secure that notifications reach the designated public authority even when transactions take place exclusively between private operators.
The Manual on Port Reception Facilities provides assistance on the integration of
port reception facilities within national waste management strategies, as well as the
available alternatives to collect, store, and treat ship wastes, including recycling and
final disposal operations. Downstream waste management has also been a concern
for the Parties to the Basel Convention. Over the years, the COP to the Basel
Convention has adopted numerous technical guidelines that have not only dealt
with management alternatives, but also addressed particular types of wastes, particular hazardous characteristics or constituents, and waste streams. These guidelines
could be relevant for managing ship wastes after they are discharged at port
reception facilities.
In general, the Manual on Port Reception Facilities follows closely the common
understanding of ESM developed through the Basel Convention. The foundation of
an environmentally sound waste management system is to protect the environment
and human health. The ESM of wastes requires the participation of stakeholders and
the development of regulatory schemes together with institutional and technical
capabilities considering the social and economic conditions of a particular State.
5 Compliance Challenges
The success of MARPOL in the prevention of ship-source pollution has been relative
because a persistent and well known problem with its implementation concerns the
availability of reception facilities as reported on several occasions by the IMO’s
Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), the Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC), and the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation.
64 The absence of
port reception facilities or their inadequacy relates to: (a) financial, technical, and
political restraints involved in the provision of port reception facilities; and (b) lack
of enforcement mechanisms against States that breach their obligation to ensure the
provision of port reception facilities.
Over the last four decades, inadequacy of port reception facilities has been on the
agenda of the IMO’s MEPC.
65 In developing States, technical capacities are still
lacking.
66 The World Bank in cooperation with the IMO commissioned a study into
the provision of port reception facilities in Sub-Saharan African Ports. It revealed
that States are reluctant to provide reception facilities not only because of investment
and operational costs, but also due to the challenges related to the management on
64 Report to the MSC and the MEPC Sub-Committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments, 3rd
session Agenda item 14 (2016); Stokke and Thommessen (2002), p. 141.
65 Hassler (2016), p. 140.
66 Lethbridge et al. (1991); Karim (2015), pp. 134–135; Tan (2006), p. 267.
Regime Interaction and GAIRS
29
The Manual on Port Reception Facilities provides assistance on the integration of
port reception facilities within national waste management strategies, as well as the
available alternatives to collect, store, and treat ship wastes, including recycling and
final disposal operations. Downstream waste management has also been a concern
for the Parties to the Basel Convention. Over the years, the COP to the Basel
Convention has adopted numerous technical guidelines that have not only dealt
with management alternatives, but also addressed particular types of wastes, particular hazardous characteristics or constituents, and waste streams. These guidelines
could be relevant for managing ship wastes after they are discharged at port
reception facilities.
In general, the Manual on Port Reception Facilities follows closely the common
understanding of ESM developed through the Basel Convention. The foundation of
an environmentally sound waste management system is to protect the environment
and human health. The ESM of wastes requires the participation of stakeholders and
the development of regulatory schemes together with institutional and technical
capabilities considering the social and economic conditions of a particular State.
5 Compliance Challenges
The success of MARPOL in the prevention of ship-source pollution has been relative
because a persistent and well known problem with its implementation concerns the
availability of reception facilities as reported on several occasions by the IMO’s
Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), the Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC), and the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation.
64 The absence of
port reception facilities or their inadequacy relates to: (a) financial, technical, and
political restraints involved in the provision of port reception facilities; and (b) lack
of enforcement mechanisms against States that breach their obligation to ensure the
provision of port reception facilities.
Over the last four decades, inadequacy of port reception facilities has been on the
agenda of the IMO’s MEPC.
65 In developing States, technical capacities are still
lacking.
66 The World Bank in cooperation with the IMO commissioned a study into
the provision of port reception facilities in Sub-Saharan African Ports. It revealed
that States are reluctant to provide reception facilities not only because of investment
and operational costs, but also due to the challenges related to the management on
64 Report to the MSC and the MEPC Sub-Committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments, 3rd
session Agenda item 14 (2016); Stokke and Thommessen (2002), p. 141.
65 Hassler (2016), p. 140.
66 Lethbridge et al. (1991); Karim (2015), pp. 134–135; Tan (2006), p. 267.
Regime Interaction and GAIRS
29