CLIA Simulation Exercise on Marpol Annex IV Baltic Special Area Marco Digioia Director of Government Affairs CLIA Europe

Transcription

1 CLIA Simulation Exercise on Marpol Annex IV Baltic Special Area Marco Digioia Director of Government Affairs CLIA Europe HELCOM PRF Platform,Tallin, 5 September 2016

2 Sailing the Baltic An example of challenging itinerary SHIP MAXIMUM SEWAGE HOLDING CAPACITY 2200m3 DATES PORTS ARR. DEP. DAILY VOLUMES ACCUMULATED 17-juin-15 COPENHAGEN, DENMARK 8:00 AM 11:00 PM juin-15 ROSTOCK, GERMANY 7:00 AM 9:30 PM juin-15 AT SEA juin-15 KLAIPEDA, LITHUANIA 8:00 AM 5:00 PM juin-15 VISBY, SWEDEN 7:00 AM 4:00 PM juin-15 HELSINKI, FINLAND 10:00 AM 6:00 PM juin-15 ST. PETERSBURG, RUSSIA 7:00 AM juin-15 ST. PETERSBURG, RUSSIA juin-15 ST. PETERSBURG, RUSSIA 6:00 PM juin-15 TALLINN, ESTONIA 8:00 AM 5:00 PM juin-15 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 10:00 AM juin-15 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 4:30 PM DAYS OF HOLDING SEWAGE DUE TO SAILING OR NOT CALLING ON A ADEQUATE RECEPTION FACILITY 2800M3 TOT. 8400

3 Passenger trends

4 Simulation Exercise Execution Action: CLIA coordinating a simulation exercise in the Baltic Sea during the 2016 season. It will test the availability and adequacy of PRFs in the area and identify challenges and bottlenecks. Execution: Operate cruise ships in the Baltic as if the MARPOL Annex IV Special Area provisions were already in effect. Ships documenting (template). Ports provided with a similar template. The report will assess the availability and adequacy of PRFs in the region, highlighting the challenges faced and help to develop a roadmap to address the issues identified. Timeline: May: details of the exercise finalized, in collaboration with member lines and ports. May-September: member lines running the simulation. October: CLIA to use the input received to draft the report.

5 Guest Capacity Simulation Exercise The ships 4000 Cruise ships participating Year Built

6 Simulation Exercise Ships and Ports (5 September 2016) Ships participating 26 Total number of reports 350 Data entries per completed form 84 Total data entries Ports visited 24 Total amount of ports providing information 29 Ports providing aggregated volumes of sewage discharged (III) (IV) 6 Next Port of Call equal to next Port of Delivery? (I) (II) Yes: 55% No: 45% (I) Ref. Directive 2000/59/EC art. 7 (II) Very preliminary outcome (III) Status 5 Sept 2016 (IV) Detailed reporting template as provided has predominantly not been applied

7 Ports visited # Baltic port Country Visited by cruise ship during exercise? Total number of single visits Discharge BW and/or GW taken place? 1 Aarhus Denmark Yes Copenhagen Denmark Yes Fredericia Denmark Yes Gdansk Poland Yes Gdynia Poland Yes Gothenburg Sweden Yes Helsingborg Sweden Yes Helsinki Finland Yes Karlskrona Sweden Yes Kiel Germany Yes Klaipeda Lithuania Yes Mariehamn Finland Yes Malmö Sweden Yes Nynashamn Sweden Yes Pori Finland Yes Riga Latvia Yes Rønne Denmark Yes Rostock Germany Yes 4 0 Warnemünde Yes St Petersburg Russia Yes Skagen Denmark Yes Stockholm Sweden Yes Tallinn Estonia Yes Visby Sweden Yes 1 1

8 Ships reporting datasheet (1/2) 1 Name of Ship 2 Baltic Port Name 3 Berth/pier/terminal Code or at anchor 4 In case the Baltic Sea was entered between the previous port and the current port, when was the Baltic Sea entered? (Date) 5 In case the Baltic Sea was entered between the previous port and the current port, when was the Baltic Sea entered? (Time) 6 When was the vessel assigned to a specific berth? 7 Is the current berth equal to the one assigned at first instance? 8 ETA Estimated Time of Arrival at berth 9 ATA Actual Time of Arrival at berth 10 ETD Estimated Time of Departure from berth 11 Number of passengers on board when arriving 12 Number of crew on board when arriving 13 Implemented MEPC.1/Circ ANF (Advanced Notification Form) 14 Implemented MEPC.1/Circ WDR (Waste Delivery Receipt) 15 When was the ANF submitted to the current port? 16 If submitted, did you receive confirmation that the PRF would be available on arrival? 17 Estimate amount of sewage to be generated between notification and the current port 18 Estimation of sewage to be delivered 19 Maximum dedicated sewage storage capacity (notational total maximum capacity) 20 Maximum dedicated sewage storage capacity (current trim-adjusted maximum capacity) 21 Volume of Sewage (only greywater) on board when leaving previous port 22 Volume of Sewage (only black water) on board when leaving previous port 23 Volume of Sewage (mixed black and greywater) on board when leaving previous port 24 Total volume of sewage on board when leaving previous port 25 Volume of sewage discharged at sea after leaving previous port (black and grey water) 26 During discharge, what was the position of the vessel? 27 Was the sewage treated before discharge? 28 Why was this sewage discharged? 29 Was the sewage discharged because of the safety of the ship? 30 Did this volume of sewage discharged at sea consist of a mixture of black and greywater? 31 Volume of Sewage (only greywater) on board when arriving at current port 32 Volume of Sewage (only black water) on board when arriving at current port 33 Volume of Sewage (mixed black and greywater) on board when arriving at current port 34 Total volume of sewage on board when arriving at current port 35 How many PRF providers can the ship choose from? 36 Name of company operating/providing the applied reception facility 37 According to that company or the treatment facility provider, where is the sewage taken/treated?

9 Ships reporting datasheet (2/2) 38 Name of the company providing the sewage treatment facility (if known) 39 Local sewage storage available? 40 a) Capacity 41 1) Type of PRF used: Tank car 42 MARPOL standard connections fitted 43 a) Total capacity available 44 b) Total pumping capacity 45 2) Type of PRF used: Barge 46 MARPOL standard connections fitted 47 a) Total capacity available 48 b) Total pumping capacity 49 3) Type of PRF used: Fixed Reception Point 50 MARPOL standard connections fitted 51 a) Total capacity available 52 b) Total pumping capacity 53 Does the cruise ship consider the fees disproportionately high such that they create a disincentive to utilize the PRFs? 54 Start of discharging operation 55 Pumping capacity applied 56 Total volume of sewage (black, grey and mixed water) delivered to PRF in current port 57 Did this volume of sewage delivered to PRF consist of a mixture of black and greywater? 58 Completing discharging operation 59 Was the volume of sewage discharged conform the wishes of the ship? 60 Please elaborate on the foregoing answer 61 Amount of sewage retained (black, grey and mixed water) on board when leaving current port 62 How is the total costs of delivery calculated (the Cost Recovery System applied by the facility)? 63 What was the total costs of delivery? When relevant: please indicate the problems encountered by using one of more of the following code letters (A) No facility 64 available; (B) Undue delay; (C) Use of facility technically not possible; (D) Inconvenient location; (E) Vessel had to shift berth involving delay/cost; (F) Unreasonable charges for use of facilities; (G) Other (please specify under additional comments) 65 Additional comments 66 In your opinion, is the port facility properly accomodated to meet the needs of the ship? 67 In case the cruise ships finds the PRF inadequate, has or will an inadequacy report (be) submitted to the Flag State? 68 Next Port of Delivery (if known) 69 ATD Actual Time of Departure of leaving berth 70 In case the Baltic Sea was exited between the previous port and the current port, when was the Baltic Sea actual exited? 71 Next Port Name 72 ETA Estimated Time of Arrival at berth 73 Any other Comments

10 Ports reporting datasheet (1/2) 1 Name of Baltic Port 2 Cruise Ship Name 3 Actual Berth/pier/terminal Code or at anchor 4 When was the vessel assigned to a specific berth? 6 Is the current berth equal to the one assigned at first instance? 7 ETA Estimated Time of Arrival at berth 9 ATA Actual Time of Arrival at berth 11 ETD Estimated Time of Departure from berth 13 Number of passengers on board when arriving 14 Number of crew on board when arriving 15 Implemented MEPC.1/Circ ANF (Advanced Notification Form) 16 Implemented MEPC.1/Circ WDR (Waste Delivery Receipt) 17 When was the ANF received by the port? 19 Did the port confirm that the PRF would be available on arrival? 20 Estimation of sewage to be delivered according to the ANF 21 Volume of greywater on board when arriving at current port 22 Volume of Sewage (only black water) on board when arriving at current port 23 Volume of Sewage (mixed black and greywater) on board when arriving at current port 24 How many PRF providers can the ship choose from at its berth? 25 Name of company operating/providing the applied reception facility 26 Is the Port the PRF provider (and via the means of a co-owned company?), or a Private Operator? 27 When was open a public tender during which this company was appointed? 28 Since when is this company providing PRF services in this port? 29 Where is the sewage taken/treated? 30 If other, please specify: 31 Name of the company providing the sewage treatment facility 32 Local sewage storage available? 33 a) Capacity 34 1) Type of PRF used: Tank car

11 Ports reporting datasheet (2/2) 35 MARPOL standard connections fitted 36 a) Total capacity available 37 b) Total pumping capacity 38 2) Type of PRF used: Barge 39 MARPOL standard connections fitted 40 a) Total capacity available 41 b) Total pumping capacity 42 3) Type of PRF used: Fixed Reception Point 43 MARPOL standard connections fitted 44 a) Total capacity available 45 b) Total pumping capacity 46 Does the port consider the fees so high that they may create a disincentive to utilize the PRFs? 47 Start of discharging operation 49 Pumping capacity applied 50 Total volume of sewage (black, grey and mixed water) delivered to PRF in current port 51 Did this volume of sewage delivered to PRF consist of a mixture of black and greywater? 52 Is the quality of the wastewater in line with the parameters of the local minicipal wasterwater treatment plants? 53 How much are which parameters not in line? Please elaborate. 54 Completing discharging operation 56 Was the volume of sewage discharged conform the wishes of the ship? 57 Please elaborate on the foregoing answer 58 Amount of sewage retained (black, grey and mixed water) on board when leaving current port 59 How is the total costs of delivery calculated (the Cost Recovery System applied by the facility)? 60 What was the total costs of delivery? When relevant: please indicate the problems encountered by using one of more of the following code letters (A) No facility available; (B) Undue delay; (C) Use of facility technically not possible; (D) Inconvenient location; (E) Vessel had to shift berth involving delay/cost; (F) 61 Unreasonable charges for use of facilities; (G) Other (please specify under additional comments) 62 Additional comments 63 In your opinion, is the port facility properly accomodated to meet the needs of the ship? 64 Are you aware of any inadequacy report submitted to the Flag State because of an (alledged) inadequacy of a PRF in this port? 65 Next Port of Delivery (if known) 66 ATD Actual Time of Departure of leaving berth 68 Port Name

12 Some key points to explore together How many Baltic ports have planned for reception facilities on a scale which recognises multiple cruise ship calls on any one day? To what extent are the operating parameters of the cruise industry understood in the planning? Is there a single reception facility strategy applying to Baltic States that acknowledges the port sequence of typical cruise itineraries and plans reception facilities accordingly?

13 The cost of TEN-T completion is high 500.billion euro of investments needed to complete TEN-T EU economy cannot afford not completing TEN-T Non-completion of TEN-T will cause around 3.2 billion euro GDP loss and 11 million job-years not created With the current budget, TEN-T will not be completed Only 2 billion euro left in the current CEF budget until 2020 whereas CEF calls for projects are highly oversubscribed, national investments in transport infrastructure at historic low (0.8%) CLIA ready to play its part urging the EP and the Council to increase the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) budget in the upcoming review of the Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF)

14 THANK YOU