140
polluting ship been identifi ed (HELCOM 2014 ). Moreover, even when the polluter
is identifi ed, it is far from certain that this leads to a conviction, and if it does, penalties are typically low. Despite the use of HELCOM AIS – a land-based tracking
system that makes it possible to track all large ships in real time – and the Seatrack
Web oil drift forecasting system (STW) that facilitates assessment of propagation
patterns of oil spills, identifi cation effectiveness of polluters remains poor. This
obviously weakens incentives for operators to cut corners by, for example, cleaning
tanks at sea.
6.6.2 Incentive Schemes: The Baltic Sea No-Special-Fee
System
One way to reduce temptations for operators to intentionally pollute by, for example, cleaning tanks at sea is to reduce costs for abiding by MARPOL conventions
that require depositing oily wastes in dedicated port reception facilities. Despite the
fact that port reception facilities have been on the agenda of all MEPC meeting for
the last 35 years since the advent of MEPC 3 (Mikelis 2010 ), facilities and operational procedures are still far from adequate in the ports of many MARPOL member
countries.
9
From the perspective of IMO , “MARPOL provisions require the government of
each party to ensure the provision of adequate port reception facilities without causing undue delay” (IMO 1999 ). Moreover, according to MEPC, “The ability of ships
to comply with the discharge requirements of MARPOL depends largely upon the
availability of adequate port reception facilities…” (MEPC 2007 ). However, what
constitutes “adequate port reception facilities” is almost impossible to defi ne since
the kind of facilities necessary depends on what types of vessels regularly call in
ports. In smaller ports simple barrels might be suffi cient, whereas in many of the
larger ports, facilities have to be constructed that cannot only harbour large amounts
of wastes but also treat different oil residues in different ways. The issue of how to
delimit “…without causing undue delay” is not a question that is easy to solve. It is
clear that every extra hour a large tanker has to stay in port costs the operator a signifi cant amount of money. Therefore, temptations to clean tanks at sea will prevail
as long as it is quicker and easier than doing so in a port, and the risk of being caught
while polluting is negligible.
In order to put pressure on Port States and stimulate investments in port reception
facilities, IMO has underlined the responsibility of Flag States to ensure that the
IMO report format is distributed to all vessels carrying their fl ag. This format should
be used by the master of the vessel to notify the Flag State as well as IMO and the
relevant Port State when reception facilities are not appropriate or when there have
been undue delays. Port States are then expected to “… ensure the provision of
9 MEPC – the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee.
B. Hassler
polluting ship been identifi ed (HELCOM 2014 ). Moreover, even when the polluter
is identifi ed, it is far from certain that this leads to a conviction, and if it does, penalties are typically low. Despite the use of HELCOM AIS – a land-based tracking
system that makes it possible to track all large ships in real time – and the Seatrack
Web oil drift forecasting system (STW) that facilitates assessment of propagation
patterns of oil spills, identifi cation effectiveness of polluters remains poor. This
obviously weakens incentives for operators to cut corners by, for example, cleaning
tanks at sea.
6.6.2 Incentive Schemes: The Baltic Sea No-Special-Fee
System
One way to reduce temptations for operators to intentionally pollute by, for example, cleaning tanks at sea is to reduce costs for abiding by MARPOL conventions
that require depositing oily wastes in dedicated port reception facilities. Despite the
fact that port reception facilities have been on the agenda of all MEPC meeting for
the last 35 years since the advent of MEPC 3 (Mikelis 2010 ), facilities and operational procedures are still far from adequate in the ports of many MARPOL member
countries.
9
From the perspective of IMO , “MARPOL provisions require the government of
each party to ensure the provision of adequate port reception facilities without causing undue delay” (IMO 1999 ). Moreover, according to MEPC, “The ability of ships
to comply with the discharge requirements of MARPOL depends largely upon the
availability of adequate port reception facilities…” (MEPC 2007 ). However, what
constitutes “adequate port reception facilities” is almost impossible to defi ne since
the kind of facilities necessary depends on what types of vessels regularly call in
ports. In smaller ports simple barrels might be suffi cient, whereas in many of the
larger ports, facilities have to be constructed that cannot only harbour large amounts
of wastes but also treat different oil residues in different ways. The issue of how to
delimit “…without causing undue delay” is not a question that is easy to solve. It is
clear that every extra hour a large tanker has to stay in port costs the operator a signifi cant amount of money. Therefore, temptations to clean tanks at sea will prevail
as long as it is quicker and easier than doing so in a port, and the risk of being caught
while polluting is negligible.
In order to put pressure on Port States and stimulate investments in port reception
facilities, IMO has underlined the responsibility of Flag States to ensure that the
IMO report format is distributed to all vessels carrying their fl ag. This format should
be used by the master of the vessel to notify the Flag State as well as IMO and the
relevant Port State when reception facilities are not appropriate or when there have
been undue delays. Port States are then expected to “… ensure the provision of
9 MEPC – the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee.
B. Hassler