22
Submission to MEPC – A proposal
for a RRFP should be submitted to MEPC, at least twelve months before
it is expected to come into effect, for review and comment by the
Committee at its next regular session. The proposal should clearly
state the date the RA comes into effect. Each submission should be
coordinated by the central point of contact and sponsored by all States
whose ports are included in the region.
23 MEPC should consider the submission according
to the following criteria:
-
.1 the region of application is clearly defined:
| -
|
all States and ports
participating in the RA are identified; and
|
| -
|
a map of the region is
provided;
|
-
.2 a compelling need for RA has been demonstrated
through explanation of the unique circumstances that impact on the
Parties' abilities to provide port reception facilities in every port
within the region. It has also been clearly demonstrated that RA are
the only practical means to meet the requirements of MARPOL. The submission
should address the following considerations with respect to compelling
need:
| -
|
demonstrated difficulty in
managing ship generated wastes and cargo residues in PLFs caused by
physical, geographical or logistical circumstances; and
|
| -
|
satisfactory explanation of
alternative options that have been considered and why they are
impractical or less efficient than RA;
|
-
.3 the RRFP contributes positively to the ability
of the States involved to effectively implement their obligations
under MARPOL, or to accede to if not already Party to MARPOL;
-
.4 the identified RSWRCs meet the needs of shipping
within the region:
| -
|
ships generally
call at one or more RSWRCs during a voyage within a region;
|
| -
|
ships generally
have sufficient holding tanks and storage space for ship generated
wastes and cargo residues, to retain for discharge to an RSWRC,
discharge to sea in accordance with MARPOL, or discharge at a port
outside the region;
|
| -
|
there has been
demonstrated consultation with current and expected port users to
identify their needs for port reception facilities; and
|
| -
|
all PLFs are
serviced by one or more RSWRCs;
|
-
.5 the stakeholder roles are clear and evidence
is presented showing that they have been defined in consultation with
the stakeholders;
-
.6 a suitable central point of contact has been
nominated:
| -
|
appropriate administrative
arrangements exist for the central point of contact to effectively
carry out the role;
|
| -
|
consultation with stakeholders
on suitability of central point of contact has been demonstrated;
and
|
| -
|
telephone, fax and e-mail
contact details are provided; and
|
-
.7 the specified period of review, as outlined
in the proposal, is appropriate given anticipated changes in shipping
patterns during the period.
24 All substantive comments on the proposed RRFP
should be reflected in the report of the Committee.
25 When finalizing the RRFP, the Parties proposing
the RRFP should take the MEPC comments into account to enhance the
ability of the RA to meet the needs of shipping. In addressing the
comments, the Parties proposing the RRFP may consider actions including,
but not limited to, providing additional details in the RRFP, coordinating
further with stakeholders, reconfiguring RSWRCs and/or administrative
arrangements, and identifying future upgrades to existing facilities.
The final RRFP should describe how the MEPC comments have been taken
into account.