Part 1 – Development of a Regional Reception
Facilities Plan (RRFP)
4Identification of the region to be covered by a
RRFP – For the purposes of an RRFP, a region should
include the participating States and the ports that will be
covered by the plan. A map should be provided, clearly
showing the participating States and all ports within the
region. The majority of States participating in an RRFP
should be Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Although
non-SIDS may participate, they should do so only so far as
their ports may be Regional Waste Reception Centres. The
obligations of non-SIDS to provide adequate reception
facilities in all ports and terminals will not be satisfied
by RA.
5Identification of the nature of the unique circumstances
that impact on the ability to provide adequate port
reception facilities – A clear understanding of
such unique circumstances will lead to a logical approach to
designing RA that most efficiently address those
circumstances. Generally, such circumstances will include
practical difficulties on the part of a State to manage its
own domestic waste, or a disproportionate additional burden
from ships to the domestic waste stream. Distances between
ports and suitable waste processing facilities may result in
unacceptable costs for transport which may increase the risk
of inappropriate treatment. A State's small geographical
size may limit the space available to process or dispose of
ship generated wastes and cargo residues, as may
geomorphology (for example high water table or unstable land
areas on low lying islands). A small population may limit
the ability to provide staff to receive and process ship
generated wastes and cargo residues at times convenient to
ships. In addition to these examples, other unique
circumstances may be present and should be fully described
in the RRFP.
6 In demonstrating a compelling need for RA,
alternatives should be explored, costed and assessed in
terms of their environmental risk. For example, it may be
relatively efficient to receive ship generated wastes and
cargo residues in every port, temporarily store it and
transport it to a central treatment plant for processing,
while being sure to comply with applicable international law
on the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes. The cost
of such storage, transport and central processing may be
less than providing comprehensive processing of ship
generated wastes and cargo residues in the vicinity of every
port, and may be more easily funded and/or recovered from
port users. However, in some regions, the cost of transport
may still be prohibitive and the environmental risk
associated with the transport of the ship generated wastes
and cargo residues may be unacceptable.
7 Note that RA are not intended as a quick
solution for short-term problems (e.g. where an individual
port has a temporary inability to provide adequate port
reception facilities due to equipment breakdown, industrial
action, severe weather etc.). RA is intended for ports where
the practicality of providing port reception facilities is
likely to be challenging for the foreseeable future. A clear
understanding of the unique circumstances will also help to
identify the areas or issues that may be able to be tackled
in the long term to enhance the provision of port reception
facilities throughout the region.
8Context for RA within a broader approach to waste
management and implementation of MARPOL – RA should
be designed to complement other strategies to improving
management of ship generated wastes and cargo residues
within a region. It should be clearly understood and
documented how RA will contribute to efforts to improve the
ability of a State to effectively fulfil its obligations
under MARPOL, or to accede to MARPOL where a State is not
already a Party. Parties proposing RA should ensure that
such arrangements would be suited to the vessels calling at
ports within the region and would not encourage any illegal
discharge into the sea.
9International and domestic shipping and the needs of
ships operating in the region to discharge ship
generated wastes and cargo residues – Understanding
shipping patterns is important to assessing the demand for
port reception facilities in a region and in individual
ports. The ships calling at each port within a region should
be quantified, as well as the existing number of requests
for reception of various types of ship generated wastes and
cargo residues. Advice on how to approach this task is given
in several IMO documents and
publications.1
10 The types of ships operating in a region
should be carefully identified as certain ship types
generate particular waste streams and/or are subject to
specific ship generated wastes and cargo residues management
requirements. For example:
- oil and chemical tankers – cargo slops from tankers can
reach large volumes with high water content compared to
other types of ships' generated wastes which is
generally more concentrated;
- oil tankers of less than 150 gross tonnage – in most
cases these ships are required to retain all oil on
board;
- fishing vessels – damaged or otherwise decommissioned
fishing gear can be bulky and contaminated with target
and non-target species, including invasive aquatic
species and fouling organisms;
- passenger vessels – these generally have larger volumes
of garbage and sewage compared to the general merchant
fleet; and
- recreational vessels – may lack or have limited
pollution prevention equipment, for example smaller
holding tanks and garbage storage areas, basic or no
sewage treatment, no bilge water treatment.
11 For a successful regional approach, it is
also important to understand the overall voyage pattern of
ships calling at ports in the region. Therefore, an RRFP
should take account of routes and ports of call, including
origin and destination outside the region. A ship should not
need to deviate from its route for the sole purpose of
accessing port reception facilities. Aspects of routing and
voyage planning that might affect the amount of ship
generated wastes and cargo residues on board ships arriving
in a particular region or port, and/or the need to clear
ship generated wastes and cargo residues storage spaces
prior to the onward journey, include:
- voyage through a Special Area where certain ship
generated wastes and cargo residues may not be allowed
to be discharged into the sea;
- voyage through a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area where
associated protective measures include additional
discharge restrictions;
- periods of anchorage prior to entering a port, during
which ship generated wastes and cargo residues may
accumulate on board; and
- average times spent in each port, which may provide
greater or lesser opportunities to discharge ship
generated wastes and cargo residues.
12Additional considerations – There may be other
factors that influence the demand for port reception
facilities in a region or a particular port. For example,
quarantine requirements within a region, in a particular
port, or at the onward destination, may necessitate
particular means of waste handling on board and/or in port
(e.g. compulsory discharge to shore, incineration
requirements, cleaning or disinfection, fumigation).
Increased shipboard collection and segregation of recyclable
and reusable materials may also influence demand for port
reception facilities.
13All ports in the region, including type and available
facilities – The RRFP should contain a thorough
assessment of the port reception facilities at all ports and
terminals within the region. Several IMO documents and
publications provide detailed information on what
constitutes adequate facilities and how adequacy can be
assessed. An assessment should also be made of any
opportunities to provide adequate port reception facilities
where such facilities are not already available.
14Identification of the selected Regional Ships Waste
Reception Centres (RSWRC) – Based on the foregoing
assessments and considerations, an RRFP should identify
which ports would be Regional Ships Waste Reception Centres
(RSWRC). In general, these should be the ports where
facilities are adequate to receive all types of ship
generated wastes and cargo residues, including any ship
generated wastes and cargo residues remaining on board a
ship that has visited a port within the region where ship
generated wastes and cargo residues cannot be delivered.
RSWRCs should be located so as to be convenient according to
the prevailing shipping patterns. This means that ships
should not be forced to deviate from their voyage for the
sole purpose of delivering ship generated wastes and cargo
residues to shore. RSWRCs should be located so that ships
can deliver ship generated wastes and cargo residues during
normal port visits – that is, where the ship would otherwise
have visited for the purposes of unloading, loading,
provisioning or lay-up.
15Identification of ports with limited facilities
(PLF) – Based on the foregoing assessments, an RRFP
should identify which ports have limited facilities
(PLF).
16Identification of a central point of contact – A
central point of contact should be identified in an RRFP
whose role should include:
- maintaining a current version of the RRFP;
- receiving and, where appropriate responding to or
redirecting, inquiries about an RRFP;
- facilitating discussions between government, shipping
and waste industry stakeholders regarding an RRFP;
- providing consistent information to government, shipping
and waste industry stakeholders regarding an RRFP;
and
- instigating periodic reviews of an RRFP.
17 Other functions could also be assigned to
the central point of contact, depending on the size and
complexity of an RRFP.
18 It is suggested that a government agency
or authority, rather than an individual person, is nominated
as the central point of contact to encourage continuity
through any staff changes. The central point of contact
should also be able to respond to enquiries in a timely
manner. Hours of contact should be at least the business
hours of the agency or authority.
19Identification of stakeholder roles and
responsibilities – this should list stakeholders
and describe their roles and responsibilities in
implementing or operating in a region covered by an RRFP. A
generic example is provided below, but should be modified
and/or expanded upon to address specific arrangements within
a region.
| Stakeholder | Examples
of roles/responsibilities |
Regulators (e.g. environment protection agencies,
quarantine authorities, maritime authorities) | - Enforcing legislation related to the
prevention of pollution from ships, management of
ship generated wastes and cargo residues.
- Licensing waste service providers.
- Providing current information to the
Organization, including updating GISIS, with
respect to port reception facilities.
|
Port users (e.g. ships agents, masters) | - Maintaining an awareness of how to access
information on RSWRCs, PLFs and individual port
reception facilities in ports.
- Providing timely advance notification of the
need to access port reception facilities.
- Submitting formal reports of alleged
inadequacies of port reception facilities where
appropriate.
|
| Waste service
providers | - Operating in accordance with relevant
legislation.
- Collecting ship generated wastes and cargo
residues from vessels and transporting it to
storage or disposal point.
- Treating, reusing, recycling, destroying or
otherwise managing ship generated wastes and cargo
residues collected by waste transporters.
- Providing current contact details to RRFP
point of contact and other stakeholders as
necessary.
|
20Period of review – an RRFP should include a
schedule for regular review by the participating States to
take into account changing shipping patterns, types of ship
generated wastes and cargo residues, local waste
infrastructure and capacity improvements and other relevant
circumstances. The aim of such a review process is to ensure
that the objectives of the Convention and the needs of ships
using ports covered by a RRFP continue to be met.
21Description of consultations undertaken with
stakeholders in developing an RRFP – this will
assist in demonstrating to MEPC and stakeholders that the
full range of stakeholder needs, roles and points of view
have been thoroughly considered in developing an RRFP.
1Refer to resolution MEPC.83(44) on Guidelines for Ensuring
the Adequacy of Port Reception facilities; the Comprehensive
Manual on Port Reception Facilities (IMO, 1999); and
Circular MEPC.1/Circ.671, Guide to Good Practice for Port
Reception Facility Providers and Users.