those facilities are inconveniently located, their use is subject to complex procedures
or time-consuming, the facility cannot be considered adequate.
45
4.2.2 Prevent Undue Delays of Ships at Ports
Vessels run on a tight schedule and if the use of reception facilities is timeconsuming, incentives for illegal discharges at sea increase.
46 For this reason,
“adequate” also means that the use of the facility must not go “beyond the normal
turn-around time of the ship in that port.”
47 The IMO recommends that the ship
operator notify the “appropriate authority” in advance before the expected delivery
of ship wastes at a port reception facility
48 in order to plan the reception of ship
wastes in a timely fashion. The IMO manual on Port Reception Facilities does not
identify the authority that should be notified. If the notification system involves
several authorities or individual terminals, this system could create practical problems in the assessment of quantities of wastes that are actually received at port
reception facilities. It also creates difficulties in tracing the management of such
wastes after they are discharged to a port reception facility.
4.2.3 Avoid Creating Disincentives for Using Reception Facilities
Since MARPOL does not establish who must bear the costs of port reception
facilities, States are interested in developing cost recovery systems for the reception
and further management on land of port ship wastes. Based on the polluter pays
principle, i.e., “an economic policy for allocating the costs of pollution or environmental damage,”
49 ship operators should pay, at least partially, for the costs involved
in the operation of port reception facilities. The IMO’s manual on Port Reception
Facilities includes several alternatives for allocating costs of port reception facilities,
including the establishment of indirect fee, direct fee, contract fee, or mixed fee
systems.
In practice, States adopt several recovering mechanisms depending on, e.g., type
of ship, the frequency of calls of a particular kind of ship to a port, the type of wastes,
the type of cargo handled in a port, and the length of voyage since the last port of
45 Resolution MEPC.83(44) Guidelines for Ensuring the Adequacy of Port Waste Reception
Facilities, (2000), p. 7.
46 According to the IMO, “failure to establish adequate facilities is a breach of international
obligations and will increase the risk of illegal discharges from ships.” IMO Port Reception
Facilities – How to Do It (2016), p. 10. Tan mentions that “tankers will invariably resort to illegal
discharges if a visit to reception facilities will cause delay.” Tan (2006), p. 263.
47 IMO Port Reception Facilities – How to Do It (2016), p. 20.
48 This notification should be made at least 24 h in advance. The IMO has developed a Standard
Format of the Advance Notification Form for Waste Delivery to Port Reception Facilities.
49 Birnie et al. (2009), p. 322.
Regime Interaction and GAIRS
25
or time-consuming, the facility cannot be considered adequate.
45
4.2.2 Prevent Undue Delays of Ships at Ports
Vessels run on a tight schedule and if the use of reception facilities is timeconsuming, incentives for illegal discharges at sea increase.
46 For this reason,
“adequate” also means that the use of the facility must not go “beyond the normal
turn-around time of the ship in that port.”
47 The IMO recommends that the ship
operator notify the “appropriate authority” in advance before the expected delivery
of ship wastes at a port reception facility
48 in order to plan the reception of ship
wastes in a timely fashion. The IMO manual on Port Reception Facilities does not
identify the authority that should be notified. If the notification system involves
several authorities or individual terminals, this system could create practical problems in the assessment of quantities of wastes that are actually received at port
reception facilities. It also creates difficulties in tracing the management of such
wastes after they are discharged to a port reception facility.
4.2.3 Avoid Creating Disincentives for Using Reception Facilities
Since MARPOL does not establish who must bear the costs of port reception
facilities, States are interested in developing cost recovery systems for the reception
and further management on land of port ship wastes. Based on the polluter pays
principle, i.e., “an economic policy for allocating the costs of pollution or environmental damage,”
49 ship operators should pay, at least partially, for the costs involved
in the operation of port reception facilities. The IMO’s manual on Port Reception
Facilities includes several alternatives for allocating costs of port reception facilities,
including the establishment of indirect fee, direct fee, contract fee, or mixed fee
systems.
In practice, States adopt several recovering mechanisms depending on, e.g., type
of ship, the frequency of calls of a particular kind of ship to a port, the type of wastes,
the type of cargo handled in a port, and the length of voyage since the last port of
45 Resolution MEPC.83(44) Guidelines for Ensuring the Adequacy of Port Waste Reception
Facilities, (2000), p. 7.
46 According to the IMO, “failure to establish adequate facilities is a breach of international
obligations and will increase the risk of illegal discharges from ships.” IMO Port Reception
Facilities – How to Do It (2016), p. 10. Tan mentions that “tankers will invariably resort to illegal
discharges if a visit to reception facilities will cause delay.” Tan (2006), p. 263.
47 IMO Port Reception Facilities – How to Do It (2016), p. 20.
48 This notification should be made at least 24 h in advance. The IMO has developed a Standard
Format of the Advance Notification Form for Waste Delivery to Port Reception Facilities.
49 Birnie et al. (2009), p. 322.
Regime Interaction and GAIRS
25