper, T., & Green, A. (2016). The Torrey Canyon disaster, everyday life, and the “greening” of Britain. Environmental History, 22(1), 101-126. Crotti, R., & Misrahi, T. (2017). The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2017. Paving the way for a more sustainable and inclusive future. World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 3. Cruise Iceland. (2019). Ísafjörður. Retrieved from http://www.cruiseiceland.com/harbor/isafjordur/ Cruise Iceland. (2020). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.cruiseiceland.com Cruise Market Watch. (2019). Growth of the ocean cruise line industy. Retrieved from https://cruisemarketwatch.com/growth/ Cullinane, K., & Cullinane, S. (2013). Atmospheric emissions from shipping: The need for regulation and approaches to compliance. Transport Reviews, 33(4), 377-401. Davis, A. R., Broad, A., Gullett, W., Reveley, J., Steele, C., & Schofield, C. (2016). Anchors away? The impacts of anchor scour by ocean-going vessels and potential response options. Marine Policy, 73, 1-7.

61 Dawson, J., Johnston, M. E., & Stewart, E. J. (2014). Governance of Arctic expedition cruise ships in a time of rapid environmental and economic change. Ocean & Coastal Management, 89, 88-99. Dobaradaran, S., Soleimani, F., Nabipour, I., Saeedi, R., & Mohammadi, M. J. (2018). Heavy metal levels of ballast waters in commercial ships entering Bushehr port along the Persian Gulf. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 126, 74-76. Eijgelaar, E., Thaper, C., & Peeters, P. (2010). Antarctic cruise tourism: the paradoxes of ambassadorship,“last chance tourism” and greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 337-354. Environmental Agency of Iceland. (2020). Sulphur in marine fuels. Retrieved from https://www.ust.is/english/chemicals/fuel/sulphur-in-marine-fuels/ Environmental Agency of Iceland, Icelandic Coast Guard, & Icelandic Transport Authority. (2019). Guidelines for masters of cruise and passenger ships arriving in Iceland. Iceland Retrieved from http://www.lhg.is/media/leidbeiningar/Enska- Leidbeiningar-fyrir-stjornendur-Farthegaskipa-sem-koma-til-Islands-juni- 2019.pdf Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association. (2018). Cruise Industry Overview–2018, Annual Industry Report. Retrieved from https://www.f-cca.com/downloads/2018-Cruise- Industry-Overview-and-Statistics.pdf FONASBA. (2020). Ship agents & brokers Retrieved from https://www.fonasba.com/ship-agents-and-brokers Friends of the Earth. (2020). Cruise ship report card. Retrieved from https://foe.org/cruise-report-card/ Gára. (2020). Agency Services Retrieved from https://www.gara.is/agency-services/ Gavin, M. C., Solomon, J. N., & Blank, S. G. (2010). Measuring and monitoring illegal use of natural resources. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 89-100. Harkison, T., & Barðadóttir, Þ. (2019). Are we poles apart? Stakeholders’ cooperation and decision-making in on-land cruise tourism in Iceland and New Zealand. Research in Hospitality Management, 9(2), 99-108. Herz, M., & Davis, J. (2002). Cruise control: A report on how cruise ships affect the marine environment. Huijbens, E. H. (2015). Cruise tourism in Iceland and the North Atlantic: Gateways to the Arctic and the challenges to port readiness programs. Tourism in Marine Environments, 10(3-4), 241-254. Huijbens, E. H., & Gunnarsson, K. B. (2014). Skemmtiferðaskip við Ísland. Úttekt á áhrifum. Rannsóknamiðstöð Ferðamála. Humpert, M. (2020). IMO mandate for low sulphur fuel results in high black carbon emissions endangering arctic High North News. Retrieved from https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/imo-mandate-low-sulphur-fuel-results-high- black-carbon-emissions-endangering-arctic Icelandic Tourist Board. (2020). Tourism in Iceland in figures - January 2020. Retrieved from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/ferdamalastofa/talnaefni/ferdatjonusta- i-tolum/2020/january-2020-2.pdf IMO. (2017). MARPOL articles, protocols, annexes and unified interpretations of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the 1978 and 1997 protocols ; incorporating all amendments in force on 1 January 2017. London: Interntaional Maritime Organization.

62 IMO. (2019a). International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Internatio nal-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx IMO. (2019b). Introuction to IMO. Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/en/About/Pages/Default.aspx IMO. (2019c). Reduction of the impact on the arcitc of black carbon emissions from international shipping, PPR 7/8. Retrieved from https://www.euractiv.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/2/2020/01/PPR-7-8-Initial-results-of-a-Black-Carbon- measurement-campaign-with-emphasis-on-the-impact-of-the...-Finland-and- Germany.pdf IMO. (2020). Port State Control. Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/MSAS/Pages/PortStateControl.aspx Jun, P., Gillenwater, M., & Barbour, W. (2002). CO2, CH4, and N2 O emissions from transportation-water-borne-navigation [Background paper]. Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories, 71-92. Klein, R. A., & Roberts, C. (2003). Cruise ship blues: The underside of the cruise industry. Alternatives Journal, 29(3), 42. Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A., Yliskylä-Peuralahti, J., Repka, S., & Mellqvist, J. (2019). What explains SECA compliance: rational calculation or moral judgment? WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 18(1), 61-78. Lai, K.-H., Lun, V. Y., Wong, C. W., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2011). Green shipping practices in the shipping industry: Conceptualization, adoption, and implications. Resources, conservation and recycling, 55(6), 631-638. Laist, D. W., Knowlton, A. R., Mead, J. G., Collet, A. S., & Podesta, M. (2001). Collisions between ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science, 17(1), 35-75. Magnúsdóttir, L. S., & Hallgrímsdóttir, M. B. (2019). „Ég fer bara út úr bænum þegar ég er í fríi “: Rannsókn á viðhorfum Ísfirðinga til skemmtiskipaferðamennsku. (Bachelor). Háskóli Íslands, Reykjavík. Marine Environment Protection Committee. (2008). 2008 Revised guidelines for sysyms for handling oily wastes in machinery spaces of ships incorprating guidance notes for an integrated bilge water treatment systme (IBTS) , Report Number Ref. T5/1.01 MEPC. 1/Circ. 642. Retrieved from https://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/msnote/pdf/msin0833anx.pdf Marine Traffic. (2019). Vessels Database. Retrieved from https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/data/?asset_type=vessels&columns=flag,ship name,photo,recognized_next_port,reported_eta,reported_destination,current_por t,imo,ship_type,show_on_live_map,time_of_latest_position,lat_of_latest_positio n,lon_of_latest_position Messner, S. (2020). Future Arctic shipping, black carbon emissions, and climate change. In Maritime Transport and Regional Sustainability (pp. 195-208): Elsevier. Molgo, & ETFI. (2020). The European market potential for cruise tourism. Retrieved from https://www.cbi.eu/market-information/tourism/cruise-tourism/ Molnar, J. L., Gamboa, R. L., Revenga, C., & Spalding, M. D. (2008). Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(9), 485-492. Nanda, V. P. (1967). The Torrey Canyon disaster: some legal aspects. Denver Law Journal 44 (3), 400-425.

63 Nandan, S. (1995). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Springer. New Orleans Grease Trap Cleaning. (2020). Offshore, marine, cruise ship used cooking oil recycling services Retrieved from https://neworleansgreasetrapcleaning.com/offshore-marine-cruise-ship-used- cooking-oil-recycling-services/ Nordblom, U. (2016). Cruise tourism in the Arctic: sustainability issues and protection of the marine environment in international law. (Master of Arts in Polar Law (MA)). University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1946/25233 O'Brien, M. A. (2014). Sustainable cruise ship tourism: a carrying capacity study for Ísafjörður, Iceland. Citeseer, Óladóttir, O. þ. (2015). Tourism in Iceland in figures, April 2015. Reykjavık: Icelandic Tourism Board. OSPAR Commission. (2012). General Guidance on the Voluntary Interim Application of the D1 Ballast Water Exchange Standard by Vessels Operating between the Mediterranean Sea and the North-East Atlantic and/or the Baltic Sea. Paloti, M., & Garay, E. (2018). Green cruising. Cruise Critic. Retrieved from https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=528 Paris MoU. (2020a). Inspection Datebase. Retrieved from https://www.parismou.org/inspection-search/inspection-search Paris MoU. (2020b). Organisation Retrieved from https://www.parismou.org/about- us/organisation Rakestraw, A. (2012). Open oceans and marine debris: solutions for the ineffective enforcement of MARPOL Annex V. Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev., 35, 383. Renita, L. (2014). A socio-economic assessment of the interaction between cruise tourism and land-based tourism in Isafjordur, Iceland. University of Akyreyri, Rojas, B. O. (2002). STCW-95: A guide for seafarers: International Transport Workers Federation. Rolland, R. M., Parks, S. E., Hunt, K. E., Castellote, M., Corkeron, P. J., Nowacek, D. P., . . . Kraus, S. D. (2012). Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1737), 2363-2368. Sampson, H., Walters, D., James, P., & Wadsworth, E. (2014). Making headway? Regulatory compliance in the shipping industry. Social & Legal Studies, 23(3), 383-402. Schulkin, A. (2002). Safe harbors: crafting an international solution to cruise ship pollution. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 15, 105. See-Seek. (2019). Navigation tools - distance calculator Retrieved from https://www.sea- seek.com/tools/tools.php Silber, G. K., Adams, J. D., & Fonnesbeck, C. J. (2014). Compliance with vessel speed restrictions to protect North Atlantic right whales. PeerJ, 2, e399. Singh, A. (2000). The Asia Pacific cruise line industry: current trends, opportunities and future outlook. Tourism Recreation Research, 25(2), 49-61. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. Svaetichin, I., & Inkinen, T. (2017). Port waste management in the Baltic Sea area: A four port study on the legal requirements, processes and collaboration. Sustainability, 9(5), 699. Sweeting, J. E., & Wayne, S. L. (2006). 30 A Shifting Tide: Environmental Challenges and Cruise Industry Responses. Cruise ship tourism, 327.

64 Technavio Research. (2018, 2018/12/27). Global cruise tourism market 2018-2022 strong global economic recovery and increasing HNWIs to boost demand. Retrieved from https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181227005097/en/ Togan, S. (2016). The Liberalization of Transportation Services in the EU and Turkey: Oxford University Press. Tsou, M.-C. (2019). Big data analysis of port state control ship detention database. Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology, 18(3), 113-121. Turner III, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. The qualitative report, 15(3), 754-760. Minimum standards for shipping agents, Aritcle 5 (iii) C.F.R. (1988). Valavanidis, A., & Vlachogianni, T. (2012). Marine litter: man-made solid waste pollution in the Mediterranean Sea and coastline. Abundance, composition and sources identification. Science Advances on Environmental Chemistry, Toxicology and Ecotoxicology. Vard Marine Inc. (2018). Canadian arctic greywater report: estimates, forecasts, and treatment technologies. Retrieved from http://d2akrl9rvxl3z3.cloudfront.net/downloads/vard_360_000_01_dfr_rev2_29 _05_2018.pdf Velusamy, A., Kumar, P. S., Ram, A., & Chinnadurai, S. (2014). Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in commercially important marine fishes from Mumbai Harbor, India. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 81(1), 218-224. Vickers, I., Owen, R., Smallbone, D., James, P., Ekanem, I. U., & Bertotti, M. (2003). Cultural influences on health and safety attitudes and behaviour in small firms. Winebrake, J. J., Corbett, J., Green, E., Lauer, A., & Eyring, V. (2009). Mitigating the health impacts of pollution from oceangoing shipping: an assessment of low- sulfur fuel mandates. In: ACS Publications. World Tourism Organization (2018). UNWTO Annual Report 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284419807 Wysocki, L. E., Dittami, J. P., & Ladich, F. (2006). Ship noise and cortisol secretion in European freshwater fishes. Biological conservation, 128(4), 501-508.

65 Appendix A

Act 33/ 2004 Lög um varnir gegn mengun hafs og stranda

I. kafli. Markmið, gildissvið og skilgreiningar.

1. gr. Markmið.

Markmið laga þessara er að vernda hafið og strendur landsins gegn mengun og athöfnum sem stofnað geta heilbrigði manna í hættu, skaðað lifandi auðlindir hafsins og raskað lífríki þess, spillt umhverfinu eða hindrað lögmæta nýtingu hafs og stranda.

Þá er það markmið laganna að eftir mengunaróhapp verði umhverfið fært til fyrra horfs.

2. gr. Gildissvið.

Lögin taka til hvers konar starfsemi sem tengist atvinnurekstri, framkvæmdum, skipum og loftförum, hér á landi, í lofthelgi … 1) og í mengunarlögsögu Íslands, og hefur eða getur haft áhrif á þá þætti sem tilgreindir eru í 1. gr. að svo miklu leyti sem önnur lög gilda ekki hér um.

Lögin gilda einnig um íslensk skip utan mengunarlögsögu Íslands eftir því sem Ísland hefur skuldbundið sig til í alþjóðasamningum.

Undanþegnar lögum þessum eru aðgerðir sem nauðsynlegar eru til þess að vernda mannslíf eða tryggja öryggi, svo og aðgerðir sem kunna að vera nauðsynlegar vegna óviðráðanlegra ytri atvika.

1)L. 114/2004, 1. gr.

3. gr. Skilgreiningar.

Í lögum þessum hafa eftirfarandi orð og orðasambönd þá merkingu er hér greinir:

66 [1. Aðstaða í höfnum fyrir úrgang frá skipum og farmleifar: Hvers konar aðstaða eða þjónusta, hvort sem hún er föst eða hreyfanleg, sem nota má til að taka á móti úrgangi frá skipum og farmleifum.] 1)

[2. ] 1) Besta fáanleg tækni: Framleiðsluaðferð og tækjakostur sem beitt er til að lágmarka mengun og myndun úrgangs. Tæknin nær til framleiðsluaðferðar, tækjakosts, hönnunar mannvirkja, eftirlits og viðhalds búnaðarins, svo og starfrækslu hans. Með „fáanlegri tækni“ er átt við aðgengilega framleiðsluaðferð og tækjakost (tækni) sem þróaður hefur verið til að beita í viðkomandi atvinnurekstri og skal tekið mið af tæknilegum og efnahagslegum aðstæðum. Með „bestu“ er átt við virkustu aðferðina til að vernda alla þætti umhverfisins gegn mengun.

[3. ] 1) Bráðamengun: Mengun hafs og stranda sem verður skyndilega og krefst tafarlausra aðgerða.

[4. Farmleifar: Leifar hvers konar farms um borð, í lestum eða tönkum, sem eftir verða að lokinni affermingu og hreinsun, þar á meðal umframmagn og leki í tengslum við fermingu eða affermingu.] 1)

[5. ] 1) Fljótandi efni: Vökvar með lægri gufuþrýsting en 2,8 kg/sm 2 við 37,8°C.

[6. ] 1) Flutningur olíu, hættulegra efna og eiturefna: Flutningar á efnum sem falla undir ákvæði alþjóðasamþykktar um sjóflutninga á hættulegum varningi, IMDG- kóðann, um sjóflutninga á hættulegum efnum í farmgeymum skipa, IBC-kóðann, um flutning á olíu í farmgeymum skipa, eða ADR-reglur um flutning á hættulegum farmi á vegum, þ.e. þeim efnum sem falla undir viðauka I, II og III í MARPOL-samningnum, þegar þau eru flutt sem farmur í skipum, og efnum sem flokkuð eru sem hættuleg á landi.

[7. ] 1) [ Hafnarsvæði: Umráðasvæði á sjó og landi sem hafnaryfirvöld á hverjum stað annast og skilgreint er í hafnalögum og hafnarreglugerðum og sá hluti strandar sem skilgreindur er sem hafnarsvæði samkvæmt aðalskipulagi á hverjum stað.] 2)

[8. ] 1) Kjölfestuvatn: Vatn, ásamt uppleysanlegum efnum og gruggi, sem er tekið um borð í skip í því skyni að stjórna styrk, halla, kjölristu, stöðugleika eða álagi skips.

67 [9. ] 1) Losun: Þegar vísvitandi eða af stórfelldu gáleysi er hleypt í sjóinn fljótandi eða föstum efnum sem tengjast eðlilegri starfsemi. Eftirfarandi telst ekki losun:

a. að koma fyrir efnum eða hlutum í hafinu í öðrum lögmætum tilgangi en að farga þeim,

b. þegar úrgangsefni eða önnur efni, sem beinlínis stafa frá rannsóknum eða nýtingu jarðefna í eða á hafsbotni, berast í hafið [nema um sé að ræða efni frá kolvetnisvinnslu eða borunum tengdum henni], 3)

c. að kasta í hafið óunnum fiski og fiskúrgangi og öðrum sjávarlífverum vegna veiða og vinnslu.

[10. ] 1) Lýsi og grútur: Allar tegundir feitmetis sem unnið er eða kemur úr sjávarlífverum og niðurbrotsefni þeirra.

[11. ] 1) Mengun: Þegar örverur, efni og efnasambönd, [þ.m.t. efni sem falla undir I. og II. viðauka við MARPOL-samninginn], 1) og eðlisfræðilegir þættir valda óæskilegum og skaðlegum áhrifum á heilsufar almennings, röskun lífríkis eða óhreinkun lofts, láðs eða lagar. Mengun tekur einnig til ólyktar, hávaða, titrings, geislunar og varmaflæðis og ýmissa óæskilegra eðlisfræðilegra þátta.

[12. ] 1) [ Mengunarlögsaga Íslands: Hafsvæðið sem nær yfir innsævi að meðtalinni strönd að efstu flóðmörkum á stórstraumsflóði, landhelgi og efnahagslögsögu, landgrunn Íslands og efstu jarðlög, sbr. lög um landhelgi, efnahagslögsögu og landgrunn.] 4)

[13. ] 1) Mengunartjón: Tjón eða skaði sem hlýst af mengun hafs og stranda hvar sem slík mengun kann að eiga sér stað og af hvers konar völdum sem hún er. Mengunartjón tekur einnig til kostnaðar vegna ráðstafana til að koma í veg fyrir tjón, frekara tjón eða skaða sem hlýst af slíkum ráðstöfunum.

[14. ] 1) Netlög: Sjávarbelti 115 m frá stórstraumsfjöruborði.

[15. ] 1) Olía: Vökvakennd olíuefni í hvaða formi sem er, þ.m.t. hráolía, svartolía, smurolía, jurtaolía, olíuúrgangur og unnin olía.

68 [16. ] 1) Olíuflutningaskip: Skip sem er smíðað eða breytt og aðallega er ætlað til að flytja olíu í lausu í farmrýmum, þ.m.t. fjölnota skip og sérhvert efnaflutningaskip, eins og það er skilgreint í viðauka II við MARPOL-samninginn, þegar það flytur olíufarm eða hluta af olíufarmi í lausu.

[17. ] 1) Óvinnsluhæfur rekstrarúrgangur: Rekstrarúrgangur, þ.m.t. umbúðir farms, að undanskildum ferskum fiski og fiskúrgangi, sem til fellur við eðlilega starfsemi skipa, palla og annarra mannvirkja á hafi úti og þarf stöðugt eða öðru hvoru að losna við.

[18. ] 1) Rekstrarúrgangur: Úrgangur frá framleiðslu, t.d. pappír, pappi, umbúðir og umbúðaefni, gler, timbur, málmar, leifar frá framleiðslu og þess háttar.

[19. ] 1) Sérhafsvæði: Hafsvæði sem tilteknar reglur um varnir gegn mengun hafs og stranda gilda um, svo sem vegna sérstakra umhverfisaðstæðna, í samræmi við gildandi alþjóðasamninga um varnir gegn mengun sjávar sem Ísland er aðili að.

[20. ] 1) Skipaviðgerðarstöð: Aðstaða þar sem skip eru tekin á land, svo sem slippur eða flotkví.

[21. ] 1) Skolp frá skipum: Frárennsli eða annar fljótandi úrgangur frá salernum, eldhúsum, þvottahúsum og böðum, þ.m.t. annað vatn sem blandað er við það áður en til útrásar kemur.

[22. ] 1) Sorp frá skipum: Hvers kyns neysluúrgangur frá skipum, svo sem alls konar matarleifar og úrgangur frá vistarverum, svo og óvinnsluhæfur rekstrarúrgangur.

[23. ] 1) Strönd: Svæði milli hæstu og lægstu sjávarstöðu.

[24. ] 1) Umhverfi: samheiti fyrir menn, dýr, plöntur og annað í lífríkinu, jarðveg, jarðmyndanir, vatn, loft, veðurfar og landslag, samfélag, heilbrigði, menningu og menningarminjar, atvinnu og efnisleg verðmæti.

[25. ] 1) Úrgangur: Hvers kyns efni eða hlutir sem einstaklingar eða lögaðilar ákveða að losa sig við eða er gert að losa sig við á tiltekinn hátt.

[26. Úrgangur frá skipum: Allur úrgangur, þ.m.t. skolp og leifar aðrar en farmleifar, sem verður til við störf um borð í skipi og fellur undir gildissvið I., IV. og V. viðauka

69 við MARPOL-samninginn, svo og farmtengdur úrgangur eins og hann er skilgreindur í viðmiðunarreglum um framkvæmd V. viðauka við MARPOL-samninginn.] 1)

[27. ] 1) Varp: Þegar efnum eða hlutum er vísvitandi eða af gáleysi fleygt í hafið frá skipum, loftförum, pöllum eða öðrum mannvirkjum, þ.m.t. þegar skipum, loftförum, pöllum eða öðrum mannvirkjum er sökkt í hafið, þ.e. allt sem ekki er losun. Eftirfarandi telst ekki varp:

a. að koma fyrir efnum eða hlutum í hafinu í öðrum lögmætum tilgangi en að farga þeim,

b. þegar úrgangsefni eða önnur efni, sem beinlínis stafa frá rannsóknum eða nýtingu jarðefna í eða á hafsbotni, berast í hafið,

c. að kasta óunnum fiski og fiskúrgangi og öðrum sjávarlífverum vegna veiða og vinnslu í hafið.

[28. ] 1) Vöktun: Kerfisbundin og síendurtekin skráning einstakra breytilegra þátta í umhverfinu.

1)L. 60/2014, 1. gr. 2)L. 52/2012, 1. gr. 3)L. 114/2004, 2. gr. 4)L. 166/2008, 21. gr.

II. kafli. Stjórn og skipan.

4. gr. Yfirstjórn og eftirlitsaðilar.

[Ráðherra] 1) fer með yfirstjórn mála samkvæmt lögum þessum að svo miklu leyti sem ekki er kveðið á um annað í lögunum.

Umhverfisstofnun undir yfirstjórn [ráðherra] 1) hefur eftirlit með framkvæmd laganna að svo miklu leyti sem ekki er mælt fyrir um annað í lögunum. Umhverfisstofnun er heimilt að fela tiltekna þætti eftirlitsins, sem undir stofnunina heyra, heilbrigðiseftirliti sveitarfélaganna eða faggiltum skoðunaraðilum í umboði stofnunarinnar. Skal í slíkum tilvikum gerður sérstakur samningur við hinn faggilta skoðunaraðila eða við hlutaðeigandi heilbrigðiseftirlit eftir því sem við á. Umhverfisstofnun er heimilt að fela heilbrigðisnefnd framkvæmd þvingunarúrræða samhliða eftirliti.

70 Umhverfisstofnun skal sjá um að mengun hafs og stranda sé vöktuð.

Umhverfisstofnun skal sjá um gerð fræðsluefnis og fræða þá sem starfa að þessum málum og gefa út leiðbeiningar og viðmiðunarreglur.

Landhelgisgæsla Íslands, undir yfirstjórn [hlutaðeigandi ráðherra], 1) annast eftirlit með hafsvæðum umhverfis Ísland, jafnt úr lofti sem af sjó. Landhelgisgæsla Íslands tilkynnir Umhverfisstofnun og lögregluyfirvöldum um svæði þar sem mengun getur borist á land ef hún verður vör við mengun eða grunur leikur á mengun hafs eða stranda. [Samgöngustofa] 2) … 3) annast eftirlit með búnaði skipa vegna mengunarvarna, sbr. lög um eftirlit með skipum.

1)L. 126/2011, 382. gr. 2)L. 59/2013, 26. gr. 3)L. 162/2010, 240. gr.

5. gr. Ráðgjafaraðilar.

Umhverfisstofnun, Náttúrufræðistofnun Íslands, … 1) [Hafrannsóknastofnun], 2) landlæknisembættið, [Samgöngustofa, Vegagerðin], 3) heilbrigðisnefndir sveitarfélaganna, Landhelgisgæsla Íslands, hafnarstjórnir, ríkislögreglustjóri og Geislavarnir ríkisins eru ráðherra til ráðgjafar um þau atriði sem að lögum þessum lúta og heyra undir starfsemi þeirra.

1)L. 68/2006, 10. gr. 2)L. 157/2012, 16. gr. 3)L. 59/2013, 26. gr.

III. kafli. Framkvæmd almennra ákvæða laganna.

6. gr. Reglugerðir um verndun hafs og stranda.

[Ráðherra] 1) setur, að fengnum tillögum Umhverfisstofnunar, og eftir því sem við á í samráði við [þann ráðherra er fer með samgöngumál og þann ráðherra er fer með málefni sjávarútvegs], 1) … 2) og Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, í reglugerðir almenn ákvæði um:

a. losun olíu og olíublandaðs vatns í hafið frá skipum utan þriggja sjómílna frá grunnlínu landhelginnar, þ.m.t. á sérhafsvæðum, svo og frá pöllum og öðrum

71 mannvirkjum í mengunarlögsögu Íslands utan þriggja sjómílna frá grunnlínu landhelginnar, 3) 4)

b. takmörkun á olíumagni í fráveituvatni sem heimilt er að leiða til sjávar,

c. bestu fáanlegu tækni við mengunarvarnir og bestu umhverfisvenjur þar sem slíkt hefur verið skilgreint,

d. búnað skipa, palla, annarra mannvirkja á hafi úti og fyrirtækja í landi til varnar gegn mengun hafs og stranda af völdum olíu og um eftirlit með þessum búnaði, 5)

e. söfnun og eyðingu úrgangsolíu, þar á meðal móttöku olíuúrgangs frá skipum í höfnum, 6)

f. takmörkun eða bann við losun lýsis og grútar, 5)

g. flokkun fljótandi efna sem flutt eru í farmgeymum skipa til eða frá íslenskum höfnum, svo og ákvæði um takmörkun á losun þeirra efna, sem hættuleg eru talin, í hafið utan þriggja sjómílna frá grunnlínu landhelginnar, 4)

h. flokkun efna sem notuð eru til mengunarvarna samkvæmt lögum þessum,

i. losun á skolpi í hafið frá skipum, pöllum og öðrum mannvirkjum á hafi úti,

j. meðferð og losun sorps frá skipum á hafsvæði utan þriggja sjómílna frá grunnlínu landhelginnar, 4)

k. móttöku og meðferð úrgangs frá skipum, 7)

l. móttökuaðstöðu fyrir skolp frá skipum og annan úrgang sem ekki er talinn upp hér að framan og eyðingu þess, 8)

m. takmörkun eða bann við losun kjölfestuvatns frá öðrum hafsvæðum til að koma í veg fyrir að framandi lífverur berist til landsins, 9)

n. bann eða takmörkun á losun þeirra efna í hafið frá landi sem upp eru talin í viðauka II með lögum þessum, 10)

o. varp efna og hluta í hafið,

72 p. hvernig staðið skuli að lagningu sæstrengja, neðansjávarleiðslna og hvers konar mannvirkja á hafsbotni, 11)

q. vöktun og mælingar, svo sem til þess að fylgjast með hugsanlegum breytingum á mengun hafsins og hvaða rannsóknir og mælingar á mengunarefnum í hafinu, í sjávarlífverum og á hafsbotni skuli fara fram,

r. starfsleyfi fyrir atvinnurekstur sem fellur undir lög þessi,

s. flutning hættulegs varnings með skipum þar sem heimilt er að vísa til erlendrar frumútgáfu efnalista og staðla sem hlotið hafa samþykki Alþjóðasiglingamálastofnunarinnar, 4)

t. [varnir og viðbrögð við bráðamengun, flokkun hafna og nauðsynlegan mengunarvarnabúnað í hverri höfn eða flokki hafna sem og rekstur og notkun hans, upplýsingaskyldu, skyldu eftirlitsaðila til samvinnu, viðbragðsáætlanir, stjórn á vettvangi, samkomulag stofnana, sbr. 14. gr., verkefni og verksvið mengunarvarnaráðs], 12) 13)

u. eftirlit, skráningu og tilkynningarskyldu, 5)

v. bann eða takmörkun á mengun frá skipum, pöllum og öðrum mannvirkjum á sjó eða landstöðvum í samræmi við þá viðauka MARPOL-samningsins og aðra alþjóðasamninga sem Ísland hefur gerst aðili að, 5) 14)

w. ábyrgðir og tryggingar vegna atvinnustarfsemi sem ber hlutlæga ábyrgð á bráðamengun í samræmi við ákvæði gildandi laga, 15)

x. umskipun efna, sbr. viðauka II, innan mengunarlögsögu Íslands, 16)

y. önnur sambærileg atriði.

Í reglugerðum sem ráðherra setur samkvæmt lögum þessum er heimilt að vísa í gildandi staðla.

Leita skal umsagnar aðila atvinnulífsins og landssamtaka um umhverfisvernd áður en reglugerðir eru settar.

73 Þegar sérstaklega stendur á getur ráðherra, að fenginni umsögn Umhverfisstofnunar og ef við á Landhelgisgæslu Íslands, [Samgöngustofu og Vegagerðarinnar], 17) veitt tímabundna undanþágu frá einstökum greinum reglugerða sem settar eru samkvæmt þessari grein, en þó ekki lengur en eitt ár í senn.

1)L. 126/2011, 382. gr. 2)L. 162/2010, 240. gr. 3)Rg. 8/1971. 4)Rg. 586/2017. Augl. C 2/2017. 5)Rg. 884/2017. 6)Rg. 809/1999. 7)Rg. 1200/2014, sbr. 1280/2016. 8)Rg. 1200/2014, sbr. 1280/2016. 9)Rg. 515/2010. 10)Rg. 796/1999, sbr. 533/2001, 913/2003 og 955/2011. 11)Rg. 600/2018. 12)L. 52/2012, 2. gr. 13)Rg. 1010/2012. 14)Rg. 824/2005, sbr. 827/2010. 15)Rg. 1078/2005. Rg. 124/2015, sbr. 46/2016, 528/2018 og 1084/2019. 16)Rg. 800/2004. 17)L. 59/2013, 26. gr.

7. gr. Um ábyrgð einstaklinga og lögaðila.

Hver sá sem veldur mengun í mengunarlögsögu Íslands ber ábyrgð samkvæmt almennum skaðabótareglum á því tjóni sem rakið verður til mengunarinnar. Eigendum skipa er þó heimilt að takmarka fjárhagslega ábyrgð sína í samræmi við gildandi lagaákvæði.

Ef hætta er á mengun hafs og stranda skal sá sem ber ábyrgð á menguninni gera allt sem í hans valdi stendur til þess að koma í veg fyrir hana eða draga úr henni. Hann ber einnig ábyrgð á því tjóni sem aðgerðir hans eða aðgerðaleysi valda öðrum.

Þeim sem annast dreifingu og sölu á olíu er skylt að taka við olíuúrgangi frá skipum og frá starfsemi í landi, einum eða í samvinnu við einstaklinga eða fyrirtæki sem til þess hafa leyfi Umhverfisstofnunar, og tryggja viðunandi eyðingu. Eigendur eða umráðamenn hleðslustöðva fyrir olíuflutningaskip og skipaviðgerðarstöðva skulu sjá um að stöðvarnar hafi aðstöðu til að taka við olíublandaðri kjölfestu og öðrum úrgangi sem er eftir í skipinu þegar það kemur til stöðvarinnar til geymslu eða flutnings. Móttökuaðstaðan skal fullnægja ákvæðum alþjóðasamninga, sem Ísland er aðili að, um varnir gegn mengun hafs og stranda. Sérhver aðili í landi, sem þarf árlega að koma fyrir meira en 500 lítrum af olíuúrgangi vegna eigin notkunar á olíu, skal halda sérstakt bókhald um söfnun og afhendingu olíuúrgangs til móttakenda, og skulu starfsmenn Umhverfisstofnunar jafnan hafa greiðan aðgang að þessu bókhaldi.

8. gr. Bann við losun í hafið.

74 Losun olíu í hafið frá skipum, svo og frá pöllum og öðrum mannvirkjum, hvort sem er beint eða óbeint, er óheimil á hafsvæði innan þriggja sjómílna frá grunnlínu landhelginnar, nema um sé að ræða olíublandað vatn sem leiðir af eðlilegum rekstri. Olíumagn blöndu við útrás skal að hámarki vera 15 hlutar í 1.000.000 hlutum blöndunnar. Olíublandað fráveituvatn sem losað er í sjó skal leitt um olíuskilju sem uppfyllir gildandi staðla.

Losun lýsis eða grútar í hafið er óheimil á innsævi. Við löndun fisks með dælingu úr skipum, svo og við vinnslu fisks í landi, skal vinnsluaðili sjá um að ekki verði mengun í hafi eða á ströndum vegna losunar á lýsi eða grút.

Losun fljótandi efna frá skipum er að öðru leyti óheimil á hafsvæði innan þriggja sjómílna frá grunnlínu landhelginnar. Losun ómengaðs vatns og sjávar er heimil.

[Óheimilt er að losa sorp og farmleifar frá skipum á hafsvæði innan tólf sjómílna frá grunnlínu landhelginnar. Óheimilt er að losa í hafið þrávirk gerviefni sem fljóta eða mara í hafinu. Heimilt er að losa kvarnaðan matarúrgang utan þriggja sjómílna frá landi samkvæmt nánara ákvæði í reglugerð, sbr. k-lið 1. mgr. 6. gr.

[Losun skolps frá skipum er óheimil á hafnarsvæðum og á svæðum innan við 300 m frá stórstraumsfjöruborði. Skipum sem eru 400 brúttótonn eða stærri og skipum sem skráð eru til að flytja 15 manns eða fleiri en eru minni en 400 brúttótonn er óheimilt að losa skolp innan tólf sjómílna frá grunnlínu landhelginnar. Heimilt er að losa skolp, sem hefur verið meðhöndlað í hreinsikerfi samþykktu af Samgöngustofu eða sambærilegu stjórnvaldi annars ríkis, utan þriggja sjómílna frá grunnlínu landhelginnar. Ráðherra er heimilt að setja í reglugerð nánari ákvæði um losun skolps innan íslenskrar mengunarlögsögu.] 1)] 2)

[Losun mengandi efna, sem upp eru talin í viðauka I og II við MARPOL-samninginn, þ.m.t. minni háttar tilvik slíkrar losunar frá skipum sem ekki leiðir til þess að gæði vatns spillist, er óheimil. Þetta á við um losun jafnt á úthöfum sem og í mengunarlögsögu Íslands. Þó er losun mengandi efna heimil að uppfylltum skilyrðum um notkun bestu fáanlegrar tækni við mengunarvarnir um borð og bestu umhverfisvenjur þar sem slíkt hefur verið skilgreint. Losun mengandi efna er einnig heimil að uppfylltum skilyrðum um flokkun fljótandi efna sem eru flutt í fargeymum skipa til eða frá íslenskum höfnum,

75 svo og skilyrðum um takmörkun á losun þeirra efna sem eru talin hættuleg í hafið samkvæmt nánari ákvæðum í viðauka I og II við MARPOL-samninginn. Losun mengandi efna frá skipum telst ekki brot gegn ákvæði þessu ef losunina leiðir af skemmdum á skipi eða búnaði þess.] 1)

Ráðherra er heimilt í sérstökum undantekningartilvikum og að fenginni umsögn Umhverfisstofnunar og ef við á hlutaðeigandi heilbrigðisnefndar að veita undanþágu frá ákvæðum þessarar greinar. Heimilt er að binda undanþáguna skilyrðum, svo sem um að hreinsun fari fram.

1)L. 44/2017, 1. gr. 2)L. 60/2014, 2. gr.

9. gr. Varp efna og lagning sæstrengja og neðansjávarleiðslna.

Varp efna og hluta í hafið er óheimilt. Umhverfisstofnun getur, að fenginni umsögn [Hafrannsóknastofnunar], 1) veitt leyfi til að eftirtöldum efnum og hlutum sé varpað í hafið:

a. dýpkunarefnum,

b. náttúrulegum, óvirkum efnum, þ.e. föstum jarðefnum sem ekki hafa verið unnin efnafræðilega og samsett eru úr efnum sem ólíklegt er að losni út í hafsvæðið,

c. fiskúrgangi frá fiskverkunarstöðvum í landi, enda standi sérstaklega á.

Lagning sæstrengja og neðansjávarleiðslna er háð samþykki Umhverfisstofnunar [og skal samræmast skipulagi samkvæmt skipulagslögum eða lögum um skipulag haf- og strandsvæða. Hafi tillaga að strandsvæðisskipulagi verið auglýst þegar umsókn er lögð fram er Umhverfisstofnun heimilt að fresta afgreiðslu á beiðni þar til strandsvæðisskipulag hefur tekið gildi fyrir viðkomandi svæði. Frestunin skal þó ekki vera lengri en sjö mánuðir nema sérstakar ástæður mæli með því]. 2)

1)L. 157/2012, 16. gr. 2)L. 88/2018, 18. gr.

10. gr. Brennsla úrgangsefna á hafi úti.

Óheimilt er að brenna úrgang eða önnur efni á hafi úti. Heimilt er þó að brenna eigið sorp í þar til gerðum ofnum í samræmi við reglur Alþjóðasiglingamálastofnunarinnar

76 þar sem tekið skal tillit til ákvæða í gildandi samningum um brennslu úrgangsefna á hafi úti og þeirra áhrifa sem brennslan hefur á umhverfið.

11. gr. [Móttaka úrgangs og farmleifa frá skipum í höfnum.

Hafnarstjórn skal koma upp viðunandi aðstöðu fyrir móttöku úrgangs og farmleifa frá skipum í öllum höfnum. Aðstaðan skal miðast við þarfir skipa er jafnan koma í viðkomandi höfn.

Hafnarstjórn er heimilt að fela þjónustuaðila með samningi umsjón með móttöku og meðhöndlun úrgangs og farmleifa frá skipum.] 1)

1)L. 60/2014, 3. gr.

[11. gr. a. Afhending úrgangs frá skipum.

Skipstjóri ber ábyrgð á því að úrgangi frá skipi sé skilað til hafnar eða viðurkennds þjónustuaðila áður en látið er úr höfn.

Þrátt fyrir ákvæði 1. mgr. er skipi heimilt að halda til næstu viðkomuhafnar án þess að afhenda úrgang ef ráða má af þeim upplýsingum sem gefnar eru í tilkynningu skv. II. viðauka við reglugerð nr. 792/2004 um móttöku á úrgangi frá skipum, sbr. 3.–5. mgr. 12. gr., að nægilegt sérhæft geymslurými sé um borð fyrir þann úrgang sem safnast hefur fyrir og mun safnast fyrir meðan á fyrirhugaðri ferð til afhendingarhafnar stendur.

Umhverfisstofnun getur veitt undanþágu frá ákvæði 1. mgr. fyrir skip í áætlunarsiglingum sem hafa reglulega viðkomu í höfnum og sýna fram á trygga afhendingu úrgangs og greiðslu gjalda í einhverri höfn á siglingaleiðinni.] 1)

1)L. 60/2014, 4. gr.

[11. gr. b. Afhending farmleifa.

Skipstjóri skips sem hefur viðkomu í höfn skal tryggja að farmleifar séu afhentar í þar til gerðri aðstöðu hafnarinnar fyrir móttöku úrgangs og farmleifa.

Notandi hafnaraðstöðu skal greiða gjald fyrir afhendingu farmleifa. Eingöngu skal greiða gjald þegar farmleifar eru að sönnu afhentar og skal gjaldið standa undir kostnaði

77 við móttöku, meðhöndlun og förgun farmleifa. Við ákvörðun fjárhæðar gjalda skal tekið mið af tegund og magni þeirra farmleifa sem afhentar eru.] 1)

1)L. 60/2014, 4. gr.

[11. gr. c. Úrgangsgjald.

Öll skip, að undanskildum fiskiskipum, skemmtibátum sem ekki mega flytja fleiri en 12 farþega, herskipum, hjálparskipum í flota … 1) og skipum í ríkiseign eða ríkisrekstri sem nýtt eru í þágu hins opinbera, sem koma til hafnar skulu greiða gjald fyrir móttöku og meðhöndlun á úrgangi frá skipum, sbr. f-lið 1. tölul. 2. mgr. 17. gr. hafnalaga, nr. 61/2003.

Gjaldið skal standa undir kostnaði við aðstöðu fyrir móttöku úrgangs frá skipum, kostnaði við meðhöndlun og förgun úrgangs frá skipum sem og kostnaði við eftirlit Umhverfisstofnunar. Við ákvörðun fjárhæðar gjalds skal tekið mið, eftir því sem við á, af fjölda skipverja og farþega um borð, lengd sjóferðar og stærð skips.

Gjald skv. 1. mgr. má lækka ef umhverfisstjórnun, hönnun, búnaður og starfræksla skips er með þeim hætti að skipstjóri geti sýnt fram á að minni úrgangur verði til um borð. Veita má undanþágu frá greiðslu gjalda skv. 1. mgr. fyrir skip í áætlunarsiglingum sem hafa tíða og reglulega viðkomu í höfnum og sýna fram á trygga afhendingu úrgangs og greiðslu gjalda í einhverri höfn á siglingaleiðinni.

Ráðherra setur í reglugerð 2) nánari ákvæði um útfærslu og uppbyggingu gjalds skv. 1. og 2. mgr.] 3)

1)L. 44/2017, 2. gr. 2)Rg. 1201/2014. 3)L. 60/2014, 4. gr.

[11. gr. d. Eftirlit.

Umhverfisstofnun hefur eftirlit með móttöku úrgangs og farmleifa frá skipum í höfnum, tilkynningum um úrgang, áætlunum hafna og að til staðar sé aðstaða fyrir móttöku úrgangs. Um meðhöndlun úrgangs, útgáfu starfsleyfa fyrir meðhöndlun hans og eftirlit fer samkvæmt ákvæðum laga um meðhöndlun úrgangs.

78 Umhverfisstofnun gerir úttekt á a.m.k. fimm ára fresti á því hvort aðstaða í höfnum fyrir móttöku úrgangs og farmleifa frá skipum sé í samræmi við samþykkta áætlun hafnar. Umhverfisstofnun hefur eftirlit með losun úrgangs frá skipum á grundvelli upplýsinga frá höfnunum. Umhverfisstofnun gerir eftirlitsáætlun þar sem eftirlitið er útfært nánar.

Ráðherra setur, að fengnum tillögum Umhverfisstofnunar, gjaldskrá fyrir reglulegt eftirlit stofnunarinnar með aðstöðu í höfnum fyrir úrgang og farmleifar og meðhöndlun og losun úrgangs og farmleifa frá skipum. Í gjaldskrá skal tekið mið af kostnaði sem eftirlit Umhverfisstofnunar hefur í för með sér.] 1)

1)L. 60/2014, 4. gr.

12. gr. Tilkynningarskylda.

Eigendur skipa eða skipstjórnarmenn og eigendur eða rekstraraðilar vinnu- og borpalla á hafi úti og fyrirtækja í landi skulu tafarlaust tilkynna stjórnstöð Landhelgisgæslu Íslands um alla losun, varp og mengun sem lög þessi ná til innan mengunarlögsögu Íslands, sem og á strendur, nema um sé að ræða varp og losun sem sérstaklega er heimil samkvæmt lögunum. Tilkynningarskyldan nær einnig til íslenskra skipa utan mengunarlögsögu Íslands eftir því sem við á og Ísland hefur skuldbundið sig til í alþjóðasamningum. Landhelgisgæslan skal framsenda tilkynningar svo fljótt sem auðið er til Umhverfisstofnunar.

Skip sem flytja olíu og/eða hættulegan varning innan mengunarlögsögu Íslands skulu senda vaktstöð siglinga, sbr. lög um vaktstöð siglinga, tilkynningar um eftirtalin atriði sem lúta að farmi, komu, brottför og ferðum innan mengunarlögsögu Íslands:

a. um magn og tegund farms,

b. með sex klukkustunda fyrirvara um komu í og siglingu út úr mengunarlögsögunni, svo og um staðsetningu,

c. meðan á siglingu þeirra í mengunarlögsögunni stendur, á sex klukkustunda fresti, um staðsetningu, stefnu og hraða,

d. með þriggja klukkustunda fyrirvara um komu í og brottför úr höfn.

79 [Skipstjóri skips, sem er á leið til hafnar en er hvorki fiskiskip né skemmtibátur sem ekki má flytja fleiri en 12 farþega, ber ábyrgð á að tilkynning um úrgang og farmleifar í skipum, sbr. viðauka II við reglugerð nr. 792/2004 um móttöku á úrgangi frá skipum, sé fyllt út með réttum upplýsingum og komið til viðkomandi hafnaryfirvalda:

a. með 24 klukkustunda fyrirvara áður en komið er til hafnar ef viðkomuhöfn er þekkt; eða

b. um leið og viðkomuhöfn er ákveðin ef 24 klukkustunda fyrirvari næst ekki; eða

c. áður en lagt er úr fyrri höfn ef sjóferðin er skemmri en 24 klukkustundir.

Útfyllt tilkynning um úrgang og farmleifar í skipum skv. 3. mgr. skal geymd um borð í skipi þar til komið er til næstu viðkomuhafnar.

Hafnaryfirvöld skulu sjá til þess að viðeigandi upplýsingar berist Umhverfisstofnun, svo sem samantekt á tilkynningum um úrgang og farmleifar auk yfirlits yfir magn og tegund þess úrgangs sem skilað hefur verið. Samantekt á framangreindum upplýsingum skal skilað til Umhverfisstofnunar og heilbrigðisnefnda viðkomandi sveitarfélaga fyrir 1. mars ár hvert.

Umhverfisstofnun er heimilt að veita undanþágu frá skilum tilkynningar fyrir skip í áætlunarsiglingum sem hafa tíða og reglulega viðkomu í höfnum og geta sýnt fram á trygga afhendingu úrgangs og greiðslu gjalda í einhverri höfn á siglingaleiðinni. Skylda til að skila tilkynningu skv. 1. mgr. á ekki við um herskip, hjálparskip í flota eða önnur skip í ríkiseign eða ríkisrekstri sem um stundarsakir eru nýtt í þágu hins opinbera til annars en viðskipta.] 1)

Vaktstöð siglinga skal miðla tilkynningum skv. 2. mgr. til Landhelgisgæslunnar.

1)L. 60/2014, 5. gr.

IV. kafli. Bráðamengun.

13. gr. [Mengunarvarnaráð hafna.

80 Að afloknum hverjum sveitarstjórnarkosningum skal ráðherra skipa [átta fulltrúa] 1) í mengunarvarnaráð hafna til fjögurra ára í senn. Umhverfisstofnun tilnefnir tvo fulltrúa og er annar þeirra formaður ráðsins. Hafnasamband Íslands tilnefnir þrjá fulltrúa, Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga einn fulltrúa, og skal hann vera starfandi heilbrigðisfulltrúi, og [Samgöngustofa og Vegagerðin einn fulltrúa hvor]. 1) Þeir sem tilnefna fulltrúa í mengunarvarnaráð skulu bera kostnað vegna fulltrúa sinna í ráðinu.

Hlutverk mengunarvarnaráðs hafna er:

a. að vera formlegur samstarfsvettvangur Umhverfisstofnunar og hafna um málefni sem varða viðbúnað og viðbrögð við bráðamengun innan hafnarsvæða,

b. að stuðla að samstarfi og samhæfingu milli hafna um viðbúnað, samræmingu viðbragðsáætlana og viðbragða við bráðamengun,

c. að gera tillögu til Umhverfisstofnunar um uppbyggingu og endurnýjun á mengunarvarnabúnaði í höfnum landsins og

d. að koma með ábendingar og tillögur um innihald viðbragðsáætlana.] 2)

1)L. 59/2013, 26. gr. 2)L. 52/2012, 3. gr.

[13. gr. a. Tilkynningar.

Tilkynna skal um bráðamengun innan hafnarsvæðis til viðkomandi hafnarstjóra sem grípur til viðeigandi ráðstafana.

Tilkynna skal um óhöpp á sjó utan hafnarsvæða til vaktstöðvar siglinga. Vaktstöð siglinga kallar til vakthafandi aðila innan Umhverfisstofnunar sem gerir viðeigandi ráðstafanir í samræmi við viðbragðsáætlanir.

Mengunaróhöpp á landi skal tilkynna til viðkomandi slökkviliðs í samræmi við lög um brunavarnir.] 1)

1)L. 52/2012, 4. gr.

14. gr. Framkvæmd og stjórn á vettvangi.

81 Um framkvæmd og stjórn á vettvangi gildir eftirfarandi:

a. [Bráðamengun innan hafnarsvæða: Hafnarstjóri ber ábyrgð á að gripið sé til viðeigandi bráðaaðgerða til að hefta útbreiðslu og koma í veg fyrir frekara tjón vegna mengunarinnar. Hafnarstjóri tilnefnir vettvangsstjóra sem fer með stjórn á vettvangi. Hafnarstjóra ber að tilkynna Umhverfisstofnun og heilbrigðisnefnd um bráðamengun strax og vart verður við hana. Eftir að bráðaaðgerðum lýkur getur hafnarstjóri óskað eftir því að heilbrigðisnefnd hafi umsjón með frekari hreinsun umhverfis. Heilbrigðisnefnd hefur eftirlit með bráðaaðgerðum og ákveður hvenær árangur af hreinsun er nægur. Hafnarstjóri getur kallað eftir aðstoð Umhverfisstofnunar telji hann ástæðu til. Telji Umhverfisstofnun nauðsyn á frekari aðgerðum er stofnuninni heimilt að hlutast til um þær.] 1)

b. [Bráðamengun utan hafnarsvæða: Við óhapp sem leiðir til eða getur leitt til bráðamengunar hafs og stranda utan hafnarsvæða skal Umhverfisstofnun gera viðeigandi ráðstafanir í samræmi við viðbragðsáætlanir. Umhverfisstofnun ber ábyrgð á að aðgerðir gegn bráðamengun hefjist og annast stjórn á vettvangi. Umhverfisstofnun getur farið fram á að heilbrigðisnefnd fari á vettvang og meti umfang bráðamengunar og nauðsynlegar aðgerðir og tilkynni Umhverfisstofnun. Umhverfisstofnun er heimilt að fela heilbrigðisnefnd eða öðrum aðilum í umboði stofnunarinnar umsjón með aðgerðum á kostnað stofnunarinnar. Umhverfisstofnun, [Samgöngustofa, Vegagerðin] 2) og Landhelgisgæsla Íslands skulu gera skriflega aðgerðaáætlun um aðkomu stofnananna og um framkvæmd einstakra verkþátta.] 1)

Heimilt er að fela mengunarvaldinum sjálfum framkvæmd hreinsunar. Í slíkum tilvikum verður mengunarvaldurinn að leggja fram áætlun um hvernig hann muni standa að hreinsuninni.

Sé talið að mönnum geti stafað hætta af menguninni ber að tilkynna landlækni það tafarlaust.

Sé mengunin þess eðlis að hún geti valdið hættu fyrir íbúa eða eignir skulu aðgerðir framkvæmdar í samráði við viðkomandi lögreglustjóra. [Ef umfang eða eðli mengunar er slíkt að ætla megi að almenningi stafi hætta af skal nota neyðarskipulag almannavarna.] 1)

82 [Heimilt er að fela slökkviliðsstjóra umsjón með mengunarvarnabúnaði og stjórn á vettvangi við bráðamengunaróhöpp með sérstökum samningi eða í einstökum tilvikum þegar við á.] 1)

1)L. 52/2012, 5. gr. 2)L. 59/2013, 26. gr.

15. gr. Íhlutun vegna bráðamengunar.

Landhelgisgæslu Íslands er heimilt að grípa til íhlutunar og gera þær ráðstafanir sem taldar eru nauðsynlegar á hafsvæðinu innan mengunarlögsögu Íslands til að koma í veg fyrir eða draga úr hættu sem hafi eða ströndum stafar af bráðamengun. Í íhlutun felst m.a. yfirtaka á stjórn skips sé fyrirmælum Landhelgisgæslu Íslands ekki fylgt. Þetta gildir þó ekki um skip sem eru í rekstri erlendra ríkja og notuð í þjónustu ríkisvalds hlutaðeigandi ríkis við störf sem flokkast ekki undir verslunarviðskipti.

Eftir því sem unnt er og þörf krefur skal Landhelgisgæsla Íslands hafa samráð við Umhverfisstofnun og hafnarstjóra þegar gripið er til íhlutunar.

Þegar mengun hefur orðið á hafi úti skal Umhverfisstofnun grípa til aðgerða. Þegar hætta er talin á að mengun muni hljótast af strandi skips eða frá starfsemi á landi eða á hafi skal Umhverfisstofnun gera ráðstafanir til að koma í veg fyrir eða draga úr hættu á mengun.

16. gr. Vátryggingar.

Mengunarvaldur er ábyrgur fyrir bráðamengunartjóni þótt tjónið verði ekki rakið til saknæmrar háttsemi hans eða starfsmanns hans, sé mengunin af völdum flutnings á olíu, eiturefnum eða hættulegum efnum eða atvinnustarfsemi sem talin er upp í a-lið viðauka I. Þessi ábyrgð tekur til tjóns sem nemur allt að 1 milljón SDR. Þeir sem flytja olíu, eiturefni eða hættuleg efni eða stunda atvinnustarfsemi sem talin er upp í a-lið viðauka I skulu taka ábyrgðartryggingu eða leggja fram aðra fullnægjandi tryggingu sem Umhverfisstofnun metur gilda, allt að 1 milljón SDR, svo sem nánar er tilgreint í reglugerð og skal vátryggingarfjárhæðin nema sömu fjárhæð. Nánari ákvæði um vátrygginguna og gildissvið skulu sett í reglugerð. 1) Um skaðabótaábyrgð umfram þessi mörk fer eftir almennum reglum skaðabótaréttarins.

83 Mengunarvaldi ber að bregðast strax við og koma í veg fyrir frekari mengun. Mengunarvaldi er heimilt að sjá sjálfur um hreinsun og skal það þá gert í samræmi við áætlun sem Umhverfisstofnun samþykkir, sbr. 14. gr.

Ábyrgð samkvæmt þessari grein sætir takmörkunum í samræmi við alþjóðasamninga sem Ísland hefur gerst aðili að eftir því sem lög kveða á um.

1)Rg. 1078/2005.

17. gr. Vátryggingar olíuflutningaskipa.

Auk ákvæða 16. gr. gilda um vátryggingu olíuflutningaskipa alþjóðasamningur um íhlutun á úthafinu þegar óhöpp verða sem valda eða geta valdið olíumengun, alþjóðasamningur um einkaréttarlega ábyrgð vegna tjóns af völdum olíumengunar og alþjóðasamningur um stofnun alþjóðasjóðs til að bæta tjón af völdum olíumengunar.

18. gr. Viðbragðsáætlanir.

Atvinnurekstur sem valdið getur mengun og talinn er upp í a-lið viðauka I skal gera áætlanir um viðbrögð vegna bráðamengunar og skulu þær liggja fyrir áður en starfsleyfi er gefið út. Slíkar áætlanir skulu byggjast á áhættumati sem tekur m.a. tillit til þátta sem fram koma í b-lið viðauka I og mælt er frekar fyrir um í reglugerð.

[Umhverfisstofnun skal sjá um gerð viðbragðsáætlana utan hafnarsvæða í samstarfi við Landhelgisgæslu Íslands, [Samgöngustofu, Vegagerðina] 1) og að höfðu samráði við ráðgjafaraðila, sbr. 5. gr.] 2)

[Viðbragðsáætlanir skulu gerðar fyrir hverja höfn og skulu þær taka mið af aðstæðum á hverjum stað. Hafnir skulu gera viðbragðsáætlun og senda Umhverfisstofnun til samþykktar.

Fyrir 1. mars ár hvert skulu hafnir skila til Umhverfisstofnunar uppfærðri viðbragðsáætlun.] 2)

1)L. 59/2013, 26. gr. 2)L. 52/2012, 6. gr.

19. gr. Mengunarvarnabúnaður.

84 [Hver höfn skal að lágmarki eiga og reka mengunarvarnabúnað í samræmi við flokkun hafnar og áhættumat hennar og eins og nánar er kveðið á um í reglugerð sem ráðherra setur. Þó er heimilt að hafnir á tilteknu svæði eigi og reki slíkan mengunarvarnabúnað saman. Leita skal samþykkis Umhverfisstofnunar fyrir slíkri tilhögun áður en hafnir gera samning sín á milli.

Umhverfisstofnun skal hafa yfir að ráða flytjanlegum mengunarvarnabúnaði til að takast á við bráðamengunaróhöpp utan sem innan hafnarsvæða eftir því sem þörf er á. Stofnunin sér um rekstur, endurnýjun og uppbyggingu mengunarvarnabúnaðarins. Umhverfisstofnun ákveður í samráði við mengunarvarnaráð hafna uppbyggingu og endurnýjun á nauðsynlegum mengunarvarnabúnaði í höfnum landsins og um borð í varðskipum Landhelgisgæslu Íslands.

Fyrir 1. mars ár hvert skulu hafnir skila til Umhverfisstofnunar skýrslu um mengunarvarnaæfingar árið á undan, notkun mengunarvarnabúnaðar, mat á ástandi hans og þörf á endurnýjun, ásamt upplýsingum um bráðamengunaróhöpp sem orðið hafa í höfninni og hvernig við þeim var brugðist.] 1)

1)L. 52/2012, 7. gr.

20. gr. Strönduð og sokkin skip, pallar eða önnur mannvirki.

Hafi skip, pallar eða önnur mannvirki á sjó strandað þannig að þeim verði ekki komið á flot ber eiganda að fjarlægja þau sem fyrst og eigi síðar en sex mánuðum eftir strand. Hafi skip, pallar eða önnur mannvirki á sjó eða loftför sokkið getur Umhverfisstofnun krafist þess að þau verði fjarlægð. Telji eigandi ill- eða ógerlegt að fjarlægja strandað eða sokkið skip, pall, loftfar eða annað mannvirki er honum heimilt að leggja fram beiðni til Umhverfisstofnunar um að það skuli vera óhreyft þar sem það er. Slíkri beiðni skal fylgja áhættumat þar sem gerð er grein fyrir umhverfislegum ávinningi ásamt kostnaði við að fjarlægja hið sokkna skip, pall eða annað mannvirki. Við afgreiðslu málsins skal Umhverfisstofnun hafa samráð við viðkomandi sveitarfélag.

21. gr. Gjaldskrá fyrir eftirlit vegna bráðamengunar og aðgerða til að draga úr slíkri mengun.

85 Höfnum … 1) er heimilt að innheimta gjöld af mengunarvaldi á grunni gjaldskrár sem ráðherra setur að fenginni umsögn Sambands íslenskra sveitarfélaga um greiðslu kostnaðar við starfsemi á vegum hafna vegna mengunar innan hafnarsvæða … 1). Gjaldskráin skal lögð til grundvallar við uppgjör við Umhverfisstofnun vegna starfa á vegum … 1) hafna og afnota á mengunarvarnabúnaði í eigu hafna þegar stofnunin ber fjárhagslega ábyrgð á aðgerðum. Gjaldskráin skal m.a. taka til vinnuframlags, ferðakostnaðar og notkunar búnaðar. Gjaldskráin skal birt í B-deild Stjórnartíðinda. Gjöld skulu tryggð með lögveðsrétti í [tvö ár] 1) í viðkomandi skipi eða fasteign.

Ráðherra setur, að fengnum tillögum Umhverfisstofnunar [og að fenginni umsögn Sambands íslenskra sveitarfélaga], 1) gjaldskrá fyrir eftirlit Umhverfisstofnunar vegna bráðamengunar og aðgerða til að draga úr slíkri mengun. Gjaldið má ekki vera hærra en sem nemur tímagjaldi sérfræðings og ferðakostnaði hans. Þá skal ráðherra setja í gjaldskrá ákvæði um leigu mengunarvarnabúnaðar og skal gjaldið miðast við notkun, viðhaldskostnað og endurnýjun á tækjum. Umhverfisstofnun skal krefja mengunarvald um greiðslu í samræmi við gjaldskrá sé um að ræða mengun af völdum olíu, eiturefna eða hættulegra efna eða atvinnustarfsemi sem talin er upp í a-lið viðauka I. Gjöld skulu tryggð með lögveðsrétti í [tvö ár] 1) eftir gjalddaga í viðkomandi skipi eða fasteign þegar eftirlitið er tengt notkun fasteignar. Gjaldskráin skal birt í B-deild Stjórnartíðinda. Gjöld má innheimta með fjárnámi.

Um gjaldtöku vegna aðgerða heilbrigðisnefnda fer samkvæmt ákvæðum laga um hollustuhætti og mengunarvarnir.

1)L. 52/2012, 8. gr.

V. kafli. Þvingunarúrræði og refsiviðurlög.

22. gr. Þvingunarúrræði.

Til að knýja á um úrbætur samkvæmt lögum þessum og reglugerðum settum samkvæmt þeim getur Umhverfisstofnun eða heilbrigðisnefnd, þar sem það á við, beitt eftirfarandi aðgerðum:

86 a. veitt áminningu,

b. veitt áminningu og tilhlýðilegan frest til úrbóta,

c. stöðvað eða takmarkað viðkomandi starfsemi eða notkun.

Stöðvun starfsemi skal því aðeins beitt að um alvarlegri tilvik eða ítrekað brot sé að ræða eða ef úrbætur eru ekki gerðar innan tiltekins frests og er þá heimilt, ef með þarf, að leita aðstoðar lögreglu eða Landhelgisgæslu Íslands, eftir því sem við á. Sé um slík brot að ræða getur Umhverfisstofnun afturkallað starfsleyfi viðkomandi reksturs. Ef starfsleyfið er gefið út af heilbrigðisnefndum sveitarfélaganna skulu þær afturkalla starfsleyfið í samráði við Umhverfisstofnun.

Telji Umhverfisstofnun svo alvarlega hættu stafa af tiltekinni starfsemi eða notkun að aðgerð þoli enga bið er henni heimilt til bráðabirgða að stöðva starfsemi eða notkun þegar í stað, með aðstoð lögreglu ef þurfa þykir, en tilkynna skal það hlutaðeigandi heilbrigðisnefnd.

23. gr. Dagsektir.

Þegar aðili sinnir ekki fyrirmælum innan tiltekins frests getur Umhverfisstofnun eða viðkomandi heilbrigðisnefnd, sbr. 2. mgr. 4. gr., ákveðið honum sektir allt að 500.000 kr. á dag þar til úr er bætt. Ráðherra getur í reglugerð breytt upphæð dagsekta í samræmi við verðlagsþróun. Jafnframt er Umhverfisstofnun eða viðkomandi heilbrigðisnefnd, sbr. 2. mgr. 4. gr., heimilt að láta vinna verk á kostnað hins vinnuskylda ef fyrirmæli um framkvæmd eru vanrækt og skal kostnaður þá greiddur til bráðabirgða úr ríkissjóði en innheimtur síðar hjá hlutaðeigandi. Greiðsla kostnaðar og dagsektir eru tryggðar með lögveðsrétti í viðkomandi húsi, lóð, farartæki, skipi eða mannvirki í [tvö ár] 1) eftir að greiðslu er krafist.

1)L. 52/2012, 9. gr.

24. gr. Heimildir eftirlitsaðila.

Umhverfisstofnun eða viðkomandi heilbrigðisnefnd, sbr. 2. mgr. 4. gr., getur látið fara fram athugun á skipum og vinnu- og borpöllum á hafi og hjá fyrirtækjum í landi án dómsúrskurðar ef talin er hætta á mengun hafs og stranda eða ef mengun hefur orðið

87 sem er brot gegn lögum þessum. Umhverfisstofnun leitar aðstoðar Landhelgisgæslu Íslands, hafnaryfirvalda, [Samgöngustofu, Vegagerðarinnar], 1) Geislavarna ríkisins, [Hafrannsóknastofnunar] 2) og annarra opinberra aðila eftir því sem þörf krefur. Athugunin skal ekki valda ótilhlýðilegri röskun á starfsemi viðkomandi eða ónauðsynlegum útgjöldum.

Eftirlitsaðilar skulu hvenær sem þeir óska þess eiga greiðan aðgang að öllum upplýsingum um búnað til mengunarvarna og um rekstur hans, svo og öllum mælingum eða skýrslum um athuganir sem gerðar hafa verið á vegum eigenda eða rekstraraðila vegna mengunarvarna, hvort sem athuganir þessar hafa verið gerðar að kröfu opinberra aðila eða að frumkvæði eigenda eða rekstraraðila.

Eftirlitsskyldum aðilum er skylt að veita allar upplýsingar sem nauðsynlegar eru vegna eftirlits með framkvæmd laganna og ber þeim að afhenda sýni endurgjaldslaust sem talin eru nauðsynleg vegna eftirlits.

1)L. 59/2013, 26. gr. 2)L. 157/2012, 16. gr.

25. gr. Refsiviðurlög.

Brot gegn lögum þessum og reglugerðum settum samkvæmt þeim varða sektum eða fangelsi allt að tveimur árum nema þyngri refsing liggi við samkvæmt öðrum lögum. Sé um stórfelld eða ítrekuð ásetningsbrot að ræða skulu þau varða fangelsi allt að fjórum árum. [Brot gegn 6. mgr. 8. gr. varða viðurlögum samkvæmt ákvæði þessu hvort sem þau eru framin af ásetningi eða gáleysi.] 1)

[Ítrekuð minni háttar tilvik losunar, sbr. 6. mgr. 8. gr., þar sem hvert tilvik spillir ekki gæðum vatns heldur samansafn tilvika sem leiðir til þess að gæði vatns spillist, teljast refsiverður verknaður hvort sem þau eru framin af ásetningi eða gáleysi.] 2)

Tilraun til brota og hlutdeild í brotum á lögum þessum og reglugerðum settum samkvæmt þeim er refsiverð eftir því sem segir í III. kafla almennra hegningarlaga.

1)L. 60/2014, 6. gr. 2)L. 44/2017, 3. gr.

[25. gr. a. Refsiábyrgð lögaðila.

88 Gera má lögaðila sekt vegna brots á 6. mgr. 8. gr. og 2. og 3. mgr. 25. gr. óháð sök fyrirsvarsmanns lögaðilans, starfsmanns hans eða annars á hans vegum í starfsemi lögaðilans. Lögaðila verður gerð refsing þótt ekki verði staðreynt hver þessara aðila hafi átt í hlut. Refsiábyrgð stjórnvalda er bundin sömu skilyrðum enda sé brotið gegn ákvæðum 6. mgr. 8. gr. og 2. og 3. mgr. 25. gr. í starfsemi sem telst vera sambærileg starfsemi einkaaðila.

Lögaðili ber ábyrgð ef skortur á eftirliti eða umsjón af hans hálfu með losun mengandi efna hefur gert einstaklingi á hans vegum kleift að fremja refsiverðan verknað í skilningi 6. mgr. 8. gr. og 2. og 3. mgr. 25. gr. í þágu lögaðilans.] 1)

1)L. 44/2017, 4. gr.

26. gr. Sektir.

Sektir má ákvarða lögaðila þó að sök verði ekki sönnuð á fyrirsvarsmenn eða starfsmenn hans eða aðra þá einstaklinga sem í þágu hans starfa, enda hafi brotið orðið eða getað orðið til hagsbóta fyrir lögaðilann. Þó skal lögaðili ekki sæta refsingu ef um óhapp er að ræða. Einnig má, með sama skilorði, gera lögaðila sekt ef fyrirsvarsmenn eða starfsmenn hans eða aðrir einstaklingar sem í þágu hans starfa gerast sekir um brot eða ef það stafar af ófullnægjandi tækjabúnaði eða verkstjórn.

27. gr. Farbann.

Ef brotið er gegn ákvæðum laga þessara og brotið tengist skipi skal skipið sett í farbann og er eigi heimilt að láta það laust fyrr en málinu er lokið og sekt auk málskostnaðar greidd að fullu, svo og kostnaður eftirlitsaðila. Um farbann fer að ákvæðum laga um eftirlit með skipum.

Þó er heimilt að láta skip laust fyrr ef sett er bankatrygging eða önnur trygging jafngild til greiðslu sektar og alls kostnaðar.

Til tryggingar greiðslu sektar samkvæmt grein þessari, málskostnaðar og kostnaðar eftirlitsaðila skal vera lögveð í skipinu í [tvö ár]. 1)

1)L. 52/2012, 9. gr.

VI. kafli. Ýmis ákvæði.

28. gr. Ágreiningur.

Rísi ágreiningur um framkvæmd laganna og reglugerða settra samkvæmt þeim er heimilt að vísa honum til [ráðherra] 1) til úrskurðar, [sbr. þó 4. mgr.] 2)

Ráðherra skal kveða upp úrskurð svo fljótt sem auðið er og eigi síðar en átta vikum eftir að honum berst mál í hendur.

Rísi ágreiningur um það hvort um bráðamengun samkvæmt lögum þessum sé að ræða er heimilt að vísa málinu til [ráðherra] 1) til úrskurðar. Skal ráðherra úrskurða í málinu eins fljótt og við verður komið og eigi síðar en viku eftir að honum berst mál í hendur.

[Ákvarðanir Umhverfisstofnunar er lúta að lagningu sæstrengja og neðansjávarleiðslna, sbr. 2. mgr. 9. gr., sæta kæru til úrskurðarnefndar umhverfis- og auðlindamála. Um aðild, kærufrest, málsmeðferð og annað er varðar kæruna fer samkvæmt lögum um úrskurðarnefnd umhverfis- og auðlindamála.] 2)

1)L. 126/2011, 382. gr. 2)L. 131/2011, 14. gr.

[29. gr. Innleiðing.

Lög þessi fela í sér innleiðingu ákvæða 4. gr. og 7.–10. gr. tilskipunar Evrópuþingsins og ráðsins 2000/59/EB, um aðstöðu í höfnum til að taka á móti úrgangi skipa og farmleifum, sem vísað er til í tölul. 56i í V. kafla XIII. viðauka samningsins um Evrópska efnahagssvæðið eins og honum var breytt með ákvörðun sameiginlegu EES- nefndarinnar nr. 77/2001 frá 19. júní 2001 auk innleiðingar tilskipunar 2005/35/EB um mengun sem á upptök sín um borð í skipum og innleiðingu viðurlaga við brotum sem vísað er til í tölul. 56v í V. kafla XIII. viðauka samningsins um Evrópska efnahagssvæðið eins og honum var breytt með ákvörðun sameiginlegu EES- nefndarinnar nr. 65/2009 frá 29. maí 2009.] 1)

1)L. 60/2014, 7. gr.

[30. gr.]1) Gildistaka og lagaskil.

90 Lög þessi öðlast gildi 1. október 2004. … Reglugerðir settar samkvæmt ákvæðum þeirra laga 2) halda gildi sínu að svo miklu leyti sem þær ganga ekki í bága við ákvæði þessara laga.

Þrátt fyrir ákvæði 1. mgr. skulu ákvæði 16., 17. og 18. gr. ekki öðlast gildi fyrr en 1. janúar 2006.

1)L. 60/2014, 7. gr. 2)Þ.e. l. 32/1986: Rg. 33/1990. Rg. 198/1991 (um Mengunarvarnarsjóð). Rg. 107/1998 (um varnir gegn sorpmengun frá skipum). Rg. 797/1999 (um varnir gegn mengun grunnvatns). Rg. 798/1999 (um fráveitur og skólp). Rg. 799/1999 (um meðhöndlun seyru). Rg. 800/1999 (um losunarmörk, umhverfismörk og gæðamarkmið fyrir losun á kvikasilfri í yfirborðsvatn). Rg. 801/1999 (um losunarmörk, umhverfismörk og gæðamarkmið fyrir losun á kvikasilfri í yfirborðsvatn frá atvinnustarfsemi sem stundar rafgreiningu alkalíklóríða). Rg. 802/1999 (um losunarmörk, umhverfismörk og gæðamarkmið fyrir losun á kadmíum í yfirborðsvatn). Rg. 803/1999 (um losunarmörk, umhverfismörk og gæðamarkmið fyrir losun á hexaklórsýklóhexani (HCH) í yfirborðsvatn). Rg. 804/1999 (um varnir gegn mengun vatns af völdum köfnunarefnissambanda frá landbúnaði og öðrum atvinnurekstri), sbr. 592/2001. Rg. 828/2003 (um hollustuhætti og mengunarvarnir á varnarsvæðum).

Ákvæði til bráðabirgða.

Umhverfisráðherra skal í samvinnu við Umhverfisstofnun, samgönguráðherra, Hafnasamband sveitarfélaga og heilbrigðisnefndir sveitarfélaga gera áætlun um hreinsun stranda og hafnarsvæða af skipsflökum og skipum í óreiðu og kostnað sem af því leiðir. Skal sú áætlun liggja fyrir eigi síðar en 1. júlí 2005 og koma til framkvæmda eigi síðar en 1. janúar 2006. Hreinsun skal lokið fyrir árslok 2008.

II.

Umhverfisráðherra skipar starfshóp til að undirbúa gildistöku laganna. Starfshópurinn skal starfa þar til lögin hafa að fullu tekið gildi, sbr. 29. gr. Í starfshópnum eiga sæti fulltrúi umhverfisráðherra, sem jafnframt er formaður, fulltrúi samgönguráðherra,

91 fulltrúi Umhverfisstofnunar, fulltrúi Sambands íslenskra sveitarfélaga og fulltrúi Samtaka atvinnulífsins.

Viðauki I.

A. Starfsemi sem getur valdið bráðamengun á hafi eða ströndum vegna eðlis starfseminnar og/eða nálægðar hennar við sjó.

1. Fiskimjölsverksmiðjur.

2. Álframleiðsla.

3. Áburðarframleiðsla.

4. Sements- og kalkframleiðsla.

5. Kísiljárnframleiðsla.

6. Kísilmálmframleiðsla.

7. Kísil- og kísilgúrframleiðsla.

8. Járn- og stálframleiðsla.

9. Glerullar- og steinullarframleiðsla.

10. Sútunarverksmiðjur.

11. Eldi sjávar- og ferskvatnslífvera með fráveitu til sjávar.

12. Móttökustöðvar sveitarfélaga; sorpurðunarstaðir og sorpbrennslustöðvar.

13. Meðhöndlun og förgun spilliefna.

14. Lím- og málningarvöruframleiðsla.

15. Olíumalar- og malbikunarstöðvar.

16. Kítín- og kítosanframleiðsla.

17. Framleiðsla á magnesíum og efnasamböndum sem innihalda magnesíum.

92 18. Framleiðsla á peroxíðum.

19. Sinkframleiðsla.

20. Olíuhreinsistöðvar.

21. Bensínstöðvar.

22. Pappírs- og trjákvoðuframleiðsla.

23. Framleiðsla á slípiefnum, t.d. kísilkarbíði.

24. Vinnsla alifatískra alkóhóla til iðnaðarnota.

25. Olíubirgðastöðvar.

26. Stálsmíði og stálskipagerð.

27. Viðhald og niðurrif skipa.

28. Meðferð og húðun málma.

29. Bræðsla og málmblanda málma sem geta brætt 4 tonn af blýi og kadmíum á dag.

30. Yfirborðsmeðferð málma og plastefnis með rafgreiningaraðferðum eða efnafræðilegum aðferðum ef rúmmál kera er meira en 30 m 3.

31. Ullarþvottastöðvar.

32. Fitu- og lýsisvinnsla.

33. Sláturhús.

34. Alifugla- og svínaræktarstöðvar.

35. Skolphreinsistöðvar, útrásardælustöðvar og fráveitur.

36. Flugvellir.

37. Annar sambærilegur atvinnurekstur.

93 [38. Rannsóknir og vinnsla kolvetnis innan mengunarlögsögunnar.] 1)

B. Þættir sem taka ber tillit til við mat á mögulegri áhættu af starfseminni fyrir umhverfi hafs og strandar.

1. Magn hættulegra efna sem notuð eru í starfseminni.

2. Eðli og verkan þeirra hættulegu efna sem notuð eru í starfseminni.

3. Fjarlægð starfseminnar frá sjó.

4. Hugsanleg áhrif bráðamengunar, m.a. með tilliti til viðtaka.

5. Aðrar ábyrgðartryggingar og umfang þeirra.

1)L. 166/2008, 22. gr.

Viðauki II.

Listi yfir olíur og önnur efni sem hægt er að banna eða takmarka losun á í hafið.

1. Lífræn halógen-efnasambönd og efni sem geta myndað þau í hafinu, að þeim efnum undanskildum sem eru líffræðilega óskaðleg eða breytast fljótt í sjónum í efni sem eru líffræðilega óskaðleg.

2. Kvikasilfur og efnasambönd þess.

3. Kadmín og efnasambönd þess.

4. Varanleg gerviefni sem geta flotið, marað, sokkið og valdið alvarlegri röskun á lögmætum notum hafsins.

5. Olíur, olíukennd kolvetni og lýsi.

6. Geislavirk efni, þ.m.t. geislavirkur úrgangur.

7. Lífræn efnasambönd fosfórs, kísils og tins og efni sem geta myndað slík efnasambönd í hafinu, að undanskildum þeim efnum sem eru líffræðilega óskaðleg eða breytast fljótt í sjónum í efni sem eru líffræðilega óskaðleg.

94 8. Óbundinn fosfór.

9. Eftirtalin frumefni og efnasambönd þeirra: arsen, blý, króm, nikkel, eir og sink.

10. Efni sem sýnt er að hafi skaðleg áhrif á bragð eða lykt fæðu úr sjónum.

95 Appendix B

Research ethics training and clearance

University Centre of the Westfjords Suðurgata 12 400 Ísafjörður, Iceland +354 450 3040 [email protected]

This letter certifies that Sheng-Ing Wang has completed the following modules of:

(X) Basic ethics in research (X) Human subjects research (X) Animal subjects research

Furthermore, the Masters Program Committee has determined that the proposed masters research entitled Environmental impact of cruise ship - a case study in the port of Ísafjörður meets the ethics and research integrity standards of the University Centre of the Westfjords. Throughout the course of his or her research, the student has the continued responsibility to adhere to basic ethical principles for the responsible conduct of research and discipline specific professional standards.

University Centre of the Westfjords ethics training certification and research ethics clearance is valid for one year past the date of issue unless otherwise noted.

Effective Date: 17 April 2019 Expiration Date: 17 June 2020

Prior to making substantive changes to the scope of research, research tools, or methods, the student is required to contact the Masters Program Committee to determine whether or not additional review is required.