142
Recommendation 19/8).
12 The HELCOM No-Special-Fee system builds on
MARPOL requirements on waste reception facilities in ports and the EU demand on
cost coverage. However, it focuses more on actual incentives facing operators. This
system is defi ned as:
…a charging system where the cost of reception, handling and disposal of ship-generated
wastes, originating from the normal operation of the ship… is included in the harbour fee
or otherwise charged to the ship irrespective of whether wastes are delivered or not”
(HELCOM Recommendation 28E/10, paragraph 1.1).
In other words, this system implies that all ships have to pay for reception, handling and disposal of residues, even if they have no residues to account for. The
bearing idea behind the No-Special-Fee system is that the port fee should not be
related to the amount of residues the vessel leaves in port. This would mean that – at
least in theory and not taking the extra time in port needed for proper waste management into consideration – the operator would not gain from, for example, cleaning
tanks at sea, since the handling of the residues is free (i.e. included in the port fee).
This does not necessarily mean that all ships have to pay the same fee. A more reasonable approach is that ships pay according to a selected parameter that could be
expected to vary with the average amount of waste, but not with the amount of waste
deposited by a specifi c ship. However, it is not stipulated precisely in HELCOM
Recommendation 28E/10 what particular parameter should be used. Gross tonnage
as available from the ship’s Data Sheet would be an easy measure, but type of cargo,
number of staff and the quality of on-board installations for waste management as
stated in the Recommendation could also be used. Independent of what measures
are used, the principles of fee calculation should be “fair, transparent and nondiscriminatory to all ships” and ensure a high degree of legitimacy . Moreover, the
collected fees should exclusively be used for costs related to waste reception in the
port (HELCOM Recommendation 28E/10, paragraph 4). Finally, in order to avoid
market distortions, it has been stated that “The Contracting States involved shall
make the necessary efforts in order to implement a harmonised fee system simultaneously in the ports of the Baltic Sea as well as in the North Sea Regions” (HELCOM
Recommendation 28E/10, paragraph 5).
Despite the fact that governments are urged to periodically submit reports on the
implementation of the No-Special-Fee system , few recent authoritative assessments
of the system’s effectiveness have been published. According to a joint report from
HELCOM member countries on the implementation of the Helsinki Convention of
2005, only three (Denmark, Finland and Germany ) out of seven audited countries
12 HELCOM Recommendation 19/8 on waste reception in ports was later superseded by new
recommendations where additional types of wastes and garbage were included in the No-SpecialFee system. The latest, valid recommendation on these issues is now (August 2012) “HELCOM
Recommendation 28E/10: Application of the No-Special-Fee System to Ship-Generated Wastes
and Marine Litter Caught in Fishing Nets in the Baltic Sea Area” which was adopted in November
15, 2007.
B. Hassler
Recommendation 19/8).
12 The HELCOM No-Special-Fee system builds on
MARPOL requirements on waste reception facilities in ports and the EU demand on
cost coverage. However, it focuses more on actual incentives facing operators. This
system is defi ned as:
…a charging system where the cost of reception, handling and disposal of ship-generated
wastes, originating from the normal operation of the ship… is included in the harbour fee
or otherwise charged to the ship irrespective of whether wastes are delivered or not”
(HELCOM Recommendation 28E/10, paragraph 1.1).
In other words, this system implies that all ships have to pay for reception, handling and disposal of residues, even if they have no residues to account for. The
bearing idea behind the No-Special-Fee system is that the port fee should not be
related to the amount of residues the vessel leaves in port. This would mean that – at
least in theory and not taking the extra time in port needed for proper waste management into consideration – the operator would not gain from, for example, cleaning
tanks at sea, since the handling of the residues is free (i.e. included in the port fee).
This does not necessarily mean that all ships have to pay the same fee. A more reasonable approach is that ships pay according to a selected parameter that could be
expected to vary with the average amount of waste, but not with the amount of waste
deposited by a specifi c ship. However, it is not stipulated precisely in HELCOM
Recommendation 28E/10 what particular parameter should be used. Gross tonnage
as available from the ship’s Data Sheet would be an easy measure, but type of cargo,
number of staff and the quality of on-board installations for waste management as
stated in the Recommendation could also be used. Independent of what measures
are used, the principles of fee calculation should be “fair, transparent and nondiscriminatory to all ships” and ensure a high degree of legitimacy . Moreover, the
collected fees should exclusively be used for costs related to waste reception in the
port (HELCOM Recommendation 28E/10, paragraph 4). Finally, in order to avoid
market distortions, it has been stated that “The Contracting States involved shall
make the necessary efforts in order to implement a harmonised fee system simultaneously in the ports of the Baltic Sea as well as in the North Sea Regions” (HELCOM
Recommendation 28E/10, paragraph 5).
Despite the fact that governments are urged to periodically submit reports on the
implementation of the No-Special-Fee system , few recent authoritative assessments
of the system’s effectiveness have been published. According to a joint report from
HELCOM member countries on the implementation of the Helsinki Convention of
2005, only three (Denmark, Finland and Germany ) out of seven audited countries
12 HELCOM Recommendation 19/8 on waste reception in ports was later superseded by new
recommendations where additional types of wastes and garbage were included in the No-SpecialFee system. The latest, valid recommendation on these issues is now (August 2012) “HELCOM
Recommendation 28E/10: Application of the No-Special-Fee System to Ship-Generated Wastes
and Marine Litter Caught in Fishing Nets in the Baltic Sea Area” which was adopted in November
15, 2007.
B. Hassler