The EU system of port reception facilities The revision of Directive 2000/59/EC: challenges & opportunities Laurent Prat Policy Officer in DG MOVE D.2 International workshop on ship's waste Thursday 25 October 2012, Antwerp, Belgium organised by EUROSHORE – ESPO – ECSA 1 Transport
Contents 1. The international legal framework 2. Main features of Directive 2000/59/EC 3. Monitoring of implementation 4. Stakeholder consultation 5. Data on waste streams in EU ports 6. The different aspects of the problem 7. Outline of the revision: objectives, possible measures and schedule 2 Transport
1. The international legal framework • Marpol 73/78 regulates legal discharges and requires Parties to provide adequate PRF for ship-generated waste and cargo residues that cannot be discharged • PRF must be adequate to meet the needs of ships using the port, without causing undue delay • "zero tolerance of illegal discharges from ships " could only be effectively enforced when there were adequate reception facilities in ports (IMO statement) • MARPOL 73/78 requirements for PRF should create an incentive on ships to minimize (legal) discharges into sea 3 Transport
2. Main features of Directive 2000/59/EC • It brings international requirements into EU law • It addressed ship-generated waste (Annexes I, IV & V to MARPOL 73/78 ) and cargo residues • It is addressed to all EU ports and all ships, irrespective of their flag, calling at or operating within a EU port (exception: naval and governmental ships) • It provides for additional obligations and mechanisms (limited to ship-generated waste and some ship types) 4 Transport
2. Main features of Directive 2000/59/EC • Specific features • Obligation on EU Member States to provide and manage adequate PRF within a specific framework (e.g. Waste Reception and Handling plans) • Obligation on ships to use PRF and to contribute financially to the costs involved ('polluter pays principle') • Obligation on EU Member States to control and enforce the implementation of the Directive 5 Transport
2. Main features of Directive 2000/59/EC • Waste reception and handling plans Management • Cost recovery systems • Pre-arrival notification Operation • Deliveries • Exemptions • Inspections Enforcement & • Penalties monitoring • Information and monitoring system 6 Transport
3. Assessment of implementation • Monitoring (2007-2010) with the assistance of EMSA, overall positive but some potential shortcomings: • PRF infrastructure and related services not fully adequate to satisfy the needs of the users • Inefficient administrative and operational management • Ineffective enforcement procedures over the control of deliveries and the detection of ships in potential breach 7 Transport
4. Stakeholder consultation • On-line consultation from 14/07/2011 to 16/09/2011 • To validate the problems and objectives; to help defining relevant policy options; to collect information and data • 58 contributions to the on-line questionnaire • http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/consultat ions/2011_09_16_prf_en.htm 8 Transport
4. Stakeholder consultation • Respondents information Industry 29% Ships 31% associations or NGOs Local or regional Ports 26% 31% public authorities Individuals Government 19% 17% Private sector PRF 14% 12% companies National public 12% Environment 9% authorities 9 Transport
4. Stakeholder consultation • Adequacy of port reception facilities Q14 Env. Gov. Port PRF Ship All PRF are fully adequate in meeting the needs of the ships 0% 25% 20% 33% 7% 16% regularly using them PRF are in general adequate in meeting the needs of ships 40% 63% 60% 67% 50% 58% regularly using them PRF are in general inadequate in meeting the needs of ships 60% 13% 20% 0% 43% 28% regularly using them 10 Transport
4. Stakeholder consultation • Problems reported when PRF are deemed inadequate Q15 Env. Gov. Port PRF Ship All There are problems of segregating 100% 30% 17% 0% 78% 43% different types of waste Facilities needed are not provided 40% 40% 6% 14% 61% 33% Facilities are unreasonably costly to 60% 20% 11% 0% 44% 26% use Capacities / discharge rates of 40% 10% 0% 0% 44% 19% facilities are insufficient Communications with the ports are 40% 0% 0% 29% 22% 14% unnecessarily difficult There are long waits before facilities 60% 0% 0% 0% 6% 7% can be used Other 0% 40% 17% 57% 11% 22% 11 Transport
4. Stakeholder consultation • Do the fees collected cover the cost of PRF services? Q17 Env. Gov. Ship PRF Port All No answer 0% 10% 17% 0% 17% 12% No 0% 10% 11% 43% 22% 17% Yes 20% 30% 11% 14% 22% 19% Do not know 80% 50% 61% 43% 39% 52% Do not know 52% Yes 19% No 17% No answer 12% 12 Transport
4. Stakeholder consultation • Should cost recovery systems be harmonised at EU level? Q20 Env. Gov. Ship PRF Port All Other 0% 0% 11% 0% 11% 7% No answer 0% 10% 0% 0% 11% 5% Do not know 0% 10% 17% 0% 0% 7% No 0% 20% 6% 0% 17% 10% Yes 100% 60% 67% 100% 61% 71% 13 Transport
4. Stakeholder consultation • Should cost recovery systems be harmonised at EU level? Reasons / comments given for "No" answers 1. Costs to receive, treat and dispose of ship-generated waste vary considerably between Member States; 2. Differences in size of ports and volume /types of cargo handled; 3. Where a functional fee system is in place, there is no need to change for harmonisation with other systems; 4. Differences in local or national systems for waste management. 14 Transport
4. Stakeholder consultation • Should cost recovery systems be harmonised at EU level? Reasons / comments given for "Yes" answers 1. Consistent fee systems should be considered for ports of similar size; 2. The system of fees should be harmonised, but the fee levels themselves should not; 3. Harmonising the fee systems ONLY if the same facilities are available in all ports; 4. Harmonisation would reduce the ease at which ports can charge excessive fees for PRF; 5. Differences in fee systems promote an uneven distribution of waste among Member States. 15 Transport
4. Stakeholder consultation • An information and monitoring system, what for? • Contact details of enforcement bodies and other focal points; • Up-to-date list of exempted vessels pertaining to article 9; • Records of waste notifications and waste deliveries (data); • Suitable for inspection purposes; records of inspection reports; • An alarm system in case of any (potential) overrun of capacity between two ports or in case of mis-declaration; • Information on PRF services provided in each EU port, including on the infrastructure, administrative procedures, fee system…; • Accessible (with user rights / credentials) to all relevant public and private stakeholders; • Ship particulars, including the dedicated waste storage capacity and “green” characteristics (e.g. fuel type, incinerator...); 16 Transport
4. Stakeholder consultation • Waste reception and handling plans Port(s) users were consulted formally, by way of dedicated meetings and/or 50% written contributions Port(s) users were consulted orally and 25% rather informally Port(s) users were not or hardly 13% consulted Other 13% 17 Transport
4. Stakeholder consultation • Waste reception and handling plans, comments • WRH documents being developed through this consultation process provide little added value to port users in their current formats; • It was felt that documents are often complex and extensive; • A more concise and standardised format providing an overview of the WRH plan and facilities would be more beneficial for port users on an operational level. 18 Transport
5. Data on waste streams in EU ports • The knowledge base is poor and difficult to exploit • No reporting requirement in Directive 2000/59/EC • No tools currently provided for at EU level to ensure a systematic standardised recording of waste streams • Data have been collected at EU level for some waste types and some ports but this is still insufficient to carry out detailed analyses for policy-making purposes 19 Transport
6. The different aspects of the problem • Problems with the implementation of the Directive Certain types of facilities needed are not provided or • capacities are insufficient (storage and flow rates) Infrastructure Separation of solid-waste ineffective at ship-port • interface Uneven incentive effects of cost recovery systems • and/or unintelligible fees systems Management Uneven rights of access to the exemption regime • Uninformed decisions for the control of deliveries • Enforcement Ineffective / inefficient procedures for the detection • & monitoring and inspection of ships in potential breach 20 Transport
Recommend
More recommend
