land of such wastes.
67 The World Bank noticed that, in many ports, ship wastes were
poorly managed and were usually subject to scavenging operations.
68 Furthermore,
wastes usually end up in drainage systems and eventually end up back in the ocean.
69
The study is revealing because challenges related to the provision of port reception facilities cannot be effectively addressed in isolation without considering the
integration of reception facilities with national waste management systems. In 2006,
the IMO approved the Action Plan to Tackle the Inadequacy of Port Reception
Facilities. One of the activities of the Action Plan relates to the development of
technical capabilities of developing States, including the downstream management
of ship wastes.
70
The 2006 Action Plan to Tackle the Inadequacy of Port Reception Facilities is the
most recent attempt to address some of the practical problems that users and States
face in relation to port reception facilities. The IMO’s Sub-Committee on Flag State
Implementation identified six areas of concern: (1) notification procedure between
the ship operator and the facility concerning the intention to use a certain facility;
(2) information on available port reception facilities; (3) technological challenges in
relation to ship-to-shore operation and standardization of standards for garbage
segregation; (4) revision of the type of wastes generated on board vessels, the
capacity of available port reception facilities, and methodologies to establish the
required capacity of port reception facilities; (5) revision of several IMO guidelines
and other related regulations; and (6) technical assistance for developing countries.
71
As part of the Action Plan to Tackle the Inadequacy of Port Reception Facilities,
an updated version of the “advanced notification form” was adopted.
72 Ship operators are encouraged to give notification at least 24 h in advance of their intention to
use a reception facility. Such notification is useful in identifying the availability of a
certain facility and avoiding possible delays. Furthermore, the provider of reception
facilities is able to plan the discharge of wastes and, if necessary, arrange special
handling requirements.
73 The notification intends to provide useful information to
governmental authorities regarding the type of wastes received, the quantities that
are discharged, and their hazardous characteristics. This information is also used to
establish the required capacity and technical capabilities of port reception facilities,
and to plan for further management operations on land.
In the decades following the entry-into-force of MARPOL, developed States have
generally been able to provide port reception facilities for ships calling at their
67 Lethbridge et al. (1991), p. 2.
68 Ibid, p. 6.
69 Sadler and King (1990), p. 5.
70 Draft Action Plan to Tackle the Inadequacy of Port Reception Facilities (FSI 14/19) (2006), p. 50.
71 Ibid.
72 MEPC.1/Circ.834: Consolidated Guidance for Port Reception Facility Providers and Users
(2014), annex II.
73 Ibid, p. 8.
30
G. Argüello
67 The World Bank noticed that, in many ports, ship wastes were
poorly managed and were usually subject to scavenging operations.
68 Furthermore,
wastes usually end up in drainage systems and eventually end up back in the ocean.
69
The study is revealing because challenges related to the provision of port reception facilities cannot be effectively addressed in isolation without considering the
integration of reception facilities with national waste management systems. In 2006,
the IMO approved the Action Plan to Tackle the Inadequacy of Port Reception
Facilities. One of the activities of the Action Plan relates to the development of
technical capabilities of developing States, including the downstream management
of ship wastes.
70
The 2006 Action Plan to Tackle the Inadequacy of Port Reception Facilities is the
most recent attempt to address some of the practical problems that users and States
face in relation to port reception facilities. The IMO’s Sub-Committee on Flag State
Implementation identified six areas of concern: (1) notification procedure between
the ship operator and the facility concerning the intention to use a certain facility;
(2) information on available port reception facilities; (3) technological challenges in
relation to ship-to-shore operation and standardization of standards for garbage
segregation; (4) revision of the type of wastes generated on board vessels, the
capacity of available port reception facilities, and methodologies to establish the
required capacity of port reception facilities; (5) revision of several IMO guidelines
and other related regulations; and (6) technical assistance for developing countries.
71
As part of the Action Plan to Tackle the Inadequacy of Port Reception Facilities,
an updated version of the “advanced notification form” was adopted.
72 Ship operators are encouraged to give notification at least 24 h in advance of their intention to
use a reception facility. Such notification is useful in identifying the availability of a
certain facility and avoiding possible delays. Furthermore, the provider of reception
facilities is able to plan the discharge of wastes and, if necessary, arrange special
handling requirements.
73 The notification intends to provide useful information to
governmental authorities regarding the type of wastes received, the quantities that
are discharged, and their hazardous characteristics. This information is also used to
establish the required capacity and technical capabilities of port reception facilities,
and to plan for further management operations on land.
In the decades following the entry-into-force of MARPOL, developed States have
generally been able to provide port reception facilities for ships calling at their
67 Lethbridge et al. (1991), p. 2.
68 Ibid, p. 6.
69 Sadler and King (1990), p. 5.
70 Draft Action Plan to Tackle the Inadequacy of Port Reception Facilities (FSI 14/19) (2006), p. 50.
71 Ibid.
72 MEPC.1/Circ.834: Consolidated Guidance for Port Reception Facility Providers and Users
(2014), annex II.
73 Ibid, p. 8.
30
G. Argüello