The field of solid waste management continues to amaze. With a bit of patience, one can imagine a time in the not too distance future where global open dumps begin to level off in numbers and volume, beginning a welcome descent towards formal closures and significant elimination of sites. Country reports demonstrate this trend is on its way. Despite this progress in changed behaviour and practices on land, there remains a conundrum about the past and ongoing practices of waste dumping at sea.
Ship-generated wastes, cargo residues (arising from routine ship operations) and wastes transferred by waterways, have to be discharged in ports and managed on land. Co-operative actions over the last 30 years to prevent discharges to the seas can point to successes, but management and handling gaps remain.
You may recall the 2006 Probo-Koala event (a Panama-registered oil/bulk/ore carrier transporting gasoline products) with the intent to discharge some 554m³ of Annex I MARPOL wastes (oily tank washings or slops) to the Port of Amsterdam. Following a decision that the wastes were unsuitable for the port’s facilities, the Probo-Koala left Amsterdam and eventually arrived in the Port of Abidjan, Ivory Coast. Land disposal of the wastes resulted in one the larger news stories of the year and a spotlight on the need for improved handling practices, monitoring, traceability and port capabilities for at least the Annex I wastes.
Challenges remain for the improvement of best practices for solid waste management at sea. Certain non-plastics and non-floatable solid wastes (within MARPOL Annex V) are allowed to be discharged, untreated, to the open seas under given conditions. Such conditions would not be possible on land and that is the ‘rub’: the significant disparity of solid waste systems where the environmental protection goals are the same. Regulations (the MARPOL and Basel Conventions are the two major instruments regulating the movement of such wastes), restrictions, practices, and penalties for solid waste disposal to marine waters should be similar to those employed for land resources. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
We should expect a growing crescendo from external groups with regard to this disparity. On one hand, good will and proper management appear to be the rule, not the exceptions. Generally, the system relies on adequate storage on board until the next receiving port. Case in point: several of the major cruise ships and recreational vessels employ solid waste management plans, including recyclables collection, data reporting and co-operative agreements with solid waste service providers at the major receiving ports. On the other hand, the sampling data in recent years demonstrates the visible nature and large aerial extent of floatable plastics present in the Pacific Ocean, suspended in the first 100 meters or so. Quantifiable data for non-floatables dumped in open seas are nearly absent, closer to ports the news is not promising.
It is encouraging to note that several international groups are making efforts to examine and address the priority gaps and deficiencies, such as:
- Co-operation between ship operators and port authorities
- Classification of waste generated on-board and their management requirements
- Adequacy of port reception facilities
- Adequacy of off-port service providers and waste treatment/disposal facilities for dealing with port wastes.
Several ports (including Amsterdam and Marseille) have taken steps to address the above and are reporting successes. Interestingly, one part of the solution may involve solid waste management training of port personnel and eventual certification of receiving ports from a waste management standpoint. Our industry stands behind and will encourage such efforts in the future.
Greg Vogt is managing director of ISWA and ISWA editor of Waste Management World e-mail: gvogt@iswa.dk
