Notes for IMO

Apart from promoting port waste reception facilities, reduction of waste generation onboard ships should also be a matter of high priority. Equipment available in the market for onboard use are usually claimed to be of high performance. But, there has been no independent confirmation that how effective these equipment are, especially for regular use onboard ships. The cost of running such equipment is also a factor to be considered.

Sometimes too strict Port State control inspections discourage ships' personnel to use such equipment at sea and rather insist them to keep equipment ready for inspection at all time to avoid detention of vessel and personal fines.

Apart from problems related to equipment, also certificates required by some Port State controls to evidence the delivery of waste in other ports may cause trouble, especially in case of the MARPOL 73/78 Annex V waste, which is often self- delivered to port reception facilities by ships' personnel. Further, some ports fear that ships might deliver toxic waste to reception facilities without proper declaration, especially when the charges are based on type of waste.

Another area of concern is the imbalance of regulation in shipping and in ports. Shipping being considered international in nature is imposed with lot of regulations, which sometimes is in sharp contrast with ports, which are often poorly regulated by national law.

In view of prevailing discussion following tips are made for consideration by IMO: • An extensive study can be taken on shipboard equipment in use for waste

handling and endeavour to look for new equipment suitable for frequent use • A more practical oriented Port State Control inspections to be encouraged • Discharge of the MARPOL Annex V waste can be evidenced by a certificate

• Ship masters can be asked to sign a declaration form by identifying the composition of waste to encourage ports to receive wastes from ships

• Member States to be encouraged further to enhance port regulations and reduce the gap with shipping.

• Some provisions of incentive can be introduced by the member states to encourage environmental protection activities.

9.3 Conclusions

The problem of non-compliance of the MARPOL regulation on reception facilities can broadly be divided into two aspects. First, there is one group who has the ability to establish reception facility, but there is lack of awareness or they do not have the right attitude and second, who do not have the opportunity or capability to do this. It should be borne in mind that it is not only the ship owners those are benefited from shipping but also the society derives a benefit out of it. In principle the countries capable of establishing waste reception facilities do not have the right or morale to impose any harsh regulation on ships for causing pollution unless they provide adequate waste reception facilities in their ports.

The Countries in South Asia are facing environmental problems, which are much more severe than the immediate consideration of prevention of ocean pollution. But at the same time it can not be accepted that ships, which follow the regulation in some parts of the world will ignore the same while at deep sea or in the territorial water of any less developed country. As the international regulatory body in world maritime field it is a real challenge for the IMO and hence, its member states to bridge this gap.

With widely varying "willingness to accept" (WTA) of different societies towards marine pollution it is difficult to have a harmonised policy as well as to enforce that policy equally all over. But shipping being a true international venture and a driving force behind globalisation -- a common regulatory standard and framework is a must.

To achieve this goal there is no alternative to co-operation at all levels starting from internal co-operation among different entities to regional and international co- operation at both government and corporate levels. Thus, despite the fact that shipboard discharges constitute a small portion of the total coastal pollution, the successful implementation of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention could be a beginning of pollution prevention campaign in less developed countries like Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Besides, policing the vast ocean against deliberate discharges of ship-generated wastes is not feasible. It is worth mentioning that the transboundary nature of ocean pollution may affect one part of the world by the pollution caused on the other part. A stand-alone response is not enough to mitigate such problem. Therefore, a collective action as the preventive measure is essential before it is too late to recover. There is a Japanese saying which goes like that the water in Tokyo Bay was flowing through the Thames hundred years ago. Whether it is true or not, adequate waste reception facilities at any part of the world will be for the common benefit of all concerned.