OPINION by CLIA Europe of the proposed revision 1 of the

Transcription

1 OPINION by CLIA Europe of the proposed revision 1 of the DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships, repealing Directive 2000/59/EC and amending Directive 2009/16/EC and Directive 2010/65/EU CLIA Europe would like to make the following comments to the proposed revision of the Port Reception Facilities Directive. CLIA Europe is very pleased to note the increased alignment with MARPOL requirements on operations at sea. The Directive further addresses in detail the legal, operational and financial responsibilities of all operators (i.e. adoption of waste reception and handling plans, cost recovery systems, advanced waste notification and waste receipt, inspection regime, exception and exemption criteria). However, a clear link to MARPOL discharge provisions and requirements is lacking. We note that as an exception, a ship may proceed to another EU port without delivering the waste provided that prove of sufficient dedicated storage capacity is made. Likewise, that the exemption for ships engaged in scheduled traffic with frequent and regular port calls has been clarified and is subject to a new standard exemption certificate. The cost recovery systems now include an indirect fee system for waste other than cargo residues. This indirect fee will for MARPOL Annex V waste specifically amount to 100% to be charged to cover all the costs of port reception facilities; the proposed directive further clarified that no additional charges for any additional volume of this waste is needed. With regard to the Impact Assessment, it has to be noted that Page 10, Section misinterprets the current PRF Directive and disregards the current IMO Marpol Annex IV and V stringent discharge requirements, that page 96 provides a new definition of sewage not in line with international regulations, that as page 15, Table 4, Environmental vulnerability is actually based on scorings between 1-5 (page 97 and beyond), the minimum entry is 16 and numbers presented should be seen in that context. Most importantly, the proposed Directive does not provide a clear guidance to Port State Control how to deal with legal IMO MARPOL discharge requirements. Due to that, the uncertainty for both port users and PRF providers and ports has needlessly increased. CLIA Europe considers it very likely that PRF s will not be able to accept the types and especially volumes of all waste, including waste which can be legally discharged under IMO MARPOL. Please find specific comments to the Proposed revision of the PRF Directive including its Annexes on the following pages. 1 Strasbourg, COM(2018) 33 final 2018/0012 (COD)

2 Table 1: Opinions and proposals by CLIA Europe for the proposed revision of the PRF Directive Commission s Opinions and proposals by CLIA Europe proposal for a revised PRF Directive EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence) We note that this section supports Marpol as it acknowledges that the main problems in the international regime do not relate to insufficient standards, but rather to the fact that they are not adequately implemented and enforced. Impact assessment The outcome of the Impact Assessment supports full alignment with Marpol with a special focus on Marine Litter (garbage discharge). However, the impact assessment is very unclear differentiating between legal and illegal discharges of (specific types of) waste. We note that Option 4, going beyond Marpol is not on the table. CLIA Europe strongly supports both the focus on garbage discharge and full alignment with Marpol including its legal discharge provisions. Proposal Article 2 Definitions Generally, we are pleased to note that existing and new definitions have been brought more in line with the IMO Marpol regulations. The European PRF Directive should indeed focus on improving delivery ashore of waste categories not allowed to be discharged overboard in line with the stringent IMO Marpol regulations. Also, we note that a clearer link has been made with the animal by-products regulation (REGULATION (EC) No 1069/2009). However, the terminology of international transport currently applied in the proposal needlessly requires ships travelling between two EU Member States to be treated as ships travelling between an EU Member State and a non-eu Member State. Maritime transport should be treated equal to other international transport sectors and not needlessly be forced to limit options for recycling of ship generated waste. As the proposed Directive is supposed to align with Marpol and focus on Marine Litter, Marine Litter should be actually be included in the Directive and a clear references should be made to Marpol and its discharge provisions. Article 3 Scope Article 4 Port Reception Facilities We are very pleased to note the much needed strengthening of the requirements for Ports and Member States to provide the necessary adequate port reception facilities. Par. 2b Par. 4 The statement that the fees charged for delivery do not create a disincentive for ships to use the port reception facilities is supported by CLIA and a clearer reference should be established with Article 8 Cost recovery systems. We note that the proposed text allows all parties involved in reception of waste to claim compensation for undue delay. However, in practice, most collectors already apply a charge for undue delay and it is difficult for a ship operator to specify undue delay. We would therefore strongly recommend that guidance is developed to support all parties involved to claim compensation for undue delay. Article 5 Waste reception and handling plans CLIA is pleased to note the proposed strengthening of this Article, requiring ongoing consultations with the port users via ongoing consultations, also after adoption of the Waste Reception Handling Plans (WRHP). For a successful implementation of the IMO requirements of the special area for Marpol Annex IV in the Baltic Sea increased cooperation and communication is required.

3 Therefore, the cruise industry strongly recommends the following addition to Article 5 Par. 1: Par.1 Par. 2g An appropriate waste reception and handling plan shall be in place and implemented for each port following ongoing consultations with the relevant parties, in particular with port users or their representatives. The waste reception and handling plan shall be made publicly available digitally and preferably on the website of the port. Those consultations should be held both during the initial drafting of the plans and after their adoption, in particular when significant changes have taken place, with regards to the requirements in Articles 4, 6, and 7. The detailed requirements for the development of such plans are set out in Annex 1. As the cruise industry plans their itineraries up to three years in advance, also advance knowledge of adequacy of port reception facilities is a necessity. Therefore, we would suggest to include an Article 5 Par. 2g and the amend the proposed Annex 1 to be amended accordingly. 2g) [NEW] Description of planned and envisioned availability of services offered to the port users. Par. 2 The Plans shall also list: 2h) [NEW] Any locally imposed discharge restrictions / legislation in addition to Marpol and the available PRF (e.g. for EGCS washwater, treated sewage (and/or Greywater), ballast water etc) 2i) [NEW] Any specific segregation requirements (e.g. for the different categories of garbage) and opportunities for recycling Article 6 Advance waste notification Article 7 Delivery of waste from ships Par. 1 As an editorial, we note that the word waste in article 7 Par. 1 lacks a definition. CLIA strongly suggests to amend Paragraphs 2 and 3 because: a) They do not allow sufficient time (between Upon delivery and shall before departure ) for the operator/master to submit the information. b) It would make the actual time of departure depending on the waste operator/authority which is not practicable. c) The waste receipt needs to be issued by the PRF operator or Authority to the ship which then needs to be reported by the ship to the system referred to in Article 14 managed by the Authority. According to that same Article 14; Member States shall ensure that the information from the waste receipt is reported electronically and within reasonable time. d) The reporting should not be onus on the ship or its representatives but on the PRF who issues the Waste Receipt. Therefore, the following is proposed: Par. 2 Par. 3 Upon delivery waste operator ( ) complete form in Annex 3, issue receipt to the ship and electronically report the information from the waste receipt in the part of the information, monitoring and enforcement system referred to in Article 14 of this Directive ( ). The operator, agent or master of a ship, ( ) shall as soon as practicable, confirm the information provided in the information, monitoring and enforcement system referred to in Article 14 of this Directive. With regard to Par. 5 and Par. 6, any ship will continue to generate waste while being at berth and on route. Therefore, a general obligation to deliver all the waste carried on board of the ship to a port reception facility in accordance with the relevant discharge norms laid down in the MARPOL convention should be realistic and in line with the European Commission s intention to reduce the administrative burden. The delivery of very minimal amounts of waste while the same amount of waste may be produced between delivery of that waste and departure cannot be justified or explained to the crew onboard if sufficient storage capacity is available. Also, it is not uncommon for cruise ships to stay at anchorage for more than 24 hrs and to use its own storage capacity. Therefore, the cruise industry strongly recommends the following revised texts for Paragraphs 5 and 6:

4 Par. 5 Par. 6 Without prejudice to paragraph 1, a ship may proceed to the next port of call without delivering the waste in accordance with MARPOL, if: (a) the ship only calls at anchorage under adverse weather conditions; (b) the ship only calls at anchorage for less than 48 hours and has sufficient dedicated storage capacity on board in accordance with Annexes 2 and 3; (c) the information provided in accordance with Annexes 2 and 3 shows that there is sufficient dedicated storage capacity for all waste that has been accumulated and will be accumulated during the intended voyage of the ship until the next port of delivery call. (d) if the waste can be discharged legally under MARPOL. In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the exception based on sufficient dedicated storage capacity, implementing powers shall be conferred on the Commission to define the methods to be used for the calculation determination of the sufficient dedicated storage capacity on board. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 20(2). Moreover, with regard to Par. 6, CLIA is looking forward to further liaise with the Commission regarding the method to define sufficient dedicated storage capacity. Par. 7 With regard to par. 7): If the next port of call is located outside the Union, or there are good reasons to believe that adequate facilities are not available in the next port of call, or this port is unknown, the Member State shall require the ship to deliver all its waste before departure. In order to be more in line with the proposed Annex 2, CLIA strongly supports the following amendment: If the next port of call is located outside the Union, or there are good reasons to believe that adequate facilities are not available in the next port of call delivery, or this port is unknown, the Member State shall require the ship to deliver all its waste before departure. This requirement shall not apply if the ship has sufficient dedicated on board storage capacity to deliver its waste at an adequate facility within 72 hrs of departure or to legally discharge this waste in accordance with MARPOL. Furthermore, implementing powers should be conferred to the Commission to further align Annexes 2 and 3 with forms used in Marpol. Article 8 Cost recovery systems The cruise industry notes that the proposal by the Commission does not specify any limitations to the quantity of waste to be received by a Port (either under the direct or indirect fee). Par. 1 It should be noted that Article 8, Par. 1 refers to Annex 4 and that not all elements listed actually represent a cost but an income (e.g. recycling of aluminium, PET, scrap metal, cooking oil, photo liquid waste, glass, paper and carton. Also, recycling and separate waste streams should be stimulated. Therefore, the following is proposed for Par. 1: Member States shall ensure that the costs of operating port reception facilities for the reception and treatment of waste from ships, other than cargo residues, shall be covered through the collection of a fee from ships and through the earnings of final reuse and recycling. Those costs and earnings include the elements listed in Annex 4. Par. 2 CLIA proposes the following amendment: The cost recovery systems shall provide no incentive for ships to discharge their waste at sea, except when in accordance with MARPOL.

5 Par.5 Article 9 Exemptions Par. 1 CLIA and its Cruise Line Members have extensive experience with reducing onboard waste and are looking forward to liaise further with the Commissions and other interested parties. Currently reads: Member States may exempt a ship calling at their ports from the obligations in Articles 6, 7(1) and 8 cumulatively, where there is sufficient evidence that: (a) the ship is engaged in scheduled traffic with frequent and regular port calls; (b) there is an arrangement to ensure the delivery of the waste and payment of the fees in a port along the ship s route; (c) the arrangement under point (b) is evidenced by a signed contract with a port or waste contractor, waste delivery receipts and confirmation that the arrangement has been accepted by all ports on the ship s route. The arrangement for delivery and payment of the fee shall be made in a port located in the Union in order to constitute sufficient evidence in accordance with this paragraph. Par. 1 (d) [NEW] For clarification purposes, CLIA proposes the following addition: (d) The ship can treat the waste in accordance with MARPOL (e.g. has approved treatment equipment on board) Article 10 Inspections It is CLIAs position that Port reception facilities must be subject to both Port State Control and third party audits. Article 11 PSC Inspections The cruise industry very much supports a risk based approach for the inspection of ships, in accordance with the PSC Directive. Article 12 Inspections outside PSC Article 13-Article 23 Article 24 Review The Commission shall evaluate this Directive and submit the results of the evaluation to the European Parliament and the Council no later than seven years after its entry into force. Considering developments on plastic waste, circular economy and sewage, CLIA would recommend considering a shorter time span for an evaluation for instance: The Commission shall evaluate this Directive and submit the results of the evaluation to the European Parliament and the Council no later than seven five years after its entry into force. Articles 25-Article 27

6 It is positive to note that the proposed Annexes would bring the Directive more (but not completely) in line with the international IMO MARPOL regulations and legal discharge requirements 2. Also, contrary to the spirit of the proposed revision, some of the requirements in the annexes have actually been softened. Table 2: Opinions and proposals by CLIA Europe for the proposed Annexes to the revision of the PRF Directive Annex 1 Requirements for Waste Reception and Handling Plans in ports Commission s proposal Opinions and proposals by CLIA Europe for the Annexes to the revised PRF Directive Elements a) to g) CLIA Europe supports the strengthening (now shall be included instead of shall be addressed ) Element e) Elements a) to f) Element f) CLIA Europe supports the strengthening of the text of the Proposed Directive (Article 4.3 and 4.4) regarding alleged inadequacies. These have been softened (now may also include instead of should include ) Element f) has also been softened: it used to read: description of how waste are disposed of ; and now softened to how waste streams are managed in the port ) CLIA therefore strongly recommends to keep the original version of the text: The plans should include Moreover, the Cruise Industry, as port user would like to be able to assess the handling of its waste by the Port and how it is handled outside the Port. The revised proposal will negatively affect this ability. Moreover, the Cruise Industry sets in itineraries up to 3 years in advance. Therefore, any advance knowledge of future availability of PRF should be shared with the port users and should be included in the WRHP. Element g) [NEW] Therefore, CLIA Europe proposes the following: A description of future availability of PRFs. Annex 2 standard format of the advance notification form for waste delivery to port reception facilities CLIA Europe would like to see reflected a clear reference to the legal discharge under MARPOL. Annex 3 Standard Format For The Waste Delivery Receipt CLIA recommends to take into account IMO RESOLUTION MEPC.239(65) and the addition of e-waste. Annex 4 Categories of costs for the operation and administration of PRF Annex 5 Exemption Certificate 2 See also: MEPC1./Circ. 834 (Consolidated Guidance For Port Reception Facility Providers And Users).