Part 1 – Development of a Regional Reception Facilities Plan (RRFP)

  4 Identification 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.

  5 Identification 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.

  8 Context 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.

  9 International 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.^footnote

  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:

  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:

  12 Additional 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.

  13 All 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.

  14 Identification 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.

  15 Identification of ports with limited facilities (PLF) – Based on the foregoing assessments, an RRFP should identify which ports have limited facilities (PLF).

  16 Identification of a central point of contact – A central point of contact should be identified in an RRFP whose role should include:

  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.

  19 Identification 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.

  20 Period 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.

  21 Description 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.