GloLitter PWMP (ENG) - Guidance Document On Developing A Port Waste Management

This Guidance Document is part of
the GloLitter Partnerships Knowledge

Products Series. The GloLitter
Partnerships project is implemented by
the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) and the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Guidance Document on Developing Port
Guidance Document on Developing a Port Waste Management Plans

GloLitter assists developing countries in
reducing marine plastic litter from the
maritime transport and fisheries sectors.
Waste Management Plans
www.imo.org
www.fao.org
Guidance Document on Developing
Port Waste Management Plans
By
Peter Van den dries
IMO Consultant
Brussels, Belgium
Published by
and
Peer Reviewed by
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
London, 2022
Published in 2022 by the
GLOLITTER PROJECT COORDINATION UNIT
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION
4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom
www.imo.org
© Copyright 2022 International Maritime Organization (IMO)

Cover Photo © Peter Van den dries
Proofread by Sally Sargeant
Typeset by Eyetooth Design
Cover Design by Big Sky
Required citation: GloLitter Knowledge Product:

Guidance Document on Developing Port Waste Management Plans
Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of
manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or
recommended by IMO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in
this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IMO.
Copyright notice: All rights reserved. Permission to print or save the document or excerpts is only granted
for private, non-commercial use, and without any right to resell or redistribute them or to compile or create
derivative works therefrom. Any copyrights within the document remain with the original rights holder: IMO.
Enquiries should be directed to the address above.
Preparation of the Guidance Document on Developing Port Waste Management Plans
This Guidance Document under the GloLitter Knowledge Product series, entitled Guidance Document
on Developing Port Waste Management Plans, was funded by the GloLitter Partnerships Project.
GloLitter is implemented by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in collaboration with the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); initial funding was provided by the Government of Norway
via the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad).
This report is one of the knowledge products contributing to GloLitter Outcome 1:

Global awareness of Sea Based Marine Plastic Litter (SBMPL) expanded.
This report is based on work conducted by Mr Peter Van den dries, under the technical supervision
and coordination of the GloLitter Project Coordination Unit.
Contents
Page
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1.1 GloLitter Partnerships Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1.2 Scope of this activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
2 Purpose of a Port Waste Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.1 Waste management planning in general. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.2 Port Waste Management Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Purpose of a Port Waste Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 Evaluation, approval and monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Port Waste Management Plans: legal and policy framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 International regulatory framework regarding the management
of waste from ships: the MARPOL Convention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3 International regulatory framework on the environmentally sound
management of hazardous and other wastes: the Basel Convention. . . . . . . 9
3.4 Other regulatory instruments relevant for
Port Waste Management Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5 Ensuring the adequacy of port reception facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4 Management of plastic waste from ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.1 Types of waste generated onboard ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2 Amounts of waste generated onboard ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3 Waste from ships as a source of marine litter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.4 Management of plastic waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5 Elements of a Port Waste Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.1 Developing Port Waste Management Plans: an introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.2 Who is to draft the PWMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3 Essential elements for a “basic” PWMP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.4 Optional elements for a PWMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.5 Flanking policy measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.6 Approval and review of the PWMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS iii

Contents
Page
6 Models of Port Waste Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6.1 Ports’ characteristics impacting the delivery of waste from ships. . . . . . . . . . 47
6.2 Merchant seaports, cruise/passenger ports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.3 Fishing ports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.4 Recreational ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7 Useful references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Marine litter (general). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Legal and policy framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Waste from ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Fishing as a source of marine litter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Circular economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8 Annexes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Annex 1 – Model of Port Waste Management Plan
for merchant seaports and cruise/passenger ports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Annex 2 – Model of Port Waste Management Plan for fishing ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Annex 3 – Model of Port Waste Management Plan for recreational ports. . . . . . . . . 80
Annex 4 – Pre-assessment questionnaire for merchant seaports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Annex 5 – Pre-assessment questionnaire for fishing ports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
iv GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

Figures
Page
Figure 1: Waste hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 2: ALDFG at sea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 3: Big bag used for the onboard collection of passively fished waste
in United Kingdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
in the Netherlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 5: Examples of different options for the geographical scope of the PWMP. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 6: Composition of MARPOL Annex V waste collected in 2019 in the port of Antwerp. . . . 45
Figure 7: Port Sudan (Sudan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 8: Collecting barge in port of Rotterdam (NL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 9: Sewage collection in port of Trelleborg, Sweden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 10: Receptacles for garbage in port of Favignana, Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 11: Marina di Ragusa, Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 12: Receptacles for garbage in Marina di Ragusa, Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS v

Contents
Tables
Page
Table 1: Overview of MARPOL Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2: Common waste types generated onboard ships (source: CE Delft, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 3: Amount of MARPOL Annex V waste generated onboard a ship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 4: MARPOL Annex V onboard waste generation estimates (1000 tonnes) for vessels
in European waters for 2013 by subcategory and ship segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 5: Ship waste generated and delivered annually, and the resulting “waste gap”.
Content sourced from 2018 Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for
an EU Directive on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships;
MARWAS (Annex I-IV waste); Annex V waste estimates are based
on Sherrington et al. (2016).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 6: Types, quantity, drivers and options for management of ship-generated waste . . . . . . . . . 36
vi GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

Abstract
Marine plastic litter has been generally recognized as a threat to ocean health. Although it is generally assumed
that the majority of plastic waste entering the world’s ocean comes from land-based sources, marine plastic
litter also results from sea-based activities such as fishing and shipping. Therefore Parties to MARPOL are
required as port States to ensure the provision of port reception facilities (PRF) that are adequate to meet the
needs of users, from large merchant ships to small recreational vessels, and without causing undue delay to
the ships using them.
Ports and terminals may also have to meet national, regional and/or local regulations regarding waste
management and/or waste treatment, including as part of a national, regional or local waste strategy aiming
towards a more resource efficient and circular economy.
It is generally acknowledged that the adequacy of PRFs can be improved by establishing up-to-date Port
Waste Management Plans (PWMPs), especially when they are developed in consultation with the relevant
stakeholders. The main purpose of a PWMP is to improve the availability, adequacy and usage of reception
facilities for waste from ships normally calling the port. In a more comprehensive form a PWMP can also be
compelled as a guidance document for port users and other stakeholders, that brings together all the relevant
elements, procedures, goals and responsibilities linked to the delivery, collection, treatment, monitoring and
enforcement of waste from ships, including cargo residues. The PWMP can also implement requirements and
goals of the national waste management strategy, translating the goals regarding the environmental sound
management of waste, including the transition towards a more circular economy, into the practical processes
and procedures applied within the port area.
This Guidance Document describes the key and optional elements that are to be included in a PWMP, and
how they are to be developed taking into account the port’s characteristics. This Guidance Document also
includes models that can be used as a basis for a PWMP in merchant and cruise/passenger ports, fishing ports
and recreational ports.
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS vii

Abbreviations and acronyms
ALDFG Abandoned, Lost, or otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear
ANF Advance Notification Form
CR Cargo residues
ECA Emission Control Areas
EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency
EPS Extended polystyrene
ESM Environmentally sound management
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GESAMP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection
GGGI Global Ghost Gear Initiative
GIA Global Industry Alliance
GISIS Global Integrated Shipping Information System
GloLitter GloLitter Partnerships
GT Gross Tonnage
HME Harmful to the Marine Environment
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISO International Organization for Standardization
KIMO Kommunernes International Miljøorganisation (Local Authorities International Environmental
Organisation)
LDC Least Developed Countries
LPC Lead Partnering Country
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee
MPL Marine plastic litter
NGO Non-governmental organization
NLS Noxious Liquid Substance
ODS Ozone Depleting Substances
OVAM Flemish Waste Agency (Belgium)
OWS Oil Water Separator
PAME Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS ix

PE Polyethylene
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PP Polypropylene
PRF Port reception facilities
PRFD Port Reception Facility Database
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
PWMP Port Waste Management Plan
RAP Regional Action Plan
REMPEC Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea
RRFP Regional Reception Facilities Plan
SBMPL Sea-based marine plastic litter
SIDS Small Islands Developing States
SOLAS International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea
VGMFG Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear
VLCC Very Large Crude Carriers
WDR Waste Delivery Receipt
WRHP Waste Reception and Handling Plans
x GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

1 Introduction
1.1 GloLitter Partnerships Project
The GloLitter Partnerships Project (GloLitter) is funded by an initial contribution from the Government of
Norway and implemented by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in partnership with the Food
and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and aims to reduce and prevent marine plastic litter originating from
the shipping and fisheries sectors. This global project supports thirty developing countries in five regions in
identifying opportunities for the prevention and reduction of marine litter.
GloLitter achieves its objectives by focusing on a number of areas identified in the IMO Action Plan to
Address Marine Plastic Litter from Ships, and the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear.
The project expands government and port management capacities, instigates legal, policy and institutional
reforms at the country level. It develops mechanisms for sustainability, and enhances regional cooperation to
support transition of maritime transport and fisheries sectors towards a low plastics future.
This project spurs global efforts to demonstrate and test best practices to deal with MPL, and enhances global
knowledge management and information sharing to support the objectives. The partnership is three-tiered
involving global, regional and country level partners; representing government, industry and non-governmental
organizations.
1.2 Scope of this activity

The overall goal of the GloLitter Partnership is to enable developing countries to effectively implement and
enforce international regulatory frameworks as well as best practice for prevention, reduction and control
of MPL, and in particular Sea Based Marine Plastic Litter (SBMPL) through capacity building, policy making,
action planning, practical steps in reducing dumping of fishing gears and legislative developments; all aiming
at supporting the international efforts in dealing with MPL.
The development of this Guidance Document fits within the framework of GloLitter Outcome 1: Global
awareness of Sea Based Marine Plastic Litter (SBMPL) expanded that includes the activity aimed at developing
a model “Port Waste Management Plan” with guidance that subsequently will be used by participating ports
to use and customize to their specific ports’ requirements.
This Guidance Document provides an overview of the key elements of Port Waste Management Plans,
references to issues and situations that may have an impact on the delivery of waste from ships, and tools for
the development of a Port Waste Management Plan. It also provides models of a Port Waste Management Plan
that can be used for merchant seaports, passenger/cruise ports, fishing ports and recreational ports.
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS xi

2 Purpose of a Port Waste Management Plan
2.1 Waste management planning in general
The development and implementation of waste management plans is an approach that is, for quite some
time now, commonly used for land-based operations in order to take stock of the existing situation, define
objectives, define appropriate strategies and identify the necessary implementation measures. Establishing a
waste management plan can be done on a national, regional or local level, and waste management planning
has become a key element of public planning efforts in many countries.
Waste management plans play a key role in achieving a sustainable waste management. Their main purpose is
to give an overview of all waste generated (including imported, and by specific waste streams) and treatment
options for this waste. In a broad sense, these plans can provide a framework for:
– Compliance with waste policy and target achievement
Waste management plans, national as well as local/regional, are important instruments
contributing to the implementation and achievement of policies and targets set out in the field of
waste management at national, regional and international level. In the case of several planning
levels or parallel planning, waste management plans should be developed in a coordinated way.
In this case it is a good practice to have regional plans approved by the central government.
– Stocktaking of waste and capacity for managing it
Waste management plans provide an outline for the management of waste streams from different
sources and quantities. Furthermore, they contribute to ensuring that the capacity and the
nature of collection, segregation and treatment systems, including recycling, other recovery and
disposal methods as well as waste exports and imports, match the type and quantity of the
waste to be managed. A waste management plan should cover all relevant waste streams, their
generation, treatment and shipment. The status of the existing waste management system should
be described in detail.
– Outline of needs and future developments
Waste management plans should contain forecasts of future waste streams and the import and
export of waste as well as the associated needs for new collection schemes, recovery and
disposal installations. This includes capacity planning for recovery and disposal installations
and sufficient information on location criteria for treatment plants. In order to estimate the
future relevance of a waste stream, the evolution of its quantity should be assessed. Planning of
collection systems and waste treatment capacity should be based on comprehensive estimation
of future needs. The waste management plan should also contain a concrete list of sites suitable
for waste treatment installations.
– Information on general waste management policies and technological measures
Plans must describe waste management policies that aim to comply with the waste hierarchy
and to achieve continuous improvement in waste management. This may include any special
arrangements for specific types of waste (waste oils, hazardous waste or waste streams addressed
by specific national/international legislation).
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS 1

most prevention
favoured
option
minimisation
reuse
recycling
energy recovery
least
favoured
option
disposal
Figure 1: Waste hierarchy (source: Wikipedia)

In addition, waste management plans can discuss and arrange the following aspects:
– Outline of waste management organizations
Organizational waste management aspects, including allocation of responsibility between public
and private actors.
– Evaluation of waste policies
Evaluation of specific waste policy instruments, with a strong focus on economic instruments.
– Awareness campaigns/provision of information
Use of awareness campaigns and provision of information directed at the general public or at a
specific group of consumers.
– Outline of economic and investment requirements
Waste management plans can provide a statement of financial requirements for the operation of
collection schemes, treatment of waste, etc. On this basis, the needs for future investments in
waste treatment plans may be determined.
– Waste prevention programmes
Waste prevention programmes can be integrated into waste management plans or other
environmental policy programmes, or can be established as standalone programmes. Waste
prevention programmes need to describe as a minimum the waste prevention objectives and
existing prevention measures, indicating to what extent these objectives and measures are aimed
at the decoupling of economic growth from the environmental impacts of waste generation, and
specifying benchmarks for adopted waste prevention measures.
Efficient waste management commonly requires the participation and cooperation of several involved parties/
authorities, and coherent planning helps to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and thus benefits all
participants in their work together.
2 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

2 – Purpose of a Port Waste Management Plan
2.2 Port Waste Management Planning
Parties to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) are required as
port States to ensure the provision of port reception facilities (PRF) that are adequate to meet the needs of the
users, from the largest merchant ship to the smallest recreational craft, without causing undue delay. These
reception facilities are to be provided at ports and terminals.
Although MARPOL does not regulate the collection and treatment of waste from ships beyond the PRF
requirement, ports and terminals may also have to meet national, regional and/or local regulations regarding
waste management and/or waste treatment. Furthermore, the need to manage waste from ships at ports and
terminals as part of an environmentally sound management approach for avoiding, minimizing and eliminating
pollution from ships, e.g. as part of a national, regional or local waste strategy aiming towards a more resource
efficient and circular economy, is of key importance.
Adequate PRF should meet the needs of users, from large merchant ships to small recreational vessels, and
without causing undue delay to the ships using them. The way this level of adequacy is being achieved is
relatively open, and there is a comparably high degree of freedom to organize the reception of waste from
ships in a suitable manner.
But it is generally acknowledged that the adequacy of PRFs can be improved by establishing up-to-date Port
Waste Management Plans (PWMPs), especially when they are developed in consultation with the relevant
stakeholders. These plans bring together in a single document the relevant elements, procedures, goals and
responsibilities linked to the delivery, collection, treatment, monitoring and enforcement of waste from ships,
including cargo residues.
As ports are very different, also PWMPs can be tailor-made, taking into account the ports’ characteristics. Also
the legal framework regarding the management of sea-based wastes at land-based facilities (such as PRF) is
not always compatible: a PWMP can bring the applicable legal instruments together, and clarify the relevant
procedures and processes.
In European ports the development and usage of PWMPs is already very common, as the first EU PRF
Directive 2000/59/EC, which was adopted in 2000, already required the development of Waste Reception
and Handling Plans for each port receiving seagoing vessels (irrespective of the types of vessel calling, and
irrespective of the size of the port). The second EU PRF Directive 2019/883/EU contains even more detailed
requirements regarding the development, usage, approval and renewal of PWMPs.
The 2015 Ex-Post evaluation* of the EU PRF Directive 2000/59/EC also confirmed that the adequacy of PRF
has been improved with the introduction of the PRF Directive. Although it is not possible to attribute this
improved adequacy of PRF solely to the use of PWMPs, as the development of waste reception and handling
plans for all types of port is a fundamental element of the PRF Directive, it most likely has impacted it.
But also, many ports outside Europe have drafted and implemented PWMPs, and the number is still growing.
Some examples of ports that have developed PWMPs are:
– South Africa: port of Cape Town, port of Durban
– United Arab Emirates: Abu Dhabi ports
– British Virgin Islands ports, Cayman Island ports
– India: port of Mormugao
In order to have a good understanding of what a PWMP exactly is, the following can be accepted as a good
description of a PWMP:
*
Ex-Post evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, PWC/
Panteia, 2015

A Port Waste Management Plan (PWMP) is a document produced by a port or terminal unifying their
policy on waste reception facilities for ships and outlining the facilities available at the location. This
PWMP should demonstrate that ports and terminals fulfil all the requirements of local, national, regional
and/or international regulations and that the facilities and infrastructure are available to meet the needs
of vessels normally using the port/terminal without causing undue delays.
2.3 Purpose of a Port Waste Management Plan

The main purpose of a PWMP is to improve the availability, adequacy and usage of reception facilities for
waste from ships normally calling the port. In a more comprehensive form a PWMP can also be compelled
as a Guidance Document for port users and other stakeholders, that brings together all the relevant elements,
procedures, goals and responsibilities linked to the delivery, collection, treatment, monitoring and enforcement
of waste from ships, including cargo residues. The PWMP can also implement requirements and goals of the
national waste management strategy, translating the goals regarding the environmental sound management of
waste, including the transition towards a more circular economy, into the practical processes and procedures
applied within the port area.
As the PWMP contains all relevant information related to the collection of waste from ships, it should preferably
be a public and legally binding document, accessible for port users and all other stakeholders. It is therefore
useful that the key information of the approved PWMP is made publicly available and disseminated to the port
users, as it will help shipowners and agents with their decisions related to the delivery of waste from ships.
This can be done through publication on the port’s website, or by distributing specific literature (e.g. brochure,
flyer) to the ships and their agents.
Furthermore, as the PWMP contains relevant information useful for policy makers as well as enforcing
authorities, it may also be distributed to relevant public stakeholders inside and outside the port, such as
Environmental Authorities, the Harbour master, Shipping Inspectors, Port State Control, Maritime Administration,
Customs Department, etc.
2.4 Evaluation, approval and monitoring

When undertaking an evaluation of the PWMP, the competent authority should consider the submitted PWMP
against the requirements provided in its national legislation. If any of the mandatory content of the PWMP has
not been adequately addressed, the plan should not be approved and the port authorities should receive a
justification in order for them to rectify the outstanding issues immediately.
Ports should undertake a major review of their PWMP regularly (e.g. every 3 to 5 years), and also when there
are significant changes in the operation of the port, such as an important structural increase or decrease in the
number or types of ships, the development of new infrastructure in the port, a change in the provision of port
reception facilities, or new onboard waste treatment techniques.
Effective monitoring of the PWMP is considered to be essential to ensure that the plan is properly implemented,
and that the PRF are operating as required. The purpose of monitoring will be to verify and ensure the functioning
of the system in practice in accordance with the approved PWMP. The monitoring of implementation of the
plans can include an ad hoc inspection for each port, at least once during the validity period of the plan, to
align with the need for periodical reapproval. Inspections may be more frequent if regular complaints have
been received about the inadequacy of PRF in any particular port. It can be noted that the inspection of PRF is
often in the competence of different enforcement bodies and exercised within a different legal framework than
that applicable to the inspections on board of ships. In this respect, an integrated framework for monitoring PRF
as well as a good collaboration between the different enforcement authorities involved, is equally important.

3 Port Waste Management Plans: legal and policy framework
3.1 Introduction
As maritime shipping and its operations not only imply activities at the high seas, in international waters and in
coastal areas but also in ports, on rivers and at inland terminals, the corresponding legal and policy framework
for shipping and ship-related operations also needs to cover all these areas. The delivery of waste from ships
to port reception facilities is a fine example of how sea- and land-based regulations can meet.
However, as the origin of the land- and sea-based legal and policy frameworks often differs, as a result, also
the legal and policy frameworks for the onboard management of wastes and residues on ships differ from the
legal requirements regarding the collection, delivery and processing of wastes at land-based facilities. And
often these legal frameworks are not compatible or complementary.
This chapter provides an overview of the key legal and policy instruments applicable to the management of
waste from ships, including the establishment of waste management plans, starting from the moment when
the wastes are generated during the normal operations onboard a ship, during their transfer from the ship to
the reception facility, and finally during the disposal at land-based facilities.
3.2 International regulatory framework regarding the management of waste from ships:
the MARPOL Convention
3.2.1 General overview
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) aims at preventing and
minimizing pollution from ships, both accidental pollution and pollution from routine operations. It currently
includes six technical Annexes:
Table 1: Overview of MARPOL Annexes
Annex Subject Entry into force

Annex I Prevention of pollution by oil 2 October 1983
Annex II Control of pollution by noxious liquid substances in bulk 6 April 1987
Annex III Prevention of pollution by harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form 1 July 1992
Annex IV Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships 27 September 2003
Annex V Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships 31 December 1988
Annex VI Prevention of air pollution from ships 19 May 2005
As the MARPOL Annexes I and II are mandatory, States ratifying or acceding to MARPOL must give effect
to the provisions of these two specific Annexes at a minimum, and the optional Annexes they have ratified.
Nowadays all Annexes to MARPOL have entered into force.
In general MARPOL contains provisions in order to regulate which types of waste from ships can (and as
a consequence also which cannot) be legally discharged into the sea, onboard waste management, and
enforcement and inspections. The MARPOL Annexes I, II, IV, V and VI also contain a requirement regarding
the availability of adequate PRFs.

3.2.2 Port Reception Facilities requirements in MARPOL

In order to reduce and eliminate pollution from ships, the provision of adequate port reception facilities is
a key requirement: the ability to fully comply with the discharge requirements of Annexes I, II, IV, V and VI
of MARPOL* is directly related to the availability of adequate reception facilities in port. Therefore each Party
is to ensure the provision of adequate facilities at ports and terminals to meet the needs of ships using them,
without causing undue delay.
The MARPOL requirements regarding the availability of adequate PRF are contained in the following
regulations:
– Regulation 38 of Annex I;
– Regulation 18 of Annex II;
– Regulation 12 and 13 (passenger ships in Special Areas) of Annex IV;
– Regulation 8 of Annex V;
– Regulation 17 of Annex VI.
In general governments are required to take all necessary measures to ensure the provision of reception facilities
that are adequate to meet the needs of ships using their ports or terminals. It may be noted that MARPOL states
that the “government” is to ensure the provision of adequate reception facilities. This, however, does not mean
that only the government of a Party must provide the facility: in practice, the government may delegate this
responsibility and require a local authority, e.g. the port authority or terminal operator to provide the facilities.
It can be noted that MARPOL does not set any prescriptive standards for port reception facilities other
than requiring that they are to be “adequate”, nor does MARPOL contain any requirements regarding the
development of Port Waste Management Plans. However, the IMO has adopted several guidelines addressing
and recommending the use of PWMPs. At least in the following IMO guidelines explicit reference is being
made to PWMPs:
– Consolidated guidance for port reception facilities providers and users (MEPC.1/Circ.834/rev.1);
– Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port waste reception facilities (MEPC.83(44));
– Guidelines for reception facilities under MARPOL Annex VI (MEPC.199(62)).
3.2.3 The IMO GISIS database

In order to facilitate the dissemination of information and promote public access to sets of data collection
by the IMO Secretariat, the IMO has developed an internet-based database on information for shipping: the
Global Integrated Shipping Information System† (GISIS). This database contains both information open to the
general public and a member’s area section with more specific information only accessible to registered IMO
users.
The GISIS Port Reception Facility Database (PRFD) provides data on facilities for the reception of all categories
of ship-generated waste. The database aims at improving the rate of reporting alleged inadequacies of reception
facilities so that the problem can be tackled more effectively.
Parties to MARPOL are also required to communicate the information on available PRFs in their ports into
the PRFD.
*
It must be noted that, differing from all other MARPOL Annexes, Annex III does not explicitly require the provision of port reception
facilities.
†
https://gisis.imo.org/Public/Default.aspx

3 – Port Waste Management Plans: legal and policy framework
3.2.4 Special Areas and Emission Control Areas
The possibility to legally discharge waste at sea is an element that can influence the delivery of ship’s waste
to PRF. Although MARPOL regulations have become stricter over the years, it is still allowed – under specific
conditions – to discharge certain waste types at sea.
Due to specific oceanographic, ecological and traffic characteristics of some sea areas, MARPOL defines
certain sea areas as Special Areas (for MARPOL Annexes I, II, IV and V) and Emission Control Areas (for
MARPOL Annex VI), in which the application of stricter measures for the protection of sea pollution
is required. Under MARPOL, these special areas are provided with a higher level of protection than
other areas of the sea. An up-to-date list of all the IMO Special Areas can be found on the IMO website
(http://www.imo.org – click on Our Work (Marine Environment), then Special Areas under MARPOL).
As the discharge criteria for wastes from ships are stricter in Special Areas, ships sailing in those areas might not
meet these criteria and therefore be required to deliver their wastes to a PRF. States and port authorities should
therefore take into consideration the importance of compliance in these Special Areas. MARPOL Parties
whose coastlines border the relevant special areas are obligated to provide adequate PRF.
3.2.5 Small Island Developing States (SIDS)
IMO has recognized the unique challenges that Small Island Developing States (SIDS) experience in
providing adequate reception facilities for waste from ships. This was first recognized in 2000 in IMO
resolution MEPC.83(44) Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port waste reception facilities, then given a
firm legal basis through MARPOL amendments in 2011.
SIDS may satisfy waste reception facilities regulations through regional arrangements when, because of those
States’ unique circumstances, such arrangements are the only practical means to satisfy these requirements.
Parties participating in a regional arrangement can develop a Regional Reception Facilities Plan (RRFP),
taking into account the guidelines developed by the IMO. The relevant guidelines are found in IMO
resolution MEPC.221(63) Guidelines for the development of a regional reception facilities plan.
3.2.6 MARPOL Guidelines
The use and provision of PRF for waste from ships is fundamental to the overall success of MARPOL in its
objective of reducing and ultimately eliminating intentional pollution of the marine environment by ships.
Therefore, the IMO has adopted several guidelines related to the management of waste from ships, providing
additional tools to all stakeholders (private and public) in order to provide good practices. These practices
can be used by governments when establishing stricter national or regional requirements, but also by port
authorities when organizing the collection of waste from ships.
Guidelines related to the management of MARPOL Annex V (garbage, including plastics) are:
a) Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V (resolution MEPC.295(71), adopted
on 7 July 2017)
These guidelines aim to assist:

– governments in developing and enacting domestic laws which implement MARPOL
Annex V;
– shipowners, ship operators, ships’ crews, cargo owners and equipment manufacturers
in complying with requirements set forth in MARPOL Annex V and relevant domestic
laws; and
– port and terminal operators in assessing the need for, and providing, adequate
reception facilities for garbage generated on all types of ship. In the interest of
uniformity, governments are requested to refer to these Guidelines and related
Guidance Document(s) developed by the IMO when developing and enforcing
appropriate national regulations.

b) Consolidated guidance for port reception facility providers and users (resolution
MEPC.1/Circ.834/Rev.1, adopted on 1 March 2018)
This consolidated guidance is intended to be a practical guide for:
– ships’ crew who intend to deliver MARPOL wastes and residues ashore;
– PRF providers who seek to provide timely, efficient port reception services to ships.
It provides a basis for establishing best practice procedures, with an eye towards improving
the integration of PRFs into a more comprehensive waste management scheme in which final
disposal of MARPOL wastes/residues occurs in a manner that protects the environment, with
due regard for the health and safety of workers and the general population. It is based on
the requirements established in MARPOL and the guidance provided in the IMO’s manual
Port Reception Facilities – How to do it and the Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port
waste reception facilities (resolution MEPC.83(44)). Building on this manual and the adequacy
guidelines, the consolidated guidance suggests how modern environmental management systems
and procedures can assist with the improvement of MARPOL wastes/residues delivery ashore.
The consolidated guidance also recommends that, in order to provide efficient PRF services that
meet the needs of ships calling at a port without causing undue delay, port authorities should
prepare a Port Waste Management Plan and should ensure that relevant information about the
reception services available and associated costs are communicated to ship operators well in
advance of the ship’s arrival.
Procedures recommended by the IMO include communication and reporting procedures and
the use of standardized forms, such as:
– Format for reporting alleged inadequacies of port reception facilities;
– Standard format of the advance notification form for waste delivery to port reception
facilities;
– Standard format for the waste delivery receipt.
c) Guidelines for the development of Garbage Management Plans (resolution MEPC.220(63),
adopted on 2 March 2012)
These guidelines provide direction on complying with the requirements for a ship’s garbage
management plan, and are intended to assist the shipowner/operator in the implementation of
regulation 10.2 of the revised MARPOL Annex V.
A ship’s garbage management plan should detail the specific ship’s equipment, arrangements
and procedures for the handling of garbage. The plan may contain extracts and/or references to
existing company instructions.
d) Guidelines for the development of a regional reception facilities plan (resolution MEPC.221(63),
This guideline provides guidance for the development of a Regional Reception Facilities
Plan (RRFP), in order to assist party States in specific geographic regions of the world in the
appropriate and effective implementation of the MARPOL regulations that require the provision
of adequate PRF.
Considering that the unique circumstances of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) pose unique
challenges for these states in meeting international shipping’s needs for discharging ship-generated
wastes and residues, this guideline provides tools in order to facilitate the development of a port
reception facilities plan, including the provision of adequate reception facilities, on a regional
basis.
In accordance with the guidelines, “the majority of States participating in an RRFP should be
SIDS. Although non-SIDS may participate, they should do so only so far as their ports may be
Regional Waste Reception Centres. The obligations of non-SIDS to provide adequate reception
facilities in all ports and terminals will not be satisfied by regional arrangement.”

e) Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port waste reception facilities (resolution MEPC.83(44),
These guidelines contain information for the provision and improvement of port waste reception
facilities and are designed to complement the IMO Comprehensive Manual on Port Reception
Facilities.* The guidelines provide information relating to the ongoing management of existing
facilities, as well as for the planning and establishment of new facilities. The guidelines are also
intended to encourage States to provide adequate port waste reception facilities and ships to make
more effective use of these facilities. This will make a substantial contribution to the ultimate
aim of MARPOL to achieve the elimination of intentional pollution of the marine environment.
The main objective of these guidelines is to remind States that wastes arise from all maritime
activities – commercial, fishing and recreational – and that each activity requires specific
attention. In particular, the guidelines are intended to:
– assist States in planning and providing adequate port waste reception facilities; and
– encourage States to develop environmentally appropriate methods of disposing of
ships’ wastes ashore.
These guidelines are designed to address governments, port States and port authorities for their
activities aimed at provision of adequate port waste reception facilities required under the
provisions of MARPOL.
3.2.7 IMO manual Port Reception Facilities – How to do it

The first IMO manual on port reception facilities, the Comprehensive Manual on Port Reception Facilities, was
published in 1995. In 2016 it was updated and revised in order to:
– take into account updates on the regulatory framework;
– include several new waste management methods;
– broaden the scope to the management of other ship-generated wastes and residues such as
ballast water sediments and residues from the application or removal of anti-fouling systems.
Also the title of the manual was amended to Port Reception Facilities – How to do it.
The manual contains practical information to governments and competent (port) authorities, in particular to
those in developing countries, as well as to the shipping industry, agencies and waste contractors seeking
guidance when implementing MARPOL. It also provides guidance on how to deal with possible inadequacies,
as, in order to fully comply with MARPOL, a party State has to ensure the provision of adequate port reception
facilities meeting the needs of ships normally using their ports, without causing undue delay to the ships.
As MARPOL does not contain any explicit requirements regarding the downstream processing and treatment of
wastes and residues from ships once received in a port reception facility, it should be noted that as an addition
the manual does elaborate on the downstream management of the ship-generated wastes and residues once
received ashore. Also the issue of Port Waste Management Planning is extensively addressed in this manual.
3.3 International regulatory framework on the environmentally sound management of

hazardous and other wastes: the Basel Convention
The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
was adopted on 22 March 1989. The overarching objective of the Basel Convention is to protect human health
and the environment against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes. It covers “hazardous wastes” as well
as “other wastes”.† Although the Basel Convention explicitly excludes “wastes which derive from the normal
operations of a ship, the discharge of which is covered by another international instrument”, the Parties to the
Basel Convention developed a clear interest in the collection and disposal of wastes and residues from ships.
*
This manual was updated in 2016 and was renamed Port Reception Facilities – How to do it (also see section 3.2.7 of this Guidance
Document).
†
Wastes collected from households and residues arising from the incineration of household wastes.

Within the framework of the Basel Convention, the following documents have been developed regarding
wastes from ships:
– legal analysis of the application of the Basel Convention to hazardous and other wastes generated
on board ships;
– assessment of how far the Basel Convention technical guidelines cover wastes covered by
MARPOL;
– guidance manual on how to improve the sea-land interface to ensure that wastes falling within
the scope of MARPOL, once offloaded from a ship, are managed in an environmentally sound
manner.
3.3.1 Framework on the environmentally sound management of wastes

“Environmentally sound management” (ESM) is defined in article 2 of the Basel Convention as:
taking all practicable steps to ensure that hazardous wastes or other wastes are managed in a manner
which will protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects which may result
from such wastes.
However, it is widely acknowledged that ESM is understood and implemented differently. While implementation
of the Basel Convention requires application of its provisions in a consistent manner, countries as well as
facilities may have different ways of applying ESM as they face different realities. In addition, ESM of wastes
cannot be guaranteed within the confines of waste management without effective legal and institutional
systems, including government oversight, and adequate infrastructure to protect the occupational safety
and health of workers, communities and the environment. In the absence of such effective systems and
infrastructure, ESM may not be readily available in some countries and as regards facilities.
Therefore, the framework on the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes
was developed, in order to identify what countries should do at the national level and, collectively, as Parties
to the Basel Convention, to address the challenges of implementing ESM of wastes in a systematic and
comprehensive manner. Intended as a practical guide for all stakeholders participating in the management of
such wastes, the framework comprises three sections:
a) a common understanding of what ESM encompasses;
b) tools to support and promote the implementation of ESM;
c) strategies to identify strategies to implement ESM.
In order to support and promote the implementation of ESM different tools can be used, including a combination
of legislation and regulations, guidelines and/or codes of practice, voluntary certification schemes, voluntary
agreements and schemes, mechanisms for cooperation at the international, regional, national and local levels,
including with industry, training and awareness programmes and incentive schemes. These tools may be
tailored to address specific waste streams.
3.3.2 Technical guidelines

The Basel Convention has adopted guidelines for numerous waste streams and disposal operations. These
guidelines are available at the Basel Convention’s website.* Although not legally binding, these technical
guidelines provide the foundation upon which countries can operate at a standard that is not less environmentally
sound than that required by the Basel Convention. These guidelines are aimed at assisting countries in ensuring
the environmentally sound management of hazardous and other wastes.
*
http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalMatters/DevelopmentofTechnicalGuidelines/TechnicalGuidelines/tabid/8025/
Default.aspx

3.4 Other regulatory instruments relevant for Port Waste Management Planning
3.4.1 EU Port Reception Facilities Directive
3.4.1.1 Key elements
In 2000 the European Union adopted Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated
waste and cargo residues. In 2019 this Directive was revoked by Directive (EU) 2019/883 on port reception
facilities for the delivery of waste from ships.
The purpose of this Directive is to protect the marine environment against the negative effects from discharges
of waste from ships using ports located in the EU, while ensuring the smooth operation of maritime traffic,
by improving the availability and use of adequate port reception facilities and the delivery of waste to those
facilities.
The PRF Directive applies to all ships (including fishing vessels and recreational craft but with the exception of
warships, naval auxiliaries or other ships owned or operated by a State and used, for the time being, only on
a government non-commercial basis), irrespective of their flag, calling at, or operating within, a port of an EU
Member State, and to all ports of the EU Member States normally visited by these ships.
Key requirements of the PRF Directive include:
a) An obligation for the EU Member States to ensure the availability of PRF adequate to meet the
needs of ships normally visiting the port, without causing undue delay;
b) Ports are to develop and implement a Waste Reception and Handling Plan (WRHP), following
consultation with all relevant parties, in particular the port users or their representatives. These
plans shall be evaluated and approved by the competent authority in the EU Member State;
c) The master of a ship is to complete an advance waste notification form and forward it in due
time (at least 24 hours prior to arrival), informing the port of call about the ship’s intentions
regarding the delivery of waste from ships, including cargo residues;
d) A mandatory delivery for all ship-generated waste. However, the PRF Directive also includes the
possibility for the vessel not to deliver its waste when it has sufficient dedicated waste storage
capacity until the next port of delivery;
e) Upon delivery, the PRF operator or the authority of the port where the waste was delivered shall
truly and accurately complete the waste delivery receipt and issue and provide, without undue
delay, this waste delivery receipt to the master of the ship;
f) The implementation of a cost recovery system where the costs of operating PRF for the reception
and treatment of waste from ships, other than cargo residues, are covered through the collection
of an indirect fee from ships, irrespective of delivery of waste to a PRF, and thus providing an
incentive to ships not to discharge its waste at sea. For MARPOL Annex V wastes, not being
cargo residues, this indirect fee is to cover the total cost of the collection and treatment of the
waste, in order to ensure a right of delivery without any additional charges based on the volume
of waste delivered;*
g) A possibility for Member States to exempt a ship calling at their ports from specific obligations,
where there is sufficient evidence that:
– the ship is engaged in scheduled traffic with frequent and regular port calls;
– there is an arrangement to ensure the delivery of the waste and payment of the fees in a
port along the ship’s route; and
– the exemption does not pose a negative impact on maritime safety, health, shipboard living
or working conditions or on the marine environment.
h) The establishment of an enforcement scheme, by which EU Member States ensure that any ship
may be subject to inspection.
*
Except where the volume of waste delivered exceeds the maximum dedicated storage capacity mentioned in the advance
notification form.

Both the advance waste notification form and the waste delivery receipt are based on the formats used in
the IMO Consolidated guidance (resolution MEPC.1/Circ.834/Rev.1).
3.4.1.2 Port Waste Management Plans
The EU PRF Directive 2019/883 contains several requirements regarding Port Waste Management Planning:
– Appropriate Waste Reception and Handling Plans (WRHP) are to be in place and implemented
for each port.* There is no distinction between merchant seaports, fishing ports or recreational
ports, but where required for reasons of efficiency, the WRHP may be developed jointly by two
or more neighbouring ports in the same geographical region, with the appropriate involvement
of each port, provided that the need for and availability of PRF are specified for each port;
– Detailed requirements for the development of the WRHP are set out in Annex 1 of the PRF
Directive, making distinction between mandatory and optional content:
– Mandatory elements
– assessment of the need for PRF, in light of the needs of ships normally visiting the
port;
– description of the type and capacity of PRF;
– description of the procedures for the reception and collection of waste from ships;
– description of the cost recovery system;
– description of the procedure for reporting alleged inadequacies of PRF;
– description of the procedure for ongoing consultations with port users, waste
contractors, terminal operators and other interested parties; and
– overview of the type and quantities of waste received from ships and handled in the
facilities.
– Optional elements
– summary of relevant national law and the procedure and formalities for the delivery
of the waste to PRF;
– identification of a point of contact in the port;
– description of the pre-treatment equipment and processes for specific waste streams
in the port, if any;
– description of methods for recording the actual use of the PRF;
– description of methods for recording the amounts of the waste delivered by ships;
– description of methods for managing the different waste streams in the port.
– The WRHPs are to be developed following ongoing consultations with the relevant parties,
including in particular with port users or their representatives, and where appropriate local
competent authorities, port reception facilities operators and organizations implementing
extended producer responsibility obligations and representatives of civil society. These
consultations should be held both during the initial drafting of the plans and after their adoption,
in particular when significant changes have taken place;
– EU Member States are also to ensure that the following information on the availability of adequate
PRF in their ports and the structure of the costs is clearly communicated to the ship operators,
is made publicly available and is easily accessible, in an official language of the Member State
where the port is located and, where relevant, in a language that is internationally used:
– location of PRF applicable to each berth, and, where relevant, their opening hours;
– list of waste from ships normally managed by the port;
*
Small non-commercial ports which are characterized by rare or low traffic from recreational craft only may be exempted, if
their PRF are integrated in the waste handling system managed by or on behalf of the relevant municipality and the EU Member States
where those ports are located ensure that the information regarding the waste management system is made available to the port users.

– list of contact points, the PRF operators and the services offered;
– description of the procedures for delivery of the waste;
– description of the cost recovery system, including waste management schemes and funds,
where applicable.
– Where required for reasons of efficiency, the WRHPs may be developed jointly by two or more
neighbouring ports in the same geographical region, with the appropriate involvement of each
port, provided that the need for and availability of PRF are specified for each port;
– EU Member States shall evaluate and approve the WRHP and ensure its re-approval at least
every 5 years after it has been approved or re-approved, and after significant changes* in the
operation of the port have taken place;
– EU Member States shall monitor the port’s implementation of the WRHP. Where no significant
changes have taken place during the five-year period, the re-approval may consist of a validation
of existing plans.
– It can be noted that in its 2016 Guidelines for the interpretation of Directive 2000/59/EC on
port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues† the European Commission
provided additional guidance regarding waste reception and handling plans, including:
– mandatory elements;
– scope: ports that must have a waste reception and handling plan;
– consultation with relevant parties;
– evaluation, approval and monitoring; and
– reporting of inadequacies.
Also the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) issued in 2016 its Technical Recommendations on the
Implementation of Directive 2000/59/EC on PRF, containing information on the development, approval,
monitoring and implementation of waste reception and handling plans.
3.4.2 ISO Standard on “Arrangement and management of port reception facilities”

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies.
Although ISO standards are voluntary and industry oriented, there are several examples where governments
have used international standards as trusted solutions to complement existing regulations.
The ISO Standard 16304 on “Arrangement and management of port reception facilities” is meant to complement
ISO 14001 on environmental management systems, by adding a port component that extends the principles
of ISO 14001 to ships’ waste management in ports. It provides a specific methodology that any port, harbour,
terminal or marina can apply to the planning, development and operation of its PRF. Also, the processes put in
place during the preparations for ISO 14001 accreditation will assist in meeting the development of a holistic
Port Waste Management Plan (PWMP) under this international standard.
The standard also covers principles and issues that should be considered in the development of a PWMP, its
implementation and PRF operations. The operation of any PRF is governed by the principles and procedures
included in the PWMP.
According to the ISO standard on “Arrangement and management of port reception facilities” the PWMP is to
take into account the national waste management strategy and defines how and by whom waste is collected
at a port or terminal. This is seen as being necessary, as waste streams received from ships calling on ports or
terminals must be dealt with in an environmentally sound manner.
*
Those changes may include structural changes in traffic to the port, development of new infrastructure, changes in the demand and
provision of port reception facilities, and new onboard treatment techniques.
†
Commission Notice 2016/C 115/05 of 01/04/2016

Key elements of a PWMP are:

– development;
– publication;
– implementation;
– enforcement of delivery of ship-generated waste and cargo residues by competent authorities;
and
– monitoring of the plan to ensure that all parties, including ships and facility providers, are adhering
to the plan, that the plan is and remains fit for use and the reception facilities are adequate.
According to the ISO standard the PWMP should include relevant information on key areas outlining pertinent
procedures and management measures, such as an analysis of the relevant regulations, responsibilities of the
relevant stakeholders, an assessment of the need for PRF, a description of the cost recovery system, etc.
3.5 Ensuring the adequacy of port reception facilities

Through its Annexes (with the exception of Annex III) MARPOL requires the provision of adequate PRF, which
are to meet the needs of ships normally visiting the port without causing undue delay. When implementing
MARPOL, some governments opted to shift the responsibility to provide these adequate PRF to local authorities
such as municipalities or port authorities, or even to private stakeholders (e.g. terminal operators).
As the competent authority, which can resort under either a maritime, port or environmental department,
should ensure that the requirements regarding “adequacy” are brought into practice, it must consequently be
made clear, both for the enforcing authority as for the stakeholder that is required to provide the PRF, how
“adequacy” is to be defined.
3.5.1 “Adequacy” guidance according to the IMO

IMO has provided several Guidance Documents regarding the interpretation of adequacy of PRF:
In the Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port waste reception facilities (resolution MEPC.83(44))
“adequate” is described as: “To achieve adequacy the port should have regard to the operational needs of
users and provide reception facilities for the types and quantities of wastes from ships normally visiting the
port”.
In addition, “adequate facilities” are being described as those which:
– mariners use;
– fully meet the need of ships regularly using them;
– do not provide mariners with a disincentive to use them; and
– contribute to the improvement of the marine environment.
Furthermore, the provided PRF must “meet the needs of the ships normally using the port” and “allow for the
ultimate disposal of ship-generated wastes and residues to take place in an environmentally appropriate way”.
According to the 2017 Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V (resolution MEPC.295(71)) the
methodology for determining the adequacy of a reception facility should be based on the number and types
of ship that will call at the port, the waste management requirements of each type of ship as well as the size
and location of a port. Emphasis should also be placed on calculating the quantities of garbage, including
recyclable material, which is not discharged into the sea, in accordance with the provisions of MARPOL
Annex V. Due to differences in port reception procedures and additional treatment among ports, PRF may
require the separation on board of:
– food wastes (e.g. animal-derived products and by-products because of risk of animal diseases);
– cooking oil (animal-derived products and by-products because of risk of animal diseases);

– plastics;
– domestic waste, operational waste and recyclable or reusable material;
– special items like medical waste, outdated pyrotechnics and fumigation remnants;
– animal wastes, including used bedding from the transport of live animals (due to risk of disease)
but excluding drainage from spaces containing living animals;
– cargo residues; and
– E-waste such as electronic cards, gadgets, equipment, computers, printer cartridges, etc.
In fishing ports separate collection can be required of end-of-life/damaged fishing gear, passively fished waste
and recovered ALDFG.
When ship operators, ports and terminals assess the expected quantities and types of ship-generated wastes
on a per ship basis, the following issues should be considered:
– types of garbage normally generated;
– ship type and design;
– types of main fuel used by the ship (as cleaner fuel such as diesel/gasoline generates less sludge);
– ship’s speed (as fuel consumption can indicate sludge production);
– ship’s operating route;
– number of persons on board (both crew and passengers);
– duration of the voyage;
– time spent in areas where discharge into the sea is prohibited or restricted; and
– time spent in port.
When selecting the most appropriate type of reception facility for a particular port, attention should be given
to alternative methods available: mobile facilities, such as trucks, can enhance a cost-efficient way of collecting
ships’ wastes. Also floating facilities, such as barges, might be considered more effective, in particular where
access by road is not practicable.
It can also be noted that due to additional treatment processes, especially when the principles of environmentally
sound management are being applied, PRF and/or port authorities might promote or (financially) incentivize
the onboard separation of:
– non-recyclable plastics and plastics mixed with non-plastic garbage;
– rags;
– recyclable wastes;
– cooking oil;
– glass;
– aluminium cans;
– paper, cardboard, corrugated board;
– wood;
– metal;
– plastics (including extruded polystyrene or other similar plastic material);
– E-wastes such as electronic cards, equipment, computers, printer cartridges, etc.;
– garbage that might present a hazard to the ship or crew (e.g. oily rags, light bulbs, acids, chemicals,
batteries, etc.);
– damaged/unwanted fishing gear.

When assessing the adequacy of reception facilities, the competent (port) authorities should also consider the
technological challenges related to the management and discharge of waste from ships. When doing so, it is
recommended that relevant international standards (e.g. the ISO standards) be considered as it helps ensuring
that the management of the wastes and residues from ships is environmentally sound.
In the IMO manual Port Reception Facilities – How to do it it is explained that, as a minimum, the reception
facilities at cargo unloading, loading, and repair ports and terminals should be capable of receiving those
types and volumes of wastes, residues and mixtures that are normally handled within that port and which
ships intend to deliver to PRF. All ports, including recreational and fishing ports regardless of their size, need to
provide adequate facilities to receive garbage and oil residues from engines, etc. Larger ports, with more and
various types of ship calling, may need to provide more extensive reception capacity (e.g. for cargo residues,
bilge water, quarantine waste, etc.).
The receiving capacity should be at least appropriate in time and availability to respond to the continuing
needs of the ships normally using the port. Arrangements needed to facilitate the collection of residues,
mixtures and all types of ships’ waste without causing undue delay to ships, such as prior notification of types
and quantities of wastes and residues expected to be delivered, piping or equipment required for delivery etc.
are to be made timely between the ship and the PRF. Also the costs for receiving and processing waste from
ships should be fair, and not provide a disincentive for using the PRFs.
Undue delay may arise when the time spent in port for the delivery of residues, mixtures or wastes goes
beyond the normal turnaround time of the ship in that port, unless the delay is caused by fault of the ship. In
order to provide maximum flexibility for the ship to deliver wastes while avoiding undue delay, in major ports
the availability of reception facilities on a 24/7 basis might be considered.
Adequacy can also be achieved at a regional level, e.g. for Small Island Development States (SIDS), when it
is undertaken in such a manner as to ensure that vessels do not have an incentive to discharge wastes into
the sea.
3.5.2 “Adequacy” according to EU PRF Directive
According to the EU PRF Directive 2019/883 an “adequate” port reception facility is to meet the following
requirements:
a) PRF have the capacity to receive the types and quantities of waste from ships normally using that
port, taking into account:
– operational needs of the port users;
– size and geographical location of that port;
– type of ship calling at that port; and
– exempted ships;
b) formalities and practical arrangements relating to the use of the port reception facilities are
simple and expeditious to avoid undue delays to ships;
c) fees charged for delivery do not create a disincentive for ships to use the port reception facilities;
and
d) PRF allow for the management of the waste from ships in an environmentally sound manner
in accordance with the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC and other relevant EU and
national waste law. Therefore EU Member States shall ensure separate collection to facilitate
reuse and recycling of waste from ships in ports as required under Union waste law.* However,
in order to facilitate this process, PRF may collect the separate waste fractions in accordance
with waste categories defined in MARPOL and its guidelines.
*
In particular Directive 2006/66/EC, Directive 2008/98/EC and Directive 2012/19/EU

In its preamble 28 the PRF Directive 2019/883/EU also refers to the fact that the development, implementation
and re-assessment of the WRHP, based on the consultation of all relevant parties, is essential to ensure the
adequacy of PRF.
Poor location, complicated procedures, restricted availability and unreasonably high costs for the services
provided are all factors which may deter the use of reception facilities. For a PRF to be adequate, the facility
should:
– be available during a ship’s visit to the port;
– be conveniently located and easy to use;
– cater for all types of waste streams usually entering the port; and
– not cost so much as to present a disincentive to users.
At the same time, both the size and geographical location of the port may limit what can technically and
reasonably be provided in terms of reception and handling of the waste.

4 Management of plastic waste from ships
4.1 Types of waste generated onboard ships
There are many different types of waste that can be generated onboard a ship. Although wastes from ships
can be very diverse, the study on The management of ship-generated waste on-board ships (CE Delft, 2017)
identified the following types of waste that are commonly generated onboard ships:
Table 2: Common waste types generated onboard ships (source: CE Delft, 2017)
MARPOL Type of waste Clarification

Annex I Oily bilge water Mixture of liquids that are collected in the bilge of a ship
Oily residues Sludge from the purification of fuel or lubricating oil or separated waste oil from
oil water separators, oil filtering equipment or oil collected in drip trays, and waste
hydraulic and lubricating oils
Oily tank washings Slops from the cleaning of the cargo holds
Annex IV Sewage Drainage and other wastes from any form of toilets and urinals; drainage from
medical premises (dispensary, sick bay, etc.) via wash basins, wash tubs and
scuppers located in such premises; drainage from spaces containing living animals;
or other waste waters when mixed with these drainages
Annex V Plastics Sheets, wrapping, bottles, drums, synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing gear, plastic
garbage bags and empty chemical cans
Food wastes Any spoiled or unspoiled food substances, including fruits, vegetables, dairy
products, poultry, meat products and food scraps generated on board ship
Domestic wastes All waste from domestic spaces onboard of the ship that is not food waste, cooking
oil or plastic. IMO defines this as “all types of waste not covered by other Annexes
that are generated in the accommodation spaces on board the ship. Domestic wastes
does not include grey water”. Domestic waste therefore typically comprises paper,
cardboard, fluorescent lamps, synthetic material, foils, metal cans, lids, glass, pantry
packaging waste, etc.
Cooking oil Generated onboard during food preparation
Incinerator ashes Ashes from onboard incinerators used to burn sludge, domestic, operational waste
and other types of waste
Operational wastes All solid wastes (including slurries) not covered by other MARPOL Annexes that
are collected on board during normal maintenance or operations of a ship, or
used for cargo stowage and handling. This includes cleaning agents and additives
contained in cargo hold and external wash water but not grey water, bilge water, or
other similar discharges essential to the operation of a ship, taking into account the
guidelines developed by the IMO
Cargo residues Remnants of any cargo which are not covered by other MARPOL Annexes and
which remain on the deck or in holds following loading or unloading, including
loading and unloading excess or spillage, whether in wet or dry condition or
entrained in wash water but does not include cargo dust remaining on the deck after
sweeping or dust on the external surfaces of the ship
Annex VI Ozone depleting ODS are used onboard ships in air conditioning appliances or cooling equipment
substances on reefers. They can also be contained in mobile equipment (fridges, mobile air
conditioners)
Part of the waste may be legally discharged into the sea, outside special protected areas, and under certain
conditions, such as at a minimum distance from the coast. Waste that cannot be reused on board or legally
discharged at sea under international MARPOL standards must be delivered to PRFs, available in ports.

4.2 Amounts of waste generated onboard ships

The amount of waste generated by ships can be reduced depending on the type of fuel used, onboard
treatment practices and the availability of equipment such as incinerators, grinders and oil-water separators.
However, not all types of waste can be properly or completely treated on board, and not all methods are
suitable for all waste types. As an example, compacting paper can be done on board; however, compacting
all types of plastics will make them impossible to treat further on shore, or necessitate sorting them out again,
increasing the overall cost of the process. Any practice should therefore always keep in view the complete
workflow, up to the point of delivery to an appropriate PRF, when necessary, and the final disposal.
The ISO Standard 21070 on the “Management and handling of shipboard garbage” provides examples for
calculating the expected amounts of waste for the following MARPOL Annex V waste types: glass, paper/
cardboard, packaging/plastics, wood, metal/scrap, special waste* and organic waste. In the Regional Waste
Management Strategies for Arctic Shipping (2017)† these examples were used to draft an outline of the types
of shipping that can be expected in Arctic regions, and the need for PRFs based on the amount of expected
wastes to be generated (See Table 3). Although this exercise was specifically done for Arctic shipping, it may
also provide useful information for worldwide shipping.
Table 3: Amount of MARPOL Annex V waste generated onboard a ship (source: PAME)
Ship type Number of persons on Duration of voyage (in Amount of waste

board Arctic waters) generated
Cargo ship (> 400GT) 20 7-14 days 210-420 kg
Cargo ship 20 5-10 days 150-300 kg
Research vessel 25-50 10-30 days 375-2250 kg
Fishing vessel 6-8 5-10 days 45-120 kg
Exploration/offshore support vessel 10-15 7-14 days 105-315 kg
Cruise ship/passenger vessel 15-3000 7-15 days 210-90.000 kg
Cruise ship/passenger vessel 15-3000 15-30 days 450-180.000 kg
The Study to support the development of measures to combat a range of marine litter sources (Sherrington
et al., 2016) provides the most extensive estimates of waste generation from vessels in European waters for all
MARPOL Annex V waste types on an aggregate level and per waste category (see table 4).
Table 4: MARPOL Annex V onboard waste generation estimates (1000 tonnes) for vessels
in European waters for 2013 by subcategory and ship segment (source: Sherrington et al. (2016))
Sector/waste stream Shipping Fishing Cruise Passenger Recreational Navy Total %

Annex V – domestic 74,4 43,5 86,7 123,0 170,9 8,8 507,3 57%
Annex V – solid CR 122,5 - - - - - 122,5 14%
Annex V – fishing gear - 218,5 - - - - 218,5 25%
Annex V – other 27,1 4,3 - 0,3 - 0,9 32,6 4%
operational
Total 224 266,3 86,7 123,3 170,9 9,7 880,9
% 25% 30% 10% 14% 19% 1%
*
“Special waste” was not defined in the ISO 21070.
†
https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1932

4 – Management of plastic waste from ships
These data show that the contribution of the various shipping segments in European waters differs between
waste categories, where typically passenger ships (cruise, ferries, recreational boating) cover the majority of
domestic waste (garbage), while cargo ships are mainly responsible for MARPOL Annex V cargo residues and
other operational waste. It should be noted that the figures presented only cover cargo residues from dry bulk
(MARPOL Annex V). In calculating the figures, Sherrington et al. (2016) already corrected for legal discharges
of food waste. If an average treatment of 25% is assumed (Impact Assessment for the Revision of Directive
2000/59/EC on port reception facilities, Ecorys, 2017), the gross waste generation would be an approximate
1,2 million tonnes for all shipping sectors, and about 0,3 million tonnes for merchant shipping alone. Fishing
and recreational vessels together account for about half of the total MARPOL Annex V waste generation.
4.3 Waste from ships as a source of marine litter

Even though it is generally assumed that the majority of waste entering the world’s ocean comes from land-based
sources, there are clear indications that marine litter also results from sea-based activities, although this has
not been specifically quantified on any scale, and its contribution to the global burden of plastic debris in
the world ocean is poorly understood. Furthermore, certain forms of sea-based marine litter may not only be
significant sources of plastic litter, but may well have greater impacts on marine biota and habitats than do
other forms of marine litter.
According to the GESAMP Working Group 43 on Sea-based sources of marine litter,* sea-based activities and
industries contribute to the global burden of marine litter, and this warrants concern largely because synthetic
materials comprise significant portions and components of litter entering the world ocean from sea-based and
other maritime activities and sources.
4.3.1 Fishing as a source of marine litter

Fishing gear components that contribute to the global ocean burden of plastic marine litter can be generally
categorized as: netting, largely comprises mono- or multifilament polymers woven into knotted and knotless
meshes; traps and pots, comprises multifilament polymers woven into meshes, monofilament ropes and floats;
ropes and lines, comprises a wide variety of non-biodegradable polymer materials; and floats and buoys,
commonly comprises polymers including EPS (GESAMP, 2021).
Fishing vessels may deliberately or accidentally release litter such as gloves, storage drums, EPS fish boxes and
other personal waste into the marine environment; people participating in sea-based leisure activities, such as
recreational boating and fishing, also generate marine litter, including single-use items.
Certain types of fishing gears are more risk-prone to gear loss and impacts (e.g. entanglement and/or ingestion).
Whether drifting at sea, or deposited on the seabed, Abandoned, Lost or otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear
(ALDFG) can become a trapping agent for marine organisms, including endangered species. Incidences of
marine wildlife entanglement in and ingestion of ALDFG have doubled from 1997 to 2015. Increases in marine
wildlife entanglement and ingestion records are documented for marine turtles (100% of the 7 extant species),
marine mammals (66% of the 123 extant species) and seabirds (50% of 406 extant species).
ALDFG causes serious economic impacts to fishers and associated fisheries. The direct financial losses from
the loss of gear itself and any target species caught in the gear can be substantial. The indirect or “hidden”
economic costs are multifaceted, and include lost fishing opportunities due to non-availability of gear in hand
(especially for the fishers who do not have spare gear available for an immediate replacement); the loss in
value of future landings that might have otherwise been available to the fishers from use of the lost gear item;
the loss in value of ghost catch in the ALDFG, now no longer available for fishers to catch and from which to
profit; retrieval costs including time and fuel costs to search for the lost gear; and costs incurred by fishers in
replacing lost gear (GESAMP, 2021).
*
http://www.gesamp.org/publications/sea-based-sources-of-marine-litter

Figure 2: ALDFG at sea (Photo credit: Emma Hedley)
4.3.2 Shipping as a source of marine litter

Ships generate solid wastes daily that may end up as marine litter, often containing cargo waste, operational
wastes (from cargo stowage and handling), sewage, galley waste, domestic waste from crews and maintenance
wastes.
The shipping industry is also a source of microplastics, after routine cleaning of ship hulls, mishandling of
cargo made of plastic items or accidental spills of industrial resin pellets. Microplastics are also generated
from marine paints and antifouling coatings, from wastewater management and discharge systems (greywater,
sewage), and transported through ballast waters (GESAMP, 2021).
Most traditional impacts of marine litter like entanglement and ingestion must be considered mainly as a
consequence of general waste discarded overboard from ships, without specific impact in relation to their
shipping origin.
Quantification of waste discharged at sea is difficult in the absence of directly available global data. However,
a 2018 Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for the amendment of EU Directive 2000/59/EC on
port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues estimated the amount of waste that is
(potentially) discharged at sea by ships (table 5). Although garbage delivered in ports has increased since the
introduction of the EU PRF Directive, a significant delivery gap in waste remains, estimated between 60,000
and 300,000 tonnes, i.e. 7% to 34% of the total to be delivered annually.
While few detailed studies are available that quantify the amounts and types of plastic litter from shipping,
0.001% to 2% of cargo loads are lost annually. As well, 0.01 m³ to 0.1 m³ of operational waste and 0.003 m³
to 0.015 m³ of plastic and domestic wastes are generated per person per day (GESAMP, 2021).

Table 5: Ship waste generated and delivered annually, and the resulting “waste gap”.
Content sourced from 2018 Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for
an EU Directive on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships;
MARWAS (Annex I-IV waste); Annex V waste estimates are based
on Sherrington et al. (2016).
Data source Waste to be delivered* Waste actually Delivery gap

delivered
MARPOL Annex I
Merchant shipping 1.226.000 m³ 1.195.000 m³ 31.000 m³
All, incl. fishing and recreational vessels 1.290.000 m³ Unknown Unknown
Merchant: 1.226.000 m³
Fishing: 55.000 m³
Recreational vessels: 9.000 m³

MARPOL Annex IV
Merchant shipping 1.362.000 m³ 1.226.000 m³ 136.000 m³
All, incl. fishing and recreational vessels 2.312.000 - 2.562.000 m³ Unknown Unknown
Merchant: 1.362.000 m³
Fishing: 500.000 – 750.000 m³
Recreational vessels: 450.000 m³

MARPOL Annex V
Merchant shipping 434.000 tonnes 286.000 – 30.000 –

404.000 tonnes 148.000 tonnes
All, incl. fishing and recreational vessels 881.000 tonnes 580.000 – 60.000 –
820.000 tonnes 300.000 tonnes
Merchant: 434.000 tonnes
Fishing: 266.000 tonnes
Recreational vessels: 171.000 tonnes

MARPOL Annex VI
Merchant shipping 24.000 m³ sludge Unknown Unknown
360.000 m³ bleed-off
* The models applied have accounted for the waste that is treated on board and/or legally discharged under MARPOL to avoid
overestimating the gap between generation and delivery.
4.4 Management of plastic waste

If onboard storage capacity permits, the ship garbage management plans preferably take into account the
possibility of waste recycling, returning for container deposit schemes, reuse, or passive fishing of certain
garbage types. The segregation of garbage according to the recommendations of the MARPOL Annex V
implementation guidelines should also allow for the delivery of garbage in certain recyclable categories.
To facilitate the delivery to PRF of recyclable wastes, ship operators should consider establishing contracts
with facilities in ports that are visited on a regular basis. This will fulfil both the need to use an adequate and
authorized service operator as per most environmental management systems, and facilitate the delivery of

segregated waste ashore during each port visit. Where appropriate reception facilities for segregated and/
or recyclable wastes are not provided in a port, shipowners/operators are encouraged to request that such
facilities are developed in conjunction with environmentally responsible waste management systems. This is
important as that way local installations may have a greater volume of inward materials and it will be easier
to commercialize outputs.
4.4.1 Plastic waste management

Based on the waste hierarchy mentioned in section 2.1 of this Guidance Document, it is preferable to prevent
plastic waste being generated onboard ships. If prevention is impossible reuse followed by recycling may be
an option, and if recycling is not possible plastic waste might be incinerated (with energy recovery). Dumping
in a landfill is considered as the least preferable option.
Plastic waste can be generated in all types of vessel and often originates from domestic provisions and supplies
used for operations on board the ship. Plastic waste typically comprises sheets, wrapping, bottles, drums,
synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, plastic garbage bags and empty chemical cans.
4.4.1.1 Prevention
Waste prevention practices can significantly reduce the amount and/or the hazardous character of wastes that
are generated on board ships. Some examples of onboard waste prevention measures are:
– ban on the use of single use plastics;
– individual bottles of water to be replaced by larger containers, and/or bottles of soft drinks that
are replaced by containers with syrup that is to be mixed with water;
– a water purifier installed in the drinking water system of the ship, which will reduce the usage
of plastic bottles;
– use of reusable bottles;
– arrangements with the supplier/distributor of stores for taking back the plastic packaging foil
used to cover the ship’s stores immediately after delivery.
Measures such as restrictions to the production and consumption of single use plastics and microplastics, in
combination with the use of marine bio-degradable plastics, may prevent marine litter, also from sea-based
sources such as shipping, fishing, aquaculture and offshore activities.
4.4.1.2 Recycling
Plastic recycling is the process of recovering waste or scrap plastic and reprocessing these materials into other
functional and useful products. It is crucial that plastic is recycled as part of the global efforts to reducing
plastic and other solid waste to end up in the environment.
Plastics should be recycled for of a number of reasons:

– plastic recycling helps to conserve resources and diverts plastics from landfills or unwanted
destinations such as oceans;
– recycling plastic requires less energy than making plastic from raw materials and will reduce CO2;
– it helps to reduce fossil fuel consumption, since virgin plastic is produced directly from natural
gas or crude oil;
– the process of recycling plastic is less expensive and less time-consuming compared to
manufacturing new plastic using virgin material.
Most post-consumer plastic waste is recycled using mechanical recycling technology. More specifically,
mechanical recycling can be used to recover plastic materials comprising polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE),
or polyethylene terephthalate (PET).

Mechanical recycling involves mechanical processes such as grinding, washing, separating, drying,
re-granulating and compounding to break down waste into plastic flakes. Once dried, plastic flakes can be
used to produce new plastic materials.
Due to the complexity of recycling plastics, it is not a practice that is being done onboard ships, and most
likely is also not being done in ports in developing countries. Another technique, which is done by using
pyrolysis, converts mixed plastics into oils. Depending on the process the oils can be used as paraffine oil for
the production of new plastics, or the oil can be used as a fuel. Some recycling units can already be profitable
even at low quantities of waste plastics (1t/day).
Plastic recycling is also contributing to a better climate: incineration of plastics generates CO2 and for the
production of primary plastic companies produce CO2 as well. But even 1 ton of waste plastics delivered to
recyclers, saves more CO2/year than 1 electric car (source: recyclepro.be).
Is recycling an economically viable solution?
In most cases PRFs are economic enterprises and they need sufficient revenue to be able to continue their
operations. From that point of view, PRFs will normally choose – within the local legal boundaries – the cheapest
solution to process the plastic waste collected. This can be mechanical/chemical recycling, incineration with
or without energy recovery, and/or landfilling. This decision depends on the costs and the revenues, and the
specific waste infrastructure that is locally available.
Next to the waste fee that is collected from the ship, the revenue (positive or negative cost for the plastic waste
to recycle) is to be included. In case certain types of plastic waste, including oils from the chemical conversion
of plastic, would generate an additional positive value, this should be considered as an additional revenue.
In some countries governments subsidize the collection of plastic waste in order to prevent the generation of
marine litter, especially when it impacts tourism and/or the quality and quantity of fish or aquaculture (which
can be important sectors in certain countries). By way of subsidizing the fishery sector, governments could give
incentives to set up systems to collect waste plastics (fishing for litter schemes, beach clean-up activities, etc.).
4.4.1.3 Waste-to-energy
Sophisticated incinerators that burn plastic and other municipal waste can produce enough heat and steam
to generate electricity for the local grid. According to the World Energy Council the waste-to-energy sector is
likely to witness steady growth in coming years, especially in the Asia Pacific region.*
Energy recovery may be a valuable alternative for plastics-rich waste fractions that cannot be sustainably
recycled. Some plastics cannot be recycled in an eco-efficient manner for reasons such as:
– the necessary amount, cleanliness and composition of the collected waste streams cannot be
guaranteed;
– the technologies for sorting are not available.
Market-driven requirements on quality and standards for recycled material may limit the appropriateness of
plastics recycling.
For these types of plastic, energy recovery is the most resource-efficient solution available when compared to
landfilling or even to enforced recycling. However, waste-to-energy plants are expensive to build and operate,
so they generally charge more than landfills do. And because plants run most efficiently with steady streams
of waste, their owners often need to import material from elsewhere.
Large plants can generate enough electricity to supply thousands of houses. However, studies have indicated
that recycling plastic waste still saves more energy – by reducing the need to extract fossil fuel and process it
into new plastic – than burning it, along with other household waste. Finally, waste-to-energy plants may emit
toxic pollutants such as dioxins, acid gases and heavy metals.
*
Waste-to-energy. World Energy Council
http://www.worldenergy.org/assets/images/imported/2013/10/WER_2013_7b_Waste_to_Energy.pdf

4.4.2 Management of fishing gear and ALDFG

More than 12 million tons of plastic end up in our seas every year. Fishing gear accounts for roughly 10% of
that debris: between 500,000 to 1 million tons of fishing gear are discarded or lost in the ocean every year.
Discarded nets, lines and ropes now make up about 46% of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.*
The IMO has recognized the need to prevent plastic pollution from ships, including fishing vessels and gear.
Several measures addressing waste from fishing vessels have been included in the IMO Action Plan on marine
plastic litter from ships. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) adopted its
Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear (VGMFG). The VGMFG are described as an attempt “to
improve the state of the marine environment by combatting, minimizing and eliminating abandoned, lost or
otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) and facilitating the identification and recovery of such gear.”
Also abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) is a problem that is increasingly of concern.
Various United Nations resolutions include actions to reduce ALDFG and marine debris in general. In general,
gillnets and pots/traps are most likely to “ghost fish” while other gear, such as trawls and longlines, are more
likely to cause entanglement of marine organisms, including protected species, and habitat damage.
The causes for fishing gear to be abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded are numerous and include adverse
weather; operational fishing factors including the cost of gear retrieval, gear conflicts, illegal, unregulated and
unreported fishing, vandalism/theft, and access to and cost and availability of shoreside collection facilities.
Weather, operational fishing factors and gear conflicts are probably the most significant factors, but the
causes of ALDFG accumulation are poorly documented and not well understood. A detailed understanding
of why gear is abandoned, lost or discarded is needed when designing and tailoring effective measures to
reduce ALDFG in particular locations.
Passively fished waste
During their fishing operations fishermen are often confronted with waste that is unintentionally collected in
their nets, so-called passively fished waste. Often this passively fished waste is thrown back into the ocean.
In order to avoid this, some international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have developed schemes
often known as “Fishing for Litter”. The idea behind it is simple: instead of throwing the waste back into sea,
the fishermen are encouraged to collect it onboard (e.g. in big bags) and deliver it free of charge to a PRF when
returning to port. By doing so they reduce the amount of marine litter in our seas by physically removing it.
In addition, it also highlights the importance of good waste management amongst the fishing fleet. PRF are
being provided in fishing ports where the fishermen can deliver their passively fished waste. As the passively
fished waste is in general quite similar to ship-generated garbage, also the PRF for this type of waste is similar.
Fishing for Litter measures have been included in several Regional Action Plans (RAP) on Marine Litter
developed by regional seas commissions. Several countries have already implemented this measure, and have
set up schemes for the reception of passively fished waste.
In cooperation with regional and/or national stakeholders, participating vessels are given hardwearing bags to
collect marine litter that is caught in their nets during their normal fishing activities. Filled bags are deposited in
participating ports on the quayside where they are moved by port staff to a dedicated skip or bin for disposal.
Operational or galley waste generated on board, and hence the responsibility of the vessel, continues to go
through established port waste management systems.
*
https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/ghost-fishing-gear

in United Kingdom (Photo credit: KIMO International*)
in the Netherlands (Photo credit: KIMO International*)
*
KIMO is a network of local governments in the North-East Atlantic and Baltic regions, working together for healthy seas, clean
beaches and thriving coastal communities.

5 Elements of a Port Waste Management Plan
5.1 Developing Port Waste Management Plans: an introduction
The main purpose of a PWMP is to improve the availability, adequacy and usage of reception facilities for
waste from ships normally calling the port. As a consequence, the key elements of a PWMP should also be
directly related to the issues that determine the adequacy of a PRF. According to section 5 of the Guidelines
for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V (resolution MEPC.295(71)) the main issues for determining the
adequacy of PRFs are:
– number and types of ship that will call at the port;
– waste management requirements of each type of ship (including calculating the quantities of
garbage not discharged into the sea);
– types of PRF; and
– size and location of a port.
Furthermore, governments are to consider technological challenges related to the management (recycling,
treatment and discharge) of the garbage received from ships, and take responsible measures within their
national programmes to consider garbage management standards.
For Small Island Development States (SIDS) the requirements regarding PRF can also be satisfied through
regional arrangements.
In a more comprehensive form, a PWMP can also be compelled as a full guidance document for port
users and other stakeholders that brings together all the relevant elements, procedures, regulations, goals
and responsibilities linked to the delivery, collection, treatment, monitoring and enforcement of waste from
ships, including cargo residues. The PWMP can also implement requirements and goals of the national waste
management strategy, translating the goals regarding the environmental sound management of waste, including
the transition towards a more circular economy, into the practical processes and procedures applied within
the port area.
As addressing the adequacy of a PRF is already a complex issue, also the elements that are to be included in
a fully comprehensive PWMP are very diverse, taking into account the ports’ and port users’ characteristics,
the national/local legal framework and policy ambitions, the existing waste management infrastructure within
and in the vicinity of the port, etc. This may lead to an extensive and costly analysis and administrative burden
for the authority assigned to develop the PWMP, which – especially for developing countries and SIDS – is
not always feasible.
Therefore, in case not sufficient resources are available to develop a “full option” PWMP, it is still useful to
identify the elements that can be considered as essential for a “basic” PWMP. These elements, which are
directly linked to the adequacy of PRF and addressed in section 5.3 of this Guidance Document, are:
– Purpose of the PWMP
– Scope of the PWMP
– Overview of available PRF
– Assessment of the need for PRF
– Description of the procedures related to the delivery and collection of the waste
– Advance waste notification (not applicable to fishing ports and marinas)
– Waste delivery receipt
– Cost recovery system (when applicable)
– Stakeholder consultations
– Reporting of alleged inadequacies

Additional elements, which can be applied in a PWMP that aims to be a fully comprehensive guidance
document for all port users regarding the management of waste from ships and are addressed in section 5.4
of this document, are:
– Definitions
– Overview of the relevant regulatory framework
– Record keeping
– Exemptions for frequent callers
– Monitoring and enforcement
– Brief description of the port
Taking into account the local situation, a competent national/regional authority can also decide to distinct
between a number of “basic” elements of the PWMP that are to be included as mandatory, and other elements
that are optional.
Thus, PWMPs may vary significantly in level of detail and coverage, from a large commercial port to a small
fishing port or marina. Some of the items may be only partially applicable to smaller ports with reduced waste
streams or with very specialized shipping services.
In some countries small non-commercial ports which are characterized by rare or low traffic from recreational
craft only may be exempted from the requirement of PWMP, on condition that:
– their PRFs are integrated in the waste handling system managed by or on behalf of the relevant
municipality; and
– the information regarding the waste management system is made available to the users of those
ports.
5.2 Who is to draft the PWMP

In general the procedures related to the development, approval and renewal of the PWMP is to be decided by
the national competent authority, and is embedded in the appropriate national regulatory instrument(s). Also
the responsibility for who is to draft the PWMP is preferably clarified in the national regulatory framework.
Although the responsibility for the development and implementation of the PWMP can differ depending on
the national or regional institutional settings, in general the PWMP is to be developed by the port authority,
as they hold overall responsibility for the waste handling in the port (collection and treatment of waste and
compliance with national regulations). If the operational waste handling is contracted (outsourced) to an
external waste operator, it is the obligation of the port to ensure that the waste operator will comply with
existing regulations, terms of reference and other important issues specified in the contract with the port.
Many ports operate on a landlord basis and in some cases it might be necessary that also independently
managed areas in the ports, such as fishing ports, terminals and chemical plants, draft their own plans and
are responsible for managing their services on reception of wastes and residues from ships as part of their
operations (also see section 5.3.2 of this Guidance Document). Where responsibility is unclear, terminals
should clarify the local situation with the port authority.
Taking into account that maritime shipping by definition is an international business, it is preferable that
the PWMP is not only drafted in an official language of the State where the port is located, but also in a
language that is internationally used.

5 – Elements of a Port Waste Management Plan
5.3 Essential elements for a “basic” PWMP

5.3.1 Purpose of the PWMP
The overall purpose of the PWMP is to improve the availability, adequacy and usage of reception facilities for
waste from ships normally calling the port, in order to protect the marine environment by reducing discharges
into the sea of waste from ships, including cargo residues.
Its objectives are:
– To reduce illegal discharge of waste from vessels;
– To comply with legal duties with regard to waste management;
– To consult with port users, ship agents, operators, waste contractors and regulators in the
development and implementation of waste management strategies and measures;
– To prevent the production of waste wherever possible; and
– To re-use or recycle waste wherever possible.
5.3.2 Scope of the PWMP

Defining the scope of the PWMP is essential not only to delineate to which vessels the PWMP applies – and
as a consequence: to which vessels the PWMP does not apply – but also the port’s geographical boundaries
and areas of jurisdiction.
In some cases the scope of the PWMP can also include restrictions to which types of waste are collected
by the PRF in the port. However, this can also be clarified when providing the information of available PRFs
and the procedures linked to the delivery and collection of the waste. Furthermore, a delineation based on
the types of ship normally calling the port may already include an implicit boundary regarding the types and
volumes of waste accepted (e.g. a large oil terminal mainly accepting Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) will
not have to provide PRF for waste fishing gear, and a small recreational port will not have to provide PRF for
extensive amounts of washing waters containing dry bulk cargo residues).
Observations regarding the types of vessel
Although other classifications may be possible depending on the local situation in ports, here are some
examples of different types of shipping that may be included within the scope of the PWMP, or not:
– vessels operating in the marine environment;
– inland navigation;
– merchant shipping, fishing vessels, recreational craft, passenger/cruise ships;
– international shipping;
– domestic shipping;
– ships engaged in port services (such as bunkering activities, cargo-handling, dredging, mooring,
pilotage, towing, etc.);
– ships calling the port on a frequent and regular basis within a specific sailing schedule (such as
ferries, tourist boat tours, etc.)
– government owned and/or operated vessels in a non-commercial service; and
– warships and naval auxiliaries.
Of course all sorts of combinations are possible.
Warships and naval auxiliaries are already exempt from most international (e.g. MARPOL, SOLAS) and
national maritime regulatory instruments which, from a legal as well as a practical point of view, makes it
rather difficult to include them within the scope of the PWMP.

The same reasoning applies for ships that are owned and/or operated by a State and used, for the time being,
only on government non-commercial service. However, it should be noted that MARPOL requires States to
ensure – by the adoption of appropriate measures not impairing the operations or operational capabilities of
such ships owned or operated by it – that such ships act in a manner consistent, so far as is reasonable and
practicable, with the Convention. Therefore port authorities may still decide to include these types of ship (e.g.
state owned dredging vessels, tugboats, pilot vessels, research vessels) within the PWMP.
A distinction that often is made, is between vessels operating in the marine environment and inland navigation.
As the regulatory instruments for inland navigation in general differ from that for seagoing vessels, they are
often kept outside the scope of the PWMP. Another possibility, taking into account that inland navigation can
be quite substantial within a port and waste from inland navigation may be delivered to the same PRFs, is to
develop a separate PWMP.
Another observation is that the national or regional competent authorities responsible for the development
and approval of the PWMPs for different types of port, often make use of tailor-made standardized models
for each type of port. In practice this means that for each target group (merchant seaports, passenger/cruise
ports, fishing ports and recreational ports) a “model” PWMP is being outlined, which can be used for each
port within that target group. Even the use of a standardized format (e.g. making use of tick/check boxes) is
possible.
The advantages of such an approach are multiple:
– reduced risk that the mandatory elements of the PWMP are overlooked, as the content of the
PWMP is standardized;
– redundant procedures can be left out for certain types of port: e.g. as fishing vessels in general
do not make use of the Advance Notification Form (ANF), this procedure should not be included
in the PWMP;
– as all elements are pre-indicated: less administrative burden for the port to draft the PWMP;
– as all elements are standardized: less administrative burden for the competent authority to verify
the PWMP;
– focus can be put on the adequacy of PRF, including the assessment of the need for PRF, only for
the types of waste that are generated by the ship that are normally calling the port (e.g. no need
to address MARPOL Annex II cargo residues in a marina).
Observations regarding the port’s jurisdiction:
Waste management requirements listed in a PWMP can only be applicable and/or legally enforceable within
the juridical boundaries of that specific port. Therefore it is important to indicate within the scope of the
PWMP the geographical and juridical boundaries of the port, including a map.
However, it is possible that certain specific entities within the port area have a different legal status, and the
port authority may not have any jurisdiction in that area, such as:
– private terminals or jetties;
– areas exclusively reserved for fishing vessels or recreational activities;
– residential areas within the port;
– naval or military basis;
– anchorages.

In those cases (also see the examples in figure 5)* ports should liaise with the private companies or appropriate
competent bodies to ascertain the best approach regarding the development of the PWMP. Some areas may
be taken out of the overarching PWMP, possibly leading towards the development of an individual PWMP
for these individual terminals or jetties. The geography of the port, waste facilities in the region, and the type
and amount of ships visiting each terminal or jetty should be taken into account when making this decision.
A - One large WRH Plan B - One large WRH Plan for

for the entire port the entire port, with individual
terminals or jetties within that
port having their own WRH Plan
C - One large WRH Plan for D - Each individual

the part of the port, with individual terminal or jetty having
terminals or jetties having their their own WRH Plan
own WRH Plan
KEY
Port WRH area

E - A regional plan
that includes the
port in conjunction Terminal to jetty WRH Plan
with other ports
Figure 5: Examples of different options for the geographical scope of the PWMP
(source: EMSA Technical Recommendations on the Implementation
of Directive 2000/59/EC)
*
In this figure “WRH Plan” means “Waste Reception and Handling Plan”, which is the name used in the EU Directive

5.3.3 Overview of available PRF

The PWMP should contain an overview of the available PRF active in the port, including a short description
and indication of their capacity. For deciding on what information is to be included in that overview, a good
indication can be found in the Port Reception Facilities Database (PRFD) of the IMO’s Global Integrated
Shipping Information System (GISIS):
Information about the service provider Name, address, phone, email, website
Type of facility:
– tank truck/portable tank
– tanker or barge
– fixed
Types of waste accepted MARPOL Annex I-related (oily waste)
– oily bilge water
– oily residues (sludge)
– oily tank washings (slops)
– dirty ballast water
– scale and sludge from tanker cleaning
– other
MARPOL Annex II-related (chemical/NLS)
– category X substance
– category Y substance
– category Z substance
MARPOL Annex IV-related (sewage)
MARPOL Annex V-related (garbage)
A) plastics
B) food wastes
C) domestic wastes
D) cooking oil
E) incinerator ashes
F) operational wastes
G) animal carcasses
H) fishing gear
I) E-waste
J) cargo residues (non HME)
K) cargo residues (HME)

MARPOL Annex VI-related
– ozone-depleting substances
– exhaust gas cleaning residues (scrubber waste)

Ballast Water Management Convention

– ballast water
– sediment from ballast tanks
Discharge restriction/limitations – Minimum quantity (m³)
– Maximum quantity (m³)
– Maximum discharge rate (m³/h)
– Other
Procedural information – Availability of the reception facility
– Minimum prior notice required (hours)
– Charging system
– Additional information (e.g. cleaning)
In case of additional specific requirements or procedures (e.g. pumping requirements, safety issues, specific
requirements regarding segregation of garbage, restrictions for quarantine waste, piping connection standards
for sewage, etc.) this information can also be provided in the PWMP.
When there are fixed facilities in the port, it may also be useful to include a map indicating the location of
the PRF.
As PWMPs in general are validated for multiple years (e.g. 3 to 5 years) this list is a snapshot at a certain
moment in time. Therefore it can be useful to include in the PWMP a link to the website where the up-to-date
list can be consulted: this can be the port’s website, or the overview provided by the IMO’s PRFD in GISIS.
5.3.4 Assessment of the need for PRF

The assessment whether the existing PRFs are sufficiently adequate and whether or not there is a need for
additional reception capacity, is one of the fundamental elements of the PWMP. According to the IMO
manual PRF – How to do it it is important that this assessment is done based on reliable and detailed information
about the types and quantities of wastes from ships delivered in previous years.
Each port should – as a minimum – collect the following information:
– amount of each type of waste actually collected in the port;
– amount of each type of waste which should be collected in the port; and
– amount of each type of waste stored by ships for delivery in other ports.
When collecting this information planners should refer to the data collected during the operation of the
previous PWMP and, when available, information received from the Advance Notification Form (ANF) or
Waste Delivery Receipt (WDR) developed by the IMO (MEPC.1/Circ. 834/Rev.1). This information will aid
the collection of waste statistics and enable waste management planners to tailor the requirements to ensure
sufficient capacity of PRF. Ports are advised to keep these data so that plan holder can produce appropriate
information when requested. This information will also help ports to review their PWMP and allow changes
in the demand for PRF to be monitored.
Also, waste contractors already operating in the port area may be consulted upon in order to determine the
expected amounts of wastes from ships.
Planners may also check the information regarding reporting alleged inadequacies of PRF in the PRFD of
IMO’s GISIS.
Another possibility to collect information to help with assessing the adequacy of existing PRF and the possibility
for additional reception capacity, is by using a questionnaire which can be sent out to all relevant port
users. It should be noted that questionnaires sometimes can be quite complex, and some questions could be
interpreted differently by the respondents. However, depending on the local situation a questionnaire, or even
certain parts of the questionnaire that are particularly relevant, can be used.

An example of such a questionnaire is included in Annex 5 of this Guidance Document.

When the data about the types and quantities of wastes from ships delivered in previous years is limited or
not available (e.g. in case of newly built ports), a theoretical approach can be applied using existing waste
generation rates in combination with expected traffic, possible exemptions and the experience of similar
facilities. When preparing a plan it is advised to consider the maximum amount of waste that could be
received, and then assess the need for PRF accordingly.
An example of such theoretical waste generation rates has already been provided in table 3 in section 4.2
(Amounts of waste generated onboard ships) of this Guidance Document. Another example is the table provided
by the EMSA study regarding The management of ship-generated waste on-board ships (CE Delft, 2017):
Table 6: Types, quantity, drivers and options for management of ship-generated waste
(adapted from CE Delft, 2017).
Type of waste Generation rate Driver On-board treatment

3
Oily bilge water 0.01-13 m per day, larger Condensation and leakages The amount can be reduced by
ships generate larger in the engine room; size of 65-85% by using an oil water
quantities. the ship. separator and discharging the water
fraction into the sea.
Oily residues (sludge) 0.01 to 0.03 m3 of sludge Type of fuel; fuel Evaporation can reduce the amount of
per tonne of HFO. 0 and consumption. sludge by up to 75%. Incineration can
0.01 m3 per tonne of MGO. reduce the amount of sludge by 99%
or more.
Tank washings (slops) 20 to hundreds of m3 Number of tank cleanings; After settling, the water fraction may
Size of loading capacity. be discharged at sea.
Sewage 0.01 to 0.06 m3 per Number of persons on-board; Effluent from treatment plants is often
person per day. Sewage type of toilets; length of discharged at sea where permitted
is sometimes mixed with voyage. under MARPOL Annex V.
other waste water. The
total amount ranges from
0.04 to 0.45 m3 per day
per person.
Plastics 0.001 to 0.008 m3 of Number of person on-board. Often not incinerated. Dirty plastics
plastics per person per day. (plastics that have been in contact
with food) are often treated as a
separate waste stream.
Food wastes 0.001 to 0.003 m3 per Number of persons on-board; Where permitted under MARPOL
person per day. provisions. Annex V, food waste is often
discharged at sea.
Domestic wastes 0.001 to 0.02 m3 per day Number of persons on-board;
per person. type of products used.
Cooking oil 0.01 to 0.08 litres per Number of persons on-board; Although not permitted, cooking oil
person per day. type of food prepared. is sometimes still added to the sludge
tank.
Incinerator ashes 0.004 and 0.06 m3 per Use of incinerator; cost of The incinerator is not used for all
month. using incinerator. types of waste, mostly for paper
sometimes for oily sludge.
Operational wastes 0.001 to 0.1 m3 per person Size of the ship; type of
per day. cargo.
Cargo residues 0.001–2 % of cargo load. Type of cargo. Size of ship.

When assessing the need for waste reception capacity, also the possible impact of so-called Special Areas
should be considered. Due to specific oceanographic, ecological and shipping characteristics of some sea
areas, MARPOL has established Special Areas. In these special areas more stringent discharge restrictions
apply, and the discharge of waste from ships is subject to more control. As the discharge criteria are stricter, a
consequence may be that there is a stronger demand for ships to deliver their waste to PRFs.
Furthermore, the establishment of a special area will only take effect upon sufficient receipt of notifications
of the existence of adequate PRF by IMO, from Parties whose coastlines border the relevant special area.
Currently the special areas established under MARPOL* are as follows:
– Annex I: Oil
Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Red Sea, “Gulfs” area, Gulf of Aden, the Antarctic
area, North West European Waters, Oman area of the Arabian Sea and Southern South African
Waters
– Annex II: Noxious Liquid Substances
Antarctic area
– Annex IV: Sewage
Baltic Sea
– Annex V: Garbage
Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Red Sea, “Gulfs” area, North Sea, the Antarctic area
(south of latitude 60 degrees south) and Wider Caribbean region including the Gulf of Mexico
and the Caribbean Sea
– Annex VI: Prevention of air pollution by ships (Emission Control Areas)
Baltic Sea area (SOx and NOx), North Sea (SOx and NOx), North American ECA (SOx, NOx
and PM), and United States, Caribbean Sea ECA (SOx, NOx and PM).
5.3.5 Description of the procedures related to the delivery and collection of the waste
Modern environmental management systems and procedures assist with the improvement of the delivery
of MARPOL wastes ashore. Some of the procedures and good practices recommended by the IMO in its
Consolidated guidance for PRF providers and users (MEPC.1/Circ.834/Rev.1) include communication and
reporting procedures and the use of standardized forms.
5.3.5.1 Advance waste notification (not applicable to fishing ports and marinas)
Prior to arrival, ship operators should check with local stakeholders (agents, port authorities, harbour masters
or PRF providers) for port-specific requirements, in order to plan for and accommodate any special handling
requirements for that particular port.
In some ports an advance notification from the ship is required regarding its intention to use the reception
facilities. This can be requested for logistical reasons by the PRF provider, but also by the port authority e.g.
for calculating a waste fee. Providing advance notification to the reception facility of the type and quantity
of MARPOL wastes/residues on board and the type and quantity intended to be delivered will greatly assist
the PRF operator in receiving the waste while minimizing any delay to the ship’s normal port operation.
General recommended practice is to provide at least 24 hours’ notice, although specific requirements may
vary by PRF. If a ship visits a port on a regular basis, a standing arrangement with the PRF may prove to be
most efficient. It is also recommended to use the standardized IMO Advance Notification Form.†
*
For the latest status of the Special Areas, it is advised to consult the IMO website: http://www.imo.org – click on Our Work (Marine
Environment), then Special Areas under MARPOL.
†
Appendix 2 of IMO Consolidated guidance for PRF providers and users (MEPC.1/Circ.834/Rev.1)

In many cases, especially in larger ports, this notification process is automized and the agent representing
the ship notifies the information of the Advance Notification Form directly into the port’s information system.
The PWMP should provide all the information that is necessary in order to be able to complete an advance
waste notification:
– a model of the notification format (IMO Advance Notification Form);
– information regarding the timing when the advance notification is to be forwarded (e.g. at least
24 hours before calling the port);
– how the information is to be provided (electronically, email, etc.);
– who is to forward the information (the Master of the ship, or the ship’s agent);
– details of who is receiving the notification (e.g. Harbour Master’s office, port’s environmental
or operational department), including the contact details (address, telephone number, email,
website).
It should be noted that the use of advance waste notification schemes in general is only applied in merchant
seaports (including passenger and cruise ports), not in fishing ports or marinas.
5.3.5.2 Waste delivery receipt
Following delivery, the master of the ship should request a Waste Delivery Receipt (WDR) in order to
document the type and quantity of MARPOL wastes/residues that were actually received by the PRF. The
information from the WDR can also be used for enforcement purposes: it can be kept on board together
with the relevant record books (Oil Record Book, Cargo Record Book, Garbage Record Book or the Garbage
Management Plan), and presented upon request to the port States’ environmental protection agency and/or
maritime authority.
IMO has standardized the format of this document* to facilitate its use and application and in order to provide
uniformity of records throughout the world.
The PWMP should provide all the information that is necessary for port users to be able to complete the Waste
Delivery Receipt:
– a model of the WDR (IMO standardized format);
– when and by whom the WDR is to be completed.
In some cases also port authorities request a copy of the WDR to monitor the actual delivery of waste
from ships, e.g. to when assessing the adequacy of the existing facilities or the need for additional reception
capacity.
In ports with unmanned reception facilities it is not always possible to provide the ship’s master with a WDR.
5.3.5.3 Cost recovery system (when applicable)
Apart from the availability of adequate PRF, which is a primary preventative measure that can reduce the
likelihood that ship’s waste is discharged at sea, also the cost for their use can discourage waste delivery by
ships. Therefore the application of indirect cost recovery systems can take away the economic advantage of
discharging into sea: as ships are required to pay a waste fee irrespective whether they use the PRF or not,
they might as well deliver the waste.
Although MARPOL does not contain any explicit requirements to install cost recovery systems, section 6.3
of the 2017 Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V (resolution MEPC.295(71)) provides
references to the use of compliance incentive systems:
“The augmentation of port reception facilities to serve ship traffic without undue delay or inconvenience
may call for capital investment from port and terminal operators as well as the garbage management
companies serving those ports. Governments are encouraged to evaluate means within their authority
to lessen this impact, thereby helping to ensure that garbage delivered to port is actually received
*
Appendix 3 of IMO Consolidated guidance for PRF providers and users (MEPC.1/Circ.834/Rev.1)

and disposed of properly at reasonable cost or without charging special fees to individual ships. Such
means could include, but are not limited to:
.1 tax incentives;
.2 loan guarantees;
.3 public ship business preference;
.4 special funds to assist in problem situations such as remote ports with no land-based
garbage management system in which to deliver ships’ garbage;
.5 Government subsidies; and
.6 special funds to help defray the cost of a bounty programme for lost, abandoned or
discarded fishing gear or other persistent garbage. The programme would make appropriate
payments to persons who retrieve such fishing gear, or other persistent garbage other than
their own, from marine waters under the jurisdiction of Government.”
Although the “tax incentives” as mentioned in the IMO guidelines are not explicitly implicating the use of cost
recovery systems implementing the “polluter pays”* principle, the section does encourage governments to
explore the use of systems helping to ensure that garbage delivered to port is actually received and disposed
of properly. In addition, the reference to the “reasonable cost or without charging special fees to individual
ships” could be interpreted as an encouragement to distribute the cost for the provision and/or the use of PRF
over all ships calling the port, e.g. by applying a no-special fee system. Still, the current text leaves substantial
room for interpretation.
The main objective of indirect cost recovery systems is that the costs of PRF for ship’s waste, including the
treatment and disposal of the waste, are covered through the collection of a fee from ships. This is based on
the “polluter pays principle”, in which the costs are to be fully borne by the port users. Differing from EU ports,
where the EU PRF Directive requires† that all costs for PRF are to be covered by fees from ships, in non-EU
ports cost recovery schemes can also be based on a partial coverage of costs, e.g. in certain fishing ports of
marinas where the cost for the collection and treatment of ship’s garbage is included in the municipal waste
management scheme.
In smaller ports the use of PRF for fishing vessels, local harbour craft and for visiting vessels is often provided
as part of the harbour dues. Visiting commercial craft can be charged on an ad hoc basis for the PRF that they
will require. This can either be arranged via the harbour’s staff or via the vessel’s agent.
It should be noted that in general these indirect cost recovery systems are only applied for the collection
and treatment of normal ship-generated waste, not for cargo residues and washing waters containing cargo
residues. Cargo residues remain the property of the cargo owner after unloading the cargo to the terminal,
and may have an economic value. For this reason, cargo residues should not be included in the cost recovery
systems and the application of the indirect fee. The charges for the delivery of cargo residues should be paid
by the user of the PRF, as specified in the contractual arrangements between the parties involved or in other
local arrangements. Cargo residues also include the remnants of oily or noxious liquid cargo after cleaning
operations, to which the discharge norms of MARPOL Annexes I and II apply, and which under certain
conditions, as set out in those Annexes, do not need to be delivered in port to avoid unnecessary operational
costs for ships and congestion in ports.
5.3.6 Stakeholder consultations

The consultation of the port’s stakeholders is one of the key success factors when implementing a proper
scheme for the management of waste from ships. A constructive dialogue between the port authority and
its relevant stakeholders is considered to be crucial for a proper functioning of the system, in particular for
establishing adequate PRF that meet the need of ships normally using the port.
*
The “polluter pays” principle is enacted to make the party responsible for producing pollution responsible for paying for the damage
done to the natural environment.
†
Article 8 of Directive 2019/883/EU on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships

Each port will have customers with differing priorities. Therefore, planners should consult their customers to
be able to understand and meet their specific needs. Adequate PRF, at the right price, can only be provided
if there is full and constructive dialogue between all stakeholders involved, such as PRF operators, port
users or their representatives, and other interested parties such as local competent authorities, waste disposal
companies and environmental organizations.
Stakeholder consultations will also help in determining the appropriate levels of service for each waste stream,
actual and potential, and identify ways to improve service and reduce disruptions. Furthermore, consultation
with governing bodies and local authorities is required to ensure that compliance with local and national
legislation or regulations is achieved and maintained.
Stakeholder consultations should not only be undertaken as an integral part during the development of the
PWMP, but also after the plans have been adopted. This can also provide the basis for the evaluation and (re)
approval of the plans.
To guard that this stakeholder consultation process is not only ensured but also done in transparent way, it is
therefore useful that the consultation procedures are included in the PWMP. In order to ensure consistency and
a harmonized approach beyond the level of the individual port, these procedures can even be implemented
in the national and/or local environmental or port regulatory framework.
There are no strict rules for how these stakeholder consultations are to be organized: the methodology can
differ, and may depend on the size and type of the port, the way local stakeholders are organized (e.g. through
national/local associations), and take into account the port’s institutional framework.
Consultation of draft PWMPs can be done in the form of meetings, or through an official consultation
procedure where the draft plan is made public and every interested party can submit their comments within
a certain timeframe.
On a more continuous basis, regular review meetings could be held as a way of on-going consultation. At
such meetings, the existing waste provision and PWMP could be discussed, together with suggested changes
and improvements. Other methods include newsletters, questionnaires, the use of notice boards, contact with
ships’ agents and local representative bodies.
5.3.7 Reporting of alleged inadequacies

Since the possibility for improving PRF is also dependent on the receipt of adequate information about alleged
inadequacies, the provisions for reporting alleged inadequacies of PRF should be included in the PWMP.
The IMO has provided a format for reporting alleged inadequacies of PRF in the Appendix 1 of the Consolidated
guidance for PRF providers and users (MEPC.1/Circ. 834/Rev.1). It is also available through the Port Reception
Facility section of the GISIS website. Completed reports should be forwarded to the flag Administration and,
if possible, to the authorities of the port State.
Port States should ensure the provision of proper arrangements to consider and respond appropriately and
effectively to reports of inadequacies, informing IMO and the reporting flag State of the outcome of their
investigation. Therefore it is useful to embed these procedures in the PWMP. In general it is the responsibility
of the Harbour Master to ensure that complaints regarding inadequacies of PRF are dealt with within an
appropriate time scale.
It should also be made possible through the PWMP that any port user that believes there are any inadequacies
regarding PRF in the port, is able to report this directly to the Port Manager or the person assigned by the port.
5.4 Optional elements for a PWMP

5.4.1 Definitions
In order to avoid discussions or misinterpretations about the key elements of the PWMP, it may be useful to
include an overview of definitions, such as:
– definitions of the different types of waste that are accepted (or not) in the port;
– key elements of the cost recovery system (when applicable);
– the different types of ship;

– clarifications about the type of shipping that may affect the delivery of waste (e.g. “short sea
shipping”, “regular port calls”, “scheduled traffic”, etc.);
– definitions regarding waste treatment (e.g. “recycling”, “treatment”, “disposal”, etc.);
– description of the involved competent authorities and/or stakeholders.
5.4.2 Overview of the relevant regulatory framework

As not all port users are equally familiar with the up-to-date environmental regulatory framework and the
requirements regarding waste management on the national/regional or local level, it may be useful to include
in the PWMP:
– an overview of the legislation applying to the port and the provision of PRF;
– a summary of relevant legislation and formalities for the delivery and collection of waste from
ships;
– references of the applicable legislation and formalities for the downstream treatment of the
waste.
5.4.3 Record keeping

It is important for the port authority (or who else may be responsible for the implementation of the PWMP) to
keep record of all relevant documentation related to the delivery, collection and treatment of the waste from
ships. Based on this information statistics can be drawn up which enables the port authority to tailor the waste
management to the requirements of the port users in order to ensure sufficient capacity of reception facilities.
The most relevant documents to be collected, analysed and evaluated are:

– notification forms from vessels;
– waste delivery receipts;
– information regarding reporting alleged inadequacies of PRF.
It is advised that the port authority keeps copies of the above-mentioned documents for a minimum of
2 years. Furthermore, the data may be forwarded (or at least kept available) for statistical purposes to the
environmental and/or maritime authorities.
5.4.4 Exemptions for frequent callers

Due to its type of trade, which is characterized by frequent port calls, short sea shipping and other types of
frequent callers (e.g. ferries and tourist boats) may face significant costs and bureaucratic burden within the
regime for the delivery of waste to PRF, as they may be expected to notify in advance and pay a waste fee at
each and every port call.
To limit the financial burden on the sector, a reduced fee can be charged to vessels based on the type of traffic
in which they are engaged.
Furthermore, in order to avoid undue burden for the parties concerned, ships engaged in scheduled traffic
with frequent and regular port calls (e.g. at least one call every week/two weeks) are sometimes exempt from
certain obligations deriving from the PWMP, when there is sufficient evidence that there are arrangements
to ensure the delivery of the waste and the payment of fees. If this is the case, the PWMP should include an
overview of the procedure to apply for such an exemption.
5.4.5 Monitoring and enforcement

Effective monitoring of the PWMP is essential to ensure that the plan is properly implemented and that the PRF
are operating as required. The purpose of monitoring will be to ensure the functioning of the whole ship waste
management system in practice, in accordance with the approved PWMP.

The monitoring of implementation of the plans could include an ad hoc inspection by the competent
authority/authorities, at least once during the validity period of the PWMP (to align with the need for
periodical reapproval). Inspections should be more frequent if regular complaints have been received about
the inadequacy of PRF. The inspection of port facilities is often in the competence of different enforcement
bodies and exercised within a different legal framework than that applicable to the inspections on board of
ships. In this respect, a good collaboration between the enforcement authorities involved in the monitoring of
the PWMP is important.
Competent authorities can develop inspection schemes to verify PWMP compliance (also see section 5.6.2
of this Guidance Document).
Apart from the verification of the PWMP, also the monitoring and enforcement of the ships’ compliance with
the waste delivery requirements is important. In principle, States have to ensure that all ships may be subject
to an inspection and that a sufficient number of inspections is carried out. This general inspection requirement
also includes fishing vessels and recreational craft. However, it might not be possible in practice to control all
ships which do not deliver their waste in ports.
5.4.6 Brief description of the port

Most existing PWMPs start with a brief description of the port (including a map), providing general information
regarding:
– the legal and institutional setup;
– general activities;
– geographical coordinates and nautical details;
– commercial activities and overview of cargo turnover;
– number and types of ship calling the port the previous years.
5.5 Flanking policy measures

5.5.1 The integration of waste from ships in a wider waste management strategy
A waste management strategy is a powerful tool to establish a coherent system of integrated waste management
practices and facilities. A proper national waste management strategy leads to an efficient and effective
operating waste management system easing the transition towards a circular economy, and therefore it should
facilitate the development of regulations, procedures and infrastructure that lead towards the environmentally
sound management of both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. It describes the objectives and goals, and it
outlines the practical issues such as collection, transport and storage, and the downstream waste management
such as recycling and final disposal.
Key stakeholders such as governments and local authorities, waste generators, waste collectors and transporters,
dealers, brokers, waste disposal facilities and non-governmental organizations, all have a crucial role to play.
MARPOL as such does not contain any specific requirements for the downstream management of waste from
ships, as it only requires for the provision of adequate PRF and the proper reception of the wastes.
Still, once the wastes and cargo residues are offloaded from a ship, they must be managed in an environmentally
sound manner in accordance with the provisions of the national waste management regulatory framework,
and – when applicable – the provisions of the overarching waste strategy. According to the IMO Guidelines for
ensuring the adequacy of port waste reception facilities (resolution MEPC.83(44)) the PRF must “allow for the
ultimate disposal of ship-generated wastes and residues to take place in an environmentally appropriate way”.
Although port authorities are in general not directly involved with the provision and operation of downstream
waste management infrastructure, the availability of adequate treatment options (e.g. recycling, incineration,
landfill) in the vicinity of the port area can be an important advantage when establishing infrastructure for the
reception of waste and cargo residues from ships, as this might have an impact on both the capacity and costs
for the collection.

Some of these elements of the national waste management strategy may be addressed in the PWMP, such as:
5.5.1.1 Waste prevention and minimization
As a priority, waste prevention and minimization are key elements of a waste management strategy. Unnecessary
waste generation burdens on waste transport and disposal facilities, and should be avoided. Of course, it is
not always possible to efficiently incentivize waste prevention and minimization on board ships by applying
land-based regulations.
Some ports therefore have implemented voluntary (financial) incentive schemes, such as a reduction of port
fees or the (partial) reimbursement of waste fees for ships that have installed technology or apply management
schemes that lead to reduced amounts of onboard generated waste. If this is the case, these procedures are
to be included in the PWMP.
5.5.1.2 Waste hierarchy
When assessing the best practical environmental option for the management of waste, the following principles
should be encouraged:
1 reduction of the amount of waste generated;
2 its re-use (either for the same or a different purpose);
3 recycling to recover value from the waste; and
4 composting or energy recovery.
Final disposal of the waste (landfilling, incineration without energy recovery) should only be undertaken if
none of the above can be applied.
The most obvious application for ports is to provide facilities for recycling. While the amounts of recyclable
waste from ships alone may not make it economic to provide special facilities, they may become viable if they
are part of a coordinated system with the local community ashore (also see section 5.5.1.3 of this Guidance
Document).
Businesses and visitors in port/terminal areas all produce wastes that must be disposed of and the consultation
and involvement of shoreside recycling schemes and vessels that do segregate waste could be considered as
part of the PWMP. It is recommended that planners review the manner in which waste from ships as well
as port waste is handled by their contractors and encourage environmentally sustainable options in waste
management. In particular planners should consider the needs of their customers for reception facilities for
segregated wastes.
5.5.1.3 Addressing both ship- and land-generated waste
A basic principle when developing a waste management strategy for wastes and residues from ships, is that
these ship-generated wastes should not be seen separate from land-based wastes: after all, ship-generated waste
systems within a port do not exist in isolation from the rest of the port operations, services and infrastructure,
and becomes a part of the total waste stream of a port, once received on shore. As both ship-generated wastes
and land-generated wastes in the port are to be managed in an environmentally sound manner, it is obvious
that a proper waste management strategy should address the management of both ship-generated wastes and
land-generated wastes, either from a domestic or industrial origin.
Especially in smaller ports such as local ports, fishing ports and marinas, the volumes of ship-generated wastes
delivered to PRF might not be sufficient enough in order to develop a cost-efficient waste management. Still,
when combining the ship-generated wastes with similar wastes generated by land-based industrial activities
and municipal wastes, volumes might be sufficient enough in order to establish not only an economically
viable business opportunity, but also facilitate environmentally sound waste management.
5.5.1.4 Cooperation between ports for the provision of PRF
Increased cooperation between ports may also be a valuable and economically viable option for optimizing
the downstream treatment of waste from ships: all ship-generated wastes may be received in all of the
participating ports, but are then subsequently transported to central disposal facilities. Such a strategy can
be more cost-efficient and effective than the provision of disposal facilities in each of the participating ports.

An inter-port strategy may be applicable on a subnational level, where ports in one country cooperate, or on
an international level, where ports in neighbouring countries cooperate. In particular if ports are located in
remote areas or in case of a cluster of small ports (e.g. SIDS), inter-port cooperation in the field of reception
and treatment might be worthwhile to consider. In case of an international cooperation, special attention
should be made to the requirements of the Basel Convention regarding the trans frontier movements of waste.
It can be noted that in 2015 the IMO has already agreed with a Regional Reception Facilities Plan (RRFP)
for the Small Island Developing States in the Pacific Region (MEPC.1/Circ.859), and has developed a specific
framework and guidance for addressing the adequacy of port reception facilities on a regional and inter-port
level:
– 2012 resolution MEPC.216(63): Regional arrangements for port reception facilities under
MARPOL Annexes I, II, IV and V;
– 2012 resolution MEPC.217(63): Regional arrangements for port reception facilities under
MARPOL Annex VI and Certification of marine diesel engines fitted with Selective Catalytic
Reduction systems under the NOx Technical Code 2008;
– 2012 resolution MEPC.221(63): Guidelines for the development of a regional reception facilities
plan.
In case of inter-port cooperation also the PWMP can be developed on a regional basis (also see section 5.5.2
of this Guidance Document).
5.5.1.5 Circular economy
Another important element is that an integrated approach to waste management incorporating the entire life
cycle of waste, from the moment of generation until its disposal, may save considerable future expenses (the
so-called “cradle-to-grave approach”). As ship-generated as well as land-generated wastes contain valuable
materials, they might be recovered as a resource material for other industrial activities. Final disposal of these
wastes would be an inefficient use of resources, and recovery options should be explored (the so-called
“cradle-to-cradle approach”).
The following figure 6 indicates the composition of MARPOL Annex V waste that was collected by PRFs in the
port of Antwerp in 2019: noting the substantial volume of plastic that was delivered, this may be a potential
source for recycling (as long as the plastic is not mixed or contaminated). Also considering the fact that most
likely there will also be plastics in the “other/mixed waste” category, this example indicates the importance of
incentivizing a segregated delivery of garbage (also see section 5.5.1.6 of this Guidance Document).
Also for fishing ports this may be a valuable point of attention. Fishing gear consists of many differing types
and materials.* However, as there are many types of plastic being used in the production of fishing gear (e.g.
polystyrene, PVC), an analysis is necessary to assess the impact of these types of plastic on the recycling
options.
*
In 2020 the European Commission has published a Study on circular design of the fishing gear for reduction of environmental
impacts (https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c8292148-e357-11ea-ad25-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/
source-147995096)

Plastic Cargo associated waste Food Waste Small hazardous waste

Dry cargo residues Washing waters Other/mixed waste
Figure 6: Composition of MARPOL Annex V waste collected in 2019 in the port of Antwerp
(based on unpublished data collected by Flemish Waste Agency OVAM, Belgium)
5.5.1.6 Incentivizing the delivery of segregated waste
Procedures for collecting and storing garbage generated on board should be based on the consideration of:
what is permitted and what is not permitted to be discharged into the sea while en route; and whether a
particular garbage type can be discharged to PRF for recycling or reuse. Still, in order to reduce or avoid the
need for extra sorting after the garbage has been delivered to a PRF and to facilitate reuse and recycling, it is
preferable that the waste is directly segregated on board according to the recommendations of the IMO 2017
Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V (resolution MEPC.295(71)), which recommends that
garbage is being segregated according to the following waste types:
– non-recyclable plastics and plastics mixed with non-plastic garbage;
– rags;
– recyclable material:
– cooking oil
– glass
– aluminium cans
– paper, cardboard, corrugated board
– wood
– metal
– plastics (including Styrofoam or other similar plastic material);
– E-waste generated on board (e.g. electronic cards, gadgets, instruments, equipment, computers,
printer cartridges, etc.); and
– garbage that might present a hazard to the ship or crew (e.g. oily rags, light bulbs, acids, chemicals,
batteries, etc.).

As this is a recommendation and not a MARPOL-requirement, ships can still decide to deliver mixtures of
wastes and residues. However, taking into account the principles of environmentally sound waste management,
some port authorities and terminal operators decided to incentivize the delivery of certain types of segregated
ship-generated waste. A certain practice that already is applied in several ports is to grant ships that deliver
segregated wastes a reduction on the port dues and/or waste fee.
Sometimes the shipping industry indicates that even when garbage is being segregated on board according
to the recommendations of the IMO guidelines, PRF still collect all wastes in one receptacle and thus mixing
everything again. An option therefore could be to address this issue in port regulations in a way that already
segregated waste that is delivered to a PRF is in principle to be accepted that way by the PRF and is to be kept
segregated for further processing, in order to maximize the potential for recycling.
5.5.2 Regional Port Waste Management Plans

Ports within a certain region may not only choose to cooperate on the provision of adequate PRF but may also
choose to develop a common PWMP. In some cases, the PWMP may be developed in a regional context with
the appropriate involvement of each port.
Port Waste Management Planning on the basis of a regional arrangement can provide a solution when it is
undertaken in such a manner as to ensure that vessels do not have an incentive to discharge waste into the
sea. In the development of such regional plans it is imperative that the dedicated storage capacity of vessels
involved is sufficient to retain their waste between ports of call. Such planning requires close collaboration
between Member States in the same region.
In all cases, the need for, and availability of, adequate PRF has to be specified for each individual port.
5.6 Approval and review of the PWMP

5.6.1 Approval process
In most countries where an official approval process is in place, the authority approving and monitoring the
PWMP is either the maritime authority or the environmental authority, at either national or regional level.
Sometimes both of these authorities have a role, depending on the type and size of port.
Depending on the type and size of port, the evaluation and approval of the PWMP is usually done in separate
stages and with different bodies involved in the process. In addition to the approval by the relevant authority,
and in order to be ready for implementation, the plan usually also has to be adopted by the body governing
or managing the port concerned.
In some countries or when there is no real approval process in place, the responsibility to provide an up-to-
date PWMP may be delegated to the port authority, without an explicit approval (e.g. in some countries there
are so many small ports/jetties that it is simply impossible to organize a written consent procedure for these
plans). This can be the case for very small ports, small scale yacht moorings provided by hotels, facilities used
only by day fishing vessels, fish farms where the majority of waste is generated by onshore facilities, etc.
Locations where fishing vessels are hauled onto beaches are unlikely to need a PWMP, although the controlling
authority, e.g. the local council, should be made aware of the need to provide appropriate PRF.
5.6.2 Review
There should be an ongoing process to assess the effectiveness of the PWMP operation. Any comments or
complaints should be fully considered, and any necessary remedial action taken. The plan should be kept up
to date. It is preferable that there is a formal review of the PWMP at least every 3 to 5 years.
Also, if there is a significant change to the operation of the port, a revised PWMP is to be submitted for
approval to the competent authority. Those significant changes may include structural changes in traffic to the
port, development of new infrastructure, changes in the demand and provision of port reception facilities, and
new onboard treatment techniques.
Authorities may also decide that if during the 3- to 5-year duration period of the PWMP no significant changes
have taken place, the re-approval may consist of a validation of the existing PWMP.

6 Models of Port Waste Management Plans
6.1 Ports’ characteristics impacting the delivery of waste from ships
Due to an extensive set of variable characteristics ports can be very different:
– geographical location, including the impact of Special Areas and/or seasonal influences such as
obstruction of traffic because of occurrence of floating ice;
– size of the port;
– types of traffic (commercial, fishing, recreational, navy, offshore support, etc.);
– types of cargo being handled in the port;
– number of ships calling the port;
– size of the ships calling the port;
– port structure and governance;
– presence of industrial clusters in the port;
– existing capacity for waste collection, storage and treatment; and
– presence of densely populated areas in the port or in the immediate vicinity.
Also specific ship-related and certain operational elements influence the delivery of waste. According to the
study on The management of ship-generated waste types on-board ships (CE Delft, 2017) ships can opt to treat
waste on board and – when complying with the criteria – legally discharge the effluent at sea.
Common examples are:
– treatment of bilge water in an Oil Water Separator (OWS) and the subsequent discharge of the
separated oil to a PRF and the water to the sea;
– sewage is treated in different ways and if well treated can be disposed at sea;
– food waste can be comminuted, shredded or passed through a grinder and afterwards disposed
at sea or collected in bins and delivered to PRF; and
– washing waters containing certain types of cargo residue are often discharged legally at sea.
It is therefore clear that the need for adequate PRF, including the intermediate storage and downstream waste
disposal facilities, is primarily determined by the port users’ needs. And as their needs will be very different
in differing ports, the provision of adequate PRF and the waste disposal options require good planning and
design.
This will also impact the development of a PWMP.
The following sections will resume the key elements for the development of a “basic” PWMP, and focus on
specific issues for the four types of port identified:
– merchant seaport;
– passenger/cruise port;
– fishing port; and
– recreational port (marina).
Furthermore a model of PWMP will be presented in the annexes of this Guidance Document for each of these
four port types.

It should be noted that, as mentioned above, ports can be very different, even within the same target group.
Therefore it will not be possible, within the Terms of Reference of this GloLitter Activity 1.2.1, to develop these
models into a substantial level of detail.
The main goal of these model PWMPs is to improve the availability, adequacy and use of PRF, and the key
elements are:
– Scope of the PWMP
– Overview of available PRFs
– Assessment of the need for PRF
– Description of the procedures related to the delivery and collection of the waste
– Advance waste notification (not applicable to fishing ports and marinas)
– Waste delivery receipt
– Cost recovery system (when applicable)
– Stakeholder consultation
– Reporting of alleged inadequacies of PRF
In principle the following elements of the PWMP should be similar for each type of port:
– Stakeholder consultations
– Reporting of alleged inadequacies
Therefore these elements are not discussed in the following sections.
6.2 Merchant seaports, cruise/passenger ports

Unless the port provides terminals that focus on specific types of cargo only, merchant seaports in general
receive all types of commercial ship for all types of trade. This can be container ships, dry/liquid bulk, car
carriers, breakbulk, etc.
Depending on the size of the port and the way the collection of waste from ships is organized, the planner can
decide to exempt certain types of port related shipping active in the port (such as tugboats, dredging vessels,
pilot boats, etc.).
Due to the size of the ships that often call cruise ports and large passenger ports, the development of a PWMP
for these types of port are in general similar to the ones used in merchant seaports.
There may be a possibility that the merchant seaport also receives fishing vessels and recreational craft, but they
often call specific areas in the port (outside the jurisdiction of the port authority) for which a specific PWMP
may be developed.

6 – Models of Port Waste Management Plans
Figure 7: Port Sudan (Sudan) (Photo credit: Peter Van den dries)
6.2.2 Overview of available PRFs

As merchant seaports are characterized by receiving a broad variation of ship types, in general they also have
to foresee the availability of PRF for different types of waste, covering all MARPOL Annexes:
MARPOL Annex Waste type

Annex I (Oil) Oily bilge water
Oily residues (sludge)
Oily tank washings
Dirty ballast water
Scale and sludge from tank cleaning
Other (specify)
Annex II (NLS) (*) Category X substance
Category Y substance
Category Z substance
Other
Annex IV (Sewage)


Annex V (Garbage) A) Plastics
B) Food waste
C) Domestic waste (e.g. paper/cardboard, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery, etc.)
D) Cooking oil
E) Incinerator ashes
F) Operational waste
G) Animal carcasses (*)
H) Fishing gear (**)
I) E-waste
J) Cargo residues (Harmful to the Marine Environment, HME) (*)
K) Cargo residues (non-HME) (*)

Annex VI Ozone depleting substances and equipment containing such substances
(Air pollution related) Exhaust gas cleaning residues
(*) Not applicable to cruise/passenger ports

(**) Only in case the fishing port falls within the jurisdiction of the port authority and therefore is to be included in the PWMP
For cruise/passenger ports the main focus will be on the collection of garbage, and the need for the collection
of segregated waste streams (depending on the need of the ships using the PRF). Although they also generate
other types of waste, passenger and cruise vessels are characterized by the extensive volumes of garbage
that they produce, due to the amount of people on board. According to a 2007 study* it has been estimated
that, although cruise ships represent less than 1% of the global merchant fleet, they are responsible for 25%
of all waste generated by merchant vessels. This volume of waste produces pressures on the environment,
particularly with respect to disposal at ports of call.

Considering the wide range of waste types (including cargo residues) and larger volumes that may be expected
in merchant seaports, the need for PRF (assessed by comparing the amounts of each type of waste actually
collected in the port, the amounts of each type of waste which should be collected in the port, and the
amounts of each type of waste stored by ships for delivery in other ports) can be quite difficult.
In general the aim is to estimate as accurate as possible the existing situation (types and volumes of waste
actually delivered) and compare with the actual need for the ships (maybe not all ships deliver due to lack
of adequate facilities, or the application of unreasonable charges). Also an estimate of the situation in the
immediate future are to be taken into account (e.g. opening of new terminals that may affect the number and
types of ship calling the port, or new types of cargo residues to be collected).
Section 5.3.4 provides several tools that may help to gather useful information. One of the options is to use a
questionnaire (or parts thereof), such as the example in Annex 5 of this Guidance Document.
In merchant seaports operations in general take place 24/7, which may impact the need for PRF outside
normal operating hours.
*
The impact of cruise ship-generated waste on home ports and ports of call: A study of Southampton (September 2007, Marine
Policy 31(5):591-598)

Also different types of PRF are to be taken into consideration (truck, barge, fixed facility). When assessing the
use of fixed facilities the choice of location is to be well chosen, as ships might need to shift berths which is
not only a time-consuming and expensive operation, but this may also lead to undue delay or ships not being
keen to use the PRF. Appropriate sites for fixed garbage receptacles therefore include wharves adjacent to
moorages, access points to docks, fuel stations and boat launching ramps.
Figure 8: Collecting barge in port of Rotterdam (NL)

(Photo credit: Bek & Verburg, NL)
Although it is still possible for sewage to be legally discharged at sea, some passenger and cruise ship owners
and operators, for reasons of sustainability, prefer to deliver it to a PRF. Due to the extensive volumes generated
by large cruise ships and in order to optimize delivery, the construction of sewage pipelines to each berth
might be a feasible option. Especially in passenger ports, where the same vessels often call on a frequent
and regular basis, specific facilities can be provided in order to facilitate the collection of liquid wastes, using
standardized pipe connections.
In general cruise vessels are equipped with extensive onboard garbage treatment technology (compactors,
grinders, shredders, incinerators, etc.), and that materials like paper, metal and glass in many cases are being
collected separately inside the ship. This may impact the provision of PRF.
It can also be noted that seasonal traffic and increased tourism may have a substantial impact on the volumes
of waste delivered by passenger and cruise vessels.
Although port authorities are in general not directly involved with the provision and operation of downstream
waste management infrastructure, the availability of adequate treatment options (e.g. recycling, incineration,
landfill) in the vicinity of the port area (e.g. for industrial activities) can be an important advantage when
establishing infrastructure for the reception of ship-generated waste, as this may have an impact on both the
capacity and the cost for the collection and treatment.

Figure 9: Sewage collection in port of Trelleborg, Sweden

(Photo credit: Clean Baltic Sea Shipping)
6.2.4 Description of procedures related to the delivery and collection of the waste
6.2.4.1 Advance waste notification
In merchant seaport the use of advance waste notification is widely applied, not only in order to provide
proper planning to organize collection of the waste from ships and avoid undue delay, but also to allow the
port authority for collecting statistics and/or calculating a waste fee.
The PWMP should provide all the information that is necessary in order to be able to complete an advance
waste notification:
– a model of the notification format: it is recommended to use the standardized IMO Advance
Notification Form;*
– information regarding the timing when the advance notification is to be forwarded (e.g. at least
24 hours before calling the port);
– how the information is to be provided (electronically, email, etc.);
– who is to forward the information (the Master of the ship, or the ship’s agent);
– details of who is receiving the notification (e.g. Harbour Master’s office, port’s environmental
or operational department), including the contact details (address, telephone number, email,
website).
In cruise/passenger ports the use of advance waste notification often depends on the regularity of the vessels
calling: as this type of traffic is often characterized by scheduled sailings with the same ships returning to the
same port on a regular and frequent basis, arrangements for the delivery of the waste can be made between
the ship operator and the PRF. Therefore it is not always necessary to use the advance waste notification
scheme.
*
Appendix 2 of the IMO Consolidated guidance for PRF providers and users (MEPC.1/Circ.834/Rev.1)

In many cases, especially in larger ports, this notification process is automized and the agent representing
the ship notifies the information of the Advance Notification Form directly into the port’s information system.
The use of a Waste Delivery Receipt (WDR) is in many cases generally applied in merchant seaports. The
WDR is a useful tool:
– for the ship and PRF to document waste delivery and collection;
– for the port authority to collect accurate data on waste actually delivered to reception facilities
in its port;
– for the enforcing authorities to facilitate inspections.
The PWMP should provide all the information that is necessary for port users to be able to correctly use
the WDR:
– a model of the WDR (also here it is recommended to use the IMO standardized format);*
– when and by whom the WDR is to be completed.
In ports with unmanned reception facilities it is not always possible to provide the ship’s master with a WDR.
6.2.4.3 Cost recovery system
Although not required by MARPOL, the usage of charging/cost recovery systems is widely applied in
merchant seaports. In a Guidance Document† on cost recovery systems developed within the framework of
the Mediterranean Action Plan on Marine Litter, the following recommendations for cost recovery systems in
merchant seaports and cruise/passenger ports were identified per waste type:
MARPOL Annex I – For ship-generated oily waste (bilge water, sludge, waste oil): application of a system
containing a fixed indirect fee supplemented with a refundable (deposit) part or penalty (in
case of no delivery)
– For MARPOL Annex I cargo residues and washing waters: in general the delivery of cargo
residues and washing waters is to be charged directly, linked to the amount of waste
delivered
MARPOL Annex II (*) Application of a direct fee system, linked to the amounts of waste delivered to the PRF
MARPOL Annex IV Depending on the normal and expected traffic in the port (amounts of sewage normally
delivered), application of an indirect cost recovery system with unlimited or reasonable
amounts.
MARPOL Annex V – For garbage: 100% indirect‡ cost recovery system, including a full or partial right to deliver
– For cargo residues: application of a direct fee system, linked to the amounts of waste
delivered to the PRF
– As cruise/passenger ports may be heavily affected by seasonal traffic (many ships in high
season), also indirect systems can be applied during these periods
MARPOL Annex VI Application of a direct fee system, linked to the amounts of waste delivered to the PRF
*
Appendix 3 of the IMO Consolidated guidance for PRF providers and users (MEPC.1/Circ.834/Rev.1)
†
Guidance to determine the application of charges at reasonable costs for the use of PRF or, when applicable, application of the
no-special-fee system, in the Mediterranean (REMPEC, 2019)
‡
An “indirect fee system” means a system where a fee is paid by the ship for the provision of PRF, irrespective of the actual delivery
of waste from the ship. Depending on the system, the fee can cover full (100%) or partial cost of the waste delivery.

6.3 Fishing ports

As fishing ports in general are mainly called by no other ships than fishing vessels, the scope of the PWMP
may be limited. A possible distinction that could be made is between commercial and recreational fishing.
6.3.2 Overview of available PRF
Compared with other types of shipping, wastes generated by fishing vessels are less diverse. Although the use
of mobile collection facilities may be efficient in large fishing ports, the provision of a limited number and
types of fixed reception facilities on the quayside can already be adequate.
Due to the limited types of waste that are delivered by fishing vessels, in general fishing ports can focus on
the collection of MARPOL Annex I (bilge water and waste oil) and MARPOL Annex V (garbage, including
fishing gear). As a consequence, the collection of waste from fishing vessels can be organized relatively easily
using tanker trucks (for the bilge water) and drums (for the waste oil), containers and skips (for the garbage and
fishing gear).
PRF are to be provided for the following waste types:

Other (specify)
B) Food waste
D) Cooking oil
F) Operational waste
H) Fishing gear
I) E-waste

Figure 10: Receptacles for garbage in port of Favignana, Italy

(Photo credit: Peter Van den dries)

Although rather simple and straightforward, the use of skips and waste containers on the quayside can already
be quite adequate PRF for garbage from fishing vessels. Depending on the size of the fishing ports and the
number of vessels calling, a number of separate drums/skips/waste containers may be useful for the waste
types that the majority of the vessels may deliver:
– waste fishing gear
– other plastics/plastic packaging
– paper/cardboard
– glass
– mixed/domestic waste
– some types of hazardous waste.
In some countries schemes have been set up for the collection and management of passively fished waste,
sometimes called “fishing for litter”: these schemes aim to reduce marine litter by working with the commercial
fishing industry. Participating fishing vessels are provided with large bags to collect litter floating on the ocean
surface or dragged up in their nets. The bags are unloaded when the vessels come into port and collected
regularly, enabling the contents to be recycled or appropriately managed via energy-from-waste incineration
or landfill. Depending on the local policy initiatives and practices, PRF may also be provided for passively
fished waste and retrieved ALDFG.

In general not applicable at fishing ports.
Not always applied at fishing ports.
In smaller ports the use of PRF for fishing vessels, local harbour craft and for visiting vessels is often provided
as part of the harbour dues. Visiting commercial craft can be charged on an ad hoc basis for the PRF that they
will require. This can either be arranged via the harbour’s staff or via the vessel’s agent.
In some countries the cost recovery scheme for fishing vessels is arranged at a national or sub-national level.
In order not to discourage fishers to participate in the so-called “fishing for litter” schemes, the cost for
collection and treatment of passively fished waste and retrieved ALDFG are not to be paid by fishers, and may
be covered by alternative financing/subsidies on a national or sub-national level.
6.4 Recreational ports

As recreational ports in general are only used by no other ships than recreational craft, the scope of the PWMP
may be limited.
Figure 11: Marina di Ragusa, Italy (Photo credit: Peter Van den dries)

6.4.2 Overview of available PRF and assessment of the need for PRF
In marinas/recreational ports it is not always necessary to provide large and differentiated PRF. Only in case
the port is used by a substantial number of large yachts, the types and volume of delivered waste will be
relatively limited.
By far the largest volume of ship-generated waste to be delivered to a PRF in a marina will be garbage, mainly
of a domestic type. As in these ports the main types of waste delivered will be garbage and household waste,
general receptacles designed for the collection of the most common fractions of household waste will be
sufficient.
Plastic, paper and cardboard wrapping materials, steel, tin and aluminum food and drink cans, glass and
plastic bottles, etc. will all need to be accepted by a marina’s PRF.

Other (specify)
Annex IV (Sewage) Also from chemical toilets
B) Food waste
D) Cooking oil
I) E-waste
Figure 12: Receptacles for garbage in Marina di Ragusa, Italy

(Photo credit: Peter Van den dries)

Depending on possible local discharge requirements and taking into account the size of the port (e.g. facilitating
large motor yachts) and the number and types of ship calling, it might be useful to equip the facility with a
pumping station for the collection of bilge water (oily water mixture, mainly consisting of water) and/or waste
from chemical toilets.
Also some specific receptacles may be provided for certain types of hazardous wastes (batteries, E-waste,
paint boxes, oil, etc.).
Not applicable at recreational ports.
In general not applied in recreational ports.
In recreational ports the use of PRF is mostly provided as part of the harbour dues, and may vary depending
on the size of the vessel. Visiting vessels can be charged on an ad hoc basis for the PRF that they will require.

7 Useful references
Marine litter (general)
Fanshawe, T., & Everard, M. 2002. The impacts of marine litter. Report of the Marine Litter Task Team. Marine
Pollution Monitoring Management Group.
GESAMP. 2016. Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: Part 2 of a global
assessment. GESAMP Reports and Studies Series No. 93 (ed. by P.J. Kershaw, & C.M. Rochman). IMO/FAO/
UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of
Marine Environmental Protection.
GESAMP. 2019. Guidelines for the monitoring and assessment of plastic litter in the ocean. GESAMP Reports
and Studies Series No. 99 (ed. by P.J. Kershaw, A. Turra & F. Galgani). IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/
WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection.
GESAMP. 2020. Proceedings of the GESAMP International Workshop on assessing the risks associated with
plastics and microplastics in the marine environment. Reports to GESAMP No. 103 (ed. by P.J. Kershaw,
B. Carney Almroth, P. Villarrubia-Gómez, A.A. Koelmans & T. Gouin). IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/
WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection.
GESAMP. 2021. Sea-based sources of marine litter. GESAMP Reports and Studies Series No. 108 (ed. by
K. Gilardi). IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on
the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection.
Mouat, J., Lopez Lozano, R. & Bateson, H. 2010. Economic impacts of marine litter. KIMO (Kommunernes
International Miljøorganisation).
Sherrington, C., Darrah, C., Hann, S., Cole, G. & Corbin, M. 2016. Study to support the development of
measures to combat a range of marine litter sources. Report for DG Environment of the European Commission.
Bristol, Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd.
Ten Brink, P., Lutchman, I., Bassi, S., Speck, S., Sheavly, S., Register, K. & Woolaway, C. 2009. Guidelines
on the use of market-based instruments to address the problem of marine litter. Brussels, Institute for European
Environmental Policy / Sheavly Consultants, Virginia Beach, VA, USA.
Van Acoleyen, M., Laureysens, I., Lambert, S., Raport, L., Van Sluis, C., Kater, B., van Onselen, E., Veiga,
J. & Ferreira, M. 2014. Marine Litter study to support the establishment of an initial quantitative headline
reduction target – SFRA0025. Report for DG Environment of the European Commission. Brussels, ARCADIS /
Leiden, Coastal and Marine Union (EUCC).
Veiga, J.M., Fleet, D., Kinsey, S., Nilsson, P., Vlachogianni, T., Werner, S., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C.,
Dagevos, J., Gago, J., Sobral, P. & Cronin, R. 2016. Identifying sources of marine litter. JRC Technical Report.
Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.
Verlis, K. & Wilson, S. 2020. Paradise trashed: Sources and solutions to marine litter in a small island developing
state. Waste Management, 103: 128–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.12.020.

Legal and policy framework

Ecorys. 2017. Supporting study for an impact assessment for the revision of Directive 2000/59/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated
waste and cargo residues. Presentation of the report for the European Commission.
https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/MARITIME%2017-2017-409/Related%20Information/6_Revision%20of%20
Directive%202000-59-EC%20on%20PRF_EU.pdf.
Hastings, E. & Potts, T. 2013. Marine litter: Progress in developing an integrated policy approach in Scotland.
Marine Policy, 42: 49–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.024.
HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission). 2015. Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter
in the Baltic Sea.
https://helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Regional-Action-Plan-for-Marine-Litter.pdf.
IMO. 2016. Recommendation to encourage action to combat marine litter. Annex 8 to Report of the 38th
Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Convention and the 11th Meeting of Contracting
Parties to the London Protocol, LC 38/16. 18 October 2016.
IMO. 2018. Action plan to address marine plastic litter from ships. Resolution MEPC.310(73) of the Marine
Environment Protection Committee. Adopted 26 October 2018.
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Documents/IMO%20marine%20
litter%20action%20plan%20MEPC%2073-19-Add-1.pdf.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). 1973.
https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-
from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx.
London Convention. 1972. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter.
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Environment/Documents/LC1972.pdf.
London Protocol. 2006. 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (as amended in 2006).
https://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Pages/LDC-LC-LP.aspx.
Panteia & Pwc. 2015. Ex-post evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated
waste and cargo residues. Report for the European Commission.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/maritime/studies/doc/2015-ex-post-evaluation-of-
dir-2000-59-ec.pdf.
REMPEC (Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea). 2019. Operational
Guidelines on the provision of reception facilities in ports and the delivery of ship-generated wastes in the
Mediterranean. REMPEC/WG.45/9/1. Adopted at the 13th Meeting of the REMPEC Focal Points.
Secretariat of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal. n.d. Overview of technical guidelines adopted under the Basel Convention:
http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalMatters/DevelopmentofTechnicalGuidelines/Technical
Guidelines/tabid/8025/Default.aspx.
Sherrington, C., Darrah, C., Hann, S., Cole, G. & Corbin, M. 2016. Study to support the development of
measures to combat a range of marine litter sources. Report for DG Environment of the European Commission.
Bristol, Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd.

7 – Useful references
SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme). 2015. A Regional Reception Facilities Plan
for the Small Island Developing States in the Pacific region. SPREP/IMO.
https://www.sprep.org/attachments/Publications/WMPC/reception_facilities_plan_final.pdf.
UNEP. 2009. Marine litter: A global challenge. Nairobi, UNEP.
UNEP/MAP (United Nations Environment Programme / Mediterranean Action Plan). 2015. Marine litter
assessment in the Mediterranean. Athens, UNEP/MAP.
Waste from ships

CE Delft. 2017. The management of ship-generated waste on-board ships. Report for the European Maritime
Safety Agency.
Earll, R.C., Williams, A.T. & Tudor, D.T. 2000. Pilot project to establish methodologies and guidelines to
identify marine litter from shipping. Report for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (research project 470).
Prepared by Coastal Management for Sustainability.
Jägerbrand, A.K., Brutemark, A., Barthel Svedén, J. & Gren, I.-M. 2019. A review on the environmental
impacts of shipping on aquatic and nearshore ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment, 695.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133637.
NOWPAP MERRAC (Northwest Pacific Action Plan Marine Environmental Emergency Preparedness and
Response Regional Activity Centre). 2015. Best practices in dealing with marine litter in fisheries, aquaculture
and shipping sectors in the NOWPAP region.
Sanches, V.L., Aguiar, M.R.d.C.M., de Freitas, M.A.V. & Pacheco, E.B.A.V. 2020. Management of cruise
ship-generated solid waste: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110785.
Slišković, M., Boljat, H.U.,Jelaska, I. & Mrćelić, G.J. 2018. Review of generated waste from cruisers:
Dubrovnik, Split, and Zadar port case studies. Resources 7(4).
https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7040072.
Widmer, W., Underwood, A.J. & Chapman, M.G. 2002. Recreational boating on Sydney Harbour: Public
perception of potential environmental impacts. Natural Resource Management, 5: 22–27.
WSC (World Shipping Council). 2014. Survey results for containers lost at sea – 2014 update.
WSC. 2017. Containers lost at sea – 2017 update. World Shipping Council press release issued on 10 July 2017.
WSC. 2020. Containers lost at sea – 2020 update. World Shipping Council press release.
Fishing as a source of marine litter

Da Ros, L., Delaney, E., Fiorin, R., Lucaroni, G., Moschino, V., Nesto, N., Picone, M., Riccato, F., Tonin, S. &
Zambetti, V. 2016. Hands-on manual to prevent and reduce abandoned fishing gears at sea. Produced under
the LIFE-GHOST Project (“Techniques to reduce the impacts of ghost fishing gears and to improve biodiversity
in North Adriatic coastal areas”).
http://www.buildingevidence.group/library/publications/GHOST%20Hands-on-manual.pdf.
FAO. 2004. Report of the fifth session of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (Rome, 12–15 October
2004). FAO Fisheries Report No. 758. Rome, FAO.
https://www.fao.org/3/y5778e/y5778e.pdf.
FAO. 2012. Recreational fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 13. Rome, FAO.
https://www.fao.org/3/i2708e/i2708e.pdf.

FAO. 2014. Report of the 24th session of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (Rome, 5–8
February 2013). FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 1077. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2015. Voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries in the context of food security
and poverty eradication. Rome, FAO.
https://www.fao.org/3/i4356en/I4356EN.pdf.
FAO. 2018. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018: Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals.
Rome, FAO.
https://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/I9540EN.pdf.
FAO. 2019a. Voluntary guidelines on the marking of fishing gear – Directives volontaires sur le marquage des
engins de pêche – Directrices voluntarias sobre el marcado de las artes de pesca. Rome, FAO.
https://www.fao.org/3/ca3546t/CA3546T.pdf.
FAO. 2019b. Report of the third meeting of the Regional Working Group on Illegal, Unreported and
Unregulated Fishing (Bridgetown, 26–28 September 2018). FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 1296.
Bridgetown, FAO.
https://www.fao.org/3/ca7572en/CA7572EN.pdf.
FAO. 2020. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020: Sustainability in action. Rome, FAO.
https://www.fao.org/3/ca9229en/ca9229en.pdf.
Gilman, E. 2015. Status of international monitoring and management of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing
gear and ghost fishing. Marine Policy, 60: 225–239.
Gilman, E., Chopin, F., Suuronen, P. & Kuemlangan, B. 2016. Abandoned, lost and discarded gillnets
and trammel nets: Methods to estimate ghost fishing mortality, and the status of regional monitoring and
management. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 600. Rome, FAO.
Huntington, T. 2017. Development of a best practice framework for the management of fishing gear – Part 2:
Best practice framework for the management of fishing gear. Global Ghost Gear Initiative.
Kim, S.-G., Lee, W.-I. & Yuseok, M. 2014. The estimation of derelict fishing gear in the coastal waters of South
Korea: Trap and gill-net fisheries. Marine Policy, 46: 119–122.
Link, J., Segal, B. & Casarini, L.M. 2019. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear in Brazil: A
review. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 17(1): 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.12.003.
Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T. & Cappell, R. 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear.
UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 185 / FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 523.
Rome, UNEP/FAO.
Matthews, T. R. & Glazer, R. A. 2010. Assessing opinions on abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear in the
Caribbean. In Proceedings of the 62nd annual meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Cumana,
Venezuela, 2–6 November 2009, 12–22. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute.

7 – Useful references
Mengo, E. 2017. A review of marine litter management practices for the fishing industry in the north-east
Atlantic area. Report for OSPAR Action 36 (“To develop best practice in the fishing industry”). Cefas (Centre
for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science).
Milliken, A.S. & Lee, V. 1990. Pollution impacts from recreational boating: A bibliography and summary
review. Narragansett, RI, Rhode Island Sea Grant Publications.
Mobilik, J.-M., Ling, T.-Y., Husain, M.-L. & and Hassan, R. 2016. Type and quantity of shipborne garbage at
selected tropical beaches. The Scientific World Journal, 2016, Article ID 5126951.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/5126951.
MRAG Europe, IPMA (Portuguese Institute for Sea and Atmosphere), Wageningen University and Research,
Technical University of Denmark, Spanish Institute of Oceanography, Thünen Institute, Marine Institute
(Foras na Mara), Cefas (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science) & AZTI-Tecnalia. 2020.
Study on circular design of the fishing gear for reduction of environmental impacts. Report for the Executive
Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises of the European Commission. Luxembourg, Publications
Office of the European Union.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/548271.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2015. Impact of “ghost fishing” via derelict fishing
gear. Report of the NOAA Marine Debris Program. Silver Spring, MD, USA, NOAA.
https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-files/Ghostfishing_DFG.pdf.
Richardson, K., Hardesty, B.D. & Wilcox, C. 2019. Estimates of fishing gear loss rates at a global scale: A
literature review and meta-analysis. Fish and Fisheries, 20(6): 1218–1231.
https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12407.
Richardson, K., Haynes, D., Talouli, A. & Donoghue, M. 2017. Marine pollution originating from purse
seine and longline fishing vessel operations in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, 2003–2015.
Ambio, 46(2):190–200.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0811-8.
Richardson, K., Asmutis-Silvia, R., Drinkwin, J., Gilardi, K.V.K., Giskes, I., Jones, G., O’Brien, K., Pragnell-
Raasch, H., Ludwig, L., Antonelis, K., Barco, S., Henry, A., Knowlton, A., Landry, S., Mattila, D., MacDonald,
K., Moore, M., Morgan, J., Robbins, J., van der Hoop, J. & Hogan, E. 2019. Building evidence around ghost
gear: Global trends and analysis for sustainable solutions at scale. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 138: 222–229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.031.
Circular economy
Bilkovic, D.M., Havens, K.J., Stanhope, D.M. & Angstadt, K.T. 2012. Use of fully biodegradable panels to
reduce derelict pot threats to marine fauna. Conservation Biology, 26(6): 957–966.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01939.x.
Kim, S., Kim, P., Lim, J., An, H. & Suuronen, P. 2016. Use of biodegradable driftnets to prevent ghost fishing:
Physical properties and fishing performance for yellow croaker. Animal Conservation, 19(4): 309–319.
https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12256.
Lopez, J., Ferarios, J.M., Santiago, J., Ubis, M., Moreno, G. & Murua, H. 2019. Evaluating potential
biodegradable twines for use in the tropical tuna FAD fishery. Fisheries Research, 219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2019.105321.

MRAG Europe, IPMA (Portuguese Institute for Sea and Atmosphere), Wageningen University and Research,
Technical University of Denmark, Spanish Institute of Oceanography, Thünen Institute, Marine Institute
(Foras na Mara), Cefas (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science) & AZTI-Tecnalia. 2020.
Study on circular design of the fishing gear for reduction of environmental impacts. Report for the Executive
Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises of the European Commission. Luxembourg, Publications
Office of the European Union.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/548271.
ScienceDirect. n.d. Cradle-to-grave [overview of topics].
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/cradle-to-grave.
UNEP. 2004. Why take a life cycle approach? UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Paris, UNEP.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/846Why_take_a_life_cycle_approach_EN.pdf.
UNEP. 2005. Life cycle approaches: The road from analysis to practice. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.
Paris, UNEP.
https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2005%20-%20LCA.pdf.

8 Annexes
Annex 1 Model of Port Waste Management Plan for merchant seaports and cruise/passenger ports
Annex 2 Model of Port Waste Management Plan for fishing ports
Annex 3 Model of Port Waste Management Plan for recreational ports
Annex 4 Pre-assessment questionnaire for merchant seaports
Annex 5 Pre-assessment questionnaire for fishing ports

Annex 1 Model of Port Waste Management Plan
for merchant seaports and cruise/passenger ports
Section 1: Identification of the port
Name of the port:
Address:
Geographical coordinates:
Type of port (several options possible):
□ merchant seaport
□ passenger port
□ cruise port
□ fishing port
□ recreational port/marina
□ other (please describe)
Section 2: Purpose of the PWMP

Its objectives are:

Section 3: Scope of the PWMP
Ships calling the port to which this PWMP applies (several options possible):
□ seagoing vessels □ international shipping
□ inland navigation □ domestic shipping
□ both □ both
Type of ships:
□ merchant vessels □ passenger vessels
□ dry bulk □ passenger
□ container □ ferries
□ ro-ro □ cruise vessels
□ oil tanker □ other (please describe)
□ chemical/product tanker
□ LNG/LPG
□ mobile offshore drilling units

Are there certain areas within the port outside the port authorities’ jurisdiction:
□ no
□ yes (please describe)
Section 4: Overview of available PRFs

PRF are available for the following types of waste (more than one option possible):
MARPOL Annex Waste type Type of PRF

Truck Barge Fixed (***)
Annex I (Oil) □ Oily bilge water
□ Oily residues (sludge)
□ Oily tank washings
□ Dirty ballast water
□ Scale and sludge from tank cleaning
□ Other (specify)
Annex II (NLS) (*) □ Category X substance
□ Category Y substance
□ Category Z substance
□ Other
Annex IV (Sewage) □

8 – Annexes

Truck Barge Fixed (***)
Annex V (Garbage) □ A. Plastics
□ B. Food waste
□ C.
Domestic waste (e.g. paper/cardboard, rags,
glass, metal, bottles, crockery, etc.)
□ D. Cooking oil
□ E. Incinerator ashes
□ F. Operational waste
□ G. Animal carcasses (*)
□ H. Fishing gear (**)
□ I. E-waste
□ J.
Cargo residues (Harmful to the Marine
Environment, HME) (*)
□ K. Cargo residues (non-HME) (*)

Annex VI (Air □
Ozone depleting substances and equipment
pollution related) containing such substances
□ Exhaust gas cleaning residues

(***) Also drum/skip/container on the quayside. Please also add map indicating the exact location of the PRF(s)
List of available PRFs:
Type of facility:
– tanker or barge
– fixed
– oily tank washings (slops)
– dirty ballast water
– scale and sludge from tanker cleaning
– other
MARPOL Annex II-related (chemical/NLS)
– category X substance
– category Y substance
– category Z substance
MARPOL Annex IV-related (sewage)

A. Plastics
B. Food wastes
C. Domestic wastes
D. Cooking oil
E. Incinerator ashes
F. Operational wastes
G. Animal carcasses
H. Fishing gear
I. E-waste
J. Cargo residues (non HME)
K. Cargo residues (HME)

MARPOL Annex VI-related
– ozone-depleting substances
– exhaust gas cleaning residues (scrubber waste)
Ballast Water Management Convention
– ballast water
– sediment from ballast tanks
– Other
– Charging system

8 – Annexes
Section 5: Assessment of the need for PRF
MARPOL Annex Waste type Capacity (m³)

Available Necessary Need
capacity capacity
□ Other (specify)
□ Other
□ B. Food waste
□ C.
□ D. Cooking oil
□ I. E-waste
□ J.

Annex VI (Air □


Section 6: Advance Waste Notification
Advance Waste Notification applied in the port:
□ No
□ Yes
□ IMO standardized model (appendix 2 of MEPC.1/Circ.835/Rev.1)
□ Other: please specify
Procedures related to the use of the Advance Waste Notification:

– When?
– By whom?
– How?
Section 7: Waste delivery receipt
Waste delivery receipt applied in the port:
□ No
□ Yes
□ IMO standardized model (appendix 3 of MEPC.1/Circ.835/Rev.1)
□ Other: please specify
Procedures related to the use of the Waste Delivery Receipt:

– When?
– By whom?
– How?

8 – Annexes
Section 8: Cost recovery system

Is there a cost recovery system applicable for the delivery of waste from ships:
□ No
□ Yes
In case of yes:
MARPOL Annex Waste type Type of cost recovery system

Indirect Direct Combined
□ Other (specify)
□ Other
□ B. Food waste
□ C.
□ D. Cooking oil
□ I. E-waste
□ J.

Annex VI (Air □


Detailed description of the fee system:
Section 9: Stakeholder consultation
Overview of stakeholders consulted during the development of this PWMP:
This stakeholder consultation was conducted:
□ through meetings
□ using a written procedure
□ combination of meetings and written procedure
□ other (please specify)
Section 10: Reporting of alleged inadequacies of PRF
Alleged inadequacies of PRF can be reported:
□ to contact person in the port (+ contact details)
□
using the IMO procedure and format (see Consolidated guidance for PRF providers and users
(MEPC.1/Circ. 834/Rev.1))
□ other (please specify):

Annex 2 Model of Port Waste Management Plan for fishing ports
Name of the port:
Address:
□ passenger port
□ cruise port
□ fishing port

Its objectives are:

□ both □ both
Type of ships:
□ fishing vessels
□ commercial fishing
□ recreational fishing
□ no


Truck Barge Fixed (**)
□ Other (specify)
□ B. Food waste
□ C.
□ D. Cooking oil
□ H. Fishing gear
□ I. E-waste
(**) Also drum/skip/container on the quayside. Please also add map indicating the exact location of the PRF(s)

8 – Annexes
Type of facility:
– tanker or barge
– fixed
– other
A. Plastics
B. Food wastes
C. Domestic wastes
D. Cooking oil
E. Incinerator ashes
F. Operational wastes
H. Fishing gear
I. E-waste
– Other
– Charging system


capacity capacity
□ Other (specify)
□ B. Food waste
□ C.
□ D. Cooking oil
□ H. Fishing gear
□ I. E-waste

□ No
□ Yes
In case of yes:

□ Other (specify)
□ B. Food waste
□ C.
□ D. Cooking oil
□ H. Fishing gear
□ I. E-waste

8 – Annexes
□
(resolution, MEPC.1/Circ. 834/Rev.1))

Annex 3 Model of Port Waste Management Plan for recreational ports
Name of the port:
Address:
□ passenger port
□ cruise port
□ fishing port

Its objectives are:

8 – Annexes
□ both □ both
Type of ships:
□ recreational vessels
□ sailing boats
□ motor yachts
□ other vessels (please describe)

□ no


Truck Barge Fixed (**)
□ Other (specify)
Annex IV (Sewage) □ Sewage
□ Sewage from chemical toilets

□ B. Food waste
□ C.
□ D. Cooking oil
□ I. E-waste
(**) Also drum/skip/container on the quayside. Please also add map indicating the exact location of the PRF(s)

Type of facility:
– tanker or barge
– fixed
– other
MARPOL Annex IV (sewage)
– sewage
– sewage from chemical toilets
A. Plastics
B. Food wastes
C. Domestic wastes
D. Cooking oil
I. E-waste
– Other
– Charging system

8 – Annexes

capacity capacity
□ Other (specify)
□ B. Food waste
□ C.
□ D. Cooking oil
□ I. E-waste

□ No
□ Yes
In case of yes:

□ Other (specify)
□ B. Food waste
□ C.
□ D. Cooking oil
□ I. E-waste

□
(resolution, MEPC.1/Circ. 834/Rev.1))

Annex 4 Pre-assessment questionnaire for merchant seaports
1 Port operations and traffic

Please state the number of ship calls in the previous year (excluding vessels belonging to the port), and
describe forecast of how traffic will develop the next 5 years:
Ship type No. of calls in Estimate of traffic development (increase or

previous year decrease in %) in upcoming 5 years
Bulk
Container
Ro-Ro
Ferries/passenger ships (non-cruise)
Cruise ships
Oil tanker
Chemical/product tanker
LNG/LPG
Supply ships/barges
MODU (mobile offshore drilling units)
Other
Please provide overview of previous and next ports of call (top 5):
Previous port Number of calls Next port Number of calls

1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.
Please provide overview (share (%) in relation to total) of handled goods during the previous year, and
provide forecast for the next 5 years:
Cargo type Tonnage turnover Estimate of tonnage development (increase or

(previous year) decrease in %) in upcoming 5 years
Containers
Dry bulk
Liquid bulk (oil)
Liquid bulk (chemicals)
Other

Please provide overview of GT of ships calling per type:
< 5000 GT 5000 – 10.000 – 15.000 – 20.000 – 25.000 – 30.000 – > 70.000
9.999 GT 14.999 GT 19.999 GT 24.999 GT 29.999 GT 69.000 GT GT
container
dry bulk
liquid bulk (oil)
liquid bulk
(chemicals)
cruise
other
Please confirm type of port operations:
Type Yes (Y) or No (N)

Bulk terminal
Container terminal
Ro-Ro terminal
Ferry/cruise/passenger terminal
Oil/products (loading/unloading)
Chemicals
Gas terminal
Anchorage place
Other (please specify)
2 Types of waste accepted by the port

Please confirm types of waste accepted by the port:
Type Yes (Y) or No (N) If only specific sub-types are accepted

or not, please specify
Oily waste from engine room (MARPOL Annex I)
Oily cargo residues (MARPOL Annex I)
Noxious liquid (MARPOL Annex II)
Sewage (MARPOL Annex IV)
Garbage (MARPOL Annex V)
Quarantine/catering waste
Residues from dry bulk cargo including liquid form
(MARPOL Annex V)
Ozone Depleting Substances (MARPOL Annex VI)
Scrubber waste (MARPOL Annex VI)
Others (please specify)

8 – Annexes
3 Waste reception facilities available in port for each waste type

Please indicate the total number of available facilities in the port, and ownership of the following port
reception, treatment and final disposal facilities:
Facilities Waste type Total number of Private external Port authority

available facilities operators
Collection Oily waste
Sewage
Garbage
Other waste, incl. cargo
residues
Treatment Oily waste
Sewage
Garbage
residues
Final disposal Oily waste
Sewage
Garbage
residues
Please indicate the collection method for the following waste types, and for each provide info on collection
capacity (in m³):
Waste type barge truck direct pumping skips/container other

Oily bilge water (MARPOL Annex I)
Oily residues (sludge)
Oily tank washings
Dirty ballast water (MARPOL Annex I)
Scale and sludge from tank cleaning
(MARPOL Annex I)
Other (MARPOL Annex I)
Noxious liquid (MARPOL Annex II):
Type X
Type Y
Type Z
Other substances
Sewage (MARPOL Annex IV)
A. Plastics
B. Food waste
C. Domestic waste
E. Cooking oil
F. Operational waste


G. Animal carcasses
H. Fishing gear
I. E-waste
J. Cargo residues (HME)
K. Cargo residues (non-HME)
Quarantine waste
Ozone Depleting Substances
(MARPOL Annex VI)
Scrubber waste (MARPOL Annex VI)
Please confirm location of treatment sites:
Yes (Y) or No (N)

Facilities inside the port
Oily waste
Sewage
Garbage
Others – specify
Facilities outside the port
Oily waste
Sewage
Garbage
Others – specify
Are there facilities in the vicinity of the port for the treatment of land-based industrial and/or household
waste? If yes, please specify.
Yes (Y) or No (N)

Incineration plants
Cement kilns
Waste water treatment facilities
Landfill sites
Other

8 – Annexes
4 Ship generated waste and cargo residues – notified and actual delivered
Please indicate the volumes of waste that were delivered in the port the last 5 years. Distinguish (if possible)
between the volumes that were actually delivered to the port reception facility, and the volumes to be delivered
that were indicated on the advance notification form.
Ship generated waste Y-5 Y-4 Y-3 Y-2 Y-1

Annex I Acc. to waste
notification form
Oily waste (bilge, sludge and
other oily waste) from engine Actual delivered
room, m³
Annex IV Acc. to waste

notification form
Sewage, m³
Actual delivered
Annex V Acc. to waste

notification form
All Annex V waste including
garbage (excluding cargo Actual delivered
residues), ton or m³
(please specify)
Annex VI ODS delivered
(in m³)
Scrubber waste
delivered
Cargo residues Y-5 Y-4 Y-3 Y-2 Y-1

Annex I Acc. to waste
notification form
Oily waste (dirty ballast and
wash water), m³ Actual delivered
Annex II Acc. to waste

notification form
NOx. Liquid Subst., m³
Actual delivered
Annex V Acc. to waste

notification form
Cargo residues from dry bulk
cargos, incl. in liquid form, e.g. Actual delivered,
hold wash water, m³

5 Advance waste notification procedure

When applicable in the port
Questions Answers
Notification format used:
– IMO (AWN)
– Other
Who receives waste notification from calling ships/shipping
agents?
Who issues the receipt after ship waste handling?
Is waste notification mandatory for all calling ships?
Exemptions (which ships are exempted from waste
notification) – how many?
Copy of waste notification form (please attach or provide a
link if different from the form in Directive’s Annex II)
Notification form received by email, fax (please state)
Is there an e-system in place to where the notified info is
inserted directly into the system (in digital form)
Functions of the notification form (please explain):
– Preparation of delivery
– Monitoring
– Invoicing
– Statistics
– Reporting
– Other
6 Waste fee system in port

When applicable: please indicate the principle of the applied fee system, and who is responsible for it:
Principles of waste fee system Please specify who is responsible

Indirect fee
Direct fee
Additional charges
Please state/confirm the fee calculation method applied:
Method
Per GT □
Ship Type □
Other (please specify) □

8 – Annexes
Please confirm the waste fee payment (collection) method:
Entirely as part of port dues by port (no separate fee) □

Separate waste fee collected by port □
Directly between waste operator and shipping agent □
Please indicate which waste types are included in the indirect waste fee (when applicable):
MARPOL Annex I Oily waste from machinery space □

Other oily waste □
MARPOL Annex V Plastics □
Food waste □
Domestic waste □
Cooking oil □
Operational waste □
Fishing gear □
E-waste □
Other waste □
(please specify)
Please specify if are there any volume limitations under the indirect waste fee paid or will the waste fee cover
unlimited waste discharge?
Volume limitation under the indirect fee Volume limitation (in m³ or ton)
Ship generated waste
– Oily waste from machinery space
– Sewage
– Garbage (incl. hazardous or not)
– MARPOL Annex VI waste (ODS/scrubber waste)
Please specify whether there are additional charges applied (e.g. outside office hours, weekends, holidays,
not segregated or wrongly segregated garbage, low pumping rate etc.):
Additional charges Please specify

Outside office hours □
Not segregated according to guidelines □
Insufficient pumping capacity □
Additional waste delivery beyond what is accepted □
under the indirect fee
Other □

Please indicate whether there are possible discounts for “green” ships implemented in the fee system (e.g.
onboard waste reducing equipment, waste treatment on board, management systems, etc.):
Waste fee discount Yes (Y) or No (N)

Onboard waste reducing equipment
Onboard waste treatment
Waste management systems
Other
Please indicate whether there are exemptions for frequently and regularly calling ships (e.g. ferries and/or line
traffic). If so, what are the conditions regarding “frequent and regular” (e.g. the ship should call your port at
least once every two weeks)?
7 Monitoring, enforcement and inspection

Please describe the system in place for monitoring, targeting, inspection (e.g. who does, what is done, is there
any e-system support?):
Please indicate whom the responsible authority is (ship waste handling/compliance) for:
Area Responsible Authority

Enforcement
Control
Monitoring
Please provide a short description of the procedures:
Area Procedures
Enforcement
Control
Monitoring

8 – Annexes
8 Other comments
Please state any other comments you may have.

Annex 5 Pre-assessment questionnaire for fishing ports
1 Traffic
Please state the number and size of ship calls in the previous year, and indicate forecast of how traffic will
develop the next 5 years:
Type of fishing vessels Size indication No. of calls in Estimate of traffic development
(based on GT, length, previous year (increase or decrease in %) in
engine power, etc.) upcoming 5 years
Small size
Medium size
Large size
2 Types of waste accepted by the port

Please confirm types of waste accepted in the port:
Type Yes (Y) or No (N)

MARPOL Annex I Oily waste from engine room
MARPOL Annex IV Sewage
MARPOL Annex V Plastics
Food waste
Domestic waste
Cooking oil
Operational waste
Fishing gear
E-waste

8 – Annexes
3 Waste reception facilities available in port for each waste type

Please indicate the total number of available facilities in the port for collection, treatment and final disposal:
Facilities Waste type Total number of available facilities

Collection Oily waste
Plastics
Food waste
Domestic waste
Cooking oil
Operational waste
Fishing gear
E-waste
Treatment Oily waste
Plastics
Food waste
Domestic waste
Cooking oil
Operational waste
Fishing gear
E-waste
Final disposal Oily waste
Plastics
Food waste
Domestic waste
Cooking oil
Operational waste
Fishing gear
E-waste

Please indicate the collection method for the following waste types, and for each provide info on collection
capacity (in m³):

Oily bilge water (MARPOL Annex I)
Other (MARPOL Annex I)
A. Plastics
B. Food waste
C. Domestic waste
E. Cooking oil
F. Operational waste
G. Animal carcasses
H. Fishing gear
I. E-waste
4 Waste fee system

When applicable: please indicate the principle of the applied fee system, and who is responsible for it:
Principle of waste fee system Who is responsible

Indirect fee:
Direct fee:
Additional charges:
Please confirm the waste fee payment (collection) method:
Entirely as part of port dues by port (no separate fee) □

Separate waste fee collected by port □
Directly between waste operator and shipping agent □

8 – Annexes
Please indicate which waste types are included in the indirect waste fee (when applicable):
MARPOL Annex I Oily waste from machinery space □

Other oily waste □
MARPOL Annex V Plastics □
Food waste □
Domestic waste □
Cooking oil □
Operational waste □
Fishing gear □
E-waste □
Other waste (please specify) □
Please specify if are there any volume limitations under the indirect waste fee paid or will the waste fee cover
unlimited waste discharge?
Volume limitation under the indirect fee Volume limitation (in m³ or ton)
Oily waste from machinery space
Other oily waste
Plastics
Food waste
Domestic waste
Cooking oil
Operational waste
Please specify whether there are additional charges applied (e.g. outside office hours, weekends, holidays,
not segregated or wrongly segregated garbage, low pumping rate etc.):
Additional charges Please specify

Outside office hours □
Not segregated according to guidelines □
Insufficient pumping capacity □
Additional waste delivery beyond what is accepted □
under the indirect fee
Other □

5 Monitoring, enforcement and inspection

Please describe the system in place for monitoring and inspection (e.g. who does, what is done, is there any
e-system support?):
Please indicate whom the responsible authority is (ship waste handling/compliance) for:
Area Responsible Authority

Enforcement
Control
Monitoring
6 Other comments
Please state any other comments you may have.

This Guidance Document is part of
the GloLitter Partnerships Knowledge
Products Series. The GloLitter
Partnerships project is implemented by
(IMO) and the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
GloLitter assists developing countries in
reducing marine plastic litter from the
maritime transport and fisheries sectors.
www.imo.org
www.fao.org

GloLitter PWMP (ENG) - Guidance Document On Developing A Port Waste Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GloLitter PWMP (ENG) - Guidance Document On Developing A Port Waste Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GloLitter PWMP (ENG) - Guidance Document On Developing A Port Waste Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Guidance Document is part of

the GloLitter Partnerships Knowledge

Guidance Document on Developing a Port Waste Management Plans

© Copyright 2022 International Maritime Organization (IMO)

Required citation: GloLitter Knowledge Product:

Preparation of the Guidance Document on Developing Port Waste Management Plans

This report is one of the knowledge products contributing to GloLitter Outcome 1:

Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

2 Purpose of a Port Waste Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3 Port Waste Management Plans: legal and policy framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4 Management of plastic waste from ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5 Elements of a Port Waste Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS iii

6 Models of Port Waste Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

iv GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

Figure 1: Waste hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS v

Table 1: Overview of MARPOL Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

vi GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS vii

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS ix

x GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

1.2 Scope of this activity

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS xi

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS 1

Figure 1: Waste hierarchy (source: Wikipedia)

2 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

2.2 Port Waste Management Planning

– South Africa: port of Cape Town, port of Durban

– United Arab Emirates: Abu Dhabi ports

– British Virgin Islands ports, Cayman Island ports

– India: port of Mormugao

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS 3

2.3 Purpose of a Port Waste Management Plan

2.4 Evaluation, approval and monitoring

4 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

Annex Subject Entry into force

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS 5

3.2.2 Port Reception Facilities requirements in MARPOL

3.2.3 The IMO GISIS database

6 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

3.2.4 Special Areas and Emission Control Areas

3.2.5 Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

3.2.6 MARPOL Guidelines

These guidelines aim to assist:

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS 7

8 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

3.2.7 IMO manual Port Reception Facilities – How to do it

3.3 International regulatory framework on the environmentally sound management of

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS 9

3.3.1 Framework on the environmentally sound management of wastes

3.3.2 Technical guidelines

10 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS 11

12 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS

3.4.2 ISO Standard on “Arrangement and management of port reception facilities”

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DEVELOPING PORT WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS 13

Key elements of a PWMP are:

3.5 Ensuring the adequacy of port reception facilities