Abstract
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission members seeking to implement MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV amendments which recognize the Baltic Sea as special are, in which discharge of uncommitted sewage from passenger ships is forbidden, must ensure that ports are equipped with adequate reception facilities. To ensure implementation of amendments of Annex IV in port of Klaipeda, the analysis framework model was defined by authors. The model evaluates the readiness of the port to changes brought by the amendments of MARPOL Annex IV. The scientific problem comes with perception of adequacy. Resolution MEPC.200(62) amending MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV states, that port reception facilities must be adequate to the needs of passenger ships using them without causing undue delay. Concept of adequacy is not defined, therefore other guidelines explaining adequacy were used: EU directive 2000/59/EC and IMO resolution MEPC.83(44) Guidelines for ensuring adequacy of port reception facilities. Based on these sources, criteria that must be met to ensure adequacy were identified and tested in article: 1) reception facilities meet needs of ships normally using them; 2) discharge of sewage does to cause undue delay; 3) reception facilities does not provide disincentive to use them; 4) facilities are accessible; 5) facilities contribute to the improvement of the marine environment.
References
1. HELCOM recommendation 11/10 Guidelines for capacity calculation of sewage system on board passenger ships (1990) Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission.
2. HELCOM overview on port reception facilities for sewage in the Baltic Sea area and related trends in passenger traffic (2013) Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission.
3. Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 convention. HELCOM: Interim guidance on technical and operational aspects of delivery of sewage by passenger ships to port reception facilities (2013) Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission.
4. Chin-Shan, Lu; Wen-Hong, Liu; Wooldridge Ch. (2014) Maritime environmental governance and green shipping. Maritime Policy & Management 41(2): 131–133.
5. Demand study port infrastructure (2013) Project CLEANSHIP report. (Clean Baltic Sea Shipping, funded by Baltic Sea Programme 2007-2013).
6. Everett, S.; Pettitt, T. (2006) Effective corporatization of ports is a function of effective legislation: legal issues in the existing paradigm. Maritime Policy & Management 33(3): 219–232.
7. Homsombat, W.; Yip, T.L.; Yang, H.; Fu, X. (2013) Regional cooperation and management of port pollution. Maritime Policy & Management 40(5): 451–466.
8. Julian, M. (2000) MARPOL 73/78: the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Maritime Studies 2000(113): 16–23.
9. Klopott, M. (2013) Restructuring of environmental management in Baltic ports: case of Poland. Maritime Policy & Management 40(5): 439–450.
10. Luo, M.; Yip, T.L. (2013) Ports and the environment. Maritime Policy & Management 40(5): 401–403.
11. Mattson, G. (2006) MARPOL 73/78 and Annex I: An Assessment of its Effectiveness. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 9(2): 175–194.
12. Moon, D.S.-H.; Woo, J.K. (2014) The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation from both economic and environmental perspectives. Maritime Policy & Management 41(5): 444–461.
13. Panasiuk, I.; Lebedevas, S. (2014) The assessment of the possibilities for the Lithuanian fleet to comply with new environmental requirements. Transport 29(1): 50–58.
14. Project CLEANSHIP (Clean Baltic Sea Shipping) report DEMAND STUDY PORT INFRASTRUCTURE, funded under Baltic Sea Programme 2007-2013.
15. Venus Lun, Y.H.; Lai K-H.; Christina W.Y.; Cheng T.C.E. (2014) Green shipping practices and firm performance. Journal: Maritime Policy & Management 41(2): 134–148.
16. Zondag, B.; Bucci, P.; Gützkow, P.; de Jong, G. (2010) Port competition modelling including maritime, port, and hinterland characteristics. Maritime Policy & Management 37(3): 179–194.
