Revised MARPOL Annexe V and its controversial issues

Revised MARPOL Annexe V and its controversial issues

The Policy

Revised MARPOL Annexe V was adopted during 62nd session of Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of IMO, held in July 2011 and came into force from 1st jan 2013.
Before revision, MARPOL Annexe V imposed restrictions and controls on the disposal of all types of garbage into the sea. After the revisions of this convention came into force, almost all types of garbage are prohibited from disposing off into the sea.

The Controversy

The revisions of MARPOL Annexe V are based on ‘precautionary principle’ which means preventive measures are to be taken when there is reason to believe that the discharge of materials into the sea is going to harm the marine environment, while there is no conclusive evidence to prove the opposite.
This approach means the burden of proof shifts to the party or proponent, who wants to dispose certain materials into the sea. The proponent must have to prove that disposal of materials/waste into the sea shall not harm the marine environment; otherwise he is prohibited to dispose off such waste into the sea.

After revision of Annexe V, all materials included or defined in the policy shall have increased restrictions on disposing them off into the sea, if at all they are allowed to be disposed off at sea. Materials that are not defined in the policy are completely prohibited for disposal at sea.

One example in change of policy after revision of Annexe V is the restriction/prohibition on disposing off of dunnage into the sea. Before revision of Annexe V, dunnage could be disposed off outside special areas and beyond 25 nautical miles from the nearest land. Revised Annexe V completely prohibits the disposal of dunnage at sea. This leaves the vessels with two alternatives only; either incinerate the dunnage or land the dunnage to shore reception facilities.
Break bulk carriers, having a large amount of dunnage during carriage of their cargoes, have to deal with the problem of disposing it. Incinerating such large amounts of dunnage is not practical for all the vessels. So, landing ashore is the only option left and landing such waste to shore reception facilities require adequate infrastructure and facilities at all ports.
Another example of major change in policy is food waste. Before revision of Annexe V, food waste could be disposed off at sea when the vessel is not ‘en route’ provided it is at 12 nautical miles away from nearest land (and in some cases even 3 nautical miles away from nearest land depending upon the condition of food waste) but after revision of Annexe V vessels can dispose off food waste only if they are ‘en route’. Vessels that are anchored for long times due to various reasons cannot dispose off their food waste at sea. Dealing with large quantities of food wastes in such scenarios is a big problem for such vessels.

Same is the case with all types of other wastes that a vessel produces during its normal running, e.g., paper, cardboard, metal, glass bottles etc. With revised Annexe V in force all such waste needs to be landed ashore. Landing such waste not only requires extra efforts from seastaff during already hectic port stays but also requires the ports to have adequate reception facilities which can receive all such garbage efficiently without delaying the already tight schedule of the vessel.

Storing all types of wastes during sea voyages or during anchorages requires the owner to spend on equipments required for safe and efficient storing of garbage onboard. Landing of garbage to port reception facilities also require considerable amount of expense from the ship owner.

The biggest problem of all, faced by vessels is the inadequate or expensive reception facilities at ports. Many a times the ports are not equipped with facilities to accept all types of garbage. Though IMO has made provision for reporting of such inadequacies of port facilities but reporting does not solve the in-hand problem for the vessel. The vessel needs to get rid of its garbage after a long voyage and especially if it knows that it is going on another long voyage.

Another controversial issue is the disposal method of all such waste on land by port reception facilities. In the absence of proper recycling or processing units near the ports, the waste that is landed from vessels to shore facilities can again be disposed off in ways that can harm the environment. Landing garbage from vessel to shore definitely saves the marine environment but the convention should also take into account the ways to protect the environment as a whole, be it marine environment or shore environment.

The Safety Objective

The sole purpose of MARPOL convention is to safeguard the marine environment. Regulations for prevention of pollution by garbage from ships are contained in Annexe V of MARPOL.
The safety objective of revision of Annexe V of MARPOL, to safeguard the marine environment through precautionary approach, shall be successful but at the cost for the companies. It is going to take some time before all the port facilities round the globe are ready for reception of all types of garbage in an efficient way. Till that time vessels shall have to deal with the garbage produced onboard using different equipments for efficient storage.

Restructuring of revised MARPOL Annexe V

The revision of Annexe V is a positive step in safeguarding the marine environment from garbage pollution, but it would have been much better for all the parties involved if following were taken into account before bringing into force the revisions in the convention:
1. All ports of the ratifying flag states should have been legally bound to have garbage reception facilities for all types of ship waste.
2. Cost of reception of garbage by port facilities should have been standardized or maximum limits should have been imposed on price quotations for different garbage, landed ashore.
3. Legal boundation should have been imposed for all ports to have positive plans to recycle or process all the waste received from vessels without harming the environment.

Whenever any change in convention is planned or any new policy is formulated, ship owners are given a time frame to comply with the forthcoming requirements, similarly a time frame should have been set for all ports, for complying with the requirements mentioned above, and then only the revision of Annexe V should have been brought into force for ships. This would have not only fulfilled the objective of safeguarding the marine environment but also helped in efficient and effective execution of these revisions.