Reception of Sewage in the Baltic Sea: the Port's Role in the Sustainable Management of Ship Wastes Magda Wilewska-Bien and Stefan Anderberg

Home , Ports of the Baltic Sea, Port of Copenhagen

Reception of sewage in the Baltic Sea: The port's role in the sustainable management of ship wastes Magda Wilewska-Bien and Stefan Anderberg

The self-archived postprint version of this journal article is available at Linköping University Institutional Repository (DiVA): http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-147825

N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original publication. Wilewska-Bien, M., Anderberg, S., (2018), Reception of sewage in the Baltic Sea: The port's role in the sustainable management of ship wastes, Marine Policy, 93, 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.012

Original publication available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.012 Copyright: Elsevier http://www.elsevier.com/

Reception of sewage in the Baltic Sea – The port´s role in the sustainable management of ship wastes Magda Wilewska-Biena,⁎, Stefan Anderbergb a Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, SE412 96 Göteborg, Sweden b Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden Published in Marine Policy 93 (2018) 207–213

Highlights • More stringent regulations on the discharge of sewage from ships in the Baltic Sea • A few ports have for a long time been dominant as regards the reception of sewage • The majority of the ports have introduced a no-special-fee system • There are differences in how no-special-fee system is applied

Abstract In 2019, the special area requirements under MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV will come into effect in the Baltic Sea. This puts pressure on ports to develop reception facilities for sewage from passenger ships. This paper is built on a review of published information about the ports´ work to update sewage reception facilities and the results of an e-mail questionnaire that was sent to a number of ports in the region, and interviews with environmental managers from two major ports in the region. During the last 15 years, major investments have been made in port reception facilities in many passenger ports. However, the ports and the shipping companies have still diverging views on the question if the port waste reception capacity in the region is sufficient. A few ports have for a long time been dominant as regards the reception of sewage in the Baltic Sea region, but recent increases in the ports´ waste reception capacity have predominantly occurred in smaller ports. This has been brought about by a replacement of mobile means for sewage collection with fixed connection systems or an increase of capacity of existing fixed connection systems. Following HELCOM recommendation, the majority of the ports have introduced a no-special-fee system but there are differences in how this is applied.

1. INTRODUCTION Affordable ocean transportation has been a major “engine” for the economic globalization. Maritime transportation has increased 2.5 times in volume since 1990 [1] and is today carrying 10 billion tons or more than 80 percent of the total volume of global trade [2]. Large amounts of goods, raw-materials and people are reloaded in the ports, but they are also important industrial locations. This makes them strategically important for developing increasing resource efficiency and more circular flows in society. In comparison with other transport modes, maritime transports are energy and cost efficient. Shipping has, however, many serious impacts on the marine environment linked to e.g. oil- spills, chemicals in hull-paints, noise, wastewater, solid waste, and diffusion of alien species. The ports can contribute to decreasing the environmental impacts of shipping through offering services such as reception of wastewater and other wastes, environmentally safe hull cleaning and alternative fuels. The Baltic Sea is an inland sea with intense sea traffic. More than 9% of the global maritime trade volumes and 117 million ferry passengers passed the Baltic Sea ports in 2012 [3]. Recently, the cruise ship tourism has expanded and more than 4 million cruise passengers were recorded in the ports in 2015, compared to 1 million in 2000 [4]. The Baltic Sea has often been called the most polluted sea in the world [5]. With its limited water volume and irregular oxygenation, it is a particularly sensitive area of the world ocean. With increasing population, industrialization, and intensification of agriculture, the pressures on the sea increased dramatically in the 20th century. Emissions from cities and industries, run-off from agriculture and forests have contributed to high levels of stable organic compounds as well as eutrophication. The rising nutrient levels cause regular algae blooming, oxygen deficiency and dead bottoms, which in recent decades have attracted increasing attention. The wastewater from ships contributes to increasing nutrient levels in the sea but this contribution is small compared to the run-off from surrounding countries, emissions from wastewater plants and air pollution [6]. The Helsinki Commission - Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM), has long promoted the reception of wastewater and other wastes in the ports. Since 1998, there is a recommendation to apply no-special-fee systems (NSF), where the costs of reception are included in the port fee no matter if the ship uses the port reception facilities (PRF) [7]. In 2011, the Baltic Sea was designated by International Maritime Organization (IMO) as a special area for discharge of sewage from passenger ships. For making such a restriction possible, a radically expanded reception capacity in the ports is required. First, the ban on the discharge of sewage was to be introduced in 2016 for new passenger ships, but this date was postponed until 2019 due to insufficient port reception capacity in the region [8]. This study seeks to evaluate how the waste reception capacity has developed in the Baltic ports: Is sufficient port reception capacity available? How and to what extent has the NSF been implemented in the Baltic ports? Which are the ports challenges connected to expanding the reception capacity?

2. METHOD This study is based on inventory and analysis of literature on maritime activities in the Baltic Sea region, analysis of the development of the ports in the region and case studies of two major ports in the region. The analysis of the development of ports and port reception facilities is based on data from reports from organizations related to maritime matters such as HELCOM, EU, and Cruise Baltic, complemented by data from scientific articles, other studies, as well as our own efforts of data collection via a questionnaire and interviews. The questionnaire was sent to 22 Baltic ports via e-mail, with aim to gather information on collected sewage. Nine ports provided full answers concerning the sewage collected, while four ports responded that such information is either not public, not systematically documented or would require much time to be compiled. Also, one port refereed instead to the website where some information was provided. Environmental managers from Helsinki and Gothenburg, two major ports in the region were interviewed about the sewage reception issues and the associated perceived challenges in developing the waste reception.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1. Environmental impacts of shipping Shipping cause emissions to both air and water and influences the environment in many other ways. Emissions to air of greenhouse gases, sulphur and nitrogen oxides and particles, are caused by the ships´ propulsion. Discharges to water include accidental large oil spills but also small continuous leakages, release of wastewater, use of antifouling paints, exchange of ballast water containing potential invasive species, and other littering. Noise from ships disturb both above and beneath the water surface. Sewage and grey water are waste streams that are generated by people on-board seafaring vessels. Sewage comes from toilets and medical facilities and is known as black water, while drainage from showers, washbasins, laundry facilities and galleys is called grey water [9]. The volumes of sewage and grey water are related to the number of people and the time spent on- board. It is estimated that one person on a cruise ship generates between 20-40 l of sewage and 120-300 l of grey water daily [10]. The discharge of untreated wastewater into sea can spread pathogens to the marine environment, contribute to nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion. Additionally, these waste streams carry marine litter, for example cosmetic and hygienic products that are disposed of improperly in toilets instead of garbage bins [11].

3.2 The role of ports in reducing the environmental impact from shipping Most European ports have in recent decades developed environmental policies and set objectives for environmental improvements [12]. Air quality is often the most important priority, but also the handling of ship waste has received increased attention [12]. Besides introducing environmental management systems for improving environmental performance, ports can develop services for ships (i.e well-functioning facilities for waste disposal) and thus extend the area in which their policies have an impact. Ports can also provide information on how to improve practices on-board and sometimes use harder measures such as

3 banning certain ship operations in the port areas [13], for example sandblasting [14]. The European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) has issued a guide for European ports that presents practices that can be used to manage environmental aspects [15]. These practices include air quality monitoring, offering shore-based electricity, encouraging cruise ships to sort and recycle waste via reduced fees and offering free offloading of sewage and grey water. Ports can use differentiated charges to benefit ships that reduce their environmental impacts. For that purpose, tools such as the Clean Shipping Index (CSI) [16] and the Environmental Ship Index (ESI) [17], which rank shipping companies according to different environmental criteria, can be used. Regulations have often been important for improving ports’ environmental performance but ports also motivate environmental initiatives by the need to improve port operations or to develop the port’s profile. Pressures from the local society can also increase ports’ interest to invest in “environmental performance”. [18]

3.3. Regulations for handling of wastes from ships in the Baltic Sea The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), adopted in 1973 and amended by a protocol 1978, addresses waste management on-board vessels and the reception of waste in ports to offer adequate waste reception facilities in ports. The Baltic Sea has been amended as a special area under both Annex V Garbage (in effect since 1989) and Annex IV Sewage (will be in effect from 2019 for new passenger ships) [19, 20]. These annexes have been ratified by all Baltic Sea countries, which means that all ports are obliged to provide adequate facilities for the reception of garbage, and that passenger ports should provide facilities for the reception of sewage. These facilities should meet the needs of ships using them without causing undue delay [21,22]. Ships of 400 gross tonnage and more that are operating in the Baltic Sea should keep records on wastes that are discharged to the sea, incinerated or disposed in PRF. There is no such requirement for sewage, but passenger ships are since long recommended to offload their sewage in PRF. Discharge of sewage to the marine environment is only permitted under specific conditions; untreated sewage may be discharged, at the predefined pumping rate, further than 12 nautical miles (NM) from the nearest coast [23]. Discharge of treated sewage is permitted closer to the coast if the sewage has been processed on-board by equipment approved according to IMO standards and the resulting effluent meets the quality criteria for e.g. BOD, bacteria and total suspended solids. There are no similar restrictions in MARPOL 73/78 applying to discharges of grey water. Annex IV that announced the Baltic Sea as a special area was amended in 2011. It introduces a ban on the discharge of untreated sewage and introduces stricter requirements on treated effluents from passenger ships. The special area status could not come into effect before the riparian countries had notified IMO that adequate reception facilities are provided by their ports [24]. This condition was fulfilled when Russia as the last country submitted such a notification in 2016. The new rules will be valid for new passenger ships from 2019 and for other passenger ships in 2021. Passenger ships that go directly from the North Sea to St. Petersburg will not have to comply until 2023 [20]. Based on requirements in MARPOL 73/78, the European Community adopted in 2000 the Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (PRF Directive), which states that ports should provide facilities that meet the needs of the

4 ships without causing abnormal delays [25]. Port operators are also obliged to develop waste reception and handling (WRH) plans and introduce a fee system where all ships contribute significantly to the costs of the facilities. Ports may differentiate the fee based on the ship category, size or environmental performance. Ships must offload waste in the port reception facilities and declare in advance the amounts of waste that are intended to be disposed in the port. The Directive offers the possibility to grant exemptions from mandatory delivery of waste for ships in regular scheduled traffic. HELCOM started promoting development of port reception facilities in 1980 and recommended in 1998 the Baltic ports to introduce no-special-fee system [7, 26]. In NSF, the costs of reception, handling and disposal of ship-generated wastes from normal operation are included in the general harbour fee or received from the ship in other ways, regardless of whether wastes are delivered [7]. The purpose of such solution is to encourage ships to deliver wastes to PRF and to avoid undesirable waste streams between ports. Initially the recommendation was limited to oily waste, but later other types of wastes such as garbage, sewage and marine litter caught in fishing nets have been added [7, 27, 28]. In 2007, HELCOM´s Baltic Action Plan with several actions aiming to protect the marine environment, including reducing pollution from ships, was adopted [29]. At the HELCOM ministerial meeting in 2010, the Baltic Sea countries agreed to improve ports’ capacities to collect sewage until 2015 and adopted the “Roadmap for upgrading port reception facilities for sewage in passenger ports of the Baltic Sea area” [30].

4. DEVELOPMENT OF WASTE RECEPTION IN THE BALTIC PORTS

4.1 Passenger traffic in the Baltic Sea. In the 1990s, approximately 75 million ferry passengers crossed different parts of the sea every year but since opening of the bridges of Oresund and Great Belt the number of ferry passengers have decreased to less than 60 million per year. The ro-ro & ferry traffic goes through 71 Baltic ports, with more than half of them located in Sweden, Denmark and Finland [31]. Currently Port of Helsinki has the largest number of ferry passengers, followed by Port of Tallinn and Port of Stockholm (Fig. 1) [31].

Figure 1 Thirty biggest ferry ports in the Baltic Sea in 2014 [31]

The cruising tourism has increased dramatically in recent years. In 2015, 4.3 million cruise passengers were registered in the Baltic ports, compared with 1 million in year 2000 [4]. The seven most important cruise ports were passed by 84% of total number of passengers in the Baltic ports in 2015 (Fig.2).

Figure 2 Top seven Baltic ports ranked by cruise passengers’ number [4]. Approximately 80 international cruise ships were operating in the Baltic Sea during the cruise season between April and October of 2014 [32]. The size of the cruise ships varied; about 80% had a capacity of up to 3000 persons, while 20% could take more than 3000 persons. Around 90% of the capacity was on average utilized on the ships [32]. The age span of the vessels was from one year to 66 years old where about 76 % were older than 10 years (Table 1). In that group ships between 11-30 years old constituted 75%. Three ships had been in operation for over 50 years. Table. 1. Overview of the cruise ships on the Baltic Sea between May-October 2014 [32] Age range Number of Fraction of the Capacity span Capacity ships cruise fleet median Years (-) % No of persons on No of persons on board board <5 10 13 403-4946 2426 5-10 9 11 2440-4880 3146 11-20 27 34 159-4294 1556 21-30 18 23 192-2542 886 31-40 5 6 640-1870 1564 41-50 7 9 1048-1310 1159 >50 3 4 148-679 556

Eight of the cruise ships visiting the Baltic Sea in 2015 were equipped with nutrient-reducing advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTS) that meet requirements for the special area [33]. Many ferries operating in the Baltic Sea on regular schedules store sewage on board in holding tanks and dispose it in the port reception facilities and therefore there is less need for

the sewage treatment plants on board [34]. In some ports, however, ferries do not dispose sewage but treat it on-board [35].

4.2 Development of port reception facilities The development of port reception facilities in the Baltic Sea region started quite early, but the PRF Directive in 2000 that made European ports obliged to develop adequate facilities accelerated the development (ref?). According to the Roadmap document of 2010 only five Baltic ports (Helsinki, St. Petersburg, Stockholm, Visby and Klaipeda) had adequate port reception capacity to collect sewage. Eight other ports1 were marked in this document as “first priority ports” [30]. It has been formulated that these ports should be able to offer suitable reception facilities for large passenger ships, i.e. possibilities for direct discharge of sewage to municipal sewage systems without causing undue delay. Tank barges to collect sewage were considered an acceptable alternative for ferries that usually have smaller wastewater volumes than cruise ships. In 2010 port of Gdynia, one of the Roadmap first priority ports, could offer direct discharge to the sewer, however only for the ferry ships. By 2014, also three additional ports; Tallinn, Copenhagen and Rostock, could offer fixed sewage connections (Fig.3).

Figure 3 Fixed sewage connections in ports in 2010 and 2014. Ports marked with a “star” had adequate PRF in place in 2010, ports marked with dots are the “first priority ports” defined by the Roadmap. The red/green colours denote that fixed connections are absent/present in the ports. The base map has been provided by Google Maps.

It was possible to identify thirteen Baltic ports2 that had at least one fixed connection to the sewage system in 2014 [32],[37], [38]. In some of the ports however, only ferries were able to use the fixed connections while tanks trucks still were needed to collect sewage from the cruise ships. More than half of 28 Baltic ports had fixed connections for sewage discharge in 2015/16

1 Tallinn, Rostock, Copenhagen, Riga, Gdynia, Helsingor, Rodby and Swinoujscie/Szczecin. 2 Aarhus, Copenhagen, Gdynia, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Helsingborg, Kemi, Kiel, Rostock, Stockholm, Tallinn, St Petersburg, Visby 7

(Fig. 4). In some ports, this service was still only available for ferries or limited to specific quay/quays. The discharge capacity offered by ports varied between 18-300 m3/h. Over one- third of the ports could not offer fixed sewage connections whereas in about 7 % of the ports the fixed connections were under construction.

Figure 4 Distribution of ports with fixed connection for the sewage discharge in 28 Baltic ports. Data published in years 2015-2016 [32, 36, 37]

Figure 5 Distribution of fee systems in 28 Baltic ports. Data published in years 2015-2016 [32, 36, 37]

4.3 The use of NSF The extent of the implementation of no-special-fee system distinguishes Baltic Sea region from other regions in Europe according to the evaluation of the Directive on Port Reception Facilities [39]. According to the available data the majority of the 28 ports had introduced NSF (Fig. 5). This includes the most important cruise ports with exception of St Petersburg. The use of NSF is however not harmonized. Ships calling 15 ports: Aarhus, Gothenburg, Helsingor, Helsingborg, Helsinki, Karlskrona, Kemi, Klaipeda, Kotka, Malmo, Mariehamn, Ronne,

Stockholm, Turku and Visby may dispose wastes under NSF calculated usually on tonnage of the ship and there are no limits set for the wastewater volumes while other ports have volume limits for discharged sewage that is to be included under NSF [36]. Port of Copenhagen charges an extra cost for the volume that exceeds the estimated 130 l sewage per person and day since last port of call [32]. Ships can without extra charge discharge 300 m3 sewage in Rostock while only 7 m3 in Tallinn [32]. In Gdynia and Swinoujscie/Szczecin, 1/3 of the delivered amounts of sewage is included in the NSF [32]. A direct fee system is practiced in Frederica, Lubeck, Riga, Skagen and St. Petersburg, where the calling ships are charged for the full amounts of wastes disposed in the port [32, 36].

4.4. The development of sewage reception It is difficult to develop an overview of the development of the waste handling in the Baltic ports since data on the discharged waste are not always collected and accessible. Ports may not collect information about the ships that are granted exemptions as they have separate agreements with waste contractors. Shipping lines engaged in the regular services in the Baltic Sea can apply for exemption from the mandatory delivery of waste. This also includes exemptions from sending the waste notification and obligations to pay waste fees. Data from 2015 show that the number of ships that are exempted from this obligation vary between countries, from about 90 ships calling Swedish ports, about 50 ships in the Finnish ports to about 15 ships calling the Polish ports3. Those ships have arranged the waste disposal with waste contractors adapted to their schedule. In some ports, this practice is particularly visible: 80% of the ship calls in the ports of Helsinki and Turku are exempted from the mandatory waste delivery [40]. The results from the enquiry show that ports in Copenhagen, Gdynia, Gothenburg, Helsingborg, Helsinki, Kotka, Lubeck, St. Petersburg, Tallinn and Turku collected in total 480000 m3 of sewage in 2015. It should be noted that in some cases the wastewater from the ferry ships was not always included, and that in some cases sewage includes also grey water collected. Figures 6 and 7 shows the numbers of cruise passengers and the volumes of sewage collected from the cruise ships in 7 ports between 2010-2014.

Figure 6 Cruise ship passengers visiting the ports between 2010-2014 [32], [35], [41]

3 Personal communication with national maritime authorities, April-May 2016 9

Figure 7 Sewage collected from the cruise ships in the ports 2010-2014 [32, [35], [41], [42], [43]. Data from Rostock from years 2010-2011) and Klaipeda from 2010 is not available. There are differences in the volumes of collected sewage in the Baltic cruise ports (Fig.7). Historically Helsinki and Stockholm are leading in the volume sewage collected, which is about 10 times higher than in Copenhagen or Tallinn. Ships frequently dispose sewage in the port of Stockholm (7 out of 10 cruise ships) [44] and in Copenhagen this occurs less frequent (12% of port cruise calls). In comparison 42% of the visiting ships in the Port of Gothenburg use PRF for sewage discharge [32]. There are no systematic data on the waste collected available from the Port of Saint Petersburg, but there is some episodic information. For example, 90 m3 of garbage and 1801 m3 wastewater were collected from the ten cruise ships with 19 379 passengers in total that visited the port of Saint Petersburg during the second week of May 2016 [45].

4.5 The ports of Helsinki and Gothenburg The Port of Helsinki is Finland's main port, and the most important ferry port and one of top cruise ports in the Baltic Sea region (Fig.1). In 2015, 11.6 million ferry and cruise passengers, 11.4 million tons unitized and bulk cargo, 430 000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) and 512 000 vehicles passed the port [46]. The port charges indirect waste fee based on the ship net tonnage. The collected sewage goes directly into the sewer system for treatment in the municipal wastewater treatment plant. The sewage from ships is classified as industrial wastewater. According to the environmental manager, the system to receive sewage from ships meets the current requirements of the passenger traffic. Nevertheless, it is upgraded to meet the expected future demand. A discount on waste fee has been newly introduced to encourage passenger ships to leave sewage in the port. The port finds it challenging to be an actor operating at the intersection of the national regulations of land-based activities and the international regulation on the on-board vessels since different regulatory frameworks are not always easy to integrate. To maintain functioning cooperation with the municipal waste management agents is also a challenge because questions regarding wastes regularly arise from the calling ships. While the routines for sewage reception are well established, the reception of some new types of wastes e.g. scrubber washwater is still under development. The port started discussions with the operators of the wastewater treatment plant regarding the handling of the scrubber waste in case the demand to dispose wash water will increase in the future. Another waste management challenge is that the system of sorting of wastes on board ships sometimes differ from that one that is applied in the Port of Helsinki.

Port of Gothenburg is the largest freight hub in Sweden and in 2015 handled about 820 000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU), 530 000 RoRo units, 210 000 cars, 1.7 million passengers, 21 million tons oil and in total 38 million tons of freight [47,48]. The port applies no-special fee system with no set limits. The fees are based on gross tonnage and ship segment. The port offers discounts on the fee, based on two indices: CSI and ESI. In the majority of cruise ship berths, the sewage from the ships goes directly to the municipal sewage network to be further treated in the municipal wastewater treatment plant. Other quays lack such connections and the received sewage is transported by smaller ship or trucks instead. Therefore, further development of the reception infrastructure for sewage and greywater from ships is considered, but the port hesitates to invest in an expansion as there is risk that the new facilities will not be used sufficiently. In general, the perceived difficulties in the ship waste handling is the mismatch of waste sorted on board and the system applied in the harbour. There are also concerns with so called “new” wastes: waste types that were previously not generated or disposed off ashore ports as for example scrubber waste.

5. DISCUSSION The passenger traffic dominates the generation of sewage and waste in shipping since the amounts depend on the number of passengers on board. While the numbers of ferry passengers in the Baltic sea area has decreased in recent decades, the cruising traffic has increased. It has proved very difficult to develop a detailed overview of the development of sewage reception in the Baltic ports. In quite many of the ports, waste handling data are not easily accessible. In some ports, this was due to lack of systematic documentation or the fact that such information is considered confidential. Another aspect that could impact the frequency rate was that e-mail survey contained also questions about food waste collected. If the ports had difficulty to provide data about the latter, they might resign to complete the survey. The passenger traffic in the Baltic Sea region is dominated by a small group of ports. Even if it was possible to access data from a limited number of ports, the covered ports represent an important part of the passenger traffic and the generated wastes on ships in the region. Helsinki, Tallinn and Stockholm are the three most important ferry ports that every year are passed by more 30% of the ferry passengers in the 30 largest ferry ports in the Baltic. In contrast to the other important ferry ports such as Helsingborg or Puttgarden, they are dominated by long- distance ferry traffic and thus represent a considerably larger part of the generated sewage and waste in the ferry sector. Among the cruise ports, our port data covers ports with together more than 60% of the registered cruise passengers in Baltic ports. According to the available data, the collected amounts of sewage have increased over time but more research is needed to get a full picture. Helsinki and Stockholm receive much larger quantities of sewage than other important ports such as Tallinn. It seems as if these two ports have long dominated the reception of sewage in the whole region, but recent increases in the waste reception seems increasingly to take place in smaller ports. In almost all passenger ports, major investments have been made during the last 15 years to develop port reception facilities resulting in increased capacity and improved service and accessibility. The most important passenger ports have been leading this development, and several of them can since long offer well-developed facilities in their passenger harbours. Gradually other ports, particularly the so

called first priority ports, have developed their PRF with a particular focus on installing fixed facilities to collect wastewater. Despite the important investments, there are still diverging views on the question if the port waste reception capacity in the region is sufficient, and when time will be ripe for introducing e.g. the total ban on discharging sewage to the sea. The cruising branch organization ECC/CLIA declared already in 2009 that its members voluntarily will stop discharging wastewater at sea in the Baltic region when certain conditions are fulfilled. These conditions primarily consisted of that the ports could offer efficient facilities with direct connections for discharging wastewater and other types of waste without extra fees and undue delays. While all the large ports have declared that they have adequate capacity to receive sewage and waste from ships, the cruising industry still finds these requirements unfulfilled. By 2015/2016, 16 ports were to some extent able offer fixed connections for sewage discharge, and in two additional ports, such connections were under construction. However, quite many cruise ports were still not able to offer such connections. Even if fixed connections are available, some ports have only fixed connections at particular quays or only available for ferry ships. Also, there is difference in pumping capacity offered by ports. Furthermore, limited access to the fixed sewage connections may result in long waiting times for ships in the busiest ports during high season. The maximum capacities for fixed sewer connections differ between 35-300 m3/h between ports. The capacity is usually decreased by each additional ship using the connection. To reach the 200-300m3/h that is stated as preferable by the cruise lines, many ports need to add capacity. However, the ports do not seem agree with that such capacities are needed. The capacity is also of great importance in connection with discharging grey water where volumes exceed those of sewage. Grey water is not included in the coming regulations, and it will still be legal to discharge it at sea. Depending whether the grey water is discharged at sea, mixed with sewage and treated on-board, or disposed to PRF determines the total volume of wastewater needed to be discharged in ports and the time needed to discharge wastewater in ports. In the case of large ships that strive for relatively short stops at the ports, this is a challenge. In the ports where fixed connections are lacking or only available at specific berths, tank trucks are the main alternative and their size also vary between the ports. Using tank trucks or other mobile devices is more time consuming due to the need to exchange of trucks especially in case of larger passenger ships disposing a mixture of sewage and grey water. NSF is more common in the Baltic Sea region than in other parts of Europe. However, there are still ports with frequent passenger traffic in the Baltic Sea where ships have to pay a direct fee calculated on the waste amounts. The practice of NSF-system is not harmonized. The harbour fees may cover limited or unlimited amount of waste. In some ports, the limits of the volumes of sewage included in the NSF, are set disproportionally low in relation to typical wastewater generation rate and common sizes of cruise ships that are operating in the Baltic Sea. The EU Directive states that the cost of port reception facilities should be covered through the fees charged from ships. All visiting ships should contribute considerably to the costs of the facilities, irrespective of their actual use of the facilities. Ports can differentiate fees for ships according to the ship category, type and size, as well as on the basis of their environmental performance. Port of Gothenburg is an example of port that uses differentiated fee. Both interviewed ports implemented NSF-system with no stated limits. The port of Helsinki had

made a further step with its innovative offer discount for ships that actually leave the sewage in the port. There are several challenges in the process of expanding of the reception capacity. Ports are at the interface between the areas regulated by international maritime regulations and the different rules and regulations on land, which can be a challenge. The offloaded ship wastes have to be processed further on shore, which involve other actors than ports. Agreements between ports and municipal sewage treatment plants are therefore necessary. One of the respondents emphasized that infrastructural investments in e.g. fixed sewage connections must be adapted to the actual future use of the facilities must be planned in such way to be sufficiently utilised in the future. Another problem perceived by the ports is that some ships do not sort the waste on board in the optimal way for delivery in the harbour, partly due to that there are different expectations in different ports. The possibility for disposal of ship-generated wastes in ports is one example of services towards the visiting ships that reduce the environmental impact from shipping. The mandatory discharge requirements of the Directive are currently not applicable to the waste generated by scrubbers, which are being installed on board ships in increasing scale. Respondents from both ports (Helsinki, Gothenburg) perceive scrubber waste as an emerging waste issue. Management of sewage from ships, because of coming regulations, is naturally in focus in the Baltic Sea region. However as recently stated by ESPO, ship generated waste has always been a high priority for European ports [49]. Nevertheless, the organization points that a fee system (similar to NSF) when ships can deliver unlimited amounts of waste for a fixed fee is a divergence from the ‘polluter pays’ principle and may discourage striving to reduce of waste at source.

6. CONCLUSIONS The passenger traffic dominates the generation of sewage in shipping since the amounts depend on the number of passengers on board. Passenger ships are also the target of the coming stricter regulations for the sewage discharges in the Baltic Sea, as was initiated by HELCOM and formalized by IMO with some delays however in the process. According to the available data, the collected amounts of sewage in the Baltic ports have increased over time but more research is needed to get a full picture. It seems that few main ports have long dominated the reception of sewage in the whole region, but recent increases in the waste reception seems increasingly to take place in smaller ports. Major investments have been made during the last 15 years to develop port reception facilities in almost all passenger ports. Still the practice of NSF-system is not harmonized in the most ports that have introduced it. The special area regulations for sewage will enter into force in 2019 for new passenger ships but there are still diverging views on the question if the port waste reception capacity in the region is sufficient.

REFERENCES [1] UNCTAD, Review of maritime transport, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2015. [2] IMO, About IMO, 2016. http://www.imo.org/en/About/Pages/Default.aspx. (Accessed 2016-11-01. [3] S. Anderberg, Hamnarna rustas för fartygens avloppsvatten (in Swedish), Sjöfarten kring Sverige och dess påverkan på havsmiljön, Havsmiljöinstitutet Göteborg, 2014. [4] Cruise Baltic, Cruise Baltic Market Review 2016, Copenhagen 2016. [5] M. Leppäranta, K. Myrberg Physical Oceanography of the Baltic Sea, Springer Praxis Books 2009. [6] S. Hänninen, J. Sassi, Estimated nutrient load from waste waters originating from ships in the Baltic Sea area - Updated 2009, VTT, 2009. [7] HELCOM, HELCOM Recommendation 19/8. Application of the “no-special-fee” system in the Baltic Sea Area, in: HELCOM (Ed.) 1998. [8] MEPC, MEPC 69th session, 18-22 April 2016, Marine Environment Protection Committee), 69th session, 18-22 April 2016, London, 2016. [9] IMO, Resolution MEPC.159(55). Revised guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants, adopted on 13 October 2006, in: M.E.P. Committee (Ed.) London, 2006. [10] N. Butt, The impact of cruise ship generated waste on home ports and ports of call: A study of Southampton, Marine Policy 31(5) (2007) 591-598. [11] C. Sherrington, Darrah C., S. Hann, Cole G., Corbin M., Study to support the development of measures to combat a range of marine litter sources. Report for European Commission DG Environment., Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd,, Bristol, 2016. [12] ESPO, ESPO / EcoPorts Port Environmental Review 2016. Insight on port environmental performance and its evolution over time., The European Sea Ports Organisation, 2016. [13] OECD, Environmental Impacts of International Shipping: The Role of Ports OECD Publishing 2011. [14] POLB, POLA, Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles. Vessel Discharge Rules and Regulations, 2012. [15] ESPO, Green Guide. Annex 1. Good practice examples in line with the 5 Es., 2013. [16] CSI, Clean Shipping Index. Real-time, quantified insight into the environmental performance of ship., 2016. http://www.cleanshippingindex.com/. (Accessed 2016-12-06). [17] ESI, Environmental Ship Index ESI, 2016. http://www.environmentalshipindex.org/Public/Home. (Accessed 2016-12-06). [18] J. Madjidian, A. Rantanen, Port Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Sewage, in: Cleanship (Ed.) 2011. [19] IMO, Special Areas under MARPOL, 2016. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/SpecialAreasUnderMARPOL/Pages/Default. aspx. (Accessed 2016-12-01). [20] HELCOM, Ships’ Sewage in the Baltic Sea – New Special Area Regulations, 2016. [21] IMO, Resolution MEPC. 201(62). Revised MARPOL Annex V, Regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships. Adopted on 15 July 2011, International Maritime Organisation, Marine Environment Protection Commitee, 2011 [22] IMO, Resolution MEPC.200(62), Amendments To The Annex Of The Protocol Of 1978 Relating To The International Convention For The Prevention Of Pollution From Ships, 1973, Special Area Provisions and the Designation of the Baltic Sea as a Special Area under MARPOL Annex IV, Adopted on 15 July 2011, International Maritime Organisation, Marine Environment Protection Commitee, 2011

[23] IMO, Resolution MEPC.227(64). Adopted on 5 October 2012. 2012 Guidelines on Implementation of Effluent Standards and Performance Tests for Sewage Treatment Plants, MEPC 64/23/Add.1, 2012. [24] HELCOM, Notification to IMO of the adequate port reception facilities for passenger vessels' sewage in the Baltic Sea. HELCOM 35-2014, Helsinki Commission, Helsinki, 2014. [25] EU Commission, Directive 2000/59/EC. 43, European Commission, Official Journal of the European Communities L332 pp. 81–89. [26] HELCOM, HELCOM Recommendation 1/1. Recommendation concerning measures to ensure the use of reception facilities for wastes from ships., in: HELCOM (Ed.) Helsinki, Finland, 1980. [27] HELCOM, HELCOM Recommendation 26/1. ApppIication of the no-special-fee system to ship-generated wastes in the Baltic Sea Area, HELCOM 2005. [28] HELCOM, HELCOM Recommendation 28E/10. Application of the no-special-fee system to ship-generated wastes and marine litter caught in fishing nests in the Baltic Sea area, HELCOM 2007. [29] HELCOM, HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, Krakow, 2007. [30] HELCOM, Roadmap for upgrading the availability of port reception facilities for sewage in major passenger ports, HELCOM Ministerial Declaration on the implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, Moscow, 2010. [31] Baltic Press, Baltic Ro-Ro and Ferry Yearbook 2014/15, Baltic Transport Journal, Gdynia, 2015. [32] HELCOM, Baltic Sea Sewage Port Reception Facilities. HELCOM Overview 2014. Revised Second Edition., Helsinki, 2015. [33] HELCOM, On-Board Sewage Treatment, 2016. http://www.helcom.fi/action- areas/shipping/sewage-from-ships/on-board-sewage-treatment/. (Accessed 2016-11-20). [34] HELCOM, HELCOM interim guidance on technical and operational aspects of sewage delivery to port reception facilities, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, Copenhagen, 2013. [35] A. Jarzemskis, I. Jarzemskiene, The Model to Assess the Implementation of Technical Conditions Defined in Annex IV of MARPOL Convention 73/78: The Case of The Baltic Sea Port of Klaipeda, Transport and Telecommunication 17(4) (2016) 335–349. [36] Cruise Baltic, Port Reception Facilities in the Baltic Sea Region 2016, www.cruisebaltic.com, 2016. [37] Port of Aarhus, Terms of business in force as of January 1, 2014. Conditions and prices for the Port's activities., Aarhus, 2014. [38] HELCOM, 2013 HELCOM overview on port reception facilities for sewage in the Baltic Sea area and related trends in passenger traffic., Helsinki, 2014. [39] European Commission, Ex-Post Evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC on Port Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Waste and Cargo Residues. Final report., Brussels, 2015. [40] K. Tarnanen-Sariola, No-special-fee system at Finnish ports, Joint workshop on NSF system to ship-generated wastes in the Baltic Sea area, 5.11.2012, Copenhagen [41] I. Svaetichin, Cruise ships generated waste in the Baltic Sea. A study from the ports´ point of view on a possible updated waste management system Geography Human Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 2016. [42] D. Mróz, Ship generated waste management and sewage reception facilities in Port of Gdynia, BPO Environmental Seminar on sewage from passenger ships, waste from scrubbers, training on SDM, 5 March 2014, Gdansk.

[43] H. Backer, HELCOM, Intro of PRF-Report (key figures, questions, International Workshop on Port Reception Facilities for the Baltic Sea as Special Area according to MARPOL Annex IV, 30 June 2016 Kiel. [44] Port of Stockholm, Annual Business and Sustainability Report, Stockholm, Sweden, 2015. [45] St Petersburg Passenger Port, Week 19 of 2016 – results (09.05.2016-15.05.2016), 2016. https://www.portspb.ru/en/press_and_media/news28/postid/own_news/1379 (Accessed 2016- 12-01) [46] Port of Helsinki, Statistics 2015. http://www.portofhelsinki.fi/sites/default/files/attachments/Statistics_2015.pdf (Accessed 2016-12-01) [47] Port of Gothenburg, Increased freight volumes at the Port of Gothenburg, 2016. https://www.portofgothenburg.com/news-room/press-releases/increased-freight-volumes-at- the-port-of-gothenburg/. (Accessed 2016-03-01). [48] Port of Gothenburg, The largest forest port in Sweden. https://www.portofgothenburg.com/forestport/the-largest-forest-port-in-sweden/. (Accessed 2016-03-01) [49] ESPO, ESPO supports more efficient but responsible management of waste from ships. https://www.espo.be/news/espo-supports-more-efficient-but-responsible-manag (Accessed 2018-02-01)