Environmental Protection and Management of Volos Sea-port

8/18/2019 Environmental Protection and Management of Volos Sea-port

1/97

Connected Cities

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND

MANAGEMENT OF SEA-PORTS.

THE CASE OF VOLOS SEA-PORT.

Effie Antoniou , Planner and Regional Developer,MSc in Development and Planning, MSc in Environmental

Economics and Natural Resources,PhD Candidate

Konstantina Stamatiou , Solicitor, MSc inPlanning and Regional Development, PhD Candidate


2/97

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXTENDED ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………..1

CHAPTER ONE: PORT POLICY IN THE PROCESS

OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION………………………………………………….……….3

1.1 Introduct ion…………………………………………………………………………. …3

1.2 The changing role of the por t indust ry…………………………………………….4

1.3 The EU and its actions about environmental protection

and management of ports…………………………………………………………….4

1.3.1 The European Commission’s White Paper ‘European

Transport Policy for 2010…………………………………………………………..8

1.3.2. Liabili ty and Compensation instruments……………………………………….9

1.3.3 The Barcelona Convention of 1976…………………………………………..…10

1.3.4 Council Decision 1999/802/EC………………………………………………..….11

1.3.5 Protocol for the prevention of pol lution of the

Mediterranean Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft…………………....11

1.3.6 Council Decision 1999/802/EC…………………………………………………...12

1.3.7 Protocol for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against

pol lut ion from land-based sources……………………………………………..12

1.3.8 Council Decision 1999/801/EC…………………………………………………...13

1.3.9. Protocol concerning specially protected areas and biological

diversity in the Mediterranean…………………………………………………...13

1.3.10. Counc il Decision 1999/800/EC…………………………………………….…..13

1.3.11 Protocol concerning cooperation in preventing pollution

from ships and, in cases of emergency, combating

pollution of the Mediterranean Sea…………………………………………...141.3.12 Council Decision 2002/762/EC of 19 September 2002……………………..15

1.3.13 The COPE fund…………………………………………………………………....16

1.3.14 Direct ive 2002/84/EC of the European Parl iament and of the

Council of 5 November 2002 amending the Directives on marit ime

safety and the prevention of pollution from ships………………………...17

1.3.15 Regulation (EC) No 782/2003 of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 14 April 2003 on the prohibition of organotin

compounds on ships [Offic ial Journal L 115 of 9.5.2003]………………...17

1.3.16 Directive 2005/35/EC……………………………………………………………..19


3/97

1.3.17 Decision 2005/667/JHA…………………………………………………………..19


Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security………………….20


Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for

ship-generated waste and cargo residues……………………………….….21

1.3.20 Port infrastructure: Green Paper of 10 December 1997

on seaports and mari time infrastructure………………………………….....22

1.3.21 Decision No 1692/96/EC…………………………………………………………24

1.3.22 Communication f rom the Commission to the European

Parliament and the Council, of 20 November 2002,

"A European Union strategy to reduce atmospheric

emissions from seagoing ships" ………………………………………….…..24

CHAPTER TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND

PROTECTION THROUGH NATIONAL INITIATIVES………..….26

2.1 The Greek port system……………………………………………………………....26

2.2 The National Port Policy of the Greek State……………………………………..28

2.3 Volos port in the framework of the Greek port system………………………..30

2.4 Engagements to the European legislat ion…………………………………….…31

2.4.1 Presidential Decree 55/1998……………………………………………………...31

2.4.2 Decision No 181051/2080/78/14.2.1978 of

Minister of Commercial Shipping………………………………………………..31

2.5 Sewages…………………………………………………………………………….….35

2.5.1 Sewage disposal methods………………………………………………………..36

CHAPTER THREE: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF PORTS……………………….38

3.1 Introduct ion……………………………………………………………………………383.2 Por t waste management…………………………………………………………….39

3.2.1 The MARPOL 73/78 Convention………………………………………………....40

3.2.2 Oil waste…………………………………………………………………………...41

3.2.3 Noxious liquid substances in bulk…….………………………………………..42

3.2.5 Sewage……………………………………………………………………………….43

3.2.4 Noxious Substances in Packaged Form……………………………………….43

3.2.6 Garbage………………………………………………………………………………44

3.3 Air pollution in ports…………………………………………………………………45


4/97

3.3.1 The MARPOL 73/78 Convention – Annex VI…………………………………..46

3.3.2 Air pollution control measures…………………………………………………..47

3.4 The Fugit ive dust in the city-por ts………………………………………………...48

3.5 Dredging and disposal of dredging materials…………………………………..49

3.6 Noise pol lut ion from port activ ities……………………………………………….50

3.7 Bunkering………………………………………………………………………………51

3.8 Land Use…………………………………………………………………………….....52

3.9 Port Environmental Management ………………………………………………...53

CHAPTER FOUR: THE PORT OF VOLOS……………………………………………..554.1 The City Profile………………………………………………………………………..55

4.2 The Port of Volos………………………………………………………………….….56

4.3 Volos Port Authority S.A…………………………………………………………….58

4.4 Passenger’s ships services ………………………………………………………..59

4.5 Services for shipment and discharge of cargos

and transit of merchandise………………………………………………………....60

CHAPTER FIVE: THE PORT OF VOLOS- ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES…………...62

5.1 Waste pollut ion and waste management of the port…………………………..62

5.1.1 Introduct ion………………………………………………………………………….62

5.1.2 Noxious Liquid Substances…………………………………………………....62

5.1.3 Oil residuals……………………………………………………………………….64

5.1.4 Compulsory acceptance of solid waste……………………………………...65

5.1.5 Sewage in the Port o f Volos……………………………………………………...67

5.2 Air pollu tion in the Port of Volos…………………………………………………..68

5.2.1 Vehicles and Machines of the commerce por t of Volos………………...…..71

5.3 The use of water and energy……………………………………………………….73

5.4 The noise in the port of Volos……………………………………………………...74

5.4.1 Measures for the control of the noise in the Port of Volos…………………77

5.5 Water Pollution in the Port of Volos……………………………………………....79

5.6 Changes in the land-use in the Port of Volos……………………………………81

5.7 Dredging in the Port of Volos……………………………………………………....83

CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………………....84


5/97

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………..89

ANNEX………………………………………………………………………………………90


6/97

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

Environmental management and protection of the sea and sea-ports is an issue of

great importance both for the sustainable development as well as for the overall

enhancement of the environment. The protection of the marine environment is an

important activity which contributes to the economic development, to tourist

development of the coastal areas and to sustainability.

The port of o Volos constitutes a port of great importance, not only for the Greek

financial life and transportation, but also for the international economic activity and

transportations. Being such a busy harbor, Volos raises the need for protection and

management of its marine environment. Up to nowadays there have been a few

attempts in order to contribute to its environmental sustainability but these were not

always methodical enough, therefore it is a matter of great importance for Volos to

undertake an integrated system of environmental management and protection of its

port.

The purpose of this study is to examine the environmental issues that are related to

the port of Volos. In order to analyse, present, examine and criticise them, and to find

the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the related issues to the port

there were considered many factors that determine the sustainable function of the

ports. The scope of the study is wide and includes the legal basis for the

environmental protection of ports, a theoretical review over the environmental

protection and management of ports, the special circumstances that exist in the case

of Volos, as well as the environmental issues that need to be dealt with in the case of

the Volos Port.

In Chapter One, Port Policy in the process of European Integration, there are

presented the legal issues that have to do with the port policy in the European Union.

Additionally, there are presented International and Community’s Conventions,

Directives and Agreements that help in the sustainable management of ports.

In Chapter Two, Environmental Management and Protection through National

Initiatives it is presented the national law that has to do with the marine operations,

always targeting to the environmental protection.


7/97

In Chapter Three, Environmental Issues of Ports, port waste management, dredging

and dredging disposal, dust, noise, air quality, bunkering, hazardous cargo, port

development, which is related to land use, and finally ship discharge are theoretically

reviewed.

In Chapter Four, The Port of Volos, it firstly presented the profile of the city of Volos.

Additionally it is presented the function of the port, as well as it is also presented the

marine traffic of the port both the commercial and the passengers’ ones.

In Chapter Five, The Port of Volos- Environmental Issues, there are discussed the

main issues that are important for the environmental sustainability of the port of

Volos. Waste management, air and noise pollution, land pressures and other

environmental related activities are discussed in the case study of the port of Volos.

Finally, in the Conclusions there are presented the main understandings from the

current study.


8/97

CHAPTER ONE

PORT POLICY IN THE PROCESS OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

1.2 Introduct ion

The coastline of the European Union is many thousands of kilometres in length and

contains well over 600 individual ports. These handle around 90% of EU external

trade and around 35% of trade between EU countries. This involves handling 3.5

billion tonnes of goods and 350 million passengers being transported on millions of

ship journeys each year. Consequently, it is vital that EU maritime transport operates

in a safe, secure and environmentally friendly way. In support of these goals, and in

addition to the systems and procedures in place in each country, the EU has set

legislation under port state control Directive 95/21. This aims to ensure that there is

effective inspection of ships in EU ports and, thereby, to ensure that ships sailing in

EU waters have been appropriately constructed and maintained.

Since 1957 the EU constitutes an additional policy – making jurisdiction in the field of

transport. Within the framework of the treaty of Rome (1957), the Common Transport

Policy (CTP) was declared as an indispensable component of the emerging Common

Market. The six founding members of the European Economic Community had very

little interest in maririme transport, thus in the years that followed there was no

specific action regarding maritime transport, which was incorporated into the

Common Transport Policy (CTP) after the first enlargement of the Community in

1973 (with the inclusion of Ireland, UK and Denmark). During the next 17 years

progress of the common marirtime policy was fragmeneted and policy mainly focused

on possible ways to respond to the crisis caused by the flagging-out of the European

fleet towards various flags of convenience.

In 1991 the European Commission introduced the so-called “hgorizontal” approach

regarding the system of maritime transport within the framework of CTP. In the

context of that approach the Commission included, for the first time, thoughts and

choices regarding the European Port Industry. The accession of Greece (1981), of

Spain and Portugal (1986), and, not least, of Sweden and Finland (along with Austria

in 1998) significantly increased the importance of the port industry to the progress of

the European Integration Progress.


9/97

The following policy developments\characterize the 1990ies and formulate a mosaic-

approach in an attempt to integrate proposals, thoughts and strategy on port industry:

The publication in 1992 of a new strategy document regarding the progress of the

CTP (CEU, 1992a)

Publication of the White Paper on the incorporation of the objective of sustainable

mobility in that strategy (CEU, 1992b)

The adoption of an EU policy aiming to develop the TEN-T, which was advanced

by the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty (signed in 1991, modified in 1993)

The reassessment of the EU Maritime Strategy in 1996 (CEU, 1996a, 1996b)

The provisions of the Green Paper on sea ports and maritime infrastructure in

1997 (CEU, 1997a)

The reports of the European Parliament on a common policy regarding theEuropean ports (EP, 1993, 1999).

1.2 The changing role of the port indust ry

Structural changes in the world economy that have taken place since 1970 have had

a significant impact on international trade, thus ports are also undergoing a process

of structural transformation. Nowadays, ports constitute areas where highlysophisticated logistics activities are concentrated, largely due to fundamental

modifications in the production and distribution of goods. The creation of functionally

comprehensive “industrial networks” and the implementation of logistics - that is the

management of physical and informational flows into, through and out of a business-

resulted in a new trading context and altered the transport-industry relationship. The

port product must be regarded as a chain of interlinking functions taking place within

the area of the port.

1.3 The EU and its actions about environmental protect ion and management of

ports

Ports are not only parts of the transport network but are also located on the coast or

on riverbanks. Transport, together with energy-generation plant and industry are

considered as the major sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Short sea shipping,

although short in length (in comparison to road traffic), entails traffic increase and


10/97

possible congestion on seaports. A 1% modal shift from road freight transport to

shipping would allow a reduction of CO2 emissions by 0,2 % (EC, 1998). The Kyoto

Protocol (articles 2.2 and 3.2) concludes that the creation of an integrated logistics

management system with full use of telematics would allow a CO2 reduction of about

4 %. The strategic location of ports between sea and land makes them the best

witnesses of pollution coming from land, ships and from the ports themselves. The

port environment is threatened by: port's hinterland, ships activity, port activity and

port operation. Ports pollution may result from ship accidents, accidents in ports

(Goulielmos and Pardali, 1998), land activities, ship bunkering, noises, garbage,

dust, dredging, port maintenance, ship air pollution, traffic congestion, sewage and

others. Very important is the relationship between port development and

environment, (Finney and Young, 1995; Vandermeulen, 1996; Guhnemann and

Rothengatter, 1998), as traffic (demand) expands and the role of ports change from a

simple hinterland terminal to a complex nodal point in the logistics chain. This last

fact requires also change in port's infrastructure layout (UNCTAD, 1993). Apart from

investment cost for dredging facilities, the infrastructure should now take into account

environmental impact and environment restoration to ecological standards.

Environment requirements are now part of the investment cost and this may be quite

high for a port, even for those owned by the public sector (Gibb, 1997). If should be

borne in mind that ecological organizations were in the past successful in canceling

investment projects concerning ports (the socalled Maritime Industrial Development

Areas). Environmental policies now enter drastically into the selection of new ports

locations (away e.g. from river mouths). Denial of port expansion on environment

reasons may favour other competing ports. Port environmental criteria should

therefore be harmonized among, at least, the members- states of the E.U. Since

1997, there is a tendency in E.U. for a modern, efficient and competitive European

Port Sector, which can contribute to the principle of a sustainable mobility. The portsector integrates maritime transport and other port transport modes into the transport

chain (Commission of the European Communities, 1997).

Mobility is a condition for the single market, and sustainability is a condition for the

protection of the European environment. Since 1992 (Commission's White Paper,

1992, Common Transport Policy), E.U. is trying to develop a more balanced transport

system by promoting more environmentally friendly transport solutions like

intermodality and short sea shipping (Commission of European Communities, 1995,

1996). Ports are to help congestion and bottleneck phenomena of the main land-


11/97

corridors and minimize externalities. Ports are part of the logistics chain and the

transport networks with a decisive role in the protection of the sea environment. The

concepts of sustainability and sustainable mobility are very much discussed and it is

argued that the environmental protection issues should be introduced into the

production function of ports.

European Environmental Policies were discussed for the first time at the Paris

European Summit Meeting. The 5th Environmental Action Program (1987-1992) set

as priority the Water Pollution, and its sub-areas such as maritime pollution and

coastal zones protection. The first concern on the European Union (E.U.) agenda

was the protection of the Atlantic Ocean (1981), North Sea (1984) and later

Mediterranean Sea. Unfortunately, the environmental protection of ports was left

aside for later consideration. Transport has been the target sector for environmental

concern as early as 1973, but received the appropriate attention only after 1989

(Commission of European Communities, 1990).

Unlike environmental policies, marine pollution has received much attention by

International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (ESCAP, 1992), United Nations

Conference on Trade And Development (UNCTAD, 1993), United Nations (1994,

1996), Comite Maritime International (CMI), International Navigation Association

(PIANPIANC), World Bank (Davis et al., 1990) and others. IMO, in particular, dealt

with transport, handling and storage of dangerous substances in ports. In Agenda 21,

(United Nations, 1994), ports' activities are considered as one of the sectors affecting

coastal areas and where reception facilities for the collection of oily and chemical

residuals and garbage should be established.

Specific E.U. policy for the port's environment does not exist. Port activities are

considered part of the transport and, especially, part of the multimodal trans-European networks and from this point of view they should be considered as falling

into the objectives of sustainable mobility (Commission of European Communities,

1997). Environmental policies related to ports should pay attention to the

"environmental sensitive areas", which had been put into effect under the article 19 of

Council Regulation 797/85. Related to this concept is the Convention on wetlands of

international importance, (e.g. Wildfowl Habitat, 1971), RAMSAR (Convention on

Wetlands of International importance especially as waterfowls habitats) sites and bird

habitats protected under the EC directive 79/409, which has created the "Special

Protection Areas". EC directive 94/43 on the Conservation of natural Habitats and


12/97

Wild Fauna and Flora (1991) is also important in that respect. Apart from tight

development rights, a totally different management approach is needed on special

protection areas. Projects in those areas are permitted on the basis of overriding

public interest (social or economic). Following E.C. Council directive 92/43/EEC, this

is implemented by NATURA 2000 Network of EC Commission. Terminal expansion

of ports should then be examined whether they are detrimental to a Special Area of

Conversation (SAC) site (1999-2004). The European Court case No 57/89, European

Commission versus Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) (28/2/91) is relevant to this

issue. In UK, if environmental benefits are prevented from inadequate port facilities

(e.g. transferring freight from road to coastwise shipping), government should provide

a grant, shippers transferring cargos by the sea may be subsidized or restitution of

the area may be possible (UK Royal Commission, 1994).

Projects for port expansion should always be considered in the context of

environmental legislation and through the appropriate E.I.A. (Environemntal Impact

Assessment) approach. Key objectives set by the Commission are: (a) sustainable

and safe mobility, (b) environment protection, (c) combination of all modes of

transport (with their comparative environment advantage), (d) optimal use of existing

facilities, and (e) interoperability. Performance indicators for environmental

sustainability should be specified. According to European Communities (1997), all

"plans and programs in sectors such as transport (including transport corridors, port

facilities and airports, telecommunication and tourism)" are subjects to an E.I.A. The

E.I.A. should be entitled "strategic environmental assessment" which means a

formalized, systematic and comprehensive process to evaluate environmental

impacts resulted by the application of a policy, a plan or a program and its

alternatives. It should include the preparation of a report on the findings evaluation

and should use the findings in public accountable decision-making process.

Commission recognized that ports are located close to populated areas wherehabitats and living species are put in danger. New port development should be

considered within an integrated frame for coastal planning, taking into account the

socio-economic and environmental needs and constraints of the surrounding coastal

zone. A Code of Conduct (ESPO, 1995) provides a quality framework for a

programmed action with respect to the protection of the environment within port

areas.

European Commission, following DGXI (Environment Directorate) is not keen to

favour new port development given the fact that technology and operational


13/97

efficiency of existing facilities may improve. Indeed, in areas with many ports, co-

ordination and specialization among them should be favoured.

It is worth mentioning that "port environment policies have generally been by-

products of sectoral legislation". In the following legislation acts we can find different

aspects and parts of the European environemental port policy: The Health and Safety

in the Workplace Directive, The Waste Reception Facilities Directive, The Wild Birds

Directive, The Habitats Directive, The Bathing Water Directive, The Dangerous

Substances Directive, The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, The Shellfish

Directive, The Water Framework Directive, The Environmental Impact Assessment

Directive, The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, and The

Environmental Liability Directive.

1.3.1 The European Commission’s White Paper ‘European Transport Policy for

2010

Accoording to this paper ports have a critical role within the Community’s transport

policy for the next decade. Shifting traffic (mainly cargo) from road to sea has been

adopted as a main policy goal, and specific actions are proposed to move forward

towards that goal. As growth in European road transport has been recognised as

creating significant problems, such as congestion, pollution, noise, accidents, and

others, these problems create significant ‘external’ costs, which are not reflected in

the price of services rendered. According to the White Paper, the most recent

estimate of the external costs of road congestion is 0.5% of Community GDP,

something that will increase by 142% to h80 billion a year in 2010 (ie, approximately

1% of GDP) if no action is taken. Any action to be taken is certain to involve EU

ports, as in order to achieve this strategic goal, one would need these ports tooperate efficiently.

Maritime transport of goods and passengers involves different types of risk. As a

consequence of a maritime accident, loss of life or injury may occur to crew and

passengers, damage to the property of shipowners and the cargo, as well as

potential risk to life, health and property of third parties and the natural environment.

Over the last decades, the risk of accidents has increased. Contributing factors are

the larger volume of maritime transport, including dangerous or polluting cargos, a

higher exposure to third party interests and, finally, the increased recognition of the


14/97


15/97

recovery of, or compensation for, costs and damage incurred for the accommodation

of ships in distress in places of refuge.

Last but not least, the recent entrance into force of the Directive 2005/35 on ship-

source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements gives the

Commission, an subsequently to EMSA, on the basis of art. 10 thereof, a role in its

implementation.

1.3.3 The Barcelona Convent ion of 1976

The Barcelona Convention of 1976, amended in 1995, and the Protocols drawn up in

line with this Convention aim to reduce pollution in the Mediterranean Sea and

protect and improve the marine environment in the area, thereby contributing to its

sustainable development. Decision 77/585/EEC enables the Community to accede to

the Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution

(Barcelona Convention) and the Protocol for the prevention of pollution of the

Mediterranean Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft. The purpose of these two

instruments, together with the protocols to which the Community has subsequently

acceded (by Decisions 81/420/EEC, 83/101/EEC and 84/132/EEC), is to limit

pollution in the Mediterranean region. They were signed in 1976 by all the Member

States (Greece, Spain, France, Italy) and non-member countries bordering on the

Mediterranean (a total of 21 countries). In 1999 the Council adopted a series of

Decisions on amendments to the Convention and two of the existing Protocols as

well as a new Protocol concerning specially protected areas and biological diversity

in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, in 2002 the Community signed a sixteenth

Protocol to the Barcelona Convention to which it acceded through Council Decision

2004/575/EC.

The Contracting Parties to the Convention will individually or jointly take all

appropriate measures to protect and improve the Mediterranean marine environment

in order to contribute to sustainable development in the area and to prevent, abate,

combat and, as far as possible, eliminate pollution in this area. The Parties give

particular attention to four types of pollution:

pollution caused by dumping from ships and aircraft;

pollution from ships;


16/97

pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf

and the seabed and its subsoil;

pollution from land-based sources.

The Convention lays down provisions on cooperation and information among the

Parties in the event of a critical situation causing pollution in the area of the

Mediterranean Sea in order to reduce or eliminate any damage resulting. The Parties

also undertake to endeavour to establish continuous pollution monitoring. They

cooperate in the fields of science and technology and work out appropriate

procedures for the determination of liability and compensation for damage resulting

from pollution deriving from violations of the provisions of the Convention. For the

settlement of any disputes arising between the Parties as to the interpretation or

application of the Convention, the text of the Convention provides for the settlement

of disputes and for arbitration. The Parties must cooperate in working out procedures

to supervise the application of the Convention. The United Nations Environment

Programme will carry out secretariat functions in the framework of the

implementation of the Convention (convening and preparing meetings, coordination,

etc).

1.3.4 Council Decision 1999/802/EC

Council Decision 1999/802/EC concerns a number of amendments to the Convention

which were accepted by the Community in 1995. These amendments concern, in

particular, the extension of the Convention's geographical field of application to the

coast, the application of the precautionary and "polluter pays" principles, the

obligation on the Parties to carry out and promote impact assessments, protect and

preserve biological diversity as well as combat pollution from cross-border

movements of dangerous waste, and access to information and public participation.

1.3.5 Protocol for the prevention of pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by

dumping from ships and aircraft

The Protocol covers only pollution of the region of the Mediterranean Sea caused by

ships and aircraft. Dumping of certain types of waste and matter (toxic

organohalogen and organosilicon compounds, mercury, cadmium, plastics, crude oil,

etc.) is prohibited. Dumping of other matter or types of waste (arsenic, lead, copper,

zinc, chrome, nickel, containers, scrap metal, certain types of pesticides, etc.) is


17/97

subject to the prior issue of a permit by the competent national authorities. Such

permits may be issued only after careful consideration of a number of factors

(characteristics and composition of the matter, characteristics of dumping site and

method of deposit, general considerations and conditions). Ships and aircraft used

for other than governmental and non-commercial purposes are excluded from the

scope of the Protocol.


Council Decision 1999/802/EC concerns a number of amendments to the Protocol


particular, the clarification of terms defined by the Protocol, waste or other matter

authorised for dumping subject to the issue of a special permit, the ban on

incineration at sea, and the procedure to follow in the event of a critical and

exceptional situation. Protocol concerning cooperation in combating pollution of the

Mediterranean Sea by oil and other harmful substances in cases of emergency. This

Protocol stipulates that the Parties will cooperate when a huge quantity of oil and/or

other harmful substances in the Mediterranean Sea, whether accidental or

cumulative, presents a serious and imminent danger to the marine environment, the

coast or the economic, health or ecological interests of one or more Parties. This

cooperation focuses on drawing up emergency plans, promoting measures for

combating oil pollution in the sea, monitoring and exchanging information regarding

the state of the Mediterranean Sea, disseminating information on the organisation of

resources and on new methods to prevent and combat pollution, and developing

research programmes on the subject. The Protocol requires all Parties facing a

critical situation to carry out the necessary, precise evaluations concerning the nature

and the size of the accident, take all measures likely to reduce or eliminate the

effects of this pollution, and inform other Parties, either directly or through the

Regional Centre for the Mediterranean Sea created by the Barcelona Convention, ofthese evaluations and actions undertaken.

1.3.7 Protocol for the protect ion of the Mediterranean Sea against pollu tion

from land-based sources

The purpose of this Protocol is to combat pollution in the Mediterranean Sea caused

by discharges from rivers, outfalls, canals or other watercourses, or pollution

emanating from any other source or activity within the territory of the States party to


18/97

the Protocol. The Protocol lists the substances of which discharge is prohibited, and

the factors which should be taken into account in order to eliminate pollution from

these substances. It also lists substances for which discharge is subject to

authorisation by the competent national authorities. This authorisation must take

particular account of the characteristics and composition of the waste, the

characteristics of the elements in the waste in terms of harmfulness, the

characteristics of the place where the waste is discharged and the marine

environment it is entering, the techniques available to manage the waste, as well as

possible damage to marine ecosystems and its effect on sea water usage. The

Protocol also stipulates cooperation regarding research and information, and the

adoption of appropriate programmes, measures and standards aimed at reducing or

eliminating the targeted substances.


Council Decision 1999/801/EC concerns a number of amendments to the Protocol


particular, the application of the precautionary principle, the extension of the scope of

the Protocol to airborne pollution of land-based origin, the regulatory system for

waste discharge, the continued monitoring of pollution levels, and technical

assistance to developing countries.

1.3.9. Protocol concerning specially protected areas and biolog ical diversity in

the Mediterranean

The Protocol concerning specially protected areas in the Mediterranean, to which theCommunity acceded in 1984, protects natural resources in the Mediterranean region,

preserves the diversity of the gene pool and protects certain natural sites by creating

a series of specially preserved areas.

1.3.10. Council Decision 1999/800/EC

Council Decision 1999/800/EC allows the Community to accede to the new Protocol,

signed in 1995, concerning specially protected areas and biological diversity in the


19/97

Mediterranean. The new Protocol makes the distinction between specially protected

areas (already provided for in the former Protocol) and specially protected areas of

Mediterranean importance. It stipulates that the Parties develop guidelines for

establishing and managing protected areas and lists a certain number of appropriate

measures which the Parties must adopt in order to ensure the identified areas are

protected. These measures include: prohibiting the discharge or unloading of waste,

regulating shipping operations, regulating the introduction of any non-indigenous or

genetically modified species, and any other measures protecting the ecological and

biological processes and the countryside. Furthermore, it introduces national or local

measures which the Parties must take in order to protect animal and plant species

throughout the Mediterranean area. The Protocol also provides for exemptions to be

granted because of traditional activities carried out by local populations. However,

these exemptions must not compromise the preservation of the protected

ecosystems, nor the biological processes making up these ecosystems, nor must

they cause the extinction or a substantial fall in numbers of any species or animal or

plant populations included within the protected ecosystems. The annexes to the new

Protocol include a list of common criteria which the Parties must respect when

choosing which marine and coastal areas are to be protected under the system of

specially protected areas of Mediterranean importance. The annexes also list

threatened or endangered species as well as including a list of species whose

exploitation is regulated.

1.3.11 Protocol concerning cooperation in preventing pollution from ships and,

in cases of emergency, combating pollution of the Mediterranean Sea

This Protocol updates the legal mechanisms in the Barcelona Convention by

incorporating in it measures concerning cooperation between Parties regardingprevention and, in cases of emergency, combating pollution in the Mediterranean

caused by ships. It also endeavours to promote the development and implementation

of international regulations adopted in the framework of the International Maritime

Organization. Cooperation focuses on maintaining and promoting emergency plans

and other means for preventing and combating pollution from ships, adequate

monitoring of the Mediterranean Sea, efforts to recover harmful and potentially

dangerous substances, as well as disseminating and exchanging information. The

Protocol also stipulates operational measures which the Parties must take in the

event of pollution caused by ships (evaluation, elimination/reduction, information


20/97

measures), as well as emergency measures which must be taken on board ships, in

offshore installations and in ports (in particular the availability of and compliance with

emergency plans).

This Decision aims to authorise the Member States to become Contracting Parties to

the 2001 International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage.

1.3.12 Council Decision 2002/762/EC of 19 September 2002

Council Decision 2002/762/EC of 19 September 2002 authorising the Member

States, in the interest of the Community, to sign, ratify or accede to the International

Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 (the Bunkers

Convention) [Official Journal L 256 of 25.09.2002]. The Bunkers Convention was

adopted on 23 March 2001, under the auspices of the International Maritime

Organisation (IMO) with the aim of ensuring adequate, prompt and effective

compensation of persons who suffer damage caused by spills of oil carried as fuel in

ships' bunkers. This Decision, adopted by the Council of the European Union (EU) on

19 September 2002, authorised the Member States to sign, ratify or accede to the

Bunkers Convention, subject to the conditions set out in the Decision.

The Convention applies to pollution damage caused in the territory, in the territorial

sea and in the exclusive economic zone or equivalent zone of any State which is a

party to the Convention; The provisions of the Convention do not apply to warships,

naval auxiliary or other ships owned by a State. However, any State which is a party

to the Convention may decide to apply the Convention to such ships. The shipowner

at the time of an incident is liable for all pollution damage caused by its bunker oil.

However, no liability will attach to the shipowner if the shipowner proves that: thedamage resulted from an act of war, hostilities, insurrection or a natural phenomenon

of an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character; or the damage was caused by

an act or omission done with intent to cause damage by a third party; or the damage

was wholly caused by the negligence of any Government or other authority

responsible. The financial liability of the liable party is subject to the limits laid down

in the applicable national or international regime but may under no circumstances

exceed an amount calculated in accordance with the 1976 Convention on Limitation

of Liability for Maritime Claims, as amended. Owners of ships with a gross tonnage

greater than 1 000 registered in a State which is a party to the Convention are


21/97

required to maintain insurance or other financial security, such as the guarantee of a

bank or similar financial institution, to cover their liability for pollution damage. The

Council Decision calls on Member States to take the necessary steps to deposit their

instruments of ratification of, or accession to, the Bunkers Convention within a

reasonable time with the Secretary-General of the International Maritime

Organisation, if possible before 30 June 2006. Member States are required to inform

the Council and the Commission, before 30 June 2004, of the prospective date of

finalisation of their ratification or accession procedures.

1.3.13 The COPE fund

The European Parliament and the Council made a proposal for a regulation on the

establishment of a fund for the compensation of oil pollution damage in European

waters and related measures [COM (2000) 802 final - Official Journal C 120 E, 24

April 2001]. This proposal for a regulation forms part of the second package of

Community measures on maritime safety . Following the sinking of the Erika, the

Commission came to the conclusion that the existing liability and compensation

arrangements failed to offer sufficient guarantees against oil pollution damage. The

objective of this proposal from the Commission is to set up a supplementary fund

covering liability and compensation for pollution damage caused by oil tankers,

designated COPE (Compensation for Oil Pollution in European waters fund), to pay

compensation to the victims of oil spills in European waters. The COPE Fund would

top up the CLC (Convention on Liability of the Carrier) and IOPC (International Fund

for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage) systems in force at international level. A

Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution will be established to provide compensation

to the extent that the protection afforded by the CLC Convention and the IOPC

Convention is inadequate. To this end, the COPE Fund will pay compensation to anyperson who is entitled to compensation for pollution damage under the IOPC

Convention but who has been unable to obtain full and adequate compensation

under that Convention. No compensation will be paid by the COPE Fund until the

Commission has approved the results of the relevant assessment of entitlement.

Each Member State will be required to communicate to the Commission the name

and address of any person who is liable to contribute to the COPE Fund. For the

purposes of ascertaining who are liable to contribute to the COPE Fund and of

establishing, where applicable, the quantities of oil to be taken into account for each

such person, a list must be compiled and kept up to date by the Commission.


22/97

Member States will also have to lay down a system for imposing financial penalties

on any person found by a court of law to have contributed, by wrongful intentional or

grossly negligent acts or omissions, to an incident causing or threatening to cause oil

pollution. Three years after the entry into force of the regulation at the latest, the

Commission will submit a report on the efforts made at international level to improve

the international insurance and compensation arrangements.

1.3.14 Directive 2002/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5

November 2002 amending the Directives on maritime safety and the prevention

of pollution from ships

This Directive aims to improve the implementation of Community legislation on

maritime safety, on the prevention of pollution from ships and on shipboard living and

working conditions. The Directive is closely linked to Regulation 2002/2099/EC

establishing a Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

and amending the Regulations on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution

from ships. The aim is to simplify the committee procedures through the replacement

of the various committees set up under the Community legislation on maritime safety

and the prevention of pollution from ships with a single committee to be known as the

Committee on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships. At the same

time, the Directive will seek to speed up and simplify the incorporation of international

rules into Community legislation. This Directive amends the following Directives:

Directive 94/57/EC, Directive 95/21/EC, Directive 96/98/EC, Directive 97/70/EC,

Directive 98/18/EC, Directive 98/41/EC, Directive 99/35/EC, Directive 2000/59/EC,

Directive 2001/25/EC, Directive 2001/96/EC. This regulation aims to prohibit

organotin compounds (anti-fouling paints) on all ships entering port in the Community

in order to reduce or eliminate the adverse effects of these products on the marine

environment and human health.

1.3.15 Regulation (EC) No 782/2003 of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 14 April 2003 on the prohibition of organotin compounds on ships

[Offi cial Journal L 115 of 9.5.2003]

Based on the strategic objectives set out in the Commission White Paper on

transport policy, the purpose of this Community regulation is to reduce the adverse

effects on the environment caused by organotin compounds used on ships.

Organotin compounds are chemicals from anti-fouling paints used on boat hulls and


23/97

nets. These surface coatings are designed to prevent the attachment of algae,

molluscs and other organisms which slow down vessel speeds. Organotin

compounds pose a definite risk to aquatic fauna and flora. During the '60s the

chemical industry developed efficacious anti-fouling paints using metallic

compounds, in particular the organotin compounds tributyltin (TBT) and triphenyltin

(TPT). The regulation applies to ships flying the flag of a Member State, ships not

flying the flag of a Member State but operating under the authority of a Member State

and ships entering port in a Member State but not covered by the two previous

points. The regulation does not apply to any warship, naval auxiliary or other ship

owned by a State and used on government service. As from 1 July 2003, organotin

compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems may no longer be applied

on ships flying the flag of a Member State. As from 1 January 2008 ships entering

port in a Member State must either bear no coating of organotin compounds which

act as biocides or must bear a second topcoat forming a barrier to prevent organotin

compounds leaching from the non-compliant anti-fouling undercoat. The regulation

introduces a survey and certification system for ships flying the flag of a Member

State. It stipulates that: ships of 400 gross tonnage and above must be surveyed,

irrespective of the voyage; ships of 24 metres or more in length, but less than 400

gross tonnage, must simply carry a declaration of compliance with the regulation or

with the AFS Convention. No particular survey or certificate is specified in the

regulation to avoid overburdening the administrations in the Member States; no

survey or certification is envisaged for ships of less than 24 metres in length, i.e.

mainly pleasure craft and fishing boats. As regards recognition of certificates and of

statements of compliance: as from 1 July 2003, Member States must recognise any

AFS certificate issued by or on behalf of a Member State; as from 1 July 2004,

Member States must recognise any AFS statement of compliance issued on behalf of

a Member State; as from 1 July 2003, Member States must recognise any AFS

declaration. By 10 May 2004 at the latest, the Commission must report to theEuropean Parliament and to the Council on progress with ratification of the AFS

Convention and, if necessary, propose amendments to speed up the process of

reducing pollution by harmful anti-fouling compounds.

Ship-source discharges in breach of Community law constitute a criminal offence and

that penalties, both criminal and administrative, must be imposed if the persons

concerned are found to have caused or participated in the act with intent or as a

result of negligent behaviour. These rules comprise two different elements: the

incorporation into Community law of international discharge rules for ship-source


24/97

pollution and the application by the Member States of penalties when these rules are

breached and the definition of the legal framework for these penalties.

1.3.16 Direct ive 2005/35/EC

According to this Directive, discharges of oil or other noxious substances from ships

must be regarded as an infringement and punished accordingly when committed with

intent, recklessly or as a result of grossly negligent behaviour. The Directive makes

such discharges of polluting substances an offence when carried out in: the internal

waters, including ports, of a Member State, territorial waters of a Member State,

straits used for international navigation subject to the regime of transit passage, as

laid down in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of a Member State, the high seas. This regime

applies to discharges from any ship, irrespective of its flag, with the exception of any

warship or other ship owned or operated by a State and used only on government

non-commercial service. There are some exceptions to the ban on discharges of

polluting substances, particularly where human safety or the safety of the ship is in

danger. If a ship makes an illegal discharge in an area under belonging to one

Member State and then calls in a port of another Member State, the two states must

cooperate with regard to this matter. Every three years, each Member State must

report to the Commission on the application of the Directive.

1.3.17 Decision 2005/667/JHA

With this decision the regime of (criminal) penalties applicable to the conduct made

an offence in the Directive is defined. Each Member State shall ensure that illegal

discharges of polluting substances, participation in and incitement to carry out such

discharges are penalised as criminal offences. These penalties must be effective,proportionate, dissuasive, and must be applied to anyone deemed responsible (the

ship owner, the owner of the cargo, or any other implicated person). For the most

serious cases, i.e. instances that cause significant and widespread damage to water

quality, animal or vegetables species or parts of them, or the death or serious injury

of persons, each Member State must include imprisonment among possible

penalties. Other penalties may be provided for individuals, such as fines or

disqualification from performing a regulated activity. Each Member State must make

the necessary provisions to ensure that legal persons can be held liable when an

offence is committed for their benefit by an individual with managerial or


25/97

representative powers within that body, or where such an individual has been subject

to insufficient supervision or control. Penalties against legal persons may include

fines, permanent or temporary disqualification from engaging in commercial activities,

being placed under judicial supervision, a judicial winding-up order, and exclusion

from access to public benefits or aid. Each Member State must take the necessary

steps to establish its jurisdiction with regard to the offences stated above, particularly

when committed on their territory, on board a ship flying their flag, or by one of their

nationals, acting on behalf of a legal person established on their territory. The sinking

of the Prestige in November 2002 and of the Erika in December 1999 highlighted the

need to tighten the net in relation to ship-source pollution. However, accidents are

not the main source of pollution: most of it is the result of deliberate discharges (tank-

cleaning operations and waste oil disposal). In this respect, the 390 oil slicks

detected in the Baltic Sea and the 596 detected in the North Sea in 2001 show the

need to put an end to the thousands of deliberate discharges of waste and cargo

residues from ships in the seas around Europe.

1.3.18 Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Counci l of 26

October 2005 on enhancing port security

Ports are often the focal point for shipments of dangerous cargo, for major chemical

and petrochemical production centres, and/or situated near cities. It is clear that

terrorist attacks in ports can easily result in serious disruptions to transport systems

and the neighbouring population. This Directive complements the measures

presented by the Commission in May 2003 to enhance the security of ships and port

infrastructure. The main objective of the Directive is to introduce a security system in

all port areas. With a view to realising this objective, the Directive is aimed at

establishing a Community framework to guarantee a high and comparable level ofsecurity in all European ports. This Directive thus complements the measures

presented by the Commission in May 2003 (COM(2003) 229 final) whose Regulation

establishing a ship and port facility security system in line with the amendments of

the SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) Convention and the ISPS (International Ship and

Port facility Security) Code. Taken together, therefore, the Directive on port security

and the Regulation on ship and port facility security provide the necessary framework

for protecting the whole chain of maritime transport logistics (from the ship to the port

via the ship/port interface and the whole port area) against the risk of attacks on

Community territory. The Directive applies to people, infrastructure and equipment


26/97

(including means of transport) in ports and adjacent areas. Member States must

designate a port security authority for each port. One must be designated for several

ports. This authority is responsible for identifying and taking the necessary port

security measures in line with port security assessments and plans. Member States

must also ensure that port security plans are developed, maintained and updated,

with a detailed description of the measures taken to enhance port security (such as

the conditions of access to ports or the measures applicable to baggage and cargo).

Member States must monitor security plans and their implementation, and specify

penalties for non-conformity. Different security levels are established in line with the

perceived risk (normal, heightened or imminent threat. The Member States accredit a

security officer in each port, who may be common to them all. These officers act as

the contact point for port security related issues and should have sufficient authority

and local knowledge to adequately ensure and coordinate the establishment,

updating and follow-up of port security assessments and port security plans. Member

States must ensure that port security assessments and port security plans are

reviewed every time security-relevant changes occur, and at least every five years.

1.3.19 Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Counci l of 27

November 2000 on por t reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo

residues

The Directive pursues the same aim as the 73/78 Marpol Convention on the

prevention of pollution by ships, which all the Member States have signed. However,

in contrast to the Convention, which regulates discharges by ships at sea, the

Directive focuses on ship operations in Community ports and addresses in detail the

legal, financial and practical responsibilities of the different operators involved in

delivery of waste and residues in ports. The Directive targets: all ships, whatevertheir flag, including fishing vessels and recreational craft, putting in at a Member

State port, apart from warships and ships belonging to or operated by a State for

non-commercial governmental purposes as well as all Member State ports. Member

States must ensure that port collection facilities are provided which meet the needs

of the ships using them without causing abnormal delays. These facilities must be

tailored to the size of the port and to the categories of ship calling there. A waste

reception and handling plan must be drawn up in each port. These plans must be

checked and assessed by the Member States and approved by them at least every

three years. Captains of ships (other than fishing boats and recreational craft


27/97

authorised to carry no more than 12 passengers) bound for a Community port are

required to notify certain information, in particular the date and the last port in which

ship-generated waste was delivered and the quantity of waste remaining on board.

Unless exempted, all ships are required to deliver their ship-generated waste before

leaving a Community port, unless the captain can prove that his vessel has adequate

storage capacity. Ships which do not deliver their waste without providing valid

reasons for exemption are not allowed to leave the port until such delivery has taken

place. Ports must establish cost recovery systems to encourage the delivery of waste

on land and discourage dumping at sea. All ships calling at a Member State port will

bear a significant part of the cost (which the Commission interprets as meaning at

least 30%), whether they use the facilities or not. These cost recovery systems

comprise a built-in, fixed element and, possibly, a variable element according to the

amount and type of waste actually delivered. Ships may be inspected. Since not all

ships can be checked, the choice of those to be inspected will focus mainly on ships

which have not complied with the notification requirement and those suspected of not

having delivered their waste. Where it is proven that a ship has put to sea without

having delivered its waste and without benefiting from an exemption, the next port of

call is alerted. The ship will not be authorised to load or unload its cargo nor to take

on passengers without undergoing a detailed inspection in accordance with Directive

95/21/EC. The Directive provides for a series of accompanying measures. In

particular, ships that have been unduly delayed owing to the inadequacy of reception

facilities, while they themselves meet the requirements to which they are subject,

must receive compensation. Every three years, Member States must send the

Commission a status report on the implementation of the Directive, following which

the Commission must submit an evaluation report on the operation of the system to

Parliament and the Council.

1.3.20 Port infrastructure: Green Paper of 10 December 1997 on seaports and

maritime infrastructure

This Green Paper aims to launch a debate on the efficiency of ports and maritime

infrastructure, their integration into the multimodal trans-European network and the

application of competition rules to this sector. The port sector handles more than

90% of the Union's trade with third countries and approximately 30% of intra-EU

traffic, as well as over 200 million passengers every year. The sector shows great

diversity between regions in terms of structure, operation, organisation and legal


28/97

framework. Competition between and within ports is increasing for a number of

reasons, highlighting factors that distort trade flows between Member States:

liberalisation of the internal market; technological changes (application of information

technology, standardisation of loading units); development of the trans-European

network, which provides users and operators with greater choice in an intermodal

environment. A Community framework is needed to ensure the principle of free and

fair competition.

The Green Paper notes that ports have so far not been at the centre of the common

transport policy. However, they have a role to play in the trans-European transport

network (TEN-T) by:

increasing the efficiency of the European transport system;

encouraging growth of intra-EU trade and trade with third countries;

overcoming congestion of the main land-corridors;

enhancing maritime links with island and peripheral regions;

strengthening the multimodal aspect of the TEN-T.

To connect the TEN-T with the networks of Central and Eastern Europe and the

Mediterranean, the Commission proposes that standards be promoted in these portscomparable to those found in Community ports. The programmes for cooperation

with third countries contribute to achieving this aim.

Intermodal transport is an essential component of the common transport policy for

sustainable mobility. In this context, the importance of ports is clear in that they are

crucial connecting points, transferring goods and passengers between maritime and

land-based modes. Improved port efficiency will contribute to the integration of

modes in a single system, on condition that there is interoperability and

interconnection between systems (common information system, reduction of

administrative procedures, standardisation of loading units). Despite the increasing

turnover in European ports, intra-European maritime traffic has not yet increased its

market share vis a vis that of the road transport sector. The promotion and

integration of short sea shipping into environmentally-friendly multimodal transport

networks has become an objective of the Union's transport policy. Priority is therefore

given to short sea shipping projects in the TEN-T and measures will be supported

under the PACT programme (the new Marco Polo programme).


29/97

The Green Paper also stresses the importance of maritime safety. Primarily focused

on ships, this nevertheless also has a direct impact on ports, as it requires port

authorities to co-operate in the implementation or enforcement of the legislation and

to ensure a high level of port services such as pilotage, mooring and towage that are

intrinsically linked to the safety of ships. The Commission also makes suggestions for

improving the integration of environmental considerations in the planning of port

development.

1.3.21 Decision No 1692/96/EC

Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July

1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Transport

Network (TEN-T) provides a broad framework for establishing an integral and

multimodal infrastructure network. Sea ports obviously play an important role within

such a network. This is why the Commission has proposed, as far as sea ports in

particular are concerned, internal navigation ports and intermodal terminals, the

identification of, inter alia, some 300 seaports, using objective criteria, for inclusion in

the outline plans and sought to improve the definition of relevant projects of common

interest relating to sea ports.

1.3.22 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and

the Council, of 20 November 2002, "A European Union strategy to reduce

atmospheric emissions from seagoing ships" [COM (2002) 595 final, Volume I -

Not published in the Official Journal]

Emissions from seagoing ships include air pollutants, greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances entailing risks for human health and the environment. Sulphur

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from ships are responsible for

acid deposition, which can be harmful to the environment, as well as particulate

matter harmful to health. NOx and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions

contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone harmful to health and to the

environment. NOx emissions contribute to environmentally damaging eutrophication.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions contribute to climate change. Halon emissions

damage the ozone layer. The communication contains a table showing emissions of

air pollutants and greenhouse gases from ships in Community waters in 2000 as well


30/97


31/97


32/97


33/97

Adriatic ro-ro traffic. In contrast to the lack of serious domestic competition, some

competition currently exists with foreign ports, mainly as regards container

transhipment, a sector in which Piraeus competes mainly with Gioia Tauro, and

secondarily with other ports such as Malta, Limassol, Damietta, and Port Said.

Piraeus was established as a Med hub port in 1997, with a doubling of its container

traffic in just 4 years (1996 to 2000) and continuous growth until it reached a peak of

2003, after which traffic experienced a decline.

The Association of Greek Ports (ELIME) was established in 2002 but was abolished

in 2005. It was replaced in 2006 by the National Center for Port Development

(EKAL), another umbrella organisation whose members are the 12 top-tier ports.

The ‘portuary fund’ governance structure is very simple, as the local municipalities

who manage the respective ports carry out all relevant investments. Funds are

provided from port dues and the state, and port employees are civil servants. The

management of the port is exercised by the municipal authorities and operations are

monitored by Coast Guard officers. Of more interest is the governance structure of

the 12 state-controlled 1st and 2nd tier ports, all of which are corporations in which

the Greek state has a majority stake. In fact, for the ten 2nd tier ‘national ports’, that

is, with the exception of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, each respective corporation has a

single share, wholly owned by the state. For Piraeus and Thessaloniki the scheme is

different, with OLP having 25,000,000 shares and OLTh 10,080,000 shares. With the

listing of both ports in the Athens Stock Exchange, the Greek state has retained a

majority stake in both ports, 74.14% and 74.27% respectively, the rest being held by

private investors (individuals, including port employees, and institutional). All 12 top-

tier ports are ‘service’ ports, at least on paper, with all basic services (of which more

below) provided by port’s personnel6. At a high level, the institutional regime of OLP

and OLTh is very much the same, although lower-level differences do exist withrespective to organisational structures, internal regulations, and business plans.

The institutional regime of the ten 2nd tier ‘national ports’ draws from the OLP-OLTh

scheme, being simpler as regards shareholder composition and organisational

structure. All (former and current) civil servant personnel of Greek public ports are

unionised under the Federation of Permanent Employees of Greek Ports (OMYLE),

which, together with the Federation of Cargo Handlers of Greece (OFE), representing

dockers, are the two main port labour unions in Greece. Lower-level unions also exist

in all ports. Dockers work regulations vary among ports, with ports such as Piraeus


34/97

and Thessaloniki having a strict employer-personnel relationship with their dockers

workforce (which guarantees, among other things, a minimum salary), whereas

others such as Elefsina having a more loose relationship (engaging dockers on an ad

hoc basis). It is important to state that the 12 top-tier ports have no formal relation

with the municipalities in which they are located, as is prevalent in many other

European ports.

It is important to mention that all harbour maritime authority services come under the

Hellenic Coast Guard, an agency under YEN which is independent of the port

corporations.

2.2 The National Port Policy of the Greek State

In January 2006 the new National Harbour Policy of the Greek State was released.

According to which the geophysical particularity of our country and supports a sea-

oriented approach of growth in the sector of transports, in which ports are called to

play leading role. The ports contribute to the sustainable approach of growth, since

they serve and promote the marine transports against pollutant land transports, they

ensure already the combined transport of passengers and merchandise, they

contribute to the growth of local societies and the wider region, to the increase of

enterpreunership and employment. The port operation takes place in an intensely

international competitive environment.

In this framework the new national port policy focuses upon three points:

Promotion of combined transports and infrastructure in connection with the

railway

Growth of Small Distances Shipping to interconnect important Greek ports withports of Eastern Mediterranean, Adriatic sea and Black Sea

Improvement of port connection with the local urban web for the service of needs

of local societies

Even though port policy for a very long time did not constitute basic European Policy

priority the1997 Green Bible on port infrastructures altered significantly the European

landscape. The growth of marine transports is considered henceforth as alternative

way of transports against land and air with explicit competitive advantages in the

sectors of saving of energy and protection of environment.


35/97

In this framework Transeuropean and Paneuropean Transports Networks are

developed, where a particular role in the ports as department of networks of

combined transports is reserved. The transeuropean transports networks were

established with the treaty of Maastricht.

Today three transeuropean axes have connection to Greek ports. Axis IV connects

northeastern with south-eastern Europe, it begins from Germany and a part of it

leads to Greece to the port Thessalonica. Axis H has four ramifications, one of which

connects Florina, Kozani and Igoumenitsa. The third axis that leads to Greek port

begins from Finland and it leads to the port of Alexandroupoli

2.3 Volos port in the framework of the Greek port system

According to KYA 3514.96/02/92 (OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE HELLENIC

REPUBLIC B 440/7.7.1992) the greek ports system is divided in ports of national

importance, among which the port of Volos, in ports of major interest and in ports of

local importance. With Law 2932/2001 the port Volos was transformed to a Societe

Anonyme of public interest, and the Greek State being the unique shareholder, with

the name "ORGANISM of PORT VOLOS ANONYMOUS COMPANY (OLV AE)". The

port functions according to the rules of private economy, enjoys economic and

administrative independance and takes place under the monitoring of Ministry of

Commercial Shipping. In year 2003 the Greek State granted OLV AE the building

installations and the infrastructure found inside the land area of OLV AE, worth €

4.176.780,54.

In the framework of European and national marine and port policy, an important andparticularly competitive role will be assigned to Volos port in the years to come,

since it is the basic port that serves the Region of Thessaly, while the neighbour city

of Larisa is found precisely in the middle of the national highway Athens -

Thessaloniki.

Strategic and Operational planning for OLV AE have already been carried out.

Central objective is the role of the Region of Thessaly as a strategic node of

networks with the creation of modern infrastructures, that will attract investors and

will improve the competitiveness of productive sectors.


36/97

According to the General Framework of Land Planning and Sustainable Growth

(Draft of Common Ministerial Decision) the port of Volos (which accepts the hard

competition of Piraeus and Thessalonica) executes important merchandising activity

in containers. The role of Volos port will be additional to that of OLP and OLC. The

direction for the port is to invest further in infrastructures of cabotage but also to

hospitality of cruise and marine tourism or to invest in specialised infrastructure of

merchandising transports (cars, cereals, chemical etc).

According to the same Framework benefit of high quality of combined transports in all

almost the ports that are found neighbour of national railway network with priority in

the merchandising departments of ports Piraeus, Thessalonica and Patras and

circumstantially the ports Alexandroupoli, Volos, Chalcis, Corinthus and Kalamata is

expected.

2.4 Engagements to the European legislation

2.4.1 Presidential Decree 55/1998

According to the article 4 presidential decree 55/98 (OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE

HELLENIC REPUBLIC 58 A'/20.3.1998) that it codes Law 743/77 (OFFICIAL

JOURNAL OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC 319 A'/17.10.1977) "Protection of marine

environment" , boats of independent flag, that sail into in Greek harbours, bights and

anchorages they are compelled to be arranged with the international Conventions

that have been ratified by Greece and to deliver all nature petroleum products mixes,

litter, remains of charge and residues of harmful substances in the recognized

Facilities of Reception of Residues of harbour. According to the article 3 of the p.d.

55/98 which refers to cleanness and order of ports and territorial sea, the rejection ofpetroleum products of mixes, harmful substances or this mixes and each nature of

waste, sewages and litter from which it can be caused pollution of sea and coasts in

coasts, ports and Greek territorial waters is prohibited.

According to article 9 of the same presidential decree ports obliged to create facilities

of reception.


37/97

2.4.2 Decision No 181051/2080/78/14.2.1978 of Minister o f Commercial Shipping

According to Decision No 181051/2080/78/14.2.1978 (OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE

HELLENIC REPUBLIC 1135V/28.12.1978) of the Minister of Commercial Shipping

ports and portuary funds are responsible for the manufacture, organisation and

operation inside their region of responsibility of facilities of reception for the service of

boats that sail into in their territory of jurisdiction. By decision of Minister of

Commercial Shipping it can be also allowed in private enterprises the manufacture,

organisation and exploitation of similar facilities. With the new Directive of European

Council and Parliament 2000/59/EK provisions for the delivery and disposal of waste

and residues of boats in the ports became obligatory. The harmonisation of Greek

legislation with the above mentioned Directive became with KYA 3418/07/2002.

According to article 4 of Community Directive 2000/59 each member state will be

supposed to ensure the existence of facilities of reception of port so that are satisfied

the needs of boats that sail into in the ports, without is observed unjustifiable delay in

the boats. More specifically the above facilities of reception will be supposed to have

the possibility of receiving all categories of petroleum products of waste (functional

and charge) that usually sail into in the port. The facilities of reception in question

should be drawn according to the size of port and the categories of boats that sail

into it.

The terms and conditions of foundation and operation of land facilities of reception

and treatment of petroleum products of residues are reported in Common Decision of

the Ministers of Energy and Technology and Commercial Shipping No

181051/536/80/2.3.1980 (OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC 364

V'/11.4.1980). The measures and conditions for the management of petroleum

products of residues are described in the article of 6 of KYA 98012/2001/95(OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC 40 V'/19.1.1996). The terms

for issuing uthorisation in boats and navigable objects, that are used as navigable

facilities of reception of petroleum products of residues, are reported in Decision of

Minister of Commercial Shipping No 3231.8/1/89/28.7.1989 (OFFICIAL JOURNAL

OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC 573 V'/3.8.1989).

The boats and navigable objects, that are used as facilities of reception of port,

should be registered in the Greek shipping registers accordingly the article 9

paragraphs 5 p.d. 55/98. According to the article 3 paragraphs 1 p.d. 55/98


38/97

(OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC 58 A'/20.3.98), which codes

Law 743/77 (OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC 319 A'/17.10.77),

the rejection of oil, petroleum products of mixes, harmful substances or mixes of

aytw'nkaj each nature of waste, sewages and litter in coasts, in ports and Greek

territorial waters is prohibited.

The petroleum products waste that cannot be sold with the above way are sold

according to the article of 6 KYA 98012/2001/95 (OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE

HELLENIC REPUBLIC 40V/19.1.1996).

The subject of management of solid waste is regulated by Law 1650/86 (OFFICIAL

JOURNAL OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC 160 A), KYA 69728/824/16.5.96

(OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC 358 V'/96) "Measures for the

management of solid waste", KYA 113944/27.10.97 (OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE

HELLENIC REPUBLIC 1016 V'/97) "National Planning of Management of Solid

Waste" and KYA 114218/31.10.97 (OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE HELLENIC

REPUBLIC 10116 V'/97) and "Training of frame of Specifications and general

programs of management outcast".

KYA 114218/31.10.97 sets also a framework of technical directives on the safety of

personnel at the complete circle of collection of solid waste. According to the article 4

paragraphs 1 b p.d. 55/98 the boats are compelled to deliver their litter in the

recognized facilities of reception of residues of port. According to the Regulation of 7

Annex B of DS MARPOL 73/78 sufficient facilities of reception should be sold in ports

and in terminal stations so that the needs of boats that sail into in the ports are

satisfied, without unjustifiable delay in the boats. The above-mentioned facilities of

reception will be supposed to have the possibility of receiving all the categories of

solid waste (domestic, functional and charge) the boats that usually sail into in theboats.

Annex B of DS MARPOL that was ratified in our country with Law 1269/82

(OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC 89 A'/21.7.1982) was placed

in force 31.12.1988. For the application of new Annex B and the pollution of sea from

solid litter has been given line of Directives with more recent Permanent Circular

P.C.P. - 1st No 3221.3/6/1999.


39/97


40/97

chopped ** (naval miles) from the nearest coast

Mixed litter ***

* As special regions have been characterized following: Mediterranean Sea, Baltic

Sea, Black sea, Red Sea, region of gulves, Northern Sea, Antarctic, wider region of

Caribbean. Currently the provisions about special region are applied, according to

the Regulation of 5 Pararti'matoe B of DS MARPOL only in: Baltic Sea, Northern

Sea, Antarctica.

** Pulped or chopped litter are considered the litter that they can go through mlesa

from mesh with apentures of diameter no bigger than 25 mms.

*** When the litter is mixed with other harmful substances, what have different

requirements of disposal or reject will be applied the stricter requirements.

In Annex IIA of KYA 69728/824/96 (OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE HELLENIC

REPUBLIC 358 V'/17.5.96) the permissible methods of disposal of litter are

specifically descriped.

2.5 Sewages

According to the Regulation of 10 Annex

Documents

Environmental Protection and Management of Volos Sea-port