141
proper arrangements to consider and respond appropriately and effectively to reports
of inadequacies, informing IMO and the reporting fl ag State of the outcome of their
investigation” (MEPC 2007 ).
EU’s strategy in this area has been similar to the one on Port State Control
referred to above. EU Directive 2000/59/EC reiterates the regulation pertaining to
Port State facilities stipulated in MARPOL .
10 However, this directive is different
from the MARPOL Convention in two ways. First, it is only applicable to EU member countries. However, despite being applicable to EU Member States only, this
does not mean that vessels from other countries are exempted. On the contrary, all
vessels (except for war ships and non-commercial ships owned or operated by a
State) have to abide by the procedures and regulations on handling of waste that are
stipulated in the directive when entering a port of an EU country (Article 3). Second,
by turning the MARPOL regulation into an EU directive, enforcement mechanisms
are substantially strengthened. Port States that do not follow the directive could be
taken to court.
It is stipulated in Directive 2000/59/EC that each port in every Member State has
to establish a waste reception and handling plan (Article 5). This plan in turn has to
be approved by the government of the Member State, and every third year at least,
it has to be reapproved by the government. The Member State is moreover responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Waste reception and handling plan.
In order for port authorities to prepare for inspections or other procedures, operators
are required to notify the port they are calling on, where and when residues were left
in their previous port visit and how much waste is still on-board. The operators are
moreover required to leave residues in the port before leaving, unless they can show
that they can adequately store the waste on-board. Failing to do so could mean that
the ship is not allowed to leave the port (Article 7). Finally, the port is required to
ensure that it covers the costs of its reception facilities. In order to do this, all visiting vessels are required to pay a certain part of the reception costs, irrespective of
whether they use the port’s facility or not.
11 The Commission has quantifi ed this
amount to be at least 30 % of total reception costs (Directive 2000/59/EC). Apart
from this, fees are set in accordance with the amount of waste delivered. However,
“…fees may be reduced if the ship’s environmental management , design, equipment and operation are such that the Master of the ship can demonstrate that it
produces reduced quantities of ship-generated waste” (Article 8c).
Against this background of initiatives taken to improve port reception facilities
at the global and EU level in order to reduce the temptation to pollute at sea, the
regional HELCOM No-Special-Fee system is interesting (HELCOM
10 Directive 2000/59/EC entered into force on December 28, 2000. The deadline for countries to
implement the directive was December 28, 2002.
11 Interestingly, this may be somewhat at odds with one of the most important principles in modern
environmental protection – the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) – since operators that do not need to
use port reception facilities (because of, e.g. installed on-board equipment to manage operation
spill) still have to pay for this service.
6 Oil Spills from Shipping: A Case Study of the Governance of Accidental Hazards…
proper arrangements to consider and respond appropriately and effectively to reports
of inadequacies, informing IMO and the reporting fl ag State of the outcome of their
investigation” (MEPC 2007 ).
EU’s strategy in this area has been similar to the one on Port State Control
referred to above. EU Directive 2000/59/EC reiterates the regulation pertaining to
Port State facilities stipulated in MARPOL .
10 However, this directive is different
from the MARPOL Convention in two ways. First, it is only applicable to EU member countries. However, despite being applicable to EU Member States only, this
does not mean that vessels from other countries are exempted. On the contrary, all
vessels (except for war ships and non-commercial ships owned or operated by a
State) have to abide by the procedures and regulations on handling of waste that are
stipulated in the directive when entering a port of an EU country (Article 3). Second,
by turning the MARPOL regulation into an EU directive, enforcement mechanisms
are substantially strengthened. Port States that do not follow the directive could be
taken to court.
It is stipulated in Directive 2000/59/EC that each port in every Member State has
to establish a waste reception and handling plan (Article 5). This plan in turn has to
be approved by the government of the Member State, and every third year at least,
it has to be reapproved by the government. The Member State is moreover responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Waste reception and handling plan.
In order for port authorities to prepare for inspections or other procedures, operators
are required to notify the port they are calling on, where and when residues were left
in their previous port visit and how much waste is still on-board. The operators are
moreover required to leave residues in the port before leaving, unless they can show
that they can adequately store the waste on-board. Failing to do so could mean that
the ship is not allowed to leave the port (Article 7). Finally, the port is required to
ensure that it covers the costs of its reception facilities. In order to do this, all visiting vessels are required to pay a certain part of the reception costs, irrespective of
whether they use the port’s facility or not.
11 The Commission has quantifi ed this
amount to be at least 30 % of total reception costs (Directive 2000/59/EC). Apart
from this, fees are set in accordance with the amount of waste delivered. However,
“…fees may be reduced if the ship’s environmental management , design, equipment and operation are such that the Master of the ship can demonstrate that it
produces reduced quantities of ship-generated waste” (Article 8c).
Against this background of initiatives taken to improve port reception facilities
at the global and EU level in order to reduce the temptation to pollute at sea, the
regional HELCOM No-Special-Fee system is interesting (HELCOM
10 Directive 2000/59/EC entered into force on December 28, 2000. The deadline for countries to
implement the directive was December 28, 2002.
11 Interestingly, this may be somewhat at odds with one of the most important principles in modern
environmental protection – the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) – since operators that do not need to
use port reception facilities (because of, e.g. installed on-board equipment to manage operation
spill) still have to pay for this service.
6 Oil Spills from Shipping: A Case Study of the Governance of Accidental Hazards…