Discussing port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships on 10 July, Ms Meissner, member of the Free Democratic Party, part of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, said: “The proposal of the commission has been greeted very favourably by us despite a few amendments. This is a report on the basis of which we can go forward.”
Volume is a concern, she confirmed. “There is a limitation on volume and that has to do with the size of ports. If we have an 100% indirect fee that’s paid once per ship, but then you’re allowed to unload all the waste you have so it’s more environmentally friendly.”
It is beneficial because you only pay once and its’ an incentive to bring everything back to land, she stated. “But ports say sometimes there is dangerous amount of waste on board. So, do we need a limit for volume or can we really say you’ve paid once and you can deliver as much as you like.”
Another important point is whether certain types of waste have to be delivered before you leave your last EU port, she said. “That could be a small port. It might be overwhelmed.
“I want to ensure that proper disposal takes place and delivery to land rather than disposal at sea.”
She stated that there is a concern some countries will be excluded because they don’t have the port infrastructure and for those countries “there will be a special derogation.”
“We have European legislation with far more stringent regulations on rivers and I would like to see something similar with international maritime transport,” she said. More ambition is needed with changing MARPOL, Ms Meissner stressed.
She pointed out that so far there’s been no intention to take onboard active litter fishing although there are some projects, for example in Italy, and fisherman should be rewarded for that.
Prior to the session, ESPO’s Secretary General, Isabelle Ryckbost, said: “The report of Ms Meissner is clearly a step forward. Overall, the report pursues the objectives of the circular economy and aims to reduce administrative burden for authorities and stakeholders.
“We strongly believe however that the ‘polluter pays’ principle needs to be better reflected in the new Directive. We cannot accept a regime whereby ships are not incentivised to limit waste at the source and ports have to carry the costs of delivering unreasonable amounts.
“Additionally, we oppose an automatic rebate for “green” ships. Any green rebate, if not corresponding to a real cost reduction, will have to be borne by the port authority. Not all port managing bodies have the financial ability to cover this cost and to give such rebates.
