The revision of Directive 2000/59/EC: challenges & opportunities - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the revision of directive 2000 59 ec challenges amp
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The revision of Directive 2000/59/EC: challenges & opportunities - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 16, 2022 164 likes •440 views

The EU system of port reception facilities The revision of Directive 2000/59/EC: challenges & opportunities Laurent Prat Policy Officer in DG MOVE D.2 International workshop on ship's waste Thursday 25 October 2012, Antwerp, Belgium

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Transport

The EU system of port reception facilities

The revision of Directive 2000/59/EC: challenges & opportunities

International workshop on ship's waste Thursday 25 October 2012, Antwerp, Belgium

  • rganised by EUROSHORE – ESPO – ECSA

Laurent Prat Policy Officer in DG MOVE D.2

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Transport

Contents

1. The international legal framework 2. Main features of Directive 2000/59/EC 3. Monitoring of implementation 4. Stakeholder consultation 5. Data on waste streams in EU ports 6. The different aspects of the problem 7. Outline of the revision: objectives, possible measures and schedule

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Transport

  • 1. The international legal framework
  • Marpol 73/78 regulates legal discharges and requires

Parties to provide adequate PRF for ship-generated waste and cargo residues that cannot be discharged

  • PRF must be adequate to meet the needs of ships using

the port, without causing undue delay

  • "zero tolerance of illegal discharges from ships" could
  • nly be effectively enforced when there were adequate

reception facilities in ports (IMO statement)

  • MARPOL 73/78 requirements for PRF should create an

incentive on ships to minimize (legal) discharges into sea

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Transport

  • 2. Main features of Directive 2000/59/EC
  • It brings international requirements into EU law
  • It addressed ship-generated waste (Annexes I, IV & V to

MARPOL 73/78 ) and cargo residues

  • It is addressed to all EU ports and all ships, irrespective
  • f their flag, calling at or operating within a EU port

(exception: naval and governmental ships)

  • It provides for additional obligations and mechanisms

(limited to ship-generated waste and some ship types)

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Transport

  • 2. Main features of Directive 2000/59/EC
  • Specific features
  • Obligation on EU Member States to provide and manage

adequate PRF within a specific framework (e.g. Waste Reception and Handling plans)

  • Obligation
  • n

ships to use PRF and to contribute financially to the costs involved ('polluter pays principle')

  • Obligation on EU Member States to control and enforce

the implementation of the Directive

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Transport

  • 2. Main features of Directive 2000/59/EC

Management

  • Waste reception and handling plans
  • Cost recovery systems

Operation

  • Pre-arrival notification
  • Deliveries
  • Exemptions

Enforcement & monitoring

  • Inspections
  • Penalties
  • Information and monitoring system

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Transport

  • 3. Assessment of implementation
  • Monitoring (2007-2010) with the assistance of EMSA,
  • verall positive but some potential shortcomings:
  • PRF infrastructure and related services not fully adequate

to satisfy the needs of the users

  • Inefficient administrative and operational management
  • Ineffective enforcement procedures over the control of

deliveries and the detection of ships in potential breach

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Transport

  • 4. Stakeholder consultation
  • On-line consultation from 14/07/2011 to 16/09/2011
  • To validate the problems and objectives; to help defining

relevant policy options; to collect information and data

  • 58 contributions to the on-line questionnaire
  • http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/consultat

ions/2011_09_16_prf_en.htm

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Transport

  • 4. Stakeholder consultation
  • Respondents information

12% 14% 19% 26% 29% National public authorities Private sector companies Individuals Local or regional public authorities Industry associations or NGOs 9% 12% 17% 31% 31% Environment PRF Government Ports Ships 9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Transport

  • 4. Stakeholder consultation
  • Adequacy of port reception facilities

Q14 Env. Gov. Port PRF Ship All PRF are fully adequate in meeting the needs of the ships regularly using them 0% 25% 20% 33% 7% 16% PRF are in general adequate in meeting the needs of ships regularly using them 40% 63% 60% 67% 50% 58% PRF are in general inadequate in meeting the needs of ships regularly using them 60% 13% 20% 0% 43% 28% 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Transport

  • 4. Stakeholder consultation
  • Problems reported when PRF are deemed inadequate

Q15 Env. Gov. Port PRF Ship All There are problems of segregating different types of waste 100% 30% 17% 0% 78% 43% Facilities needed are not provided 40% 40% 6% 14% 61% 33% Facilities are unreasonably costly to use 60% 20% 11% 0% 44% 26% Capacities / discharge rates of facilities are insufficient 40% 10% 0% 0% 44% 19% Communications with the ports are unnecessarily difficult 40% 0% 0% 29% 22% 14% There are long waits before facilities can be used 60% 0% 0% 0% 6% 7% Other 0% 40% 17% 57% 11% 22%

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Transport

  • 4. Stakeholder consultation
  • Do the fees collected cover the cost of PRF services?

Q17 Env. Gov. Ship PRF Port All No answer 0% 10% 17% 0% 17% 12% No 0% 10% 11% 43% 22% 17% Yes 20% 30% 11% 14% 22% 19% Do not know 80% 50% 61% 43% 39% 52% 12% 17% 19% 52% No answer No Yes Do not know

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Transport

  • 4. Stakeholder consultation
  • Should cost recovery systems be harmonised at EU level?

Q20 Env. Gov. Ship PRF Port All Other 0% 0% 11% 0% 11% 7% No answer 0% 10% 0% 0% 11% 5% Do not know 0% 10% 17% 0% 0% 7% No 0% 20% 6% 0% 17% 10% Yes 100% 60% 67% 100% 61% 71% 13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Transport

  • 4. Stakeholder consultation
  • Should cost recovery systems be harmonised at EU level?

Reasons / comments given for "No" answers

  • 1. Costs to receive, treat and dispose of ship-generated waste

vary considerably between Member States;

  • 2. Differences in size of ports and volume /types of cargo

handled;

  • 3. Where a functional fee system is in place, there is no need

to change for harmonisation with other systems;

  • 4. Differences

in local

  • r

national systems for waste management.

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Transport

  • 4. Stakeholder consultation
  • Should cost recovery systems be harmonised at EU level?

Reasons / comments given for "Yes" answers

  • 1. Consistent fee systems should be considered for ports of

similar size;

  • 2. The system of fees should be harmonised, but the fee levels

themselves should not;

  • 3. Harmonising the fee systems ONLY if the same facilities are

available in all ports;

  • 4. Harmonisation would reduce the ease at which ports can

charge excessive fees for PRF;

  • 5. Differences in fee systems promote an uneven distribution
  • f waste among Member States.

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Transport

  • 4. Stakeholder consultation
  • An information and monitoring system, what for?
  • Contact details of enforcement bodies and other focal points;
  • Up-to-date list of exempted vessels pertaining to article 9;
  • Records of waste notifications and waste deliveries (data);
  • Suitable for inspection purposes; records of inspection reports;
  • An alarm system in case of any (potential) overrun of capacity

between two ports or in case of mis-declaration;

  • Information on PRF services provided in each EU port, including
  • n the infrastructure, administrative procedures, fee system…;
  • Accessible (with user rights / credentials) to all relevant public

and private stakeholders;

  • Ship particulars, including the dedicated waste storage capacity

and “green” characteristics (e.g. fuel type, incinerator...);

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Transport

  • 4. Stakeholder consultation
  • Waste reception and handling plans

13% 13% 25% 50% Other Port(s) users were not or hardly consulted Port(s) users were consulted orally and rather informally Port(s) users were consulted formally, by way of dedicated meetings and/or written contributions 17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Transport

  • 4. Stakeholder consultation
  • Waste reception and handling plans, comments
  • WRH

documents being developed through this consultation process provide little added value to port users in their current formats;

  • It

was felt that documents are

  • ften

complex and extensive;

  • A more concise and standardised format providing an
  • verview of the WRH plan and facilities would be more

beneficial for port users on an operational level.

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Transport

  • 5. Data on waste streams in EU ports
  • The knowledge base is poor and difficult to exploit
  • No reporting requirement in Directive 2000/59/EC
  • No tools currently provided for at EU level to ensure a

systematic standardised recording of waste streams

  • Data have been collected at EU level for some waste

types and some ports but this is still insufficient to carry

  • ut detailed analyses for policy-making purposes

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Transport

  • 6. The different aspects of the problem
  • Problems with the implementation of the Directive

Infrastructure

  • Certain types of facilities needed are not provided or

capacities are insufficient (storage and flow rates)

  • Separation of solid-waste ineffective at ship-port

interface Management

  • Uneven incentive effects of cost recovery systems

and/or unintelligible fees systems

  • Uneven rights of access to the exemption regime

Enforcement & monitoring

  • Uninformed decisions for the control of deliveries
  • Ineffective / inefficient procedures for the detection

and inspection of ships in potential breach

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Transport

  • 6. The different aspects of the problem
  • Changes in the international legal framework
  • Annex V of Marpol 73/78 (garbage) was revised. It sets

more stringent discharge requirements and recast the classification of waste types under this Annex

  • Annex VI of Marpol 73/78 (emissions) was adopted and

now forms part of the Convention; exhaust gas cleaning systems used to limit the emissions of sulphur oxide produce residues and wash waters, for which adequate PRF are required to be provided

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Transport

  • 7. Outline of the revision
  • Objectives and guiding principles
  • Improve availability and adequacy of PRF services
  • Improve efficiency of PRF administrative management
  • Improve overall transparency of PRF system
  • Long-term

political goal: “zero-waste maritime transport” [COM(2009) 8 final]

  • Smart

regulation: clarify, simplify and adjust the regulatory framework to best meet stakeholders' needs

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Transport

  • 7. Outline of the revision
  • Possible areas for intervention (1/3)
  • Updating
  • f

some provisions

  • f

the Directive in accordance with revised Marpol 73/78 Annex V

  • Extending the scope of the Directive in accordance with

the new Marpol 73/78 Annex VI

  • Providing for a reporting requirement on the type and

amounts of waste collected

  • Providing for detailed requirements for the development
  • f

an information and monitoring system, including deadlines for its implementation

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Transport

  • 7. Outline of the revision
  • Possible areas of intervention (2/3)
  • Best practices for the development, implementation and

monitoring of Waste Reception and Handling plans

  • Bridging

shipboard requirements for solid-waste separation with shore side requirements

  • Common interpretations of the criteria for granting and

managing exemptions

  • Providing for common tools and standards practices as

regards inspections and control of deliveries

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Transport

  • 7. Outline of the revision
  • Possible areas of intervention (3/3)
  • The provisions on cost recovery systems (art. 8) are

still subject to on-going reflection and analyses Stakeholders seem to support an harmonisation of the fee systems. Yet, there is no clear evidence that one system is "better" (ref. Ramboll study 2012 / EMSA) Heterogeneity of the fee systems may be a problem but the situations (ports size, local institutional set-up, economic structures) are equally heterogeneous This issue may be considered in a broader approach tackling fees of port services in general

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Transport

  • 7. Outline of the revision
  • Schedule
  • Completion of the Impact Assessment, December 2012
  • Adoption of proposal(s), first half of 2013

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Transport

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

Laurent.Prat@ec.europa.eu

27