Feasibility study on the Development of a Regional ... REPORT WCR RRFP Feasibil… · Feasibility study on the Development of a Regional Reception ... 3.4.1 Ships and Ship Movement

REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTRE /REGIONAL MARINE POLLUTION EMERGENCY, INFORMATION AND TRAINING CENTRE - WIDER CARIBBEAN REGION

1

31 May 2018 Ref: Strategic Plan 16-17/ Programme No: TC/1705, Activity 09

Feasibility study on the Development of a Regional Reception Facility Plan for the Small Island Developing States of the

Wider Caribbean Region


2

Summary Sheet

Title of report: Feasibility study on the Development of a Regional Reception Facility Plan for the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) of the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR)

Hosts: Governments of Antigua & Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados,

Belize, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago

Supported by: The Government of Norway, The International Maritime

Organization, United Nations Environment, and RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe.

Project Number: TC/1705-09-2100 (Government Norway) Participating countries: Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba,

Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago

Point of contact: Commander Keith M. Donohue Consultant to IMO RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe Seru Mahuma z/n Aviation and Meteorology Building Willemstad, Curacao Phone: (00599-9) 868-4612 / 839-3719 Fax: (00599-9)868-4996 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]


3

Acknowledgements

RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe would like to formally thank and recognize the sixteen Small Island Developing States (Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Suriname) as well as all the government agency, nongovernment organization and commercial company stakeholders who directly participated in this study through lengthy discussions, questioners and site visits. As there are too many to thank individually, a full list of all stakeholders contributing to this report is found in Appendix 3 and within the individual country reports found in Annexes A – P. Additionally, this study could not have taken place without the great support of the International Maritime Organization, United Nations Environment and funding by The Government of Norway. The project team for this study consisted of:

Keith M. Donohue – Project Leader Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Consultant to the IMO RAC/REMPEITC – Caribe, Curacao [email protected]

Maartje Folbert – Primary Data Analysis Contractor, Curacao Maritime Authority RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe, Curacao [email protected] Carla Bikker Operations Manager/ IMO Associate Curacao Ministry of Traffic, Transport and Urban Planning RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe, Curacao [email protected] Zakaria BENBIA Engineer Apprentice Intern Polluted Sites and Soils Center Nantes, France [email protected] Lilly Charlotte von Treuenfels Volunteer/Intern Willemstad, CURACAO [email protected]


4

Acronyms

CARICOM - The Caribbean Community (organization of fifteen Caribbean nations)

COCATRAM - La Comisión Centroamericana de Transporte Marítimo

IMO - International Maritime Organisation

MEPC ‐ Marine Environment Protection Committee

MARPOL ‐ International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

PLF ‐ Ports with Limited Facilities

RA - Regional Arrangements

RAC/REMPEITC - Caribe - Regional Activity Center / Regional Maritime Pollution Emergency Information and Training Center

RCWRC ‐ Regional Ships Waste Reception Centre

RRF ‐ Regional Reception Facilities

RRFP ‐ Regional Reception Facilities Plan

SIDS ‐ Small Island Developing States

SGW ‐ Ship Generated Waste

U.N. - United Nations

UN-OHRLLD - United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States


5

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 3

Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 8

Description of Region: .................................................................................................................... 8

Guidelines for Developing a Regional Reception Facility Plan (RRFP) ............................................. 10

Findings........................................................................................................................................ 11

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 19

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 19

1.2 Objectives.......................................................................................................................... 20

1.3 Output ............................................................................................................................... 20

1.4 Report outline ................................................................................................................... 21

2 Overview of Requirements ........................................................................................................... 22

2.1 Special Areas, PSSA and MPAs in the WCR ......................................................................... 22

2.1.1 Special areas .............................................................................................................. 22

2.1.2 Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs)...................................................................... 22

2.1.3 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) ................................................................................. 23

2.2 MARPOL requirements for PRFs ......................................................................................... 23

2.2.1 MARPOL Annex I PRF Requirements ........................................................................... 23

2.2.2 MARPOL Annex II PRF Requirements .......................................................................... 24

2.2.3 MARPOL Annex IV PRF Requirements ........................................................................ 24

2.2.4 MARPOL Annex V PRF Requirements ......................................................................... 24

2.2.5 MARPOL Annex VI PRF Requirements ........................................................................ 25

3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 26

3.1 Steps Followed: ................................................................................................................. 26

3.2 Country Questionnaires ..................................................................................................... 27

3.3 Port Visits and Stakeholder Meetings:................................................................................ 27

3.4 Quantification of Ships, Voyage Pattern Analysis and PRF Demands................................... 28

3.4.1 Ships and Ship Movement Data .................................................................................. 28

3.4.2 Calculated SGW Estimates and Assessment of the Demands for PRFs......................... 31

4 Findings........................................................................................................................................ 39


6

4.1 Unique circumstances impacting the ability to provide PRFs: ............................................. 39

4.2 Regional Roles and Responsibilities.................................................................................... 40

4.2.1 Central Point of Contact – RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe ...................................................... 40

4.2.2 Identified Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 41

4.3 Types of Ships Operating ................................................................................................... 41

4.4 Voyage Patterns and Routes .............................................................................................. 44

4.4.1 Identification of main ship traffic types ...................................................................... 45

4.4.2 Dry cargo routes ........................................................................................................ 46

4.4.3 Tanker Routes ............................................................................................................ 56

4.4.4 Cruise Ship Routes ..................................................................................................... 61

4.4.5 Main Connections Per Country ................................................................................... 67

4.5 Assessment of Port Reception Facilities ............................................................................. 71

4.5.1 Demand for PRFs Per Country .................................................................................... 71

4.5.2 Type and Capacity of Port Reception Facilities Available............................................. 76

4.6 Identification of potential Regional Ships Waste Reception Centers (RWRCs)..................... 81

4.7 Identification of Ports with Limited Facilities (PLF) ............................................................. 83

4.8 Compelling need for RA ..................................................................................................... 84

5 Potential Options ......................................................................................................................... 85

5.1 Shipboard-level Recommendations.................................................................................... 85

5.2 National-Level Recommendations ..................................................................................... 85

5.3 Regional-Level Recommendations ..................................................................................... 86

Appendix 1 – Conversion of ship types ......................................................................................... 88

Appendix 2 – List of ports per country for estimation of waste volumes ....................................... 91

Appendix 3 – List of Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 93

Annex A Antigua and Barbuda ............................................................................................... 101

Annex B Bahamas .................................................................................................................. 101

Annex C Barbados.................................................................................................................. 101

Annex D Belize ....................................................................................................................... 101

Annex E Cuba ........................................................................................................................ 101

Annex F Dominica.................................................................................................................. 101

Annex G Dominican Republic ................................................................................................. 101

Annex H Grenada ................................................................................................................... 101


7

Annex I Guyana .................................................................................................................... 101

Annex J Haiti ........................................................................................................................ 101

Annex K Jamaica .................................................................................................................... 101

Annex L St. Kitts .................................................................................................................... 101

Annex M St. Lucia ............................................................................................................... 101

Annex N St. Vincent ............................................................................................................... 101

Annex O Suriname ................................................................................................................. 101

Annex P Trinidad & Tobago ................................................................................................... 101


8

Executive Summary This feasibility Study was conducted by RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe for the possible development of a Regional Reception Facility plan for the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) of the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR). The study includes a detailed analysis of shipping data, site visits and assessments of ports in 16 U.N. Member SIDS, multiagency government, non government and industry stakeholder meetings, and the identification of possible measures to address the inadequacy of port reception facilities (PRFs) throughout the WCR. The outputs of this report complements other strategies for improving management of ship generated wastes (SGW) and cargo residues within the WCR, and contributes towards efforts aimed at improving the ability of WCR States to effectively fulfill their obligations under MARPOL, or to accede to MARPOL; where a State is not already a Party. The project was funded by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) through the support of The Government of Norway, following: a series of workshops conducted by IMO, United Nations Environment and RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe; requests made by WCR maritime authorities; and a proposal submitted by RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe. The premise and proposal for this project was presented by Keith Donohue of RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe and received support by the respective Government representatives at: the Regional IMO Workshop for Senior Maritime Administrators held in Bridgetown, Barbados from 7-8 Feb 2017; and the Seventeenth Intergovernmental Meeting on the Action Plan for the Caribbean Environment Programme and Fourteenth Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region that was held in Cayenne, French Guiana, on March 15-17, 2017.

Description of Region: The WCR comprises 28 insular and coastal states, and 10 territories bordering the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, for a combined area of 5.3 million square kilometers. This region holds 23 of the world’s 52 Small Island Developing States (SIDS) as recognized by the United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLD). Of those SIDS in the WCR, 7 are non-U.N. Members or Associate Members of the Regional Commissions and 16 are independent U.N. Members. The focus of this study are the 16 independent U.N. Member SIDS of the WCR: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Suriname.


9

Figure 1 Chart of the Wider Caribbean SIDS Study Area

1(DeGraff and Ramlal, 2014) Figure 2 WCR SIDS Main Connection Ports & Voyage Patterns

Basis for the Study: The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) imposes obligations on the Governments of each Contracting Party to include: ensuring the provisions of adequate port reception facilities are available to receive the ship-generated waste from

1 DeGraff, A. and Ramlal, B. (2014). Participatory Mapping: Caribbean Small Island Developing States. [online] Saint Augustine: Department of Geomatics Engineering and Land Management, Faculty of Engineering, University of the West Indies, p.6. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275036119_Participatory_Mapping_Caribbean_Small_Island_Developing_States [Accessed 9 May 2018].


10

vessels calling in ports and terminal, without causing undue delays for those ships. Of the 16 U.N. Member SIDS, all accept for Haiti and Grenada are Party to MARPOL. Meeting obligations for adequate port reception facilities still remains a significant challenge to the SIDS of the WCR that are Party to MARPO, as described in the 30 November 2016 RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe Activity Report for the Regional Workshop on Port Reception Facilities and Waste Management, that was held October 04-06, 2016 in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. Many States are restricted in their capacities and capability to properly process waste streams generated on their islands, let alone process additional SGWs offloaded from vessels calling at their ports. IMO has recognized the unique challenges that SIDS experience in providing adequate reception facilities for SGW. 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.

Guidelines for Developing a Regional Reception Facility Plan (RRFP) Based on IMO guidance, SIDS may satisfy waste reception facilities regulations through regional arrangements (RAs) when, because of those States' unique circumstances, such arrangements are the only practical means to satisfy these requirements. Parties proposing to participate in such regional arrangements shall develop a Regional Reception Facility Plan (RRFP) to present to IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC), taking into account the guidelines set out in Resolution MEPC.221(63), 2012 Guidelines for the Development of a Regional Reception Facilities Plan. While the majority of States participating in a RRFP should be Small Island Developing States (SIDS), non-SIDS may also participate but so only as their ports may be Regional Waste Reception Centers (RWRCs), and not to satisfy their own obligations to provide adequate reception facilities in all ports and terminals. The guidelines further prescribe that the development of a RRFP should: • Identify the region to be covered and include a map that clearly shows the participating

States and all ports within the region; • Identify the nature of the unique circumstances that impact the ability to provide

adequate port reception facilities in each SIDS within the region; • In demonstrating the compelling need for a RA, explore alternatives, costed and assessed

in terms of their environmental risk; • Document how Regional Arrangements would contribute towards efforts aimed at

improving the ability of SIDS to effectively fulfill its obligations under MARPOL, or to accede to MARPOL where a State is not already a Party;

• Identify and quantify the types of ships operating in each of these SIDS; • Describe the overall voyage patterns of ships calling at ports in each of the SIDS; • Describe all aspects of routing and voyage planning that might affect the amount of ship

generated wastes and cargo residues on board ships arriving in each of the SIDS; • Describe other relevant additional considerations that may influence the demand for port

reception facilities in each of the SIDS; • Identify which ports, if any, may be good candidates for Regional Ships Waste Reception

Centers (RSWRC) in each of the SIDS; • Identify ports with limited facilities (PLF), if any, in each of the SIDS; and


11

• Identify any potential options suited to the vessels calling at ports in these SIDS that will not encourage any illegal discharge into the sea;

Findings The results of this feasibility study indicate that a regional approach towards port reception facilities is necessary for the 16 WCR SIDS as there are unique circumstances in these States and throughout the Region that significantly impacts the ability of the regional governments to ensure adequate port reception facilities. These circumstances, discussed in detail in Chapter 4.5 to 4.6, and Annexes A-P, fall in the three primary categories: 1) Administrative and Legal Matters; 2) Enforcement, Control and Monitoring Systems; and 3) Technology, Infrastructure and Alternatives for Collecting, Storing, Treating and Disposing of SGW. The stakeholder meetings and port visits conducted in this study yielded deeply passionate discussions with specific examples in each port of why this issue is of SGW is of great concern throughout the WCR. Some of the notable comments stated during port visits and stakejolder meetings, included references to the following:

- Past experiences when food and utensils taken off of ships as SGW ended up in residential homes or on street markets;

- Crewmembers hauling waste from a ship being injured after pumping out a noxious liquid substance wrongfully reported as oily waste;

- Incineration ash taken off of ships blowing throughout a downtown area, as open trucks hauling incinerated SGW travel on routes from a primary port to a national dumpsite;

- Oily waste containing heavy metals and other materials being used for street pavements; - Exuberant charges by service providers to receive SGW that should be categorized and

segregated as quarantined waste, when the waste just ends up unclassified and dumped un-segregated into municipal landfills along with other domestic wastes;

- An inefficient port incinerator that sends its smoke into the local community every night; - A service barge used to collect SGW out of compliance with safety inspections; - A national minister prohibiting the receipt of SGW due to ship pollution concerns; - The reception of garbage being prohibited in all government ports of an island nation due to

concerns of smuggling activities; - Widespread concerns that landfills have reached their capacities to accept domestic waste,

let alone SGW; - Numerous entrepreneurs struggling against price undercutting, unreliable volumes, and

nonexistent regulations to try to make businesses from recycling wastes; - Failed recycling businesses becoming their own dumpsites; - Safety concerns with dump pickers and dumpsite fires; - Reoccurring criminal charges and large penalties on major shipping companies for illegal oil

discharges, while large gaps exists in the availability of adequate port reception facilities for Annex I oils and Annex II noxious liquid substances.


12

Table 1: Summary of Annex I and Annex II PRFs available at WCR SIDS ports.

Country Availability of Annex I and Annex II PRFs

Annex I - Oil Annex II - NLS

Antigua & Barbuda Only sometimes at Deep Water Harbor St.

Johns for cruise ships

No

The Bahamas Only at Grand Bahamas Shipyard Ltd,

Freeport No

Barbados No No

Belize No No

Dominican Republic

Yes

Officially no however hazardous material response and cleanup capabilities are

available

*Grenada (Not a Party) Not officially, but due to the high demand

local recycling/reusing of oil occurs No

Guyana Some commercial operators with business exclusive for offshore operators

No

*Haiti (Not a Party) Not officially, may take place No

Jamaica Yes Yes, but guideline framework still to be

developed St. Lucia Yes No

St. Vincent No No

St. Kitts No NO

Suriname

Only at commercial ports & vessels associated with offshore oil & gas

exploration

NO

Trinidad Unable to ascertain degree of adequacy

but oil reception does occur On a case by case basis NLS has been

removed in unique situations

Some primary factors and unique circumstances identified in this study that may stimulate the delivery of SGW to SIDS ports, and or lead to possible improper disposal of SGW include:

• The absence of MARPOL implementation legislation and other applicable laws, regulations and guidelines pertaining to the management of SGW;

• Little or no government tracking, monitoring or enforcement of the process of receiving, transporting and disposing of SGW;

• Use of unlicensed service providers and nonstandard reception costs that do not fully reflect the “polluter pays” principle;

• Outdated or nonexistent national waste management strategies, limited capacities to dispose of international wastes, and the reception of SGW not being linked to existing waste management strategies;

• Lack of facilities in ports through the WCR for receiving Annex I oily bilge water, sludge and used lube oils;

• Minimal facilities and expertise available for receiving and properly disposing Annex II noxious liquid substance wastes;

• The lack of national or port requirements for ships to utilize reception facilities for Annex IV sewage wastes; and

• The varying and inconsistent port and national policies for receiving or prohibiting different categories of Annex V garbage wastes.


13

Two consistent concerns were predominantly expressed in the stakeholder discussions throughout the study area pertaining to the consideration for Regional Arrangements. In the larger government ports and among commercial port operators, service providers and shipping agents, there is interest in creating business opportunities through the receipt and disposal of SGW to meet the demands of ships calling at their ports, while striving to become maritime logistics hubs that can provide all ships services. Impediments to such successful entrepreneurships in the Region include: inconsistent or too small volumes of each specific wastes to make reliable business operations; and a lack of standardized reception fees and service provider license systems which allows low cost improper waste disposal by non-legitimate waste handlers.

On another standpoint, many government stakeholders discussed the challenges they face just in trying to properly manage their own domestic waste. Some stakeholders stated that as small islands, they should not be required to accept SGW at all. Some stakeholders expressed fear of WCR SIDS becoming dumping grounds for SGW originating from around the world, as well as concerns for international wastes bringing invasive species, pests and infectious diseases. It is this concern that led government bodies of one SIDS to prohibit the reception of any international SGW all together; and another from not ratifying MARPOL until the criteria for adequate reception facilities are first met. Three primary categories of ships make port calls throughout the WCR: Cruise Ships, Dry Cargo Ships and Tankers: These ships were analyzed in detail (as discussed in Chapter 4 and Annexes A-P) in terms of port calls, shipping routes, voyage patterns and main connection ports. From the data analyzed, further inferences were made regarding the potential SGW demand of the Region. Figure 3-5 Cruise Ship, Dry Cargo and Tanker Shipping routes to the 16 SIS of the WCR.


14

The study was unable to ascertain true demands for port reception facilities, in terms of volumes of SGW that is actually received at port facilities in the Region, because accurate records for SGW received and disposed are widely not available by government maritime or port authorities. The absence of this data is due in part to: a lack of MARPOL implementation legislation throughout the Region; the non-use of the IMO or other advance notice documentation for the reception of SGW by government maritime or port authorities; the absence of requirements for service providers/waste hauler to track their wastes from reception to final disposal; and inadequate enforcement of any requirements that are in place pertaining to the management of SGWs. Therefore, in an attempt to quantify the overall regional demand for PRFs, calculated estimates were generated of the potential volumes of Annex I and Annex V SGW that ship operators may have expected available PRFs, based on 2016 ship arrival data. (see Table 2).

Table 3 - Calculated estimates of Annex I and V SGW that may be expected to port of the 16 SIDS

WCR SIDS Total 2016 Port Calls

Calculated estimate of total SGW that may be expected at PRFs in each WCR SIDS (m3/yr)

For Non-Tankers For Tankers

Annex V Domestic

Annex V Maintenance

Annex I Cargo

Related

Annex I Sludge

tank residue

Annex I Oily bilge

waters

Annex I Liquid oil residues

Wash water

Trinidad & Tobago 10,412 182,560 1,129,936 342.9 5,321 69,760 164,641 1,646,414

Dominican Republic 5,453 3,865 624,461 487.1 4,874 31,947 44,467 444,668

Bahamas 5,028 46,348 1,224 129.3 8,729 29,193 286,654 2,866,543

Jamaica 3,742 19,468 120,440 418.8 5,202 29,730 59,646 596,455

Haiti 2,011 1,872 22,501 282.7 1,308 9,889

St Kitts & Nevis 1,680 14,465 6,749 7.1 1,692 4,805

Suriname 1,549 133 7,844 96.5 516 5,887

Barbados 1,312 25,493 10,224 46.2 2,094 7,985 13,896 138,962

Cuba 1,268 814 20,335 511.6 1,059 7,450 45,072 450,720

Guyana 1,233 173 29,916 168.9 585 6,382

St Lucia 1,230 9,283 7,982 9.1 1,561 6,230 54,395 538,403

Antigua & Barbuda 975 9,780 128 34.9 1,336 4,374

Belize 797 11,927 2,216 10.2 1,253 3,486

St Vincent & Grenadines 767 1,038 1,128 2.8 252 1,014

Dominica 637 4,021 1,914 6.7 773 2,412

Grenada 591 4,800 1,714 12.9 867 3,167

Further analysis of the shipping data, combined with assessments of available PRFs and the unique circumstances that may impact the ability to provide adequate facilities in each SIDS, yielded insight as to: which SIDS may contain potential Regional Ships Waste Reception Centers (RSWRC); which may contain Ports with Limited Facilities (PLF); and what might be


15

the most likely partner countries for regional arrangements based on regional voyage patterns (see Table 2, Chapter 4.7, and Annexes A-P). Table 4 - Summary of Ship and Voyage Analysis

WCR SIDS Summary of Ship and Voyage Analysis

Contains Potential Regional Ships Waste Reception

Centers (RSWRC) Or

Ports with Limited Facilities (PLF)

Most likely partners for regional

arrangements based on voyage

patterns

Trinidad & Tobago

Trinidad & Tobago is a regional hub for dry cargo shipping as well as a tanker hub for Guyana, Suriname and most of the Lesser Antilles. As a result, connections to these countries are frequent. Additionally, connections exist with Jamaica, Colombia and Dominican Republic.

Potential RSWRC

Guyana Suriname Barbados St. Vincent Grenada St. Lucia Jamaica Dominican Republic USA St. Maarten/ St. Martin Colombia

Dominican Republic

The Dominican Republic, being a regional hub for dry cargo shipping and an oil importing country, mainly has shipping connections with WCR countries. The countries most visited shortly before or after calls to the Dominican Republic are mainly non-SIDS WCR countries and include Colombia, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and the USA. Routes are also related to those to nearby Haiti.

Potential RSWRCs

Haiti Jamaica Colombia Trinidad & Tobago USA Panama Puerto Rico Cuba Costa Rica

Bahamas As a global hub for oil transshipment and dry cargo shipping as well as a major cruise destination due to its vicinity to the USA. The Bahamas has relatively limited connectivity to the other SIDS in the WCR.

Potential RSWRCs &

May contain PLFs

USA

Jamaica

Jamaica is a regional hub for dry cargo shipping and a significant cruise destination. Connections therefore include SIDS and non-SIDS countries in the WCR. The main SIDS connections include Dominican Republic, Haiti and Trinidad & Tobago. The USA is the main connected destination, which is attended by 28% if the ships shortly before or after attending a Jamaican port.

Potential RSWRCs

USA Dominican Republic Haiti Trinidad & Tobago Cuba Colombia Panama Cayman Islands

Haiti The connectivity of Haiti in terms of ship voyage patterns is mainly determined by dry cargo shipping and mainly concerns connections with Dominican Republic, and Jamaica.

May contain PLFs

Dominican Republic Jamaica USA

St Kitts & Nevis

Large number of cruise calls with strong connectivity to other Lesser Antilles. Especially connected to the nearby islands of St. Maarten/ St. Martin, Antigua & Barbuda and Dominica. Connectivity to larger non-SIDS countries is very limited.

May contain PLFs

St. Maarten/ St. Martin Antigua & Barbuda Dominica St. Lucia Barbados British Virgin Islands US Virgin Islands

Suriname Both dry cargo and tanker shipping in Suriname is strongly related to calls in Guyana and Trinidad & Tobago.

Potential RSWRCs &

Guyana Trinidad & Tobago Barbados


16



Centers (RSWRC) Or




patterns

May contain PLFs

Barbados

Large number of cruise calls with strong connectivity to other Lesser Antilles as well as a relatively high number of dry cargo ships. The overall main connections identified are those with the nearby islands of St. Lucia, Grenada and St. Vincent & Grenadines as well as with Trinidad & Tobago. Connectivity to larger (non-SIDS) countries is very limited.

Potential RSWRCs &

May contain PLFs

St. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Grenada St. Vincent & Grenadines St. Kitts & Nevis Antigua & Barbuda Guyana Suriname Trinidad & Tobago

Cuba The ship traffic in Cuba consists mainly of dry cargo ships & tankers, considerably involved in domestic trade. The main international connections include Dominican Republic, Mexico, Jamaica and Colombia.

Undetermined

Dominican Republic Jamaica Mexico Colombia

Guyana Both dry cargo and tanker shipping in Guyana is strongly related to calls in Suriname and Trinidad & Tobago.

May contain PLFs

Trinidad & Tobago Suriname Barbados

St Lucia

St. Lucia is a secondary hub for tanker shipping in the southern Lesser Antilles and receives large numbers of cruise calls. Therefore it has substantial connections with surrounding islands as well as Trinidad & Tobago. Connectivity to larger non-SIDS countries is very limited.

Potential RSWRCs &

May contain PLFs

Barbados Trinidad & Tobago St. Maarten/ St. Martin Grenada Dominica St. Kitts & Nevis St. Vincent & Grenadines Antigua & Barbuda

Antigua & Barbuda

Large number of cruise calls with strong connectivity to other Lesser Antilles. Especially connected to the nearby islands of St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Maarten/ St. Martin and Dominica. Connectivity to larger non-SIDS countries is very limited.

May contain PLFs

St. Kitts & Nevis St. Maarten/ St. Martin Dominica Barbados British Virgin Islands US Virgin Islands St. Lucia

Belize

The calls in Belize concern mainly dry cargo ships and cruise ships. The main connections for cruise ships are the USA and Mexico. Dry cargo routes are particularly associated with Honduras and the Cayman Islands.

May contain PLFs

USA Mexico Honduras Cayman Islands Jamaica

St Vincent & Grenadines

Dry cargo and cruise calls with strong connectivity to other Lesser Antilles. Especially connected to the nearby islands of Barbados, Grenada and St. Lucia as well as Trinidad & Tobago. Connectivity to larger non-SIDS countries is very limited.

May contain PLFs

Barbados Trinidad & Tobago Grenada St. Lucia


17



Centers (RSWRC) Or




patterns

Dominica

The calls in Dominica concern mainly dry cargo ships and cruise ships. Especially connected to the nearby islands of St. Maarten/ St. Martin, St. Kitts & Nevis, Antigua & Barbuda, St. Lucia and Barbados. Connectivity to larger (non-SIDS) countries is very limited.

May contain PLFs

St. Maarten/ St. Martin St. Kitts & Nevis Antigua & Barbuda St. Lucia Barbados

Grenada

The calls in Grenada concern mainly dry cargo ships and cruise ships. Especially connected to the nearby islands of Barbados, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent & Grenadines as well as Trinidad & Tobago. Connectivity to larger (non-SIDS) countries is very limited.

May contain PLFs

Barbados St. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago St. Vincent

Looking specifically at The Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, it can be deduced that since the ports in these SIDS receive the most ship arrivals, have the most capability (with some exceptions) to accept all categories of SGW, and have the most regional connections, that improvements at PRFs in these locations could have the biggest impact on waste reception throughout the WCR. It may also be concluded that ports in these four SIDS could have the highest potential to serve as Regional Waste Reception Centers in future Regional Arrangements within a WCR Regional Port Reception Plan.

Figure 6-9: Cruise Ship, Dry Cargo and Tanker Shipping routes to the 16 SIS of the WCR


18

Finally, Chapter 5 identifies overall potential options suited to vessels calling at ports in these SIDS that will not encourage any illegal discharge into the sea. Important recommendations for how WCR SIDS may improve the adequacy of PRFs are also contained in Annexes A-P. Chapter 4.2, Appendix 3 and Annexes A-P also identify the primary stakeholders and describes what their roles may be in implementing or operating within any future Regional Reception Facility Plan. Following this report, it is highly recommended that future efforts focus first on:

1) Establishing robust cradle to grave waste management techniques for SGW using stakeholder collaboration, market-based mechanisms and reduction, prevention, waste to energy and recycling methods in the key rotational ports of Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Dominican Republic, and The Bahamas, Barbados

2) Encouraging the governments of the United States, Netherlands, United Kingdom, France, Mexico, Panama and Colombia to become part of RRFP discussions and planning process due to their authorities over major rotational and home ports that may have greater capacities to receive SGW from the 16 SIDS of the Region;

3) Establishing for all WCR countries that may become part of a RPRFP, a standardized minimum for reception and disposal fees; as well as standardized licenses for service providers to receive SGW within the Regional plan;

4) Securing international funding to revise or develop new National Waste Management Strategies for all WCR SIDS, taking into account the reception of SGW and changes in maritime commerce and tourism that have may impact the ability of these SIDS to accept and/or properly manage international waste concurrently with current and projected domestic waste management challenges.

5) Continued stakeholder engagement, with facilitated assistance by international bodies towards adopting and implementing national guidelines for reception, tracking, monitoring, licensing, enforcing and proper disposal of SGW, even in lieu of the adoption of national legislation.

6) An initiative to establish Annex I (oil) reception facilities, in all ports throughout the Wider Caribbean Region, and additional Annex II capabilities in key regional areas.


19

1 Introduction

1.1 Background IMO has recognized the unique challenges that SIDS experience in providing adequate reception facilities for ship waste. 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 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 are expected to develop a Regional Reception Facilities Plan (RRFP), taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization. The Guidelines are set out in Resolution MEPC.221(63), 2012 Guidelines for the Development of a Regional Reception Facilities Plan.

The Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) is the only legally binding Environment treaty for the Wider Caribbean Region, and its three Protocols (Oil Spill Protocol, Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife Protocol) constitute a legal commitment by the participating governments to protect, develop and manage their common waters individually or jointly. The Cartagena Convention works in support of other global conventions and agreements including those of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) such as the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).

The Wider Caribbean Region holds 23 of the 52 SIDS as recognized by the United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLD). Of those, 16 are U.N. Members (Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Suriname) and 7 are non-U.N. Members or Associate Members of the Regional Commissions (Anguilla, Aruba, British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands).

Meeting the obligations for adequate Port Reception Facilities (PRFs) as required of MARPOL signatory countries still remains a significant challenge to the SIDS of the Wider Caribbean Region. Many States are restricted in their capacities and capability to properly process waste streams generated on their islands, let alone process additional waste offloaded from vessels calling upon their port. Furthermore, little has been done to develop adequate capacity to receive dirty ballast water in anticipation of future entry into force of the International Ballast Water Management Convention.

This feasibility study therefore aims to explore different options for tackling the inadequacy of port reception facilities in the region, including the development of a regional process of developing a Regional Reception Facilities Plan, in a phased manner.


20

1.2 Objectives This feasibility Study was conducted by RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe for the possible development of a regional reception facilities plan for the small island developing States (SIDS) of the Wider Caribbean Region. The study includes an assessment of and site visits to the ports of16 U.N. member SIDS, and identification of possible measures to address the inadequacy of port reception facilities in the Wider Caribbean Region. The outcomes of this report complements other strategies for improving management of ship generated wastes and cargo residues within the Wider Caribbean Region, and contributes to efforts towards improving the ability of Caribbean States to effectively fulfill their obligations under MARPOL, or to accede to MARPOL where a State is not already a Party.

The specific objective of this report is to present a thorough assessment of the ports reception facilities and shipping routes in the SIDS of the Wider Caribbean Region and based on the assessment:

1. Identify and quantify the types of ships operating; 2. Describe the overall voyage patterns of ships calling at ports; 3. Describe aspects of routing and voyage planning that might affect the amount of ship

generated wastes and cargo residues on board ships arriving; 4. Describe other relevant additional considerations that may influence the demand for port

reception facilities; 5. Identify which ports, if any, may be good candidates for Regional Ships Waste

Reception Centers (RSWRC); 6. Identify ports with limited facilities (PLF), if any; 7. Identify any potential options suited to the vessels calling at ports that will not encourage

any illegal discharge into the sea; and 8. Develop and refine a list of all stakeholder roles and responsibilities for implementing or

operating PRFs; and

1.3 Output As outlined in Chapter 3.4.3 of the IMO Guidebook, Port Reception Facilities, HOW TO DO IT, there are several elements that should be considered when developing Port Waste Management Plans. These elements, to some extent were capture for each of the SIDS visited during this study. In the short term, therefore, the data collected can directly assist in the development of Port Waste Management Plans in throughout the Region.

The long term output of the feasibility study may assist the SIDS of the Wider Caribbean Region in developing proposals for appropriate and effective regional arrangements pertaining to waste management and port reception facilities that may be submitted to the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) for consultation, if agreed upon by all participating Member States. This output is accomplished by facilitating the necessary steps required to meet the Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port reception facilities (MEPC.83(44)). On the basis of this study conducted on the 16 UN Member SIDS of the Wider Caribbean Region, it’s envisaged that further work on the assessment of the additional 7 non-UN Member SIDS of the Region, is needed with a view to identifying measures for tackling the inadequacy of port reception facilities throughout the entire Wider Caribbean Region.


21

1.4 Report outline This report is divided into the main report with summary findings for the full study region and sixteen individual reports attached as ANNEXES A - P for each of the SIDS assessed in the study.


22

2 Overview of Requirements

This chapter sets out the main requirements regarding the provision of PRF, as set out in the MARPOL annexes. The relevant requirements are included based on the applicability of those requirements for the WCR. Therefore, initially the special areas and PSSA in the WCR are identified.

2.1 Special Areas, PSSA and MPAs in the WCR

2.1.1 Special areas The below table indicates the areas of the WCR that are indicated as special areas under the different Annexes of MARPOL2.

Table 1 Special areas under MARPOL Annex V Wider Caribbean Region

Annex VI – NOX United States Caribbean Sea ECA

Annex VI – PM United States Caribbean Sea ECA Annex VI – SOX United States Caribbean Sea ECA

It follows from the table that the WCR is a special area under MARPOL Annex V and that parts of the WCR are emission control areas, as part of the United States Caribbean Sea ECA.

A special area under MARPOL Annex V is defined as follows: “a sea area where for recognized technical reasons in relation to its oceanographical and ecological condition and to the particular character of its traffic the adoption of special mandatory methods for the prevention of sea pollution by garbage is required”. The conditions related to the discharge of garbage in special areas are further elaborated in the next section. When ships sail in emission control areas as defined by Annex VI, conditions are imposed on the emissions of SOX, NOX and/or particulate matter.

2.1.2 Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) A Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) is an area that needs special protection through action by IMO because of its significance for recognized ecological or socio-economic or scientific reasons and which may be vulnerable to damage by international maritime activities3. The table below lists the WCR areas designated as Particularly Sensitive Areas by the IMO4.

Table 2 Overview of all WCR PSSA The Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago in Cuba The sea around the Florida Keys, United States The Saba Bank, in the North-eastern Caribbean area of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

2 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/SpecialAreasUnderMARPOL/Pages/Default.aspx 3 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PSSAs/Pages/Default.aspx 4 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PSSAs/Pages/Default.aspx


23

2.1.3 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Additionally, there are currently over 300 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Wider Caribbean, some of which are listed under the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) of the Cartagena Convention.

2.2 MARPOL requirements for PRFs

2.2.1 MARPOL Annex I PRF Requirements As concluded in the previous section, the WCR is not a special area under Annex I. However, in the inland and territorial waters under the jurisdiction of the Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago any discharge of oil or oily mixtures is prohibited. This means that in all parts of the WCR, with the exception of the Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago, discharge of oil or oily mixtures from the machinery spaces of ships or cargo areas of oil tankers is only allowed under certain conditions. The only exception to this concerns tankers of less than 150 GT, which have to retain oil from cargo spaced on board with subsequent discharge of all contaminated washings to reception facilities.

Table 3 summarizes the following requirements are specified for PRF outside special areas (as applicable for WCR), as set out in regulation 38 of Annex I.

Table 3 PRF requirements under MARPOL Annex I (Reg. 38) outside special areas Facilities shall be provided in Capacity of reception facilities shall be as follows: All ports and terminals in which crude oil is loaded into oil tankers where such tankers have immediately prior to arrival completed a ballast voyage of not more than 72 hours or not more than 1200 nautical miles.

Sufficient reception facilities to receive oil and oily mixtures which cannot be discharged in accordance with the provisions of regulation 34.1 of Annex I.

All ports and terminals in which oil other than crude oil in bulk is loaded at an average quantity of more than 1000 tonnes per day.

Sufficient reception facilities to receive oil and oily mixtures which cannot be discharged in accordance with the provisions of regulation 34.1 of Annex I from oil tankers which load oil other than crude oil in bulk.

All ports having ship repair yards or tank cleaning facilities;

Sufficient reception facilities to receive all residues and oily mixtures which remain on board for disposal from ships prior to entering such yards or facilities.

All ports and terminals which handle ships provided with the sludge tank(s) required by regulation 12 of Annex I.

Shall be sufficient to receive all residues retained according to regulation 12 of Annex I from all ships that may reasonably be expected to call at such ports and terminals.

All ports in respect of oily bilge waters and other residues which cannot be discharged in accordance with regulation 15 of Annex I.

Shall be sufficient to receive oily bilge waters and other residues which cannot be discharged in accordance with regulation 15 of Annex I.

All loading ports for bulk cargoes in respect of oil residues from combination carriers which cannot be discharged in accordance with regulation 34 of Annex I.

Shall take into account the special problems of combination carriers as appropriate.


24

Additionally, MARPOL Annex I requires that unloading ports receiving asphalt or other substances which inhibit effective product/water separation and monitoring should have adequate facilities dedicated for such products, allowing the entire tankcleaning operation to be carried out in the port, and should have adequate reception facilities for the proper discharge and reception of cargo residues and solvent necessary for the cleaning operation.

2.2.2 MARPOL Annex II PRF Requirements The following requirements are specified for PRF, as per regulation 18 of MARPOL Annex II:

Table 4 PRF requirements under MARPOL Annex II (Reg. 18)

Facilities shall be provided in Capacity of reception facilities shall be as follows: Ports and terminals involved in (NLS) ships’ cargo handling

Adequate for the reception of residues and mixtures containing such residues of noxious liquid substances resulting from compliance with Annex II

Ship repair ports undertaking repairs to NLS tankers

Adequate for the reception of residues and mixtures containing noxious liquid substances

The WCR is not a special area for Annex II. However, as for Annex I, in the inland and territorial waters under the jurisdiction of the Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago any discharge of oil or oily mixtures is prohibited. This means that in all parts of the WCR, with the exception of the Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago, discharge of residues containing noxious liquid substances is only allowed under certain conditions.

2.2.3 MARPOL Annex IV PRF Requirements The following requirements are specified for PRF, as per regulation 12 of MARPOL Annex IV: Table 5 PRF requirements under MARPOL Annex IV (Reg. 12) Facilities shall be provided in Capacity of reception facilities shall be as follows: Ports and terminals Reception of sewage, without causing delay to ships,

adequate to meet the needs of the ships using them.

The WCR is not a special area for Annex IV and also the Sabana-Camaguey Archipelago PSSA does not impose any additional restrictions regarding the discharge of sewage. Operational discharge of sewage into sea is only allowed under certain conditions.

2.2.4 MARPOL Annex V PRF Requirements The following requirements are specified for PRF, as per regulation 7 of MARPOL Annex V:

Table 6 PRF requirements under MARPOL Annex V (Reg. 7) Facilities shall be provided in Capacity of reception facilities shall be as follows: Ports and terminals Reception of garbage, without causing delay to ships,

adequate to meet the needs of the ships using them.


25

The WCR is a special area under Annex V which means that the discharge of most types of garbage is prohibited and that certain discharges, such as those of food waste and contaminated wash water, are allowed under predefined conditions. The prohibitions in the Sabana-Camaguey Archipelago are less stringent than those of the WCR special area and therefore do not impose additional restrictions on the discharge of garbage in this region.

2.2.5 MARPOL Annex VI PRF Requirements Parts of the WCR are emission control areas, as part of the United States Caribbean Sea ECA in terms of SOX, NOX and particulate matter. The following requirements are specified for PRF, as per regulation 17 of MARPOL Annex VI:

Table 7 PRF requirements under MARPOL Annex VI (Reg. 17) Facilities shall be provided in Capacity of reception facilities shall be as follows: Repair ports Adequate to meet the needs of ships for the reception of ozone-

depleting substances and equipment containing such substances when removed from ships, without causing undue delay to ships.

Ports, terminals and repair ports Adequate to meet the needs of ships for the reception of exhaust gas cleaning residues from an approved exhaust gas cleaning system when discharge into the marine environment of these residues is not permitted under regulation 14 of Annex VI, without causing undue delay to ships.

Ship breaking facilities Adequate to meet the needs for the reception of ozone depleting substances and equipment containing such substances when removed from ships.


26

3 Methodology

The approach followed in the study is based on the criteria for Development of a Regional Reception Facilities Plan (RRFP), as described in Part 1 of Resolution MEPC.221(63), 2012 Guidelines for the Development of a Regional Reception Facilities Plan. The following paragraphs describe how the study captured data and completed the assessment steps required by MEPC.221(63) to include: • Identification of the region covered by a RRFP and the provision of a map showing the

participating states and all ports participating in a plan (article 4); • Identification of the nature of the unique circumstances that impact on the ability to provide

adequate port reception facilities (article 5); • Demonstration of the compelling need for a Regional Arrangement (RA) by exploring alternatives

(article 6); • Assessment of the demand for port reception facilities, by assessing international and domestic

shipping patterns and the needs of ships operating in the region to discharge ship generated waste and cargo residues, taking into account the following (article 9, 10, 11 and 12):

o The number of ships calling at each port within a region as well as the existing number of requests for reception of various types of ship generated wastes and cargo residues;

o The types of ships operating in a region; o The aspects of routing and voyage planning that might affect the amount of ship

generated wastes and cargo residues on board ships, and; o Additional considerations that influence the demand for port reception facilities in a

region or a particular port; • Understanding the overall voyage pattern of ships calling at ports in the region (article 11); • Assessment of the port reception facilities at all ports and terminals within the region, including

the opportunities to provide adequate port reception facilities where such facilities are not already available (article 13);

• Identification of the selected Regional Ships Waste Reception Centres (RSWRC) and ports with limited facilities (PLF), based on the foregoing assessments (article 14 and 15).

Since this study is not a RRFP but a feasibility study, it does not cover the identification of regions to be covered by RRFPs, and only covers the identification of potential RSWRC and regions covered by potential RRFP. The requirements as described in article 16 to 21 are excluded as these concern the implementation of responsibilities and period of review under a RRFP, which could be considered at a later stage.

3.1 Steps Followed: Based on the requirements as described above, the study was divided into ten (10) main steps:

1. Description of unique circumstances that may Impact ability of each country to provide adequate port Reception facilities, including:

a. Procedures for Reception and Collection of Ship-Generated Wastes(SGW) b. Administrative and Legal Matters c. Enforcement, Control and Monitoring Systems


27

d. Technology, Infrastructure and Alternatives for Collecting, Storing, Treating and Disposing SGW

e. Compilation of a list of Competent Authorities, Stakeholders and Persons to be Consulted

2. Analysis of ship calls and current waste reception requests per country; 3. Regional voyage pattern analysis; 4. Assessment of current PRF; 5. Assess the demand for PRF per country; 6. Identification of potential RRFP options. 7. Identification of which ports, if any, may be good candidates for Regional Ships Waste Reception

Centres (RSWRC) in each of the SIDS; 8. Identification of ports with limited facilities (PLF), if any, in each of the SIDS; 9. Recommended options suited to the vessels that may not encourage any illegal discharge into

the sea.

3.2 Country Questionnaires As part of the Regional Workshop on Port Reception Facilities and Waste Management that was held in in Trinidad & Tobago from 4 to 6 October 2016, countries were requested to complete a pre-event assignment questionnaire. The questionnaire covered inter alia the number of port calls for different ship types over 2015, identification of PRFs and stakeholders, as well as an overview of the current status of port reception facilities in their respective SIDS. The following SIDS countries completed the questionnaire: Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines and Suriname. An attempt was also made to use the number of port calls as reported in the questionnaire as another means of comparison with the 2016 data and as a source of data for recreational craft and fishing vessels, which are not covered by the LLI and LMIU data, however the data provided by the stakeholders was often partially complete or not able to be assessed.

3.3 Port Visits and Stakeholder Meetings: From June to December 2017, Keith Donohue of RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe conducted visits to over 25 port facilities in 14 WCR countries and facilitated 15 meetings with over 170 stakeholders involved with reception and disposal of ship generated waste (SGW). The Port Reception Facility – How To Do It guidebook and other documents were used during the port visits and facilitated stakeholder meetings to stimulate discussion, deliver capacity building and collect important information for the study.

The following IMO Documents and Publications were used to capture the necessary information during the port visits and stakeholder meetings:

• Select questions taken from the Checklist found in Chapter 15 of MEPC 67/11 Annex 2, IMO’s Revised Comprehensive Manual on Port Reception Facilities (“Port Reception Facilities – How to do it”);

• Pre-event assignment questionnaires developed and used in the IMO Workshop on Port Reception Facilities and Waste Management that was conducted 04 - 06 October, 2016, in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago;


28

• Section D and other questions, as modified, from the Sample Assessment Procedure for Ports Management/Assessment Strategy for Waste Reception Facilities at Ports, Marinas and Boat Harbours Assessment Procedure – Ports, contained in the Appendix to Resolution MEPC.83(44), “Guidelines for Ensuring the Adequacy of Port Reception Facilities;” and

• The Summary of Waste Streams Table used throughout MEPC.1/Circ.859, 11 June 2015.

The outputs from the port visits and stakeholder meetings (Steps 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10), as detailed in Annexes A – P of this report, served to:

• Assess the status of port reception facilities in order to help identify any ports that may be Regional Ships Waste Reception Centers (RSWRC), or any ports that have limited facilities (PLF);

• Identify and get a clear understanding of any unique circumstances that may impact the ability of SIDS in providing adequate port reception facilities;

• Identify any opportunities to provide adequate port reception facilities where such facilities are not already available;

• Facilitate discussions between government, shipping and waste industry regarding Regional Reception Facilities Plan (RRFP); and

• Conduct capacity building on IMO’s Revised Comprehensive Manual on Port Reception Facilities (“Port Reception Facilities – How to do it”).

3.4 Quantification of Ships, Voyage Pattern Analysis and PRF Demands Maartje Folbert of RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe conducted detailed analyses of the port calls of ships attending each country, an analysis of the voyage patterns associated with these port calls, as well as detailed calculated estimates of the potential volumes of SGW that could be expected at PRFs throughout the WCR SIDS.

The output of these analyses (Steps 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) serve to: • Identify aspects of routing and voyage planning that might affect the amount of ship

generated wastes and cargo residues on board ships arriving in a particular region or port, and/or the need to clear ship generated wastes and cargo residues storage spaces prior to the onward journey;

• Assess the demand for port reception facilities, by assessing international and domestic shipping patterns and the needs of ships operating in the region to discharge ship generated waste and cargo residues;

• Understand the overall voyage pattern of ports in the region in order to identify a successful regional approach, by taking into account the routes and ports of call, including origin and destination outside the region.

3.4.1 Ships and Ship Movement Data The main source of data utilized in the analyses concerns the Lloyds List Intelligence (LLI) ship movement data of all ship movements in the Wider Caribbean Region for 2016. In order to allow for a relevant analysis of the shipping data, the port calls were divided over a set of ship types. As a basis


29

for this division the proposed format for reporting the number of ship calls by the Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port reception facilities (MEPC.83(44)) (Appendix Section C) was taken and extended with the following ship types in order to describe the ship traffic more concisely: gas tankers, other tankers, unknown tankers, vehicle carriers (including Ro-Ro ships and car carriers), cruise ships and other passenger ships.

The analyses were divided into three main steps: 1. First, the main ship traffic types attending SIDS Wider Caribbean Region ports are identified

based on the analysis of the LLI data over 2016 per country; 2. Then, for each of the identified ship traffic types, an analysis is done of the main principles

driving the route patterns in the Wider Caribbean Region in general, based on a variety of references and data;

3. In the final step, it is evaluated per SIDS what are the main connected countries in terms of shipping routes based on the previous and consequent ports of call, as included in the 2016 LLI data.

The demand for port reception facilities was assessed in two separate steps: 1. First, the obligation to provide port reception facilities was assessed for different types of

waste based on the requirements as specified in the MARPOL annexes; 2. Then, based on the type of reception facilities that should be provided as an obligation under

MARPOL, the amounts of wastes that may be presented for reception in the different ports are estimated based on general accepted methods and statistics. The analysis of the different ships-types and port calls is used as a basis in these estimates.

In order to assess the demand per country, an analysis is done of the port calls of each country. For the analysis four sources of data were utilized: • Lloyds List Intelligence (LLI) ship movement data of all ship movements in the WCR for 2016; • Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit (LMIU) ship movement data of all ship movements in the WCR for

the years 2007 and 2008; • Data provided by the individual countries as part of the country questionnaire as input to the

Regional Workshop on Port Reception Facilities and Waste Management in Trinidad & Tobago (4-6 October 2016);

• Additional information based on the stakeholder meetings during the port visits and provided in writing.

The LLI ship movement data cover all ship movements of ships with an IMO number, related to port visits in the WCR or Panama Canal crossings in the year 2016. As such, it covers all port calls of these ships to SIDS. It excludes any vessels and craft that do not have an IMO number. IMO numbers are assigned to all ships falling under the SOLAS Convention, and are assigned to propelled, sea-going merchant ships of 100 GT and above5. Fishing vessels of 100 GT and above can apply for an IMO number on a voluntary basis. The following types of ships are not covered by the IMO ship identification number scheme:

5 http://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/msas/pages/imo-identification-number-scheme.aspx


30

• Ships without mechanical means of propulsion; • Pleasure yachts; • Ships engaged on special service (e.g. lightships, SAR vessels); • Hopper barges; • Hydrofoils, air cushion vehicles; • Floating docks and structures classified in a similar manner; • Ships of war and troopships; • Wooden ships.

As a result, the movements of typical merchant ships are covered by the data. Recreational craft, fishing vessels and other very small vessels and craft are however mostly excluded. The database lists all movements of ships, defined by the port and country of origin, the port and country of destination and the dates of departure and arrival. For each movement information is provided on the ship, including IMO number, ship type, gross tonnage (GT) and deadweight tonnage (DWT).

The analysis of these data is set up as follows: 1. Faulty values were removed by eliminating any movements of ships where the destination

port is the same as the port of origin; 2. Only movements were included with a date of arrival in 2016; 3. The movements are categorized in ship types and ship type groups; 4. The movements relevant for each country were extracted based on the country of

destination; 5. The overall number of port calls and the number of port calls per ship type were evaluated,

and the distributions over GT classes and destinations within the country were analyzed.

In order to allow for a relevant analysis of the shipping data, the port calls were divided over a set of ship types. As a basis for this division the proposed format for reporting the number of ship calls by the Guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port reception facilities (MEPC.83(44)) (Appendix Section C) was taken and extended with the following ship types in order to describe the ship traffic more concisely: gas tankers, other tankers, unknown tankers, vehicle carriers (including Ro-Ro ships and car carriers), cruise ships and other passenger ships. An overview of the ship types used is given in Table 8. The ship types are assigned to the ship movements based on the ship types as included in the LLI data, which is much more detailed. A detailed overview of the conversion into the below ships is included in Annex I.


31

Table 8 Ship types considered in the study Ship type group Ship type Tankers Oil product tankers

Crude oil tankers Combination carriers Chemical tankers Gas tankers Other tankers Unknown

Dry cargo General cargo Container ships Bulk carriers Vehicle carriers

Passenger Cruise ships Other

Fishing vessels Fishing vessels Recreational craft Recreational craft Other Livestock carriers

Other

The Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit (LMIU) is the former name of Lloyds List Intelligence and the two datasets thus have in fact the same source. The LMIU database used in this study covers the ship movement data in the WCR for the years 2007 and 2008. The selection is very similar to the one described above for LLI data. Also the analysis of the data was conducted according to above steps. The data in this dataset was used as a comparison with the 2016 data, in order to use a longer period of data and to identify any relevant trends over the years.

3.4.2 Calculated SGW Estimates and Assessment of the Demands for PRFs In order to assess the demand for PRF it was first assessed whether there is a need to provide PRF for specific types of wastes and cargo residues and then what would be the required capacity of those facilities. The MARPOL annexes provide detailed requirements regarding the provision of PRF for different types of ship generated wastes and cargo residues, as summarized in section 2.2. Based on the annexes a simplified overview of these requirements was established, related to the types of ports and facilities available such as tank cleaning facilities and ship repair yards. These requirements were assessed for the main ports in each country, based on the information available from the GISIS database, port visits and analysis of ship calls.


32

Table 9 Simplified MARPOL requirements to provision of PRF MARPOL Annex Type of waste received Criteria to provision of PRF Annex I Oil and oily mixtures from crude oil tankers Ports and terminals in which crude oil is

loaded into oil tankers where such tankers have immediately prior to arrival completed a ballast voyage of < 72 hours or <1200 nm.

Oil and oily mixtures from product tankers Oil product loading ports and terminals > 1000 tons/day

Residues and oily mixtures which remain on board for disposal from ships prior to entering ship repair yards or tank cleaning facilities

All ports having ship repair yards or tank cleaning facilities

Sludge tank residues All ports and terminals which handle ships >400 GT

Oily bilge waters and other residues All ports Oil residues from combination carriers All loading ports for dry/ liquid bulk cargoes

receiving combination carriers Cargo residues and solvent necessary for the cleaning operation after the transport of asphalt and other substances which inhibit effective product/water separation and monitoring

Unloading ports receiving asphalt or other substances which inhibit effective product/water separation and monitoring

Annex II Tank washings of prewash and cargo residues

Ports and terminals involved in (NLS) ships’ cargo handling

Residues and mixtures which remain on board for disposal from ships prior to entering ship repair yards


Annex IV Sewage All ports and terminals Annex V Garbage All ports and terminals Annex VI Ozone-depleting substances and equipment

containing such substances Repair ports Ship breaking facilities

Exhaust gas cleaning residues All ports, terminals and repair ports

The resolution MEPC.69(11) Port Reception Facilities – How to do it (Chapter 7) presents methodologies for the estimation of waste quantities for wastes and cargo residues related to all MARPOL annexes. While it is recommended to ports to use detailed methods such as port statistics and interviews and/or queries with ship masters, agents, ship yards etc., also generic estimation methods are presented for wastes related to most of the MARPOL annexes. These have been applied for the relevant countries, based on the analysis of ship calls. The paragraphs below describe how these methods have been applied for different types of waste under the MARPOL annexes. The results are included in the different country reports.

In the analysis of port calls per country, it was found that the selection of ports as included in GISIS and the LLI data differ, resulting in an inconsistency between the selection of GISIS ports and the available numbers of port calls. Therefore, for each country a selection of main ports has been established by comparing the ports in the two datasets and including only ports with at least 20 port calls per year.


33

3.4.2.1 Calculations for MARPOL Annex I SGW Estimates For Annex I types of wastes and residues, the estimation method is based on averaged amounts of wastes. For the wastes that are associated with the cargo spaces of tankers, these averaged amounts of wastes are expressed as a percentage of the tankers deadweight tonnage (DWT). For the sludge tank residues and oily bilge waters, which are related to the operation of the engines and therefore relevant to all motor propelled vessels, other reference values are used. The applicable values and references are displayed in the table below. It is also indicated to which type of ports and facilities PRF for the reception of such wastes must be provided.

Table 10 Averaged amounts of MARPOL Annex I wastes Type of waste Which ports Averaged amount of wastes Wash water Crude oil loading ports involved in

regional trade (<1200 nm)/ Oil product loading ports > 1000 tonnes/day

4-8% of tankers DWT Liquid oil residues 0.2-1% of tankers DWT Oily solids 0.01-0.1% of tankers DWT Sludge tank residues All ports and terminals which handle

ships > 400 GT 2-3% of daily fuel consumption

Oily bilge waters and other residues

All ports 1-10 m3 per ship

Tanker related wastes and residues For the assessment of the expected waste quantities per country, the typical DWT of oil tankers attending that country is analyzed. This concerns both crude oil and oil product tankers. The averages of the percentages as indicated above are used to estimate the amounts of waste: 6%, 0.6% and 0.06% respectively.

The values are calculated in cubic meters, assuming an average density of 1 t/m3 for all types of wastes.

Sludges The amount of sludges is expressed as a percentage of the daily fuel consumption per ship. Stopford6 provides the daily fuel consumption for container ships, bulk carriers and tankers of different sizes based on their ship register for the year 2006. The minimum values apply respectively to a 0-499 TEU feeder, 10,000-20,000 DWT handysize bulk carrier and a 1,000-5,000 DWT small tanker. The maximum values apply to a 6000-12,000 TEU VLBC, and capesize bulk carriers and VLCC tankers of over 200,000 DWT.

For cruise ships, generally accepted data values are about 150 tons per day up to 250 tons per day, for large cruise ships sailing full speed. For the mentioned ship types the minimum, maximum and average values are displayed in the table below. Also the reference ship sizes are included, associated with the listed fuel consumptions.

6 Maritime Economics (2006)


34

Table 11 Fuel consumption for different types and sizes of ships

Ship type Reference ship size Fuel consumption

(t/day) Container ship Min Feeder 0-499 TEU 15.7

Average Handy+ 1000-3000 TEU 65.4 Max VLBC 6,000-12,000 TEU 211.3

Bulk carrier Min Handy 10-20 kDWT 22.5 Average Handymax 40-60 kDWT 33.4 Max Capesize >200 kDWT 60.3

Tanker Min Small <5000 DWT 7.9 Average Handy/ Panamax 30-80 kDWT 37.8 Max VLCC >200 kDWT 85.7

Cruise Average - 150 Max - 250

Based on the numbers listed above, the fuel consumption per ship is estimated based on interpolation for all ships over 400 GT. For cruise ships an average value of 150 t/day is applied for all ships. All ships of other types than the ones listed above, are assumed to have a similar DWT – fuel consumption relationship as container ships.

Using the range of percentages as described above, (2-3% of the daily fuel consumption), the amounts of sludges (in tons) to be provided to PRF can be derived. These are calculated per port based on an average value of 2.5% and a fuel density of 1 t/m3. The volumes are calculated for all ships that visited the considered ports in 2016, also if their GT is under 400 GT.

Oily bilge waters Oily bilge waters are associated with all types of motor propelled vessels, where ships over 400 GT are allowed to discharge these at sea. However, as per the requirements in Annex I, all ports have to provide facilities for the reception of oily bilge waters.

The amount of oily bilge waters to be discharged from the ship is expressed as a volume range indicating the average amount of bilge water to be discharged per ship, which is 1 to 10 m3 per ship, based on the typical sizes of bilge water holding tanks. However, research shows7 that for ships engaged in near coastal voyages the tank sizes are smaller, between 1 and 3 m3.

In order to estimate the amounts of oily bilge waters, the following volumes of waste water generation per day are used as a function of the vessel’s GT8:

7 REMPEC, PORT RECEPTION FACILITIES FOR COLLECTING SHIP-GENERATED GARBAGE, BILGE WATERS AND OILY WASTES ACTIVITY A COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF SOLID AND LIQUID WASTES 8 REMPEC, PORT RECEPTION FACILITIES FOR COLLECTING SHIP-GENERATED GARBAGE, BILGE WATERS AND OILY WASTES ACTIVITY A COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF SOLID AND LIQUID WASTES


35

Table 12 Estimated daily volumes of oily bulge water generation (ref: REMPEC, 2004) Gross tonnage (GT) Estimated daily volume

of oily bilge water (l/day) <400 75 400-3000 375 3000-5000 1125 5000-7000 1875 7000-10000 3000 >10000 5000

In the calculations it is assumed that all ships provide their oily bilge water to port reception facilities, unless the generated volume exceeds the maximum holding tank volume 10 m3. This is highly conservative as smaller ships will have smaller holding tanks and many ships will use oily water separating systems to treat the bilge water before the maximum tank capacity is reached.

The duration of the voyage is calculated for each voyage in the LLI data, based on the dates of departure in the port of origin and of arrival in the destination port. By using the voyage duration for the estimation of waste generation on board, it is implicitly assumed that the ships discharge their oily bilge waters in each port of call. As such, the estimated values might give an underestimation for other cases.

Annex II wastes concern both contaminated ballast water and wash water and other washing liquids resulting from tank cleaning activities. Reception facilities for such wastes have to be provided in ports and terminals involved in (NLS) ships’ cargo handling. Since most chemical tankers have segregated ballast tanks, the manual states that the main contributor of Annex II wastes to reception facilities is wash water. Therefore, it is suggested to estimate the amount of wash water in order to quantify the expected amounts of Annex II wastes at PRF. For the purpose of estimating the order of magnitude of these wastes, it is suggested that the minimum quantity of water to be used in a prewash, as prescribed by MARPOL, can be used. The requirements to the minimum amount of wash water are included in appendix VI of MARPOL Annex II.

The minimum quantity in m3 is given by the following formula:

Equation 1 Minimum Quantity in m3

Where: r = the residual quantity per tank in m3

V = tank volume in m3

k = a factor with specified values The value of r is to be demonstrated in a stripping efficiency test, but guidance is provided on the minimum values to be used for different tank sizes and substance, ranging from 0.040 to 0.9 m3. The value of k lies between 0.5 and 2.4, depending on the type of substance.


36

In order to derive a representative average minimum wash water amount, the values for r and k were chosen to represent an average situation for substances of category X on the one hand and substances of the categories Y and Z on the other hand. For substances of category X, r is assumed to have a value of 0.9 m3, while it is assumed to amount 0.1 m3 for the other substances. As specified by the annex, the value of k is either 0.5 or 1 for category Y substances and 1.2 or 2.4 for category X substances. Based on these data, the following minimum wash water amounts are derived for different tank capacities:

Table 13 Estimated minimum amounts of wash water for NLS tankers Substance category k Tank size (m3)

100 500 1250 3000 Y, Z 0.5 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.7

1 2.5 2.9 3.6 5.4 X 1.2 17.1 19.3 23.5 33.3

2.4 34.2 38.7 47.0 66.5

From the table it follows that for category Y and Z substances, the minimum required amount of wash water is typically in the order of magnitude of 1 to 5 m3. For category X substances, the required amount of wash water is an order of magnitude higher, ranging from 17 to over 60 m3, depending on the substance type and tank size.

The presented values indicate the required minimum amounts of wash water and therefore provide a lower limit of the amounts of NLS waste that could be disposed at associated PRF.

Apart from the tank washings of prewash and cargo residues that would be received in ports involved in (NLS) ships’ cargo handling, ship repair ports undertaking repairs to NLS tankers need to provide facilities for the reception of residues and mixtures which remain on board for disposal from ships prior to entering ship repair yards. For this type of waste no estimation method is provided. In such cases, the capacity would need to be assessed using other methods.

3.4.2.2 Calculations for MARPOL Annex IV SGW Estimates All ports and terminals have to provide facilities for the reception of sewage, under MARPOL Annex IV. The Manual indicates that little is known about the volumes of sewage to be delivered ashore, as sewage can, under certain conditions, be discharged legitimately into the sea. It is highlighted that, if a port is not located in or nearby a special area, the delivery of sewage to PRF will most likely occur rarely. As the WCR is not a special area under Annex VI, this applies to the countries in this study too. Because of the lack of estimation methods and considering the limited contribution of Annex IV waste to the total waste received, the quantities of this type of waste was not further considered.

3.4.2.3 Calculations for MARPOL Annex V SGW Estimates All ports and terminals have to provide facilities for the reception of garbage, under MARPOL Annex V. Formulae to estimate the amounts of waste retained on board vessels are provided in Annex A of the ISO Standard 21070:2011 “ships and marine technology – Marine environment protection – Management and handling of shipboard garbage”. The general format of the formulae is as follows:


37

Equation 2 Volume of Waste

�� Where: V is the volume of the relevant type of waste in dm3 d is the duration of the voyage in days (at least 30 days) P is the number of persons onboard The factors used in this study are taken from the study “Assessment Of The Existing Situation And Needs Of Albania, Croatia And Slovenia Regarding Port Reception Facilities For Collecting Ship-Generated Garbage, Bilge Water And Oily Wastes - Activity 1: Collection And Treatment Of Solid And Liquid Wastes” (REMPEC, 2004). These factors are based on the IMO “Guidelines for the implementation of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78” and were adjusted based on surveys held with ship Masters calling at the ports considered in the study. Factors are provided for different types of waste (domestic, maintenance and cargo related waste) and for different ship types (cargo ships, passenger ships and harbor craft).

For cargo associated waste the study provides values expressed as fractions of the amount of cargo received. Since these numbers are not available on a ship-by-ship basis for most ports, factors from Palabryik (2003), expressing the amount of waste per day, have been used instead.

The used rates of waste generation per day for different types of waste (in kg) and ships are presented below:

Table 14 Annex V waste generation rates used Waste type Cargo ships Passenger ships Harbor craft Domestic 2 per person/day 3 per person/day 1 per person/day Maintenance 11 per day 11 per day 11 per day Cargo associated - general cargo 8.2 per day - - Cargo associated - dry bulk 49.3 per day - -

Tankers and all ships in the ship type group “dry cargo” are attributed to the group of cargo ships. And passenger ships are all ships in the ship type group “passenger”. All other ships are assumed to fall into the group of “harbor craft”, as these ships are typically non-cargo carrying or passenger ships.

The duration of the voyage is calculated for each voyage in the LLI data, based on the dates of departure in the port of origin and of arrival in the destination port. By using the voyage duration for the estimation of waste generation on board, it is implicitly assumed that the ships discharge their waste in each port of call. As such, the estimated values might give an underestimation for other cases.

The numbers of persons on board are defined for passenger ships, cargo ships and harbor craft, based on data from literature and online information on passenger ships. The used values for cargo and passenger ships are presented in the tables below. For “harbor craft” it is assumed that the average crew consists of 8 persons.


38

Table 15 Used values of typical crew sizes for cargo ships9 GT range Number of crew <6000 14 6000-10,000 20 10,000-30,000 23 >30,000 25 Table 16 Used values of typical numbers of passengers for passenger ships10 GT range Number of people on board <5,000 150 5,000-10,000 750 10,000-50,000 1000 50,000-100,000 2000 > 100,000 5000

The waste generation factors provide the amount of waste in kilograms. An average density of 250 kg/m3 is applied in order to convert these values to cubic meters11.

3.4.2.4 Calculations for MARPOL Annex VI SGW Estimates MARPOL Annex VI wastes are constituted of two waste streams: ozone-depleting substances and exhaust gas-cleaning residues. Facilities for the reception for the former type of waste need to be provided for ship repair and ship breaking facilities. PRF for the reception of exhaust gas-cleaning residues have to be provided in all ports, terminals and repair ports.

The amount of waste, generated by exhaust cleaning systems, depends on the type of system, fuel quality and the duration of the voyage. These factors depend on the operational profile of the ship and its activity in emission control areas. Within the WCR, the only emission control area is the United States Caribbean Sea ECA. The North American sea area is the ECA closest to the WCR, covering the non-Caribbean sea areas of the USA. Considering the trade and cruise connectivity between the WCR and the USA, the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems, could affect WCR countries. However, the use of such systems for trade within the WCR is considered limited for the nearby future. As such, because of the lack of estimation methods and considering the limited contribution of Annex VI waste to the total waste received, the quantities of this type of waste is not further considered.

In addition to the above aspects, any other considerations that might affect the need for PRF and/or amounts of wastes or cargo residues have been assessed on a case by case basis, based on the results of the port visits and analysis of port calls.

9 Based on average crewing levels per ship type (2002-2004) as cited in Human factors in Grech, Horberry and Koester, Human factors in the maritime domain, 2008 10 Based on online information of representative ships in each range 11 REMPEC


39

4 Findings

In this Section the main findings that are relevant for the region are presented. The individual country reports found in Annexes A – P contain detailed information on each country.

4.1 Unique circumstances impacting the ability to provide PRFs: As described by UN-OHRLLD, Small Island Developing States23 are a distinct group of developing countries facing specific social, economic and environmental vulnerabilities such as:

• a narrow resource base depriving them of the benefits of economies of scale; • small domestic markets and heavy dependence on a few external and remote markets; • high costs for energy, infrastructure, transportation, communication and servicing; • long distances from export markets and import resources; • low and irregular international traffic volumes; • little resilience to natural disasters; • growing populations; • high volatility of economic growth; • limited opportunities for the private sector and a proportionately large reliance of their

economies on their public sector; and • fragile natural environments.

The finding of this report supports that much of the WCR is challenged with the unique vulnerabilities faced by SIDS, as the Region holds 23 of the world’s 52 SIDS, 16 of which were the subject of this study. Specific to the circumstance impacting the ability of WCR SIDS to provide adequate, each of the SIDS assessed in this report were found to several aspects of the following three categories of challenges that are addressed in detail in the country-specific Annex A-P: Administrative and Legal Matters

• MARPOL not ratified • MARPOL not implemented in national law • National Legislation or National Guidelines on the reception, transport and disposal of SGW

are not yet in place • Stakeholder cooperation among public and private agencies is not in place for the

management of SGW • Policy barriers prohibits provisioning of adequate PRFS for all MARPOL Annexes • Port Waste Management Plans have not been developed • SGW not been integrated into the plans and policies for land-generated wastes


40

Enforcement, Control and Monitoring Systems • Safety requirements have not been developed or implemented for PRFs • Concerns that enforcement mechanisms may be inadequate • No licensing or permit system, and no fee systems in place for port service providers / waste

haulers waste haulers; and there is no means to identify and track all waste haulers or collect data on the amounts and types of material they collect and dispose.

• Cost recovery mechanism does not employ the “Polluter Pays Principal” • No means in place to: quantify or classify what types of SGW received, if PRFs are adequate

or verify if SGW is being properly disposed of;

Technology, Infrastructure and Alternatives for Collecting, Storing, Treating and Disposing of SGW • Technical constraints prohibit provisioning of adequate PRFS for all MARPOL Annexes • PRFs are inadequate to receive all required categories of Annex I wastes • PRFs are inadequate to receive all required categories of Annex V wastes • Health or environment concerns with receiving international wastes • Concerns that the country’s solid waste management capabilities are at capacity or

inadequate for SGW • No mandatory recycling program in place • No market system in place for collection, disposal and recycling of SGW. • Lack of a dedicated incinerator or incinerators for SGW prevent the acceptance of food and

medical wastes • There is inefficient capacity to dispose of any additional waste • Disposal facilities are inadequate

4.2 Regional Roles and Responsibilities The following entities have been identified in this report as primary stakeholders or regional coordinators that should be consulted during the development and implementation of any WCR RRFP and subsequent regional arrangements.

4.2.1 Central Point of Contact – RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe Based on the central role played in building capacity and fostering the issue of MARPOL implementation in the WCR over the last two decades, RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe should be considered as the appropriate central point of contact within any WCR RRFP with the responsibilities of:

• maintaining a current version of the RRFP; • receiving and, where appropriate responding to or redirecting, inquiries about • an RRFP; • facilitating discussions between government, shipping and waste industry stakeholders

regarding an RRFP;


41

• providing consistent information to government, shipping and waste industry stakeholders regarding an RRFP; and

• instigating periodic reviews of an RRFP.

4.2.2 Identified Stakeholders In general, the following entities, listed fully in Appendix 3 and described in Annexes A-P respectively for each State, fall into the following categories:

• Maritime Authorities and Port Authorities – role may be to ensure: adequate port facilities are followed, proper notifications are made by ships intending requesting PRF services, proper MARPOL guidelines are in place and followed for port and maritime operators, and Port Waste Management Plans are developed and implemented.

• National Waste Management Authorities – role may be to undertake review and update of national waste management plans, consult the proper port and maritime authorities to integrate the issue of s SGW into the national plans, implement reuse and recycling programs for SGW, and implement the necessary licensing, monitoring and enforcement measure for waste haulers/service providers.

• Customs and National Health Authorities - roles may be to provide primary on-site inspection of SGW that ships request reception for to ensure proper fees are paid, the waste declared is the actual waste to be delivered, and proper safety procedures are followed.

• National Environmental Ministries – roles may be to align national environmental laws, facilitate the implementation of MARPOL legislation, and work closely with other stakeholders to develop and implement guidelines and enforcement provision to prevent improper dumping of wastes.

• Shipping Agents – role should be to work in a collaborative effort with other stakeholders to develop and implement guidelines for the reception and disposal of SGW in a manner that makes good business sense and facilitates maritime operations.

• Port Service Providers/Waste Haulers – work collaboratively with other stakeholders to develop guidelines that helps facilitate market mechanisms and spurs entrepreneurships for reusing, recycling and properly disposing of SGW in any regional plan.

4.3 Types of Ships Operating Table 1721 shows the numbers of ship calls per ship type for each of the SIDS countries considered in this study. A more detailed overview of the ship calls and further distribution over ship sizes and destination ports in each country is given in each of the separate country reports, as well as a comparison with the 2007/2008 data and the 2015 data from the country questionnaire.

Trinidad & Tobago is the country with the highest number of port calls, receiving over 10,000 ships in 2016. For the Dominican Republic and the Bahamas 5000 to 5500 port calls were reported over in 2016. The lowest numbers of port calls are associated with Grenada (591 calls), Dominica (637 calls), St. Vincent & The Grenadines (767 calls) and Belize (797 calls).

For each country the ship type with the highest number of port calls is underlined. For 8 of the countries the most type is cruise ships. This applies to most of the Lesser Antilles (with the exception


42

of St. Vincent & The Grenadines), Belize and the Bahamas. For the other states the most common types are related to dry cargo, being container ships, general cargo ships or vehicle carriers. For Trinidad & Tobago the most common ship types are the type other, which mainly includes tugs and offshore support vessels, and other passenger ships, which includes a high frequent ferry service.


43

Table 17 Ship calls per ship type for all countries Ship type group Ship type Ant. &

Barb. Bahamas Barbados Belize Cuba Dominica Dom. Rep. Grenada Guyana Haiti Jamaica St. Kitts & Nevis St. Lucia St. Vinc.

& Gren. Suriname Trin. & Tob.

Tankers Oil product 32 406 101 12 153 46 315 - 211 149 348 51 199 14 146 1,148 Crude oil - 239 5 - 17 - 16 - 1 - 26 - 40 - - 102 Combination - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chemical 10 21 11 16 32 6 52 2 21 32 37 39 29 12 14 285 Gas 14 17 49 - 74 19 310 - 40 76 123 40 15 13 31 569 Other 2 3 - - - - 24 - 2 6 4 - - - 1 14 Unknown - - - - - 8 - 1 8 4 - 1 10 - 11

Dry cargo General cargo 93 373 236 76 305 36 521 129 413 819 578 96 129 33 177 700 Container ships 93 942 336 161 328 114 1,921 132 336 521 1,482 69 200 38 409 938 Bulk carriers 28 97 17 2 217 17 318 5 54 277 300 - 4 - 33 318 Vehicle carriers 214 439 107 2 8 115 332 65 25 66 230 215 29 176 26 140

Passenger Cruise ships 298 1,321 412 277 69 164 91 178 2 30 446 394 311 45 1 270 Other 136 461 10 - 1 18 34 22 - - - 107 189 127 1 2,764

Fishing Fishing vessels 2 2 - 1 3 2 3 - 1 - 1 2 6 - 5 14 Recreational Recr. craft 11 424 16 2 18 46 13 52 - 7 72 7 40 - 9 Other Livestock - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other 42 283 12 7 43 46 1,503 5 119 35 156 215 71 12 60 3,130

Total 975 5,028 1,312 797 1,268 637 5,453 591 1,233 2,011 3,742 1,680 1,230 767 1,549 10,412


44

4.4 Voyage Patterns and Routes

The objectives of the voyage pattern analysis, as stipulated by MEPC.221(63), was twofold:

1. To identify aspects of routing and voyage planning that might affect the amount of ship generated wastes and cargo residues on board ships arriving in a particular region or port, and/or the need to clear ship generated wastes and cargo residues storage spaces prior to the onward journey;

2. To understand the overall voyage pattern of ports in the region in order to identify a successful regional approach, by taking into account the routes and ports of call, including origin and destination outside the region.

MEPC guidelines specify the following examples of factors that might affect the amount of ship generated wastes and cargo residues, resulting from the inbound voyage, and/or need to clear ship generated wastes and cargo residues storage spaces prior to the outbound voyage: • Voyage through a Special Area where certain ship generated wastes and cargo residues may not

be allowed to be discharged into the sea; • Voyage through a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) where associated protective measures

include additional discharge restrictions; • Period of anchorage prior to entering a port, during which ship generated wastes and cargo

residues may accumulate on board; • Average times spent in port, which may provide greater or lesser opportunities to discharge ship

generated wastes and cargo residues.

As the WCR is a Special Area under MARPOL Annex V, the discharge of Annex V wastes and cargo residues is more restricted than in other sea areas. As such, the restrictions in the WCR apply to all ships attending ports in the WCR, both for their inbound and outbound voyage.

The only PSSA in the WCR and its surroundings where associated protective measures include additional discharge restrictions is the Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago in Cuba. As, as part of the PSSA measures, the ship traffic is routed through a traffic separation scheme north of the PSSA, the effect of this PSSA on the amount of ship generated wastes retained on board is considered to be minimal.

Factors such as anchoring before port visits, average times in port and other factors that have a significant effect on the amount of wastes and cargo residues retained on board and/or the need to discharge these at specific ports were identified on a case by case basis during the port visits and are therefore not further considered mutually in this chapter.

The second objective is aimed as describing the overall voyage patterns in a region. The main incentive of doing so is that ships should not deviate from its route for the sole purpose of accessing port reception facilities. In order to establish a successful regional approach and the identification of potential RSWSC it is thus necessary to understand the main voyage patterns associated with ship traffic attending ports of WCR SIDS states. The analysis was divided into three steps:


45

4. First, the main ship traffic types attending SIDS WCR ports are identified based on the analysis of the LLI data over 2016 per country, as described in the preceding paragraph;

5. Then, for each of the identified ship traffic types, an analysis is done of the main principles driving the route patterns in the WCR in general, based on a variety of references and data;

6. In the final step, it is evaluated per SIDS what are the main connected countries in terms of shipping routes based on the previous and consequent ports of call, as included in the 2016 LLI data.

In the second step literature references regarding different types of shipping and trade in the WCR as well as data on ship liner routes are used in order to identify the main drivers of shipping routes in the WCR, in order to provide a means of interpretation for the data analysis as conducted in the final step.

The data analysis for all ship traffic types is conducted a similar manner and assessed the ports of call of ships in the period of two weeks before and after calling at a specific country. By assessing a larger period, rather than only the latest origin and first destination, it is possible to identify sequences of port calls in different countries. This is particularly relevant for the WCR as it contains several groups of islands that are typically attended by the same vessels. The period of two weeks is a somewhat arbitrary value, but was chosen based on the consideration that most voyage loops within the WCR take less than two weeks, but that a limited amount of voyage loops is much shorter. Also ships should be able to discharge their wastes and cargo residues in a period of less than two weeks. As such, the analysis is regarded as sufficiently covering the overall route patterns for the purpose of the study.

4.4.1 Identification of main ship traffic types The ship traffic types considered in the analysis are dry cargo transport, tankers and cruise ships, as these constitute the majority of the international port calls in the considered countries. Some considerations regarding this division are further explained below.

4.4.1.1 Dry cargo The dry cargo traffic has not been further subdivided as the typical cargoes associated to the different ship types (containers, general cargo and dry bulk) are in the WCR typically handled by the same ships and ports. Traditionally, Caribbean ports were designed for the import of basic goods and export of bananas and sugar and are now in the process in adapting to containerization of cargo12. Some countries now have ports dedicated for container operations, but in many countries both containers and break-bulk import cargo are being handled. Also, as the typical Caribbean bulk cargoes, which include agribulks, sugar, bauxite and cement, fall into the category of minor bulks, these cargoes are being transported by bulk carriers but also in containers, shipped by container or Ro-Ro ships, or general cargo ships13.

12 CIGI 13 Martin Stopford, Maritime Economics, 2006


46

Since the different types of dry cargo trade are overlapping and because of the dominance of container ships and general cargo ships (see Table 17), it was chosen to treat this group as a whole for the analysis of voyage patterns with a focus on container and break-bulk cargo.

4.4.1.2 Tankers In the analysis the tankers are treated as one group with a focus on oil product and gas tanker traffic, where the trades related to the different types of tankers are described qualitatively.

4.4.1.3 Ferries Since the ferry voyage patterns are very straightforward, these were covered by the analysis per country and therefore not further considered in this analysis. As such, only the cruise vessels are accounted for in the analysis of passenger ship traffic.

4.4.1.4 Other ships Also ships of the type “other” have been disregarded in this analysis as the contribution of this ship type in most countries is very low (see Table 17) and as for the countries with higher numbers of associated port calls, these calls could be attributed to ships that are highly involved in local activities such as tugs and offshore support vessels. As a result, an analysis of the associated voyage patterns will not contribute in establishing the main voyage patterns on the regional level.

Since the information available on fishing vessels and recreational craft is limited and the impact of these boats on the total amount of waste generated in sea ports is limited, these are not further considered as part of the voyage pattern analysis.

4.4.2 Dry cargo routes Because of its location, the WCR hosts a high number of ship movements related to global container transport as well as small scale transportation related to the supply of remote island states. Generally, three types of trade can be distinguished14:

1. Passing through trades. These are the main container trade routes passing through the Panama Canal, including trade routes between the Far East and the US East and Gulf coast and between the West coast of South America and Europe and the US East and Gulf coast.

2. Touching trades. These trades touch the Caribbean basin but do not penetrate into the Caribbean, such as the trade between the Far East and the West coast of the Americas and between the East coast of South America and Europe and the US East and Gulf coast.

3. Regional trades within the Caribbean basin.

Because of this strategic location with regards to the shipping routes of the main container lines as well as the variety of trade, a number of transshipment ports have developed. The main transshipment ports are indicated in the figure below15. It shows that the main transshipment ports in the Caribbean over 2013 were Colón (Panama), Freeport (Bahamas), Kingston (Jamaica) and San Juan (Puerto Rico). Smaller hub ports are located in Port of Spain (Trinidad and Tobago) and Caucedo (Dominican Republic). Fast growing ports are Cartagena (Colombia) and Mariel (Cuba).

14 Caribbean Development Bank 15 Caribbean Development Bank


47

Container and break-bulk transport in general, and also in the WCR, is characterized by liner trade. Liner services operate a fixed number of ships that follow a regular schedule. This applies to intercontinental container transportation but also to the services that supply the islands in the WCR. A good overview of the typical voyage patterns associated to dry cargo transport can therefore be derived by analyzing the fixed routes followed by shipping companies. COCATRAM have analyzed information of the liner services active in the WCR from BlueWater Reporting and made these available through their website16. Based on the available data, the ports of rotation as well as the other ports visited on routes to each individual SIDS were analyzed. The port of rotation is the port where vessels start and end their loop. Rotation ports are often conveniently situated ports that are directly serviced by the global maritime trade routes17. Table 18 shows the ports of rotation for liner services to each of the 16 SIDS. The numbers in the table represent the number of rotations on annual basis. The cells marked yellow represent the cases where the SIDS acts as a port of rotation itself. The following main conclusions can be drawn based on the table:

• All of the SIDS, with the exception of Cuba, are visited as part of loops starting in North America; • SIDS’s Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Trinidad & Tobago and Guyana act as hubs for regional

transport other SIDS.

The hub function of Trinidad and Tobago is considerably less than that of the above countries, with only 52 departures of fixed liner routes per year with port of rotation in Trinidad & Tobago. The country is typically part of the routes also attending Suriname and Guyana, of which the dry cargo routes are highly similar, and Barbados. As a result, these are among the countries most visited shortly before and after attending Trinidad & Tobago. The analysis of consequent port calls also shows that a large part of the dry cargo ships attending the Windward Lesser Antilles Barbados, Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincent & The Grenadines also attends Trinidad & Tobago within two weeks before or after. Other WCR countries frequently attended before or after calls in Trinidad & Tobago are Jamaica, Dominican Republic and Colombia.

• Leeward Lesser Antilles St. Kitts & Nevis, Antigua & Barbuda and Dominica have very similar connections being mainly supplied from the USA. The analysis of shipping routes however also shows a correlation with shipping routes to St. Maarten/ St. Martin. Other countries with highly related routes to those of dry cargo ships to Antigua & Barbuda and St. Kitts are the US Virgin Islands and British Virgin Islands. Ports attended in relation to Dominica include St. Lucia, Barbados and Dominican Republic.

• The Windward Lesser Antilles Barbados, Grenada, St. Vincent & The Grenadines and St. Lucia have rotation ports in North America, Jamaica and Europe and have strongly interconnected routes.

• Cuba is the only SIDS not receiving liner services with a port of rotation in North America. The main WCR destinations attended shortly before and after calls in Cuba include Dominican Republic, Mexico, Colombia and Jamaica.

16 http://www.cocatram.org.ni/rutas/ (visited 21 July 2017)

17 Caribbean Development Bank


48

• Haiti receives liner services starting mainly in North America and Jamaica. The main WCR destinations related to Haiti calls are the WCR part of the USA, Jamaica and Dominican Republic.

• For Belize ports of rotation are located in North America, Jamaica and Europe. Voyage routes to Belize are highly related to those to the WCR part of the USA, Honduras and the Cayman Islands.


49

Table 19 Main connections to WCR countries per SIDS for dry cargo trade Country Port calls/ yr Connecting WCR countries % of visits calling at WCR

countries within 2 wks before/after visit

Bahamas 1851

USA – WCR 71% Mexico 13% Dominican Republic 11% Panama 8% Cayman Islands 7%

Trinidad & Tobago 2096

Guyana 33% Barbados USA – WCR

30%

Suriname 28% Jamaica 27% Dominican Republic 20% Colombia 19% St. Lucia 16% Grenada 15% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 14% Venezuela 13%

Dominican Republic 3092

USA – WCR 34% Colombia 30% Jamaica 27% Panama 23% Puerto Rico 20%

Jamaica 2590 USA – WCR 34% Dominican Republic 29% Colombia 26% Haiti Trinidad & Tobago

20%

Panama 17% Belize 241

USA – WCR 51% Honduras 50% Cayman Islands 40% Mexico 26% Jamaica 25%

Cuba 858 Dominican Republic 17% Mexico 15% Jamaica 13% Colombia 12% Panama 11%

Haiti 1683

USA – WCR 48% Jamaica Dominican Republic

46%

Colombia 18% Antigua & Barbuda 428

St. Maarten/ St. Martin 63% St. Kitts & Nevis 57% US Virgin Islands 48% Dominica 44% British Virgin Islands 42% USA – WCR 36%

St. Kitts & Nevis 380

Antigua & Barbuda 74% Dominica St. Maarten/ St. Martin

67%

British Virgin Islands 48% US Virgin Islands 42% USA – WCR

39%


50

Country Port calls/ yr Connecting WCR countries % of visits calling at WCR countries within 2 wks before/after visit

Barbados 696

Trinidad & Tobago 70% Grenada 44% St. Lucia 42% Guyana 39% USA - WCR 32% Dominican Republic 32% Jamaica 28% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 27% Suriname 25%

Dominica 282

St. Maarten/ St. Martin 66% St. Kitts-Nevis 63% Antigua & Barbuda 55% St. Lucia 51% Barbados 46% Dominican Republic 44% USA – WCR 40% Trinidad & Tobago 38%

Grenada 331

Barbados 82% St. Lucia 72% Trinidad & Tobago 69% USA – WCR 47% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 32% Dominican Republic Guyana

30%

St. Lucia 362

Barbados Trinidad & Tobago

75%

Grenada 64% USA – WCR 51% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 46% Dominican Republic 43% Dominica 40%

St. Vincent & The Grenadines

247

Barbados 63% Trinidad & Tobago 58% Grenada 50% St. Lucia 36%

Guyana 828

Trinidad & Tobago 64% Suriname 56% Barbados 36% Jamaica 22%

Suriname 645

Guyana 78% Trinidad & Tobago 68% Barbados 29% Jamaica 26% French Guiana Guadeloupe

20%

USA – WCR 19% Colombia 17% Martinique 16%


51

22 shows per SIDS the countries which were attended most frequently in a period of two weeks before and after calling at a specific country. Based on Error! Reference source not found.22 and 23 the following main conclusions are drawn:

• The Bahamas, as a global hub for container transshipment, has limited involvement in regional trade. The country is attended by services with ports of rotation outside the WCR and there are no reported fixed shipping routes with port of rotation in the Bahamas that attend WCR SIDS countries.

• Jamaica acts as a regional hub with ports of rotation mostly outside the WCR. Annually, 659 vessels start a rotation from a Jamaican port, servicing almost all considered SIDS, excluding the Bahamas and Cuba, and particularly Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The WCR countries most visited shortly before or after calls to Jamaica include the WCR part of the USA, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Haiti, Trinidad & Tobago and Panama.

• The Dominican Republic, also being a regional dry cargo hub, receives liner services with ports of rotation in Europe, North America, Jamaica and a variety of ports around the world. From the Dominican Republic liner services are operated to Cuba as well as to Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana, Suriname and Barbados. The WCR countries most visited shortly before or after calls to the Dominican Republic are mainly non-SIDS WCR countries and include the WCR part of the USA, Colombia, Jamaica, Panama and Puerto Rico.


52

Table 18 Port calls at ports of rotation for each SIDS destination (per year) SIDS North

America Jamaica Europe Panama Far East Dominican

Republic Guadeloupe Trinidad &

Tobago Guyana Other

Bahamas 502 0 104 52 261 0 0 0 0 52 Trinidad & Tobago 417 64 76 104 0 52 52 52 52 0 Dominican Republic 165 156 261 52 52 89 0 0 0 261 Jamaica 466 659 209 52 52 0 0 0 52 104 Belize 52 52 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cuba 0 0 117 104 0 37 0 0 0 104 Haiti 233 209 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 Antigua & Barbuda 104 12 12 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 St Kitts & Nevis 209 12 12 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 Barbados 156 64 50 0 0 52 0 52 0 0 Dominica 104 52 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grenada 209 64 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Lucia 209 64 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 156 52 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Guyana 104 12 37 52 0 52 52 52 52 0 Suriname 52 12 64 52 0 52 52 52 52 0


53

• The hub function of Trinidad and Tobago is considerably less than that of the above countries, with only 52 departures of fixed liner routes per year with port of rotation in Trinidad & Tobago. The country is typically part of the routes also attending Suriname and Guyana, of which the dry cargo routes are highly similar, and Barbados. As a result, these are among the countries most visited shortly before and after attending Trinidad & Tobago. The analysis of consequent port calls also shows that a large part of the dry cargo ships attending the Windward Lesser Antilles Barbados, Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincent & The Grenadines also attends Trinidad & Tobago within two weeks before or after. Other WCR countries frequently attended before or after calls in Trinidad & Tobago are Jamaica, Dominican Republic and Colombia.

• Leeward Lesser Antilles St. Kitts & Nevis, Antigua & Barbuda and Dominica have very similar connections being mainly supplied from the USA. The analysis of shipping routes however also shows a correlation with shipping routes to St. Maarten/ St. Martin. Other countries with highly related routes to those of dry cargo ships to Antigua & Barbuda and St. Kitts are the US Virgin Islands and British Virgin Islands. Ports attended in relation to Dominica include St. Lucia, Barbados and Dominican Republic.

• The Windward Lesser Antilles Barbados, Grenada, St. Vincent & The Grenadines and St. Lucia have rotation ports in North America, Jamaica and Europe and have strongly interconnected routes.

• Cuba is the only SIDS not receiving liner services with a port of rotation in North America. The main WCR destinations attended shortly before and after calls in Cuba include Dominican Republic, Mexico, Colombia and Jamaica.

• Haiti receives liner services starting mainly in North America and Jamaica. The main WCR destinations related to Haiti calls are the WCR part of the USA, Jamaica and Dominican Republic.

• For Belize ports of rotation are located in North America, Jamaica and Europe. Voyage routes to Belize are highly related to those to the WCR part of the USA, Honduras and the Cayman Islands.


54

Table 19 Main connections to WCR countries per SIDS for dry cargo trade Country Port calls/ yr Connecting WCR countries % of visits calling at WCR


Bahamas 1851

USA – WCR 71% Mexico 13% Dominican Republic 11% Panama 8% Cayman Islands 7%


Guyana 33% Barbados USA – WCR

30%

Suriname 28% Jamaica 27% Dominican Republic 20% Colombia 19% St. Lucia 16% Grenada 15% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 14% Venezuela 13%


USA – WCR 34% Colombia 30% Jamaica 27% Panama 23% Puerto Rico 20%

Jamaica 2590 USA – WCR 34% Dominican Republic 29% Colombia 26% Haiti Trinidad & Tobago

20%

Panama 17% Belize 241

USA – WCR 51% Honduras 50% Cayman Islands 40% Mexico 26% Jamaica 25%

Cuba 858 Dominican Republic 17% Mexico 15% Jamaica 13% Colombia 12% Panama 11%

Haiti 1683

USA – WCR 48% Jamaica Dominican Republic

46%

Colombia 18% Antigua & Barbuda 428

St. Maarten/ St. Martin 63% St. Kitts & Nevis 57% US Virgin Islands 48% Dominica 44% British Virgin Islands 42% USA – WCR 36%

St. Kitts & Nevis 380

Antigua & Barbuda 74% Dominica St. Maarten/ St. Martin

67%

British Virgin Islands 48% US Virgin Islands 42% USA – WCR

39%


55

Country Port calls/ yr Connecting WCR countries % of visits calling at WCR countries within 2 wks before/after visit

Barbados 696

Trinidad & Tobago 70% Grenada 44% St. Lucia 42% Guyana 39% USA - WCR 32% Dominican Republic 32% Jamaica 28% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 27% Suriname 25%

Dominica 282

St. Maarten/ St. Martin 66% St. Kitts-Nevis 63% Antigua & Barbuda 55% St. Lucia 51% Barbados 46% Dominican Republic 44% USA – WCR 40% Trinidad & Tobago 38%

Grenada 331

Barbados 82% St. Lucia 72% Trinidad & Tobago 69% USA – WCR 47% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 32% Dominican Republic Guyana

30%

St. Lucia 362

Barbados Trinidad & Tobago

75%

Grenada 64% USA – WCR 51% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 46% Dominican Republic 43% Dominica 40%


247

Barbados 63% Trinidad & Tobago 58% Grenada 50% St. Lucia 36%

Guyana 828

Trinidad & Tobago 64% Suriname 56% Barbados 36% Jamaica 22%

Suriname 645

Guyana 78% Trinidad & Tobago 68% Barbados 29% Jamaica 26% French Guiana Guadeloupe

20%

USA – WCR 19% Colombia 17% Martinique 16%


56

4.4.3 Tanker Routes The main cargo types shipped in tankers in the WCR are crude oil, oil products and gas associated with the oil production in the region and for regional supply of the island states. Some countries, such as the Dominican Republic and Cuba, export molasses. The table below shows the number of ship movements with a destination port in the one of the considered SIDS countries for 2016, as per LLI:

Table 20 Port calls to WCR SIDS country per tanker type Tanker type Number of movements in

2016 Oil product tankers 3,331 Crude oil tankers 446 Combination carriers 0 Chemical tankers 619 Gas tankers 1,390 Other tankers 56 Tankers - unknown 43

From Table 24 it is concluded that the highest numbers of ship voyages are associated with oil product tankers and gas tankers. The contribution of tankers transporting non-hazardous substances (“other tankers”), is very limited: only 56 calls in 2016. Therefore, it is concluded that the voyage patterns are driven by the trade in oil products, gas, chemicals and crude oil. In order to evaluate the main routes associated with these substances, the main related infrastructure in the WCR is evaluated.

Oil and gas producing countries Oil and gas producing countries in the WCR are USA, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Trinidad & Tobago, Cuba, Guatemala, Suriname, Belize and Barbados18. The main oil producing countries are the USA, Mexico and Venezuela19. The main gas producing countries are the USA, Mexico and Trinidad & Tobago20.

Refineries and terminals The main refineries and oil tank terminals for transshipment outside the oil producing countries are located in Aruba, Curacao, St. Eustatius, Bonaire, Bahamas, Dominican Republic (Rio Haina, San Pedro de Macoris), Jamaica, Puerto Rico, St. Lucia and US Virgin Islands. Many of these terminals are used to blend heavy South American crude oil from Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil with lighter crude oil from the USA and other parts of the world. The use of the terminals in Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, St. Eustatius, and St. Lucia is dominated by PDVSA crude trans-shipment, blending and storage operations21. The figure below shows the location of the oil storage facilities in the WCR.

18https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?pa=00000000000000000000000000000000002&c=ruvvvvvfvtvnvv1vrvvvvfvvvvvvfvvvou20evvvvvvvvvvvvuvo&ct=0&tl_id=5-A&vs=INTL.57-1-AFG-TBPD.A&vo=0&v=B&start=2014&end=2016 (retrieved 12 October 2017) 19 https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/rankings/#?prodact=53-1&cy=2017 (visited 7/9/2017) 20 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2249rank.html (visited 7/9/2017) 21 http://www.morningstarcommodity.com/Research/Caribbean%20Storage%20Note%20SAMPLE.pdf


57

Figure 10: Locations of tanker terminals and oil refineries in the WCR

Other oil and gas infrastructure Apart from oil production, refining and transshipment facilities, tankers also attend ports with (petro) chemical industry or gas facilities. For the SIDS considered in this study the following ports are identified as relevant for the voyage pattern of tankers:

1. The petrochemical industry in the port of Point Lisas, in Trinidad & Tobago; 2. LNG liquefaction plant for the export of natural gas in Point Fortin, Trinidad & Tobago; 3. LPG terminal in Ocoa Bay, Dominican Republic; 4. LNG terminal in Andres, Dominican Republic; 5. Import of LPG to bauxite facilities in Jamaica.

Main tanker ports in WCR SIDS Based on the analysis of tanker visits to the SIDS countries, the ports in Table 21 can be identified as the ten ports receiving the largest numbers of tankers. The rightmost column indicates the type of facility present at the port of consideration

Table 21 WCR SIDS main tanker ports in terms of ship calls

Country Port Chemical tankers

Crude oil tankers Gas tankers Oil product

tankers Total Type of facility

Trinidad & Tobago Pointe a Pierre 78 67 7 712 864 Refinery Point Lisas 179 3 349 186 717 Chemical port

Bahamas Freeport 20 201 11 286 518 Terminal Jamaica Kingston 33 23 59 227 342 Refinery St. Lucia Cul de Sac 29 40 15 195 279 Terminal Dominican Republic Rio Haina 41 - 51 183 275 Refinery

Trinidad & Tobago Port of Spain 13 7 17 185 222 Terminal Guyana Georgetown 13 - 40 168 221 Import Dominican Republic Ocoa Bay - - 187 23 210 LPG import


58

The ports with the largest number of tanker calls are Pointe a Pierre and Point Lisas in Trinidad & Tobago (864 and 717 calls in 2016), Freeport in the Bahamas (518 calls) and Kingston in Jamaica (342 calls). In most of the listed ports the tanker traffic mainly consists of product tankers. Unlike dry cargo, the transport of liquid bulk cargo is typically done by tramp services without fixed routes. Therefore, the ports of rotation could not be analyzed. Table 22 shows per SIDS the countries which were attended most frequently in a period of two weeks before and after calling at a specific country. Countries that produce oil or have oil storage terminals or refineries are marked with an asterisk. Based on the table and the qualitative analysis of oil and gas infrastructure, the following conclusions are drawn: • The USA WCR ports are a main WCR destination for tankers shortly before or after attending the

larger SIDS countries Bahamas, Trinidad & Tobago, Dominican Republic and Jamaica. • The Bahamas is an international transshipment hub for liquid bulk. The main connected WCR

destination are in the USA WCR area (36%). The tanker routes to the Bahamas also attend WCR SIDS, but the contribution of these routes is very low.

• Trinidad is an export country for oil and gas and hosts a major chemical port. Trinidad & Tobago is the main connected country for Guyana, Suriname and most of the Lesser Antilles. Of the ships visiting Trinidad & Tobago ports, the main connected WCR destinations include St. Lucia, USA WCR ports, Guyana, Suriname and Barbados.

• For Jamaica as an importing and refining country, the main connected WCR country is the USA (WCR region) as well as the WCR countries of Dominican Republic and Trinidad & Tobago.

• The Dominican Republic is an importing and refining country, which is mostly involved in regional WCR trade. The main connected WCR countries are USA (WCR region), Jamaica and Puerto Rico (all having oil production or transshipment facilities) and Haiti.

• Tankers visiting the Lesser Antilles typically attend several adjacent islands after each other and have local concentration on St. Maarten/ St. Martin (for the more northern islands) and St. Lucia (for the more southern islands). Trinidad & Tobago is the main connected country for all of these countries, with the exception of Antigua & Barbuda.

• Like for dry cargo transport, the tanker routes to Guyana and Suriname are highly related and even more related to port calls to Trinidad & Tobago.

• Haiti also is an oil-importing country. Connected WCR countries with oil production and transshipment facilities include Dominican Republic, Jamaica and USA (WCR region).

• The main WCR tanker connections for Cuba relate to oil producing countries Venezuela, Trinidad & Tobago and transshipment country Curacao.

• For Belize a very limited number of tanker calls was reported in 2016. Connected WCR tanker destinations include Curacao and WCR ports in the USA.

• Grenada rarely receives tankers and therefore the tanker routes for Grenada could not be evaluated.


59

Table 22 Main connections to WCR countries per SIDS for tanker trade Country

Port visits/ yr Connecting WCR countries % of visits calling at WCR


Bahamas 686 USA – WCR 36% Colombia 10% Mexico 8%

Trinidad & Tobago 2129 St. Lucia 13% USA - WCR Guyana

12%

Suriname Barbados

10%

St. Maarten/ St. Martin 8% Jamaica 542 USA - WCR 38%

Dominican Republic 15% Trinidad & Tobago 13% Mexico Haiti

8%

Dominican Republic 717 USA - WCR 32% Jamaica 19% Puerto Rico 18% Haiti 16% St. Eustatius Trinidad & Tobago

12%

Haiti 263 Dominican Republic 51% Jamaica 35% USA - WCR 30% Curacao Panama

16%

Cuba 276 Venezuela 24% Trinidad & Tobago 13% Curacao 12% Colombia 4%

Belize 28 Curacao 43% USA - WCR 32% Bahamas 18% Guatemala 14% Colombia Martinique St. Eustatius

11%

Antigua & Barbuda 58 St. Maarten/ St. Martin 47% St. Kitts & Nevis 43% Dominica Trinidad & Tobago

41%

Barbados 33% British Virgin Islands 31% St. Lucia 29%

St. Kitts & Nevis 130 Trinidad & Tobago 58% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 55% Anguilla 50% British Virgin Islands 48% Dominica 39%

Barbados 166 Trinidad & Tobago 71% St. Lucia 44% Suriname Guyana

27%

Dominica 79 Trinidad & Tobago 78% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 71%


60

Country Port visits/ yr Connecting WCR countries

% of visits calling at WCR countries within 2 wks

before/after visit St. Lucia 51% St. Kitts & Nevis 47% Barbados 44% Guyana 43%

Grenada 3 NA NA St. Lucia 284 Trinidad & Tobago 59%

St. Maarten/ St. Martin 33% Barbados 29% Suriname 22% Martinique 20% Guadeloupe Dominica

19%


49 Trinidad & Tobago 88% St. Lucia 63% Barbados 47% Guyana 43% St. Maarten/ St. Martin Dominica

39%

Guyana 283 Trinidad & Tobago 81% Suriname 46% Barbados 18% St. Lucia 17% St. Maarten/ St. Martin Dominica

12%

Suriname 192 Trinidad & Tobago 78% Guyana 66% St. Lucia 32% Barbados 24%


61

4.4.4 Cruise Ship Routes The below tables show the number of cruise ship calls at WCR ports for the ten countries with the highest numbers of cruise calls in 2016 and the cruise calls for all SIDS countries. The highest numbers of calls are associated with WCR ports of the U.S.A, the Bahamas and Mexico. The Bahamas are thus by far the main cruise destination of the SIDS countries with 1321 calls in 2016. The country receiving the second highest number of cruise ships is Jamaica with 446 calls in 2017, followed by various Lesser Antilles and Belize, of which the highest numbers of calls are reported for Barbados and St. Kitts & Nevis. Guyana and Suriname barely receive any cruise ships.

Table 23 Number of cruise calls in the main WCR cruise countries (left) and for all SIDS countries (right) Country Number of cruise calls22 SIDS country Number of cruise calls23 U.S.A. 2558 Bahamas 1321 Bahamas 1321 Jamaica 446 Mexico 1286 Barbados 412 Cayman Islands 568 St. Kitts-Nevis 394 US Virgin Islands 564 St. Lucia 311 St. Maarten/ St. Martin

517 Antigua & Barbuda 298

Puerto Rico 499 Belize 277 Jamaica 446 Grenada 200 Barbados 412 Dominica 164 St. Kitts & Nevis 394 Dominican Republic 91

Cuba 69 Trinidad & Tobago 57 St. Vincent & Grenadines 57 Haiti 30 Guyana 2 Suriname 1

COCATRAM has collected information on the cruise routes of the main cruise lines in the Caribbean, from the websites of these companies24. Based on this information 138 different cruise routes are identified, operated by 13 companies. Since cruise routes are typically loops it is possible to analyze the ports of rotation, similar to dry cargo liner shipping, as well as the typical combinations of destinations. The ports of rotation are summarized in the table below.

22 Numbers based on LLI ship type “passenger (cruise)”. 23 Numbers based on numbers of cruise calls as derived in this study per country 24 Data collected in December 2016 and listed on: http://cruceros.guegue.info/cruceros/servicios/royal-caribbean-cruise-usamexicohondurasbelice/


62

Table 24 Port calls at ports of rotation for each SIDS destination per route SIDS USA Europe Barbados Puerto Rico Guadeloupe Martinique Cuba Curacao Colombia Dominican

Republic Bahamas 44 - - - - - - - - - Trinidad & Tobago - - - - 2 1 - - - - Dominican Republic 11 3 1 - 2 - - - - 1 Jamaica 21 - 1 - - - 1 - 1 - Belize 10 1 - - - - 2 - - - Cuba - - - - - - 3 - - - Haiti 6 - - - - - - - - - Antigua & Barbuda 6 3 2 3 2 - - 1 - 1 St Kitts & Nevis 8 - 2 5 1 - - - - - Barbados 6 4 4 5 2 1 - 1 - 1 Dominica 2 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 - - Grenada - 1 1 - 2 1 - 1 - - St. Lucia 5 2 3 4 2 1 - 1 - 1 St. Vincent & Grenadines

2 - - - - - - 1 - -

Guyana - - - - - - - - - - Suriname - - - - - - - - - -


63

Since the data does not provide any information on the frequency with which each route is operated, the number of related port calls per year cannot be determined. The numbers in the table are based on the destinations per route and therefore much lower than the number of calls per year. From the table it becomes however clear that by far most cruise routes to SIDS start their itinerary in the USA. This applies particularly to cruises to the Bahamas, which all start their loop in the USA.

The route patterns of cruise ships were further studied by grouping the voyages into categories according to the destinations listed in the itineraries:

Table 25 Categorization of cruise loops Category # routes Description Main ports of call USA - Bahamas 13 - Nassau USA - Mexico 10 - Cozumel Northern Caribbean 20 Bahamas and/or Turk and Caicos Islands, partly in

combination with St. Maarten/ St. Martin, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands and/or others

Grand Turk, Philipsburg, San Juan, Nassau, Half Moon Cay

Northeastern Caribbean

4 Puerto Rico and St. Maarten/ St. Martin in combination with St. Kitts, US Virgin Islands and/or British Virgin Islands

Philipsburg, San Juan

Central Caribbean 12 Attending Mexico and/or Jamaica in combination with one or more Greater Antilles

Cozumel, George Town, Falmouth

Eastern Caribbean 12 Attending several of the Lesser Antilles, usually including Barbados and St. Lucia

Bridgetown, Castries

Western Caribbean 11 Mexico in combination with Honduras, Belize and/or Guatemala

Cozumel, Puerto Costa Maya, Belize City

Southern Caribbean 2 Destinations in Colombia, Venezuela, Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire

Panama Canal 2 Bound to or coming from the Panama Canal Combinations 51 Total 138 Based on Table 2328 and Table 2429 the following overall conclusions are drawn: • There is a concentration of cruise routes in the northern section of the Caribbean, which is

presumably due to the vicinity to the USA, resulting in a very high number of calls in the Bahamas. The Bahamas are attended as a single country or in combination with Turk and Caicos Islands, St. Maarten/ St. Martin, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands and/or others. This explains the high numbers of cruise calls in 2016 found for the US Virgin Islands, St. Maarten/ St. Martin and Puerto Rico.

• There is a concentration of cruises to Mexico, partly in combination with neighboring countries in Central America, including destinations in Belize, Guatemala and Honduras, and the Central Caribbean, including destinations in Cuba, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. This explains the high numbers of cruise calls in 2016 found for the US Virgin Islands, St. Maarten/ St. Martin, Puerto Rico, St. Kitts & Nevis and Belize. This explains the high numbers of cruise calls in 2016 found for Mexico, Cayman Islands and Jamaica.

• There is a concentration of cruises to the eastern sub-region of the Caribbean, with routes attending several of the Lesser Antilles. These are in several cases combined with destinations in other parts of the WCR. The main ports of call in this region are Barbados, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia and Antigua & Barbuda.


64

In order to evaluate the main connected destinations per country, it is analyzed for each cruise call which other countries were attended within a period of two weeks before and after the port call, based on the LLI data for 2016. This is then summarized per country in the table below. It is highlighted that the results of this analysis might include ports that are not part of the same loop and that as these results are for 2016, the cruise destinations deviate somewhat from those as listed by COCATRAM, which are for 2017.

Based on Table 260 and the preceding analysis of cruise routes the following main conclusions are drawn: • The USA is the main country of rotation for cruises to the Bahamas and as a result, 78% of all

cruise vessels attending the Bahamas, called at an American WCR port within two weeks before or after visiting the Bahamas. Other WCR ports of call are generally located in the central and western section of the Caribbean and include Mexico, Cayman Islands, Jamaica and St. Maarten/ St. Martin.

• Jamaica is the second SIDS country in terms of cruise calls in 2016 and the ships calling typically also attend the other Central Caribbean countries Mexico and Cayman Islands. The majority of cruise ships (67%) attend a WCR port in the USA within a period of two weeks before and after calling at Jamaica.

• Various countries that are part of the Lesser Antilles are major cruise destinations. St. Maarten/ St. Martin is the primary cruise destination in this area, but also Barbados, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia and Antigua & Barbuda receive around 300 cruise ships or more. The main connected cruise destinations for the Lesser Antilles are St. Maarten/ St. Martin (especially of the northern islands) and other main cruise destinations in the area.

• Cruise routes including Belize are highly associated with ports in Mexico (94%) and the WCR part of the USA (82%). Other connected destinations include ports in the western and central WCR, particularly in Honduras, Cayman Islands and Jamaica.

• As the Dominican Republic is typically included as destination in routes to the northern, central and eastern sub-regions of the WCR, the variety in connected destinations is high with relatively low percentages per destination. The main connected WCR destination is the USA (WCR ports), with 44% attending a USA WCR port within two weeks before or after a Dominican Republic port call. Other connected destinations include St. Maarten/ St. Martin, Mexico, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, Martinique and Belize.

• Cuba received a limited number of cruise calls 2016. Of these 69 calls, 16 calls were associated with a single cruise ship that spent a long time in Cuba and did not attend any international ports in the mean time. As such, the percentages associated to international destinations are relatively low and possibly not entirely representative. However, it can be concluded that connected WCR destinations include Central Caribbean destinations Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Belize.

• Also for Trinidad & Tobago the number of cruise calls in Trinidad & Tobago was limited in 2016: 57 cruise ships attended ports in the country. The routes of these cruise ships were mainly connected to port calls in the Lesser Antilles.

• For Haiti only 30 cruise calls were reported for 2016. Haiti is generally connected with destinations in the Central Caribbean. Of all cruise calls, 70% attended a WCR port in the USA within the period of consideration.


65

• Guyana and Suriname rarely receive cruise ships and therefore the routes related for these countries could not be evaluated.

Table 26 Main connections to WCR countries per SIDS for cruise ships Country Port visits/ yr Main connecting WCR countries % of visits calling at WCR


Bahamas 1321

USA - WCR 78% Mexico 28% US Virgin Islands 18% Cayman Islands 17% Puerto Rico 16% Jamaica 14% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 13%


Barbados 88% Grenada 79% St. Lucia 68% Antigua & Barbuda 67% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 56% Dominica 54% St. Kitts & Nevis 53%

Jamaica 446

Cayman Islands Mexico

81%

USA - WCR 67% Bahamas 34% St. Maarten/ St. Martin Belize

30%


USA - WCR 44% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 36% Mexico 35% Jamaica 32% Cayman Islands Martinique Belize

26%

Haiti 30

St. Maarten/ St. Martin 90% Puerto Rico 83% USA - WCR 70% Jamaica 60% US Virgin Islands Mexico

50%

Cuba 69

Dominican Republic 38% Jamaica 36% USA - WCR 33% Belize 12% Cayman Islands Honduras British Virgin Islands

10%

Belize 277

Mexico 94% USA - WCR 82% Honduras 52% Cayman Islands 49% Jamaica 37%

Antigua & Barbuda 298

Barbados 76% St. Kitts & Nevis 73% St. Lucia St. Maarten/ St. Martin 72%

Dominica 51%


66

Country Port visits/ yr Main connecting WCR countries % of visits calling at WCR countries within 2 wks before/after visit

Grenada 49% British Virgin Islands 46%

St. Kitts & Nevis 394 St. Maarten/ St. Martin 79% Barbados 64% St. Lucia 57% Antigua & Barbuda 56% Puerto Rico 55% US Virgin Islands 48%

Barbados 412

St. Lucia 81% St. Kitts & Nevis 67% Antigua & Barbuda 62% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 59% Grenada 50% Dominica 45%

Dominica 164

Barbados 83% Antigua & Barbuda 78% St. Lucia 76% St. Kitts & Nevis 66% Grenada 63% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 59% Martinique 44% British Virgin Islands 43%

Grenada 200

Barbados 77% St. Lucia 74% Antigua & Barbuda 63% Dominica 56% St. Kitts & Nevis 52% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 44% Aruba Martinique

42%

St. Lucia 311

Barbados 90% St. Kitts & Nevis 68% St. Maarten/ St. Martin 66% Antigua & Barbuda 64% Grenada 47% US Virgin Islands Dominica

45%

Puerto Rico 41% St. Vincent & The Grenadines

57

Barbados 84% St. Lucia 82% Grenada 74% Dominica 60% Antigua & Barbuda 49%

Guyana 2 NA NA Suriname 1 NA NA


67

4.4.5 Main Connections Per Country Table 2731 presents the main connected countries for each of the SIDS, by taking into account all dry cargo ships, tankers and cruise ships (column 3 and 4). It also indicates for which other SIDS the considered country is included as a main connection (column 5 and 6). These two aspects together give an indication of the countries that are important to the considered country as well as the other countries to which the considered country is important in terms of voyage patterns.

Based on this information the countries are identified that are the most likely partners for regional waste reception arrangements, based on the analysis of voyage patterns. These countries are displayed in the rightmost column. If some countries have much stronger related route patterns than others, these have been printed in bold.

Finally, the second column describes the most important voyage patterns per country in a qualitative manner.

Figure 11: Main connection ports for vessels arriving to and departing from the 16 WCR SIDS


68

Table 27 Summary of overall voyage patterns (dry cargo, tankers and cruise ships) and main WCR connections per country

Country Qualitative findings per country Main related destinations

% of ships

Country is a main destination to ships

attending:

% of ships

Most likely partners for regional arrangements

based on voyage patterns Antigua & Barbuda

Large number of cruise calls with strong connectivity to other Lesser Antilles. Especially connected to the nearby islands of St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Maarten/ St. Martin and Dominica. Connectivity to larger non-SIDS countries is very limited.

St. Maarten/ St. Martin St. Kitts & Nevis Barbados Dominica British Virgin Islands US Virgin Islands St. Lucia

65% 62% 48% 47% 42% 41% 38%

St. Kitts & Nevis Dominica Barbados

60% 58% 31%

St. Kitts & Nevis St. Maarten/ St. Martin Dominica Barbados British Virgin Islands US Virgin Islands St. Lucia

Bahamas

As a global hub for oil transshipment and dry cargo shipping as well as a major cruise destination due to its vicinity to the USA, The Bahamas has relatively limited connectivity to the other SIDS in the WCR.

USA Mexico

67% 18%

- - USA

Barbados Large number of cruise calls with strong connectivity to other Lesser Antilles as well as a relatively high number of dry cargo ships. The overall main connections identified are those with the nearby islands of St. Lucia, Grenada and St. Vincent & Grenadines as well as with Trinidad & Tobago. Connectivity to larger (non-SIDS) countries is very limited.

St. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Grenada St. Maarten/ St. Martin St. Kitts & Nevis Antigua & Barbuda

55% 53% 40% 37% 31% 31%

Grenada St. Lucia St. Vincent Dominica Antigua & Barbuda St. Kitts & Nevis Guyana Suriname Trinidad & Tobago

79% 66% 64% 57% 48% 43% 31% 28% 21%

St. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Grenada St. Vincent & Grenadines St. Kitts & Nevis Antigua & Barbuda Guyana Suriname Trinidad & Tobago

Belize

The calls in Belize concern mainly dry cargo ships and cruise ships. The main connections for cruise ships are the USA and Mexico. Dry cargo routes are particularly associated with Honduras and the Cayman Islands.

USA Mexico Honduras Cayman Islands Jamaica

66% 59% 49% 43% 30%

-

- USA Mexico Honduras Cayman Islands Jamaica

Cuba

The ship traffic in Cuba consists mainly of dry cargo ships and tankers, of which a considerable part is involved in domestic trade. The main international connections include Dominican Republic, Mexico, Jamaica and Colombia.

Dominican Republic Jamaica Mexico Colombia

15% 12% 11% 10%

-

- Dominican Republic Jamaica Mexico Colombia


69


% of ships


attending:

% of ships


based on voyage patterns Dominica

The calls in Dominica concern mainly dry cargo ships and cruise ships. Especially connected to the nearby islands of St. Maarten/ St. Martin, St. Kitts & Nevis, Antigua & Barbuda, St. Lucia and Barbados. Connectivity to larger (non-SIDS) countries is very limited.

St. Maarten/ St. Martin St. Kitts & Nevis St. Lucia Antigua & Barbuda Barbados

65% 62% 58% 58% 57%

St. Kitts & Nevis Antigua & Barbuda St. Lucia

49% 47% 35%

St. Maarten/ St. Martin St. Kitts & Nevis Antigua & Barbuda St. Lucia Barbados

Dominican Republic

The Dominican Republic, being a regional hub for dry cargo shipping and an oil importing country, mainly has shipping connections with WCR countries. The countries most visited shortly before or after calls to the Dominican Republic are mainly non-SIDS WCR countries and include Colombia, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and the USA. Routes are also related to those to nearby Haiti.

USA Colombia Jamaica Panama Puerto Rico Haiti Trinidad & Tobago Costa Rica

33% 25% 25% 19% 19% 16% 14% 14%

Haiti Jamaica Cuba Trinidad & Tobago

46% 25% 15% 12%

Haiti Jamaica Colombia Trinidad & Tobago USA Panama Puerto Rico Cuba Costa Rica

Grenada

The calls in Grenada concern mainly dry cargo ships and cruise ships. Especially connected to the nearby islands of Barbados, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent & Grenadines as well as Trinidad & Tobago. Connectivity to larger (non-SIDS) countries is very limited.

Barbados St. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago

79% 72% 51%

St. Vincent Barbados St. Lucia

48% 40% 39%

Barbados St. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago St. Vincent

Guyana

Both dry cargo and tanker shipping in Guyana is strongly related to calls in Suriname and Trinidad & Tobago.


68% 54% 31%

Suriname Trinidad & Tobago

75% 22%


Haiti

The connectivity of Haiti in terms of ship voyage patterns is mainly determined by dry cargo shipping and mainly conecenrs connections with Dominican Republic, and Jamaica.

Dominican Republic USA Jamaica

46% 46% 45%

Jamaica Dominican Republic

16% 16%

Dominican Republic Jamaica USA

Jamaica

Jamaica is a regional hub for dry cargo shipping and a significant cruise destination. Connections therefore include SIDS and non-SIDS countries in the WCR. The main SIDS connections include Dominican Republic, Haiti and Trinidad & Tobago. The USA is the main connected destination, which is attended by 28% if the ships shortly before or after attending a Jamaican port.

USA Dominican Republic Colombia Mexico Trinidad & Tobago Haiti Panama Cayman Islands

39% 25% 22% 19% 17% 16% 15% 15%

Haiti Belize Dominican Republic Suriname Trinidad & Tobago Cuba

45% 30% 25% 21% 15% 12%

USA Dominican Republic Haiti Trinidad & Tobago Cuba Colombia Panama Cayman Islands


70


% of ships


attending:

% of ships


based on voyage patterns St. Kitts & Nevis Large number of cruise calls with strong connectivity to other Lesser

Antilles. Especially connected to the nearby islands of St. Maarten/ St. Martin, Antigua & Barbuda and Dominica. Connectivity to larger non-SIDS countries is very limited.

St. Maarten/ St. Martin Antigua & Barbuda Dominica Barbados British Virgin Islands US Virgin Islands St. Lucia

71% 60% 49% 43% 40% 40% 39%

Antigua & Barbuda Dominica St. Lucia Barbados

62% 62% 37% 31%

St. Maarten/ St. Martin Antigua & Barbuda Dominica St. Lucia Barbados British Virgin Islands US Virgin Islands

St. Lucia

St. Lucia is a secondary hub for tanker shipping in the southern Lesser Antilles and receives large numbers of cruise calls. Therefore it has substantial connections with surrounding islands as well as Trinidad & Tobago. Connectivity to larger non-SIDS countries is very limited.

Barbados Trinidad & Tobago St. Maarten/ St. Martin Grenada St. Kitts & Nevis Dominica

66% 50% 49% 39% 37% 35%

Grenada Dominica Barbados St. Vincent St. Kitts & Nevis Antigua & Barbuda Trinidad & Tobago

72% 58% 55% 48% 39% 38% 15%

Barbados Trinidad & Tobago St. Maarten/ St. Martin Grenada Dominica St. Kitts & Nevis St. Vincent & Grenadines Antigua & Barbuda


Dry cargo and cruise calls with strong connectivity to other Lesser Antilles. Especially connected to the nearby islands of Barbados, Grenada and St. Lucia as well as Trinidad & Tobago. Connectivity to larger non-SIDS countries is very limited.


64% 59% 48% 48%

-

-


Suriname

Both dry cargo and tanker shipping in Suriname is strongly related to calls in Guyana and Trinidad & Tobago.


75% 70% 28%

Guyana Trinidad & Tobago

54% 19%


Trinidad & Tobago

Trinidad & Tobago is a regional hub for dry cargo shipping as well as a tanker hub for Guyana, Suriname and most of the Lesser Antilles. As a result, connections to these countries are frequent. Additionally, connections exist with Jamaica, Colombia and Dominican Republic.

Guyana USA Barbados Suriname St. Lucia Jamaica Dominican Republic St. Maarten/ St. Martin Colombia

22% 21% 21% 19% 15% 15% 12% 12% 12%

Suriname Guyana St. Vincent Barbados Grenada St. Lucia Jamaica Dominican Republic

70% 68% 59% 53% 51% 50% 17% 14%

Guyana Suriname Barbados St. Vincent Grenada St. Lucia Jamaica Dominican Republic USA St. Maarten/ St. Martin Colombia


71

4.5 Assessment of Port Reception Facilities

4.5.1 Demand for PRFs Per Country

4.5.1.1 Existing requests for waste reception In order to quantify the demand for the use of reception facilities, it is required to assess the existing requests for waste reception. An attempt was made to collect this data for 2015 ship arrivals via a questionnaire that was used for the October 4 - 6, 2016 Regional Workshop on Port Reception Facilities and Waste Management that was conducted in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. Where 10 countries completed the questionnaire, data on the requests for waste collection in 2015 is was only provided for 8 of those. During the port visits it was found, however, that the data provided in the questionnaire was grossly incomplete. The main reason for this incompleteness is that most WCR government maritime authorities: do not require the use of the IMO Advanced Notification Form and Waste Delivery Receipt; do not require ship agents or service providers to provide them with this information; are not notified regarding requests for collection of SGWs; and thus do not currently have any means to accurately collect or track such data. Therefore, while ship agents and service providers indicated that they regularly receive requests to receive SGW (Annex I and Annex V in particular), the reported numbers submitted by the maritime authorities, as indicted in Table 32, are not considered representative for the actual situation.

Table 28 Overview requests for waste collection 2015 per country

Country

Requests for Waste Collection 2015

Oil Wastes NLS Sewage Garbage Quarantine

# m3 # m3 # m3 # m3 # m3

Antigua & Barbuda 0 6134.7 0 0 0 0 0 1737 0 0

Bahamas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Barbados 0 0 0 0 0 0 232 4524 0 0

Belize NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Cuba NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dominica NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dominican Republic NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Grenada NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Guyana 10 70 0 0 0 0 40 30 0 0

Haiti NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Jamaica 354 11347.35 0 0 0 0 74 770.65 0 0

St. Kitts & Nevis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91.12 tons 0 0

St. Lucia 0 0 0 0 0 0 204 0 0 0

St. Vincent & Grenadines 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 103 0 0

Suriname 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 5.5 0 0

Trinidad & Tobago NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


72

4.5.1.2 Needs for PRF per country

In this section the results of the assessment of the provision of PRF and the estimation of required PRF capacity are presented. The results are given for the main ports in each country. This selection was made based on the port facilities as included in GISIS and the ports as included in the LLI data and with a minimum of 20 ship calls in 2016. A list of the selected ports is included in Annex 2.


73

Table 29 Overview of assessment of provision of PRF per country (Y=Yes, P=Possibly, N=No)

MARPOL Annex Type of waste received Criteria to provision of PRF

Antigua &

Barbuda

Bahamas

Barbados

Belize

Cuba

Dominica

Dominican

Republic

Grenada

Guyana

Haiti

Jamaica

St Kitts & N

evis

St Lucia

St Vincent &

Grenadines

Suriname

Trinidad &

Tobago

Annex I Oil and oily mixtures from crude oil tankers

Ports and terminals in which crude oil is loaded into oil tankers where such tankers have immediately prior to arrival completed a ballast voyage of < 72 hours or <1200 nm.

N P P N P N N N N N P N P N N P

Oil and oily mixtures from product tankers

Oil product loading ports and terminals > 1000 tons/day

N P P N P N P N N N P N P N N P

Residues and oily mixtures which remain on board for disposal from ships prior to entering ship repair yards or tank cleaning facilities

All ports having ship repair yards or tank cleaning facilities

N Y N N Y N Y N N N Y N P N N Y

Sludge tank residues All ports and terminals which handle ships >400 GT

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Oily bilge waters and other residues All ports Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Oil residues from combination carriers All loading ports for dry/ liquid bulk cargoes receiving combination carriers

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Cargo residues and solvent necessary for the cleaning operation after the transport of asphalt and other substances which inhibit effective product/water separation and monitoring

Unloading ports receiving asphalt or other substances which inhibit effective product/water separation and monitoring

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


74

MARPOL Annex Type of waste received Criteria to provision of PRF

Antigua &

Barbuda

Bahamas

Barbados

Belize

Cuba

Dominica

Dominican

Republic

Grenada

Guyana

Haiti

Jamaica

St Kitts & N

evis

St Lucia

St Vincent &

Grenadines

Suriname

Trinidad &

Tobago

Annex II Tank washings of prewash and cargo residues

Ports and terminals involved in (NLS) ships’ cargo handling

N N N N P N P N N N P N N N N P

Residues and mixtures which remain on board for disposal from ships prior to entering ship repair yards


N P N N P N P N N N P N N N N P

Annex IV Sewage All ports and terminals Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Annex V Garbage All ports and terminals Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Annex VI Ozone-depleting substances and equipment containing such substances

Repair ports N Y N N Y N Y N N N Y N N N N Y

Ship breaking facilities N N N N Y N Y N N N N N N N N N

Exhaust gas cleaning residues All ports, terminals and repair ports

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y


75

4.5.1.3 Estimated amounts of Annex I and Annex V wastes The tables below summarize the estimated amounts of waste that can be expected at PRF for the different countries, for Annex I and Annex V wastes.

Table 30 Overview of estimated amounts of non-tanker related Annex I wastes

Country

Sludge tank residues Oily bilge waters Max per call (m3)

Average per call (m3)

Total per year (m3)

Max per call (m3)


Total per year (m3)

Antigua & Barbuda 3.8 1.6 1,336 10 4.5 4,374 Bahamas 6.6 1.9 8,729 10 5.8 29,193 Barbados 3.8 1.6 2,094 10 6.1 7,985 Belize 3.8 2.3 1,253 10 6.3 3,486 Cuba 3.8 1.0 1,059 10 6.7 7,450 Dominica 3.8 1.6 773 10 4.3 2,412 Dominican Republic 7.0 1.0 4,874 10 5.9 31,947 Grenada 3.8 1.6 867 10 5.4 3,167 Guyana 3.8 0.5 585 10 5.2 6,382 Haiti 3.8 0.7 1,308 10 5.0 9,889 Jamaica 6.6 1.4 5,202 10 8.0 29,730 St Kitts & Nevis 3.8 1.5 1,692 10 3.7 4,805 St Lucia 3.8 1.4 1,561 10 5.1 6,230 St Vincent & Grenadines 3.8 0.6 252 10 2.0 1,014 Suriname 3.8 0.6 516 10 6.5 5,887 Trinidad & Tobago 3.9 0.5 5,321 10 6.7 69,760

Table 31 Overview of estimated amounts of tanker related Annex I wastes

Country

Wash water Liquid oil residues Oily solids Max per call (m3)


Total per year (m3)

Max per call (m3)


Total per year (m3)

Max per call (m3)


Total per year (m3)

Bahamas 19,391 5,128 2,866,543 1,939 513 286,654 194 51 28,665 Barbados 18,990 837 138,962 1,899 84 13,896 190 8 1,390 Cuba 6,530 1,886 450,720 653 189 45,072 65 19 4,507 Dominican Republic 3,153 1,059 444,668 315 106 44,467 32 11 4,447

Jamaica 9,623 1,337 596,455 962 134 59,646 96 13 5,965 St Lucia 9,797 1,923 538,403 980 192 54,395 98 19 5,439 Trinidad & Tobago 19,217 861 1,646,414 1,922 86 164,641 192 9 16,464


76

Table 32 Overview of estimated amounts of Annex V wastes

Country

Domestic wastes Maintenance wastes Cargo related wastes Max (m3)

Average (m3)

Total/yr (m3)

Max (m3)

Average (m3)

Total/yr (m3)

Max (m3)

Average (m3)

Total/yr (m3)

Antigua & Barbuda 60 10.2 9,780 32 0.1 128 4.7 0.04 34.9

Bahamas 60 10.1 46,348 144 0.2 1,224 5.3 0.03 129.3 Barbados 60 19.7 25,493 146 7.8 10,224 3.2 0.04 46.2 Belize 60 21.7 11,927 41 4.0 2,216 1.2 0.02 10.2 Cuba 24 0.7 814 393 18.2 20,335 8.9 0.46 511.6 Dominica 60 7.8 4,021 84 3.4 1,914 1.6 0.01 6.7 Dominican Republic 60 0.7 3,865 251,418 114.7 624,461 8.3 0.09 487.1

Grenada 60 9.0 4,800 68 2.9 1,714 1.8 0.02 12.9 Guyana 12 0.1 173 14,935 24.3 29,916 27.6 0.14 168.9 Haiti 60 1.0 1,872 562 11.4 22,501 7.3 0.14 282.7 Jamaica 60 5.2 19,468 4,736 32.4 120,440 11.0 0.11 418.8 St Kitts & Nevis 60 11.8 14,465 68 5.2 6,749 1.1 0.01 7.1

St Lucia 60 7.6 9,283 297 6.5 7,982 0.6 0.01 9.1 St Vincent & Grenadines 60 2.2 1,038 29 2.2 1,128 0.3 0.01 2.8

Suriname 1.8 0.1 133 373 8.7 7,844 28.6 0.11 96.5 Trinidad & Tobago 60 22.0 182,560 121,226 108.6 1,129,936 9.9 0.03 342.9

4.5.2 Type and Capacity of Port Reception Facilities Available

4.5.2.1 PRFS Available for MARPOL ANNEX I – Oils The study found that Annex I PRFs are not available in many ports to receive ships’ bilge water, sludge and lube oils as required. Further discussions regarding PRFs per country can be found in the respective country ANNEX A – P of this report. The below table summarizes the PRFs that were determined to be available in the study area.


77

Table 337 Summary of PRFs available to receive Annex I oils.

PRFs available for MARPOL Annex I – Oil

Country Port Facilities

PRFs available

for oil tankers: tank

washings / oily ballast

water

PRFs available

for all ships: bilge

water, sludge's, lube oils

Type of PRF

Service Provider[s]

Availability (hours per day / days per week)

Prior Notice

Required (hours)

Antigua & Barbuda

St John's Deep Water Harbor No

sometimes from cruise

ships 24 / 7 24

The Bahamas

Freeport, Harbor Terminal Yes

Yes

Truck

Morgan Oil Marine

(Bahamas) Ltd

24 / 7

48

Grand Bahama Shipyard Ltd

Dominican Republic

Rio Haina - FERSAN, FALCONDO, Interntn’l Terminal, InterQuimica, SIDPORT Muelle Inter ITABO PetroTrading MULTIQUIMI

Yes Yes Truck

Numerous registered

service providers listed on

Ministry of Environment

website

24 24

Guyana Georgetown New Amsterdam Linden

Yes

Yes

Tank

Cevons, Puran, Rams

Disposal, *Tiger Tanks

(*only for ExxonMobile

operators)

24 / 7

2 hr before for Customs, apply on Friday for weekends

Jamaica Kingstown Ocho Rios Port Rhoades Montego Bay

Yes

Yes

Mobile Tank Truck

Waste Contractors service all

ports and are private sector

companies

24 / 7 24

St. Lucia St Lucia Apt - Castries – Cul de sac - Vieux Fort - Marigot Bay Marina

No

Yes

Tanker

St. Lucia Solid Waste

Management Authority

24

No set time,

prefer 24

Suriname Paramaribo - No Yes Truck 24 48 Trinidad and Tobago

Port of Spain - POSINCO Yes No Truck 24/7 unknown


78

4.5.2.2 P RFs Available for MARPOL ANNEX II – NSL The study found very few ports provide PRFs for Annex II – Noxious Liquid Wastes (NLS). Those available are primarily ship yards that perform ship maintenance and repair work, including tank cleaning operations. Port operators in several large commercially operated pots indicated that they may either have the technical capability to receive NSL wastes on case-by –case basis, or they have considered the potential business opportunities in developing the capabilities to receive NLS waste in the future. Waste Management / dump sites throughout the region either do not accept NLS wastes or only accept such at potentially cost prohibited rates. Further discussions regarding PRFs per country can be found in the respective country ANNEX A – P of this report. The below table summarizes the PRFs that are available in the study area.

4.5.2.3 PRFs Available for MARPOL ANNEX IV – Sewage The study found that only a small number of ports provide PRFS for Annex IV (sewage) wastes. Of those that are available, they tend to provide services for yachts, ferries, or specialized vessels such as military or research vessels. Further discussions regarding PRFs per country can be found in the respective country ANNEX A – P of this report. The below table summarizes the PRFs that are available in the study area.

Table 348 Summary of PRFs available to receive Annex IV – Sewage Waste

PRFs available for MARPOL Annex IV – Sewage

Country Port Facilities Type of PRF Service Provider

Availability Prior Notice

Antigua & Barbuda

St John’s Deep Water Harbor

Tank Trunk

Bryson's Shipping

24 hours a day, 7 days per week

24 hours

St John’s West Indies Oil Company Facility


24 hours

The Bahamas

Nassau - Arawak - Prince George’s

Taken from mega-

yacht via tank trucks


No

Freeport, Harbor Terminal

Tank Trunk 24 hours a day, 7 days per week

24 hours

Dominican Republic

Rio Haina - FERSAN, FALCONDO, InterQuimic SIDPORT Muelle Inter ITABO PetroTrading MULTIQUIMI

Truck

Numerous registered

service providers listed on

Ministry of Environment

website

Business hours only, 7 days per week

24 hours

Trinidad and Tobago

Port of Spain - POSINCO

Fixed pipeline at Berth 3 (cruise ship berth) seldom used. Also mobile facilities may be called upon.

24 hours, 7 days a week

Unknown


79

4.5.2.4 PRFS Available for MARPOL ANNEX V – Garbage The study found that port facilities in all SIDS visited, except for Belize and the ports of Nassau Bahamas (aside from Prince George’s Wharf), generally do except so forms of Annex V – SGW. This is wide variations however in the different categories of wastes accepted from country-to-country and port-to-port across the region. Some SIDS only accept food and organic wastes that can be incinerated, some do not accept food wastes; some accept all types of materials that can be recycled, and some do not accept any. Further discussions regarding PRFs per country can be found in the respective country ANNEX A – P of this report. The below table summarizes the PRFs that are available in the study area.

Table 359 Summary of PRFs available to receive Annex V – Garbage Wastes PRFs available for MARPOL Annex V - Garbage

Country

Port Facilities

Restrictions

Type of

PRF

Service

Providers

Availability

Prior Notice (hrs)

Antigua & Barbuda

St John’s Deep Water Harbor

The receipt of food waste is prohibited

(no incinerator)

Barge, Truck and Bins

Bryson's Shipping National Solid Waste Mgnt Authority (NSWMA) Island Sanitation

Business hours only, 7 days per week**

24 St John’s West Indies Oil Company Facility

The Bahamas

Nassau - Prince George Wharf

None

Waste Bins on Pier,

removed by trucks

Bahamas Waste ECL Engineers

consultancy limited Bowe

Plumbing


None

Freeport, Harbor Terminal

Only receive garbage from

domestic ships (recyclables)

Truck

Freeport Sanitation Authority


24

Freeport, Bahamas Shipyard Ltd

Maximum quantity

12 m³ per load

Truck

Sanitation Services Company

Ltd.


24

Barbados

Bridgeport

Only combustible materials into 6 cubic meter

skiffs

Skiffs

(waste bins)

Incinerator at

Port of Bridgeport

Can be put into bins 24/7 incineration only at night

24

Dominican Republic

Rio Haina - FERSAN, FALCONDO, Interntn’l Terminal, InterQuimica, SIDPORT Muelle Inter ITABO PetroTrading MULTIQUIMI

May need special arrangements for

after hours, garbage not

allowed to be stored at haulers

facility.

Closed Truck

Twenty six (26) commercial enterprises/

service providers working in the

solid waste industry that can

be used. List on Ministry of

Environment website


24

Grenada

Saint George's

No (Accepted as domestic waste)

Truck

Solid Waste Management

Authority tractors

Daily

No


80

Guyana

Georgetown Linden New Amsterdam

Yes

Truck, and offshore

shore supply vessels

working drilling

operations

Cevons, Puran, Rams Disposal,

*Tiger Tanks (*only for

ExxonMobile operators)

24/ 7

No

Jamaica Kingstown Ocho Rios Port Rhoades Montego Bay Port Esquivel

Food waste is not

accepted – no dedicated

incinerator for SGW

Compactor truck

State Authority - Waste

Contractors - National Solid

Waste Management

Authority (NSWMA)

24/ 7

24

St. Kitts Basseterre, - Deep Water Port - Port Zante Terminal

SGW accepted from domestic

ships & other as recyclables.

General SGW not encouraged due to landfill having little capacity to receive additional waste.

Truck

Admiral

24 / 7 for providers, but landfill has business hours to receive the waste,

24 for agents; port

& service providers not always

notified prior to arrival

St. Lucia St Lucia Apt - Castries Cul de sac - Vieux Fort - Marigot Bay

No Plant of Animal

Wastes

Truck

Saint Lucia Solid Waste

Management Authority

(SLSWMA)

Business

hours only, 7 days per week

48 – with

port agents

St. Vincent

Kingstown

Only solid waste, no meat or food

products (no incinerator & port not able to

test for liquid waste)

Truck

Central Water

and Sewage Authority (Solid

Waste Management

Division)

Service Providers can receive 24/7 but can only

dispose at landfill M-F

during business hrs

24

Suriname Paramaribo -

No

Truck

International Garbage Disposal (IGD)

24/7

48

Moengo - Min: 1 m³ Max: 10 m³

Truck

Moengo Dock operations (Traymore NV)

07:00 - 17.00 After 17.00

need special arrangements

6

Trinidad and Tobago

Port Lisas - PLIPDECO

No

Truck Private (Kizen) service providers

and local government/municipal (SWMCOL)

that picks up garbage as part of normal domestic garbage removal.

24 /7

72 initially, updates

within 12 hours

Port of Spain POSINCO

No

Truck 24 hours a day, 7 days per week

48


81

4.5.2.5 PRFS Available for MARPOL ANNEX VI – Air Pollution Related The study found few WCR ports that provide PRFs for the reception Annex VI –Wastes which are ozone-depleting substances, equipment containing such substances, and exhaust gas-cleaning residues. Those available are primarily ship yards and ship repair facilities. Further discussions regarding PRFs per country can be found in the respective country ANNEX A – P of this report. The below table

4.6 Identification of potential Regional Ships Waste Reception Centers (RWRCs) Based on analysis of port calls, shipping routes, connectivity to other ports in the region, implemented measures that encourage proper SGW disposal, and prosvsioning of port reception facilities, the following ports may be good candidates for consideration of RWRCs in a WCR RRFP:

• Freeport, The Bahamas • Nassau, The Bahamas, • Kingstown, Jamaica, • Montego Bay, Jamaica • Point Lisas, Trinidad and Tobago • Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago • Caucedo, Dominican Republic • Rio Haina, Dominican Republic

The following table summarizes considerations for why these port may be potential RWRC in a WCR RRFP candidate.


82

Table: Potential candidate port to be considered as RWRCs in the WCR

Port with the Potential to Serve as Regional Waste Reception Centers

Nassau

Freeport

Kingstown

Montego Bay

Point Lisas Port of Spain

Caucedo,

Rio Haina

Strategic location where a large volume of certain ships visit for the purposes of unloading, loading, provisioning or lay-up

X X X X X X X X

Located so as to be convenient according to the prevailing shipping patterns

X X X X X X X X

Wide variety in connection destinations X X X X X X X Processes and procedures are in place to adequately receive and dispose of most of not all SGW

X X X X X X

Well established domestic waste collection system. X X X X X X Properly engineered and managed waste disposal location[s]

X

There is a license or permit system in place for waste haulers/service providers.

X X X X

The IMO Advanced Notification Form and Waste Delivery Receipt, or equivalent, are used by waste contractors, governments and end.

X X X X X

There is a means for verifying information received in declaration forms

X X X X X

There is a cost recovery system in place X X X X X There is a system of recycling and reusing various types of ship waste and ship material.

X X

Used oil is received and reused; X X X X X X X The location is not constrained with limited land as are the other WCR SIDS for final disposal

X X X X

Technical capabilities are in place to possibly receive all categories of SGW

X X X X X

Stakeholder cooperation among public and private agencies already exists, and is active, for the management of SGW;

X X X X

Different market-based initiatives to re-use and recycle waste materials such as oils, plastics, and others may already be established

X X X X X X


83

4.7 Identification of Ports with Limited Facilities (PLF) The following table provides a matrix of the many unique circumstances that may face WCR SIDS in providing adequate PRFs. As any one of these circumstance could be a significant limiting factor on its own, the complete lists helps identify which SIDS may are most likely to have ports with limited facilities (PLF). The result is that there are potential many PLFs throughout the region due to these various reasons.

Antigua & Barbuda

Barbados

The Bahamas

Belize

Dominican

Republic

Grenada

Guyana

Haiti

Jamaica

St. Kitts

St. Lucia

St. Vincent

Suriname

Trinidad & Tobago

MARPOL not ratified X X MARPOL not implemented in national law

X X X X X X X X X X X

No advanced Notification of SGW reception required

X X X X X X X

National Legislation or National Guidelines on the reception, transport and disposal of SGW are not yet in place.

X X X X X X X X X X X X

Stakeholder cooperation among public & private agencies is not in place for the management of SGW;

X X X X X X X X X

National Waste Management Plan needs to be developed or revised

X X X X X X X

Policy barriers prohibits provisioning of adequate PRFS for all MARPOL Annexes

X X X X X X X X X X

Technical constraints prohibit provisioning of adequate PRFS for all MARPOL Annexes


PRFs are inadequate to receive all required categories of Annex I wastes

X X X X X X X X X X

PRFs are inadequate to receive all required categories of Annex V wastes

X X X X X X X

Not located to be convenient for a large volume of ships operating in the region

X X X X X X X X

Large percent of arrivals are to offshore anchorages and not to landside ports

X X X

Health or environment concerns with receiving international wastes

X X X X X X X X X

Concerns that the country’s solid waste management capabilities are at capacity or inadequate for SGW.

X X X X X X X X X

Port Waste Management Plans have not been developed;

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Safety requirements have not been developed or implemented for PRFs


No mandatory recycling program in place

X X X X X X X X X X X


84

Concerns that enforcement mechanisms may be inadequate

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

No means in place to: quantify or classify what types of SGW received, if PRFs are adequate or verify if SGW is being properly disposed of.

X X X X X X X X X X

No licensing or permit system in place for port service providers / waste haulers

X X X X X X X X X X

No means to identify and track all waste haulers or collect data on the amounts and types of material they collect and dispose.

X X X X X X X X X

No market system in place for collection, disposal and recycling of SGW.

X X X X X X

Cost recovery mechanism does not employ the “Polluter Pays Principal”

X X X X X X X X

Not having an incinerator for SGW may prevent or restrict the ability to accept food and/or medical wastes;

X X X X X X X X

SGW not been integrated into the plans and policies for land-generated wastes

X X X X X X X X X

4.8 Compelling need for RA The information provided in this Chapter illustrate with regards to the adequacy of PRFs, and the many unique circumstances that hinder the provisioning of adequate PRFs, that some form of a regional plan with subsequent regional arrangements should be explored in the WCR. The exact mechanisms of such a plan which would encourage proper environmentally sound disposal of SGW, while facilitating maritime commerce and good market based business opportunities, should be explored further through an comprehensive economic cost-based study.


85

5 Potential Options The following recommendations garnered from this study are potential options suited to vessels calling at ports in these SIDS that will not encourage any illegal discharge into the sea:

5.1 Shipboard-level Recommendations 1. Investigate possibilities of how vessels on worldwide shipping routes may best store waste

on board and plan to deliver waste ashore to proper PRFs in non-SIDS ports. 2. When possible, manage SGW on board to minimize delivery to Ports with Limited Facilities

and maximize delivery to those ports identified as being potential Regional Waste Reception Centers.

3. When possible, segregate, compact, prepare and store all wastes on board to be ready for efficient, effective and environmentally sound disposal at proper PRFs.

4. Always encourage best practices to reduce, reuse and recycle SGW (especially plastics) onboard vessels operating in the WCR.

5. Ensure adequate crewman training to educate on: the shipboard requirements under MARPOL, the Special Area Designations for the Caribbean, as well as best practices for efficiently managing, disposing of SGW.

6. Ship management should employ the following practices: a. require the receipt of manifests indicating final disposal of all SGW sent to PRFs b. require that SGW is only received by those service providers properly authorized for

receiving specific categories of wastes each ports of arrival. 7. Encourage and facilitate the use of the Standard Format of the Advance Notification Form for

Waste Delivery to Port Reception Facilities (MEPC.1/Circ.644), with shipping agents, port facilities, service providers and maritime authorities when not already in use.

8. When adequate port reception facilities are not available, ensure the Master of a ship having encountered difficulties in discharging waste to reception facilities, forwards the IMO Revised Consolidated Format for Reporting Alleged Inadequacies of Port Reception Facilities Form, together with any supporting documentation, to the Administration of the flag State and, if possible, to the competent Authorities in the port State. The flag State shall notify the IMO and the port State of the occurrence.

5.2 National-Level Recommendations 1. Each State should implement the necessary legal authorities to enforce compliance by ships

with the MARPOL Convention; 2. National Waste Management plans should be developed, updated and/or revised; and not

done so already, the issue of ship-generated waste should be fully integrated into the plans and policies for land-generated wastes, including manifests and certificates of disposal to ensure cradle to grave tracking.

3. Recommend continued Stakeholder engagements to develop and implement guidelines for the receipt, disposal, handling, tracking, enforcement, and funding for adequate port reception facilities and the handling of SGW. Stakeholders are encouraged to look to the


86

IMO guidebook: Port Reception Facilities – How to do it for guidance as well as material found in the following best practice documents produced by other WCR SIDS:

a. The National Guidelines on the Collection of MARPOL 73/78 ANNEX 1 Waste, and National Guidelines on the Collection of MARPOL 73/78 ANNEX 1 Waste, (SEE) developed by Jamaica’s National Guidelines Subcommittee of the National Oceans & Coastal Zone Management (NOCZM) Committee;

b. Government of Saint Lucia Strategy on the Management of Used Oil, Prepared by the Saint Lucia Solid Waste Management Authority;

c. Final Draft, National Waste Management Strategy for Grenada; and d. Belize National Solid Waste Management Strategy & Plan – Draft Final Report v1 25

June 2015 4. Employ the use of the IMO Advanced Notification Forms for ship arrivals and requests to

discharge waste to help identify, classify and track the types, amounts and nature of SGW received from the international “generator” to final disposal, or reuse.

5. Each State should consider the implementation of a service provider/ SGW hauler license system that could help control the different waste handling operations, with respect to: types of operations; requirements for obtaining licenses; applicable fees; public review; and industry appeal provisions.

6. The data collected in this report should be used by the relevant authorities in each SIDS to generate appropriate Port Waste Management Plans;

7. Further consider alternatives to reuse, recycle and reduce impacts of SGW in all SIDS, which can be found in IMO guidebook: Port Reception Facilities – How to do it.

8. Ensure there is a proper costs structure in place, with appropriate fees, that follows the polluter pays principle.

9. Ensure robust market incentives for entrepreneurship, with adequate oversight, are in place to further encourage business opportunities for receiving, handling, disposing, and recycling SGW.

10. Complete assessments of all Port Reception Facilities and Waste Haulers /Service Providers that may have been left out of the study, and ensure all PRF data, and lists of all Service Providers, are entered into IMO’s GSIS;

11. Consider opportunities that may be available with a regional plan to best handle SGW.

5.3 Regional-Level Recommendations 1. As per the guidance in Paragraph 16 of the IMO Resolution MEPC.83 (44), Guidelines for

Ensuring the Adequacy of Port Waste Reception Facilities, and as indicated in Chapter 4.2.1, consideration should be made for designating RAC/REMPEITC-Caribe as the Regional Central Point of Contact for the development and implementation of any future WCR RRFP.

2. Initiate a campaign to improve the reception of Annex I Oil wastes at all port and port facilities throughout the WCR.

3. Conduct technical assistance focused on assisting WCR States in implementing the necessary legal measures to enable their government to confidently ratify, implement and then enforce the MARPOL Convention.

4. Further discussions and considerations of a regional plan that may allow those SIDS with Limited Port Facilities, due primarily to limited land space and capacity for final disposal of


87

wastes, to secure regional arrangements with other ports that may be able to better meet the obligations for providing adequate facilities;

5. Focus initial efforts, and international assistance, on improving Annex I, II and V PRF capabilities, oversight and enforcement mechanisms in those SIDS that have ports identified in this report as potential Regional Waste Reception Centers. In most all cases, these ports are also regional hubs, whereby the biggest impacts on receiving SGW throughout the WCR can be made.

6. Further discussions and possible agreements for common costs structures for the reception of different types of SGW throughout the WCR to prevent low cost location from becoming dumping sites at the expense of the investments needed to develop and operate proper waste management systems.

7. Further discussions and encourage innovative solutions for possible regional arrangements that may allow for environmentally and legally sound aggregation of different categories of ANNEX IV garbage wastes when doing so would help generate the necessary volumes of waste needed for economic entrepreneurships with sound market mechanisms.

8. Initiate a MARPOL Training Campaign that educates all levels of port and shipboard mariners, operators and managers on: the shipboard requirements under MARPOL, the Special Area Designations for the Caribbean, as well as best practices for efficiently managing, disposing of SGW.

9. Deliver ANNEX II PRF training to those ports identified as Regional Port Reception Centers and any others having shipyards or ship repair facilities.

10. Further investigate the needs for Annex IV PRFs throughout the region, and any potential environmental impacts on the region associated with the limited availability of such facilities throughout the WCR.

11. Initiate a regional outreach campaign, through internationally recognized organizations, to encourage reduction, prevention and recycling of waste (especially plastic wastes) on board passenger ships operating in the WCR.

12. International funding should be identified to help develop, update and/or revise the National Waste Management Plans of each WCR SIDS.


88

Appendix

Appendix 1 – Conversion of ship types Table 36 Ship Types

LLI type Shiptype group Shiptype

anchor handling fire fighting tug/supply Other Other

anchor handling salvage tug Other Other

anchor handling tug Other Other

anchor handling tug/supply Other Other

asphalt tanker Tankers Other tankers

barge Other Other

barge carrier Other Other

bulk carrier Dry cargo Bulk carriers

bulk carrier with container capacity Dry cargo Bulk carriers

bulk cement carrier Dry cargo Bulk carriers

bulk ore carrier Dry cargo Bulk carriers

bunkering tanker Tankers Oil product tankers

buoy ship Other Other

cable ship Other Other

cargo/training Dry cargo General cargo

catamaran tug Other Other

chemical tanker Tankers Chemical tankers

combined bulk and oil carrier Tankers Combination carriers

Combined chemical and oil tanker Tankers Oil product tankers

Combined LNG and LPG Gas Carrier Tankers Gas tankers

combined ore and oil carrier Tankers Combination carriers

crane barge Other Other

crane ship Other Other

crude oil tanker Tankers Crude oil tankers

cutter suction dredger Other Other

cutter suction hopper dredger Other Other

diving support Other Other

dredger Other Other

drill platform Other Other

drill ship Other Other

edible oil tanker Tankers Other tankers

exhibition ship Other Other

ferry Passenger Other

fire fighting tractor tug Other Other

fire fighting tug Other Other

fire fighting tug/supply Other Other


89

fish carrier Fishing vessels Fishing vessels

fish factory Fishing vessels Fishing vessels

fishery protection Fishing vessels Fishing vessels

fishing (general) Fishing vessels Fishing vessels

floating gas storage Tankers Gas tankers

floating production tanker Tankers Crude oil tankers

floating storage tanker Tankers Crude oil tankers

fruit juice tanker Tankers Other tankers

fully cellular containership Dry cargo Container ships

fully cellular refrigerated Dry cargo Container ships

general cargo Dry cargo General cargo

general cargo with container capacity Dry cargo General cargo

hopper barge Other Other

hopper dredger Other Other

hydrographic research Other Other

icebreaker Other Other

icebreaker/supply Other Other

landing craft Other Other

lighthouse/tender Other Other

Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier Tankers Gas tankers

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Carrier Tankers Gas tankers

Liquid Natural Gas Carrier Tankers Gas tankers

Liquid Petroleum Gas Carrier Tankers Gas tankers

livestock Other Livestock carriers

LNG Floating Storage Regasification Unit Tankers Gas tankers

maintenance Other Other

molasses tanker Tankers Other tankers

naval auxiliary tanker Tankers Oil product tankers

Naval Auxiliary Vessel Other Other

Naval Vessel Other Other

oceanographic research Other Other

offshore safety Other Other

passenger (cruise) Passenger Cruise ships

passenger ro/ro Passenger Other

Passenger Vessel (unspecified) Passenger Other

patrol ship Other Other

pilot ship Other Other

pipe layer Other Other

pollution control vessel Other Other

pontoon Other Other

product tanker Tankers Oil product tankers

pusher tug Other Other


90

reefer Dry cargo Container ships

research Other Other

research/supply ship Other Other

Roll On Roll Off Dry cargo Vehicle carriers

roll on roll off with container capacity Dry cargo Vehicle carriers

salvage Other Other

salvage tug Other Other

seismographic research Other Other

semi-sub HL vessel Other Other

semi-sub HL/tank Other Other

standby safety vessel Other Other

suction dredger Other Other

suction hopper dredger Other Other

supply Other Other

support Other Other

tank barge Other Other

Tanker (unspecified) Tankers ?

tender Other Other

tractor tug Other Other

trailing suction hopper dredger Other Other

training Other Other

trawler (All types) Fishing vessels Fishing vessels

tug Other Other

tug/supply Other Other

tug/support Other Other

vehicle carrier Dry cargo Vehicle carriers

Vessel Type (unspecified) Other Other

waste ship Dry cargo General cargo

wood-chip carrier Dry cargo Bulk carriers

work ship Other Other

yacht Recreational craft Recreational craft


91

Appendix 2 – List of ports per country for estimation of waste volumes Table 37 List of Ports for Waste Volume Estimation

Country Ports considered Antigua & Barbuda St. John’s (all ports) Bahamas Nassau

Freeport Bimini Island Eleuthera Island (incl. Half Moon Cay) South Riding Point Castaway Cay/ Gorda Cay Coco Cay/ Great Harbour Cay

Barbados Barbados (all ports) Belize Belize City

Big Creek Cuba Mariel

Havana Matanzas Santiago Nuevitas Cienfuegos Moa Puerto Carupano

Dominica Roseau & Woodbridge Bay Portsmouth

Dominican Republic Andres/ Boca Chica Barahona Caucedo Manzanillo Ocoa Bay Palenque terminal Puerto Plata Puerto Viejo de Azua Rio Haina San Pedro de Macoris Santo Domingo

Grenada St. George's Guyana Georgetown

New Amsterdam/ Everton Haiti Port-au-Prince

Cap-Haitien St. Marc Labadie

Jamaica Falmouth Kingston Montego Bay Ocho Rios Port Esquivel


92

Port Rhoades Rio Bueno Rocky Point

St. Kitts & Nevis Basseterre Nevis

St. Lucia Castries Cul de Sac

St. Vincent & Grenadines Kingstown Bequia

Surinam Paramaribo Paranam/ Smalkalden

Trinidad & Tobago Tembladora Point Lisas Point Fortin Point Galeota Chaguaramas Port-of-Spain Tobago ports La Brea (Brighton) Pointe a Pierre Claxton Bay


93

Appendix 3 – List of Stakeholders Table 38 Stakeholder Information

Country/SIDS Name Agency Position

Bahamas / Freeport Daniel Murray Over seas Marine Captain

Bahamas / Freeport Capt. Makarios Rolle Statoil south Riding Point LLC Marine manager

Bahamas / Freeport Kevin Miller Bahamas guard enforcement Officer

Bahamas / Freeport Erica Roberts Bahamas gout Sr. executive DH

Bahamas / Freeport Freddie Sands Bahamas gout

Bahamas / Freeport Rico Cargill GDPA - Environment department Sr. Environment inspecteur

Bahamas / Freeport Kyle Smith Harbour Launch Services President

Bahamas / Freeport Jamaal Rolle Harbour Launch Services Captain

Bahamas / Freeport Tyrone Farquharson Grand Bahama ship HSE Manager

Bahamas / Freeport Devan Williams Reliance Maritime Agency General Mamager

Bahamas / Freeport Darrin Rolle Elnet Maritime Agent

Bahamas / Freeport Kent Ward RMA Agent

Bahamas / Nassau Marques Williams Port Department Assistant Port Controlor

Bahamas / Nassau Anthony Ryan DRHS Public Analyst

Bahamas / Nassau Collin Cleare Nassau Canton Port PFSO

Dominican Republic Jose Rafael Tamayo C.A.A.S.D

Dominican Republic Jose El Taveras AIDSA

Dominican Republic Carlos E Linianco Refidomsa

Dominican Republic Vanessa Medina Refidomsa

Dominican Republic Audzes Vasquez HIT

Dominican Republic Juaoloneozo Caszillo Aduanas

Dominican Republic Sarah Roa Apordom

Dominican Republic Patricio Cuevas


94

Dominican Republic Pedro Montero Medio Ambiente

Dominican Republic Juab T. Filpo Ministerio de medio ambiente

Dominican Republic Mario Rivera MOPC - Muelles y puertos

Dominican Republic Marie … MOPC

Dominican Republic Elewe Selezan ANRD

Dominican Republic Armando Rivas HIT

Dominican Republic Oswaldo Vasquez Apordom

Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic Elvin Penta Inapa

Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic Elvira Segura Inapa

Dominican Republic Omar Shamir Reynoso Anamar

Dominican Republic Soni Marlo Mojica Maritima Dominica

Dominican Republic Zacarias Navarro Ministerio de medio ambiente Director

Haiti Serge MITTON SEMANAH Directeur Milieu Marin

Haiti Myriam SENATUS SEMANAH

Haiti Jabouin RONALD SEMANAH Directeur de la securite maritime

Haiti Latortue J-R APN Directeur

Haiti Vanessa Lapomarede APN Consultante

Haiti Louis M.DESSOULEAUX APN Chef de cabinet

Haiti Michael LEMKE Enmarcolda

Haiti Jean-Phillipe BAUSSAN AGEMAR Directeur generale

Haiti Jean-Phillipe SASSINE DEMSA Directeur generale

Haiti Bruno DIEUDONNE Services maritime et de Navigation d'Haiti Directeur generale

Haiti Wilbert DEDE Chef de cabinet

Haiti Alex NEFF TE connectivity SUBCOM Marine Engineer Manager


95

Haiti Herve EVEILLARD APN Directeur generale

Jamaica Claudia Conant MAJ / coimac DDG

Jamaica Mark Lunky Lannaman Boarding representative

Jamaica Gimen Mendes Port Authority Port captain

Jamaica Manna Livimpstone Perez y Ciaja Buisness Development Management

Jamaica Stephen Stoddart Perez y Ciaja Operations Supervisor

Jamaica Holbein Spence ZIM Operations Coordinator

Jamaica Carla Tucker NEPA Standards Officer

Jamaica Vannessia Stewart MAJ Legal Officer

Jamaica Hamada Farda MAJ Marine Surveyor

Jamaica Steven Sperce MAJ Direction, safety

Jamaica Richard Baker MOH Port Health Operator

Jamaica Ray Neicc Operations Manager

Jamaica Violet Ashmon MPM Waste Management Commercial manager

Jamaica Risn Binns MPM Waste Management Commercial

Jamaica Neville Williams CMA CGM Jamaica Assistants operations manager

Jamaica Stewart Panton NEPA Legal Officer

Jamaica Amanda Wallace NEPA Legal Intern

Jamaica Anthony … NEPA Director SMC

Jamaica Bertrand Smith MAJ Director, Legal Affairs

Jamaica Conrad … CMA CGM Jamaica

Jamaica Linsen Thomas MPM Waste Management P/C Manager

Jamaica Donald Bamant Maritime OPS Manager

Jamaica David Mc Donald Transocean OPS Department

St. Kitts Wilmon Mc Call Solid Waste Management

St. Kitts Jennifer Bass Skandis

St. Kitts Elvin Douglas D&D Services Managing Director


96

St. Kitts Harrington Bristol Admiral's (2008) LTD. Managing Director

St. Kitts Donny Bristol Admiral's (2008) LTD. Manager

St. Kitts Wayne Edmeade Maritime Inspector

St. Kitts Kervin Feeman SCASPA Safety officer

St. Kitts Niejtz Williams Department of Maritime Affairs Inspector

St. Kitts Solomon Powell Maritime Affairs Inspector

Suriname Lloyd Gemerts MAS Manager

Suriname Eska Kalloe Ministry of public works Secretary

Suriname Radjni Ramsukul NIMOS Environment Officer

Suriname Ryan Fung Aloi MAS Head Legal Department

St Lucia Julian de Bois NEMO Deputy Director

St Lucia Ernie Pierre Ministry of Health (DEH) Environment/ Health Officer

St Lucia Yvonne James John James Ship Chandler Recycling Services Director

St Lucia John James John James Ship Chandler Recycling Services Director

St Lucia Heman Joseph Cox and Company Ltd. Supervisor

St Lucia Emlyn Jean SLUSWMA Education & Public Info Manager

St Lucia Leslie Jn Baptirte Eogle Freight & Brokerozo/ Shipping Assoc. of St Lucia Managing Director Persident

St Lucia Cathrine Cooper Cox and Company Ltd. COO

St Lucia Francis Charlery Port Police - SLASPA Inspector

St Lucia Emily Leonu Marine Police Unit Commander

St Lucia Samuel Endooui Customs Dept. Enforcement

St Lucia Thomas Nelson Dept. of Fisheries Deputy Chief

St Lucia Nichalan Myers Chief Pilot SLASPA Chief Pilot

St Vincent Chevaner Charles SVG MARAD Legal Officer

St Vincent Jillianjoy Davis Maritime Administration Registrar of Ships and Seafarers


97

St Vincent Tyshana Thomas SDU Environmental Officer

St Vincent Carl James SVGPA COO

St Vincent Alastair Baisten Supervisor

St Vincent Winsbert Quow CWSA Solid Waste Manager

St Vincent Michael Creese CWSA Sr. Engineer (SWMU)

St Vincent Kemron Beache MARAD (Maritime Administration) Activity Director

Barbados Jessica Taylor Ministry of International Transport Shipping Superintendent

Barbados Sharon Yarde Ministry of International Transport Assistant Shipping Superintendent

Barbados Stephen Harte Port of Health / Ministry of Health Environmental Health Specialist(as)

Barbados Carl Gonsalves Barbados Port Inc. Manager Marine Services

Barbados Karl Branch Barbados Port Inc. Div Manager (ag) Corporate Devl. & Strategy

Barbados Dionne Gibbs - Nicholls Ministry of International Transport Deputy Chief Technical Officer (ag)

Barbados Leona Deane Sanitation Service Authority Assistant Manager Engineer (ag)

Antigua Eduardo Pyle Antigua Port Authority Health & Safety Officer

Antigua Jason Roberts Antigua Port Authority Chief P.F.S.O.

Antigua Danielle Benjamin National Solid Waste MGMT Authority Director of Administration

Antigua Lionel Michael Central Board of Health Chief Health Inspector

Antigua Julienne Mannix Central Board of Health Public Health Inspector

Antigua Katarina McGhie ADOMS HOD WR. Maritime Policy & Business Dev.

Antigua Thomas Robinson ADOMS Chief Marine Surveyor

Antigua Sherica Sebastian ADOMS PMR/HR & Admin Manager

Antigua Tajah Edwards Central Board of Health, Ministry of Health Public Health Officer


98

Antigua Port

Guyana Sheryl Wilson MARAD Marine Cadet

Guyana Joel Hinds MARAD Marine Cadet

Guyana Latoyen Farinha Tiger Guyana HSS & Q Coordinator

Guyana Joseph Boston GNSEL

Guyana Ashford Glen GNSEL Manager

Guyana Carlos Ross Marine Police

Guyana Wayne Richmond GDFCG Lieutenant (CG)

Guyana Iriel Lousammy GDFCG Petty Officer

Guyana Desmond Cears SAG Chairman

Guyana Phillip Azure GPF Deputy Commander

Guyana P Mentore MARAD HR & QMO

Guyana G Patram DPI C. Officer

Guyana Derrot Story Muneshwers LTO Wharf Manager

Guyana Geoffery Babb MARAD Chef Pilot

Guyana Marm Archer JF LTD Manager

Guyana Alan Fernandes JF LTD Director

Guyana Clement Brush GNIC Shipping Agent

Guyana Anastasia Chandro EPA EOII

Guyana Kwesi Thomas GNIC SUPT. Terminal ops

Guyana Kenson Boston M&CC Asst. City Eng.

Guyana C. Colemann OCLOI River M.

Guyana Chunifall Lall Dem Shipping PFSO

Guyana Eric Alfred Dem Shipping OPS Coordinator

Guyana Randy Barnwell MARAD Pilot

Guyana Ian D'Anjoll Shipping Assoc. of Guyana Sec/Treas

Guyana Ray Philadellphia THD Captain

Guyana Derris Elorris THD Chief Engineer


99

Guyana Matthew Munn Puyum Bro. PRO

Guyana Rushanna Marks MARAD Legal Officer

Guyana Thandi McAllister MARAD Legal Officer

Guyana Udessa Ducan EPA Senoir Energy Officer

Belize Anthony Sankey Belize Port Authority Sr. Port Inspector

Belize Ramsay Leacock PUMA Energery Terminal Superintendent

Belize George Lamb Belize Wate Control Ltd. General Manager

Belize Caryl Maylian Belize Wate Control Ltd. Supervisor

Belize Roberto Carrillo Btalco Seadoard Ops. Manager

Belize Merlene Martinez Belize Port Authority Ports Commissioner

Belize Lisa Tillett Public Health Senior Public Health

Belize Darlin Gartan Belize Port Authority PSCO

Belize Jamani Balderamos Immarbe Technical Officer

Belize Edward Stane Immarbe Compliance Officer

Belize Gustavo Carriello Port of Bis Creek Manager

Belize Darion Butler Caibbean Feader Services Ops. Manager

Belize Franzine Waight Port of Belize Ltd DCEO

Belize Alfonso Juares National Sanitation Driver

Belize Lumen M. Cayentano Belize Solid Waste Management Authority Sr. Technician

Belize Kendrick Gordon DOE Env. Technician

Belize Pamela Ewing National Sanitation Human Resources Manager

Belize Michael Reimers BIHL (Harvest Caye) Operations

Belize Sherlett Martinez Belize Port Authority Operations Manager

Belize Floyd Williams Belize City Counsil City Engineer

Belize Victor Mulligan FSTV

Belize Major Jones PBL Consultant

Trinidad and Tobage Richmond Basant Ministry of Works and Transport Maritime Researcher and


100

Trinidad and Tobage Emmanuel Dubois National Solid Waste Management Environmental Officer

Trinidad and Tobage Lenin Oliviere Maritime Services Division Manager Property Developent

Trinidad and Tobage Gerrel Traboulay Point Lisas Industrial Port Development Corp. LTD

HSE Manager

Trinidad and Tobage Maria Joseph-Allong The Trinidad & Tobago Solid Waste Management Co. LTD SWMCOL

QHSE Manager

Trinidad and Tobage Vivian Rambarath Parasram University of Trinidad and Tobago Assistant Professor

Trinidad and Tobage Rahanna Juman Institute of Marine Affairs Acting Deputy Director,

Trinidad and Tobage Garnet Best Ministry of Works and Transport Maritime Services Division

Maritime Consultant

Trinidad and Tobage Tracey Oliveira Harris Environmental Management Authority Environmental program Officer


101

List of Annexes

Annex A Antigua and Barbuda

Annex B Bahamas

Annex C Barbados

Annex D Belize

Annex E Cuba

Annex F Dominica

Annex G Dominican Republic

Annex H Grenada

Annex I Guyana

Annex J Haiti

Annex K Jamaica

Annex L St. Kitts

Annex M St. Lucia

Annex N St. Vincent

Annex O Suriname

Annex P Trinidad & Tobago