Consultation outcome

Consultation Outcome Report: Amendments to the merchant shipping (prevention of pollution by garbage from ships) regulations 2020 and the merchant shipping (prevention of pollution by

Updated 20 February 2024

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), an executive Agency of the Department for Transport (DfT), carried out a public consultation from 16 October to 13 November 2023 on the draft of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships and Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (“the draft Regulations”).

1.2 The draft Regulations will amend the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships) Regulations 2020 (“the 2020 Regulations”) and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships) Regulations 2020 (“the Sewage Regulations”). The draft Regulations will bring UK legislation up to date with the latest requirements of Annex V of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (“MARPOL”).

1.3 The main objective of the proposed amendments to be implemented by the draft Regulations is to further reduce marine debris, in particular plastic waste coming from shipping. Regulation 10 of MARPOL Annex V currently requires every ship of 400 gross tonnage (“GT”) and above and every ship which is certified to carry 15 or more persons engaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of another Party to the Convention to carry and complete a Garbage Record Book (“GRB”).

1.4 Regulation 10 of MARPOL Annex V has been amended so that it will require every ship of 100 GT and above and every ship which is certified to carry 15 or more persons engaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of another Party to the Convention to carry and complete a GRB. This amendment also makes corresponding revision to Regulation 10.3.6 of MARPOL Annex V to require ships of 100 GT or above to enter information in the GRB about specified discharges which currently only applies to ships of 400 GT or above.

Section 2: Key Findings

2.1 The consultation was carried out between 16 October and 13 November.

2.2 A total of 15 responses were received, of which 11, or 73%, were generally in favour or had no specific views. Four responders, or 27%, raised concerns. One responder also raised an observation regarding the MCA’s use and issuance of MGNs. This has been noted but is outside of the scope of this consultation.

2.3 A majority of the responders found that the impact and costs in the DMA were accurate. A majority of responders found that the regulations would not have a disproportionate negative impact on small and/or micro businesses. A majority raised concerns that there could be unintended consequences from the proposed changes; however, these concerns have been addressed. A majority of responders agreed that the extension of powers to enforce breaches of the GRB was the right approach.

2.4 The responses produced some specific comments and opinions that tended to highlight a misunderstanding of the proposed changes. These have been responded to and the language of the de minimis assessment has been adjusted to address this. Overall, the responses have shown that stakeholders are in favour of the proposed changes, and have confirmed that changes to the statutory instrument and Marine Guidance Notice are not required.

Section 3: Summary of Responses

3.1 The following questions were posed during the consultation. Government responses are also shown below.

Questions posed

Question 1 - Do you consider the assessment of the impacts and costs of the changes resulting from the proposed 2024 Regulations compared to the current regulations to be accurate? If no, how would you expect the impact to vary? Please provide a brief explanation of why/why not.

Nine responders did not respond, including one which stated this was not their area of expertise. Of the six that did respond, four were in agreement that the assessment was accurate, of which two provided no further comments. The other two agreed, both commenting that the cost is minimal as affected Owners and Operators will be required to keep a GRB that could be a simple table in accordance with Appendix II of MARPOL Annex V.

Two responders were not in agreement. Of these two, one disagreed with the assessment of cost as outlined in the de Minimis Assessment, believing that the cost of additional training had been downplayed. The responder commented that within certain industries many individuals would have limited awareness and expertise in the principles of Garbage Management Plans and record-keeping requirements in the GRB. The responder added that whilst training courses are available, the overall costs involved, including expenses related to course fees, loss of earnings during training and travel costs should be factored in. The responder commented that there is a need for clearer guidance from the MCA on the level of training expected from crew members and operators. The responder further commented on a need to consider the additional time and resources required for onboard audits to ensure compliance with the proposed regulations.

The second responder that was not in favour echoed the views of the first, opining that it is not possible to fully quantify the cost of changes with new requirements. When changes involve increased paperwork, costs will differ between businesses. The responder also questioned why the mental burden of new regulations is not covered.

Government comments

MARPOL Annex V has always applied to all ships (subject only to more limited application in specified cases e.g., the requirement for a ship to be provided with a GRB) and governs what ships can discharge. In light of this, it is assumed that the majority of ships, including fishing vessels, will already have an understanding of the principles of MARPOL Annex V requirements as they are currently required to comply with it. Similarly, under Annex V, all ships of 100 GT and above and ships carrying 15 or more persons on board have also been required to have a Garbage Management Plan since 2013. This includes fishing vessels and so it has been considered that fishing vessels over 100 GT will already be familiar with the Annex V provisions and the Garbage Management Plan requirements. The proposed regulatory amendment regarding the GRB will complement these existing requirements.

The proposed amendment relates to keeping and maintaining a GRB, rather than the waste itself. Those affected by the proposed amendment will be required to carry a GRB and complete it as and when garbage is discharged or incinerated. The DMA provides a costing for this together with familiarisation costs. These costs relate to the Statutory Instrument and Marine Guidance Note (MGN) in respect of the GRB. The cost is accounted for in the DMA and assumes per ship 45 minutes in the best case scenario and around 2 hours and 10 minutes in the worst case scenario. This provides a broad range that takes into account those businesses that may be less familiar with record keeping requirements of the GRB. There are no specific survey and certification requirements and costs under Annex V, and therefore ships will not be charged for survey and certification activities in relation to Annex V. Any inspection-related activities will be absorbed by the MCA. When MCA personnel board a ship for a general inspection, they will check the carriage of the GRB and compliance under Annex V, fulfilling a statutory obligation to ensure UK registered ships are in compliance with UK legislation.

Question 2 - Are you/do you know of a small and/or micro business(es) that will be disproportionally affected by any of the measures outlined? If yes, please provide relevant details and evidence.

Six responders had no comment. A further six responded to say no. Of these, one commented that small/micro fishing businesses typically operate vessels of less than 100 GT. Another responder commented that they had no specific comments on the question, but highlighted that the proposed changes will be of greater relevance and application to such businesses whose ships are more likely to be within this range compared to larger businesses.

Three responders felt that the measures would disproportionately affect small and/or micro businesses. One responder commented that this measure would result in unnecessary paperwork and would be a hinderance to business operations. The responder felt staff would not be in favour. The responder noted that a policy and management plan was already in place, and that the business already abided by safety management systems (SMS) regulations.

A second responder noted a belief that the measure will impact small businesses because there are numerous fishing vessels within the affected size bracket of which almost all are small businesses with limited administrative staff. The measure would add more duties to the skipper. A third responder commented that all small fishing vessels between 100 and 400 GT will be negatively impacted, and noted that they would like the MCA to conduct research into how many UK registered fishing vessels will fall within the proposed changes.

Government comments

We note that the SMS regulations are not related to MARPOL Annex V and the GRB.

MARPOL Annex V has always applied to all ships (subject only to more limited application in specified cases e.g., the requirement for a ship to be provided with a GRB) and governs what ships can discharge. In light of this, it is assumed that the majority of ships including fishing vessels will already have an understanding of the principles of MARPOL Annex V requirements as they are currently required to comply with it. Similarly, under Annex V, all ships of 100 GT and above and ships carrying 15 or more persons on board have been required to have a Garbage Management Plan since 2013. The proposed regulatory amendment regarding the GRB will complement this requirement, so newly affected ships will already be familiar with the Annex V provisions and the Garbage Management Plan requirements.

The GRB addresses ship-generated waste. We note that the amount of garbage created is likely to be proportionate to the size of the ship and the number of persons on board.

The proposed changes to the GRB requirements are the results of negotiations at the international level via the IMO that have been held to strengthen the regulations to further reduce garbage from ships entering the sea. The most pragmatic and proportionate approach was to extend the scope of ships required to carry and complete a GRB. Extending the requirement for mandatory GRBs to smaller ships will help further reduce illegal discharges of garbage from ships by ensuring more ships are required to keep records of their garbage discharge operations.

We have taken into consideration feedback and have revised the DMA to update the number of ships affected. Information from the UK Ship Register indicates that there are currently 4,863 UK-registered fishing vessels, of which 330 are between 100 GT and 399 GT. This equates to 6.79% of the total UK-registered fishing fleet.

Question 3 - Do you foresee any unintended consequences of the proposed 2024 Regulations that have not been mentioned in the consultation documents? If yes, please provide any relevant insights and/or evidence.

Seven responders had no comment for this question. Of the remaining responders, three did not see unintended consequences, but five felt that there would be.

Two of those responders commented that smaller ships may face difficulty segregating garbage as a result of space limitations and that not all ports visited by smaller ships are able to supply garbage receipts. The responders asked that enforcement staff should take this into account. They further noted that some legislative actions could be considered for organising segregation in ports in a manner similar to that of MARPOL Annex V.

The third and fourth responders that foresaw unintended consequences commented that the proposed changes could negatively impact fishers that bring passively-fished waste to port. The third responder added that accurately quantifying waste in the form of damaged fishing gear was not possible, and that the GRB format is ill-suited for recording static fishing gear losses when that gear is lost overboard. The responder argued that certain other nations have set the application for these requirements to be only for ships of 400 GT and above, arguing that this will create an unlevel playing field for the British fishing industry.

The fifth responder that foresaw unintended consequences commented that the proposed changes will add additional survey time for fishers, adding that the amount of time required for surveys has increased significantly.

Government comments

The proposed changes to the GRB requirements are focused on recording the discharge, accidental loss or completed incineration of garbage. As such, they will not affect how garbage is collected, stored, and discharged, but will affect how discharges are recorded.

We acknowledge that not all ports provide garbage receipts, but it is not a requirement to obtain a receipt. When a receipt has been issued, this should be kept on board the ship and be readily available for inspection and preserved for a period of at least two years after the last entry has been made.

Regarding legislation to organise segregation in ports, we note the response but further note that this is beyond the scope of this proposed legislation. The UK maintains port waste reception facilities in line with IMO requirements, but the MCA remains open to investigating possible improvements.

Regarding responses relating to passively-fished waste, we note the comments but add that this references policies that are not related to the proposed changes outlined in this consultation and do not come under the purview of the MCA. The MARPOL Annex V amendment will require the recording of wastes covered by MARPOL, e.g., garbage generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically. Within this, the recording of fishing gear waste under Annex V is solely for fishing gear waste generated on board the ship and for the accidental loss or discharge of fishing gear which poses a significant threat to the marine environment or navigation.

Regarding Fishing for Litter, we note this is a voluntary scheme and does not come under MARPOL Annex V. Consequently, it is not subject to these regulations. The recording of fished marine debris and abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) is not covered by these Regulations and are not part of this consultation. However, we passed these comments on to Defra who are responsible for the policy in these areas.

The proposed changes regarding the GRB have been negotiated at an international level via the IMO. As such, all countries that are signatories to the MARPOL convention will have a responsibility to implement these changes.

There are no specific survey and certification requirements under MARPOL Annex V. When MCA personnel board a ship for a general inspection, they will check the carriage of the GRB and compliance under Annex V, fulfilling a statutory obligation to ensure UK registered ships are in compliance with UK legislation.

Question 4 - The proposed 2024 Regulations will extend powers to enforce breaches of the Garbage Record Book requirements which currently apply to ships of 400 GT or above to ships of 100 GT or above. Do you agree with this approach? If no, please provide a brief explanation.

Six responders either did not respond or stated that they had no comments to make for this question. Five responders agreed with the approach, and four did not agree with the approach.

Of those that did not agree, one responder opined that the expansion of ships required to maintain a GRB would not help to prevent pollution at sea, noting that breaches of the GRB do not mean that the garbage is being illegally discharged, but that not creating entries in it shows that the ship’s crew are engaged in discharging the garbage.

A second responder that did not agree commented that the proposed regulations do not adequately address the unique operational characteristics and requirements of fishing vessels of 100 GT and above. The responder opined that progressing with the proposed changes could consequently have a detrimental environmental impact, and asked that the proposals be re-evaluated in light of these concerns.

A third responder that did not agree commented that ensuring ships record their garbage will not prevent ships that currently discharge garbage illegally from continuing to do so, and will only increase the administrative burden on those who do.

A fourth responder that did not agree expressed disbelief that the regulator would seek the opinion of an industry over whether it agrees with an approach to extend its enforcement powers. The responder further asked when was the last time the MCA enforced a breach on the current ships that must carry a GRB.

Government comments

Negotiations at the international level via the IMO have been held to strengthen the regulations to further reduce garbage from ships entering the sea. The most pragmatic and proportionate approach was to extend the scope of ships required to carry and complete a GRB. Extending the requirement for mandatory GRBs to smaller ships will help further reduce illegal discharges of garbage from ships by ensuring more ships are required to keep records of their garbage discharge operations.

The UK is a signatory to MARPOL Annex V, and as such we are obliged to implement this measure to protect our seas and enforce these regulations. Protecting the seas is important; the ability to prosecute offenders is part of a package of deterrents that includes observations, issuing improvement and prohibition notices and ship detention. Prosecution is always an enforcement action of last resort but remains an important tool.

Regarding the comments of the second responder, we note the response, but also note that this question is in relation to the extension of existing powers to enforce breaches relating to the requirement to carry and complete a GRB. The UK is a signatory to MARPOL Annex V, and as in accordance with MARPOL requirements to prohibit and provide sanctions for violations, we are obliged to implement this measure to protect our seas and enforce these regulations.

Question 5 - Do you have any additional comments to add to the response?

Overall, ten responders used this space to make additional comments. One responder commented that it supported the proposed changes and welcomed the anticipated benefits of reduced marine litter, but added that it had no direct responsibilities in this area and so could not comment on specific questions. A second welcomed the proposal and the short timeframe proposed for the passing of legislation, adding that they considered this to be an important step towards reducing waste in the oceans and in fulfilling the UK’s MARPOL obligations. A third noted that the consultation was on areas outside of its expertise, but that it supported any proposed measures to reduce marine pollution entering the aquatic environment and being washed onto beaches.

Of the remaining seven responders that used this question as an opportunity to comment further, one noted that the proposed change would only affect two of nine ships in their fleet. The culture in the responder’s operation is already in place and adding additional forms will not improve the illegal discharge of garbage. The responder further reiterated disagreement with the MCA enforcing breaches of the GRB requirements and expressed dissatisfaction with the change and the way the alterations are worded. The responder opined that whilst they strongly agreed with protecting the seas, doing so through prosecuting for not filling in paperwork was not the answer.

Government comments

We note and appreciate the responder’s culture being strongly opposed to illegal discharges of garbage. The aim of this regulatory change is to ensure all maritime companies take a similarly proactive approach. As noted earlier, extending the requirement for mandatory GRBs to smaller ships will help further reduce illegal discharges of garbage from ships by ensuring more ships are required to keep records of their garbage discharge operations.

We agree that protecting the seas is important; the ability to prosecute offenders is part of a package of deterrents. It is an option of last resort but remains an important tool. These regulations also extend to foreign flagged ships operating in UK waters. Our ability to prosecute also applies to these ships and thus strengthens our ability to protect UK waters.

Two responders made identical comments noting their support for extending the requirements for a GRB, noting that this is in line with MARPOL Annex V’s purpose and spirit. Combined with the requirements relating to garbage management plans and signage, the measures will ensure there is constant improvement in how ships manage garbage. However, the responders reiterated the points raised in earlier questions, regarding lack of space for segregating garbage on smaller ships and highlighting the issue in relation to electronic waste and domestic waste. They also reiterated their comments on acquiring garbage receipts and of possible improvements in legislation to ensure waste segregation in UK ports is in line with Annex V.

Government comments

We note the response and approval of the proposed changes. As noted earlier, the changes extend to the requirement to maintain a GRB only.

The proposed changes to the GRB requirements do not require garbage receipts, but if receipts are provided, they must be kept on board the ship and be readily available for inspection and preserved for a period of at least two years after the last entry has been made.

The proposed changes to the GRB requirements do not extend to considerations of waste segregation in ports. The UK maintains port waste reception facilities in line with IMO requirements, but the MCA remains open to investigating possible improvements.

A fourth responder noted that the reporting of lost fishing gear is already mandated by other authorities and that reporting such gear to the MCA would represent an unnecessary duplication. The responder added that they had not been actively engaged during the development of this new proposal, which had resulted in the emergence of issues that could otherwise have been resolved. The responder further commented that it is essential to consider how these new proposals align with existing regulations and entities within UK law, noting that several organisations already oversee various aspects of fishing operations. The responder urged the MCA to reconsider the necessity of reporting abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear and to actively engage industry stakeholders in the development of proposals that directly affect their operations.

A fifth responder made a similar comment that lost fishing gear has no place in these proposals as this is not garbage but unintended consequences of fishing operations.

A sixth responder raised concern that the MCA believes that the proposed fleet should have more burden placed upon it that will serve no purpose regarding protecting the environment. The responder questioned the source of section 9.1.11 in the De Minimis Assessment, arguing that the section was misleading and required more than a consultation. The responder commented that the fishing industry had not been properly consulted, and that if Option 2 in the consultation proceeds, the organisation will consider its next moves. The responder commented that the biggest pollutant in the seas comes from the deterioration of road vehicle tyres being washed into the sea, noting this finding was part of a study conducted by the Department of Transport. The respondent felt that Option 1 was a better approach based on the work industry has and is undertaking. The respondent noted the existence of the Fishing for Litter scheme and noted that the industry has no issue with larger fishing vessels that go to sea for longer periods of time maintaining a GRB and having a Garbage Management Plan, but that there is no justification to add this burden to the inshore fleet. The responder’s organisation supports information regarding good environmental practices but that no regulations are needed, and that many ports in the UK already provide excellent facilities for discharging garbage from the inshore fleet. A fishing vessel going out for one or two days with three or four crew onboard will not generate much garbage, and requiring them to maintain a GRB is unnecessary. The responder stressed that the fishing industry has the most to lose from a polluted seabed. The responder commented that clear documented evidence of waste collected from the seabed by fishing vessels show that other marine users require more education on their regulatory responsibilities. The responder opined that industry is often criticised for fishing gear being discarded, but that this is untrue.

Government comments

MARPOL Annex V does not cover ALDFG, which is not within the MCA’s remit, but lies with Defra and their agencies. The MCA is working with Defra and their agencies to ensure that there is an efficient regulatory framework regarding ALDFG. We have shared your views with Defra so that they can take them into account when setting policies in this area.

Ship generated waste is within the MCA’s remit, and this is what the GRB addresses. The proposed changes to the GRB requirements will complement the Garbage Management Plan requirements under MARPOL Annex V which are already in place. Fishing gear as a category was brought within the scope of Annex V on 1 January 2013, and the Garbage Management Plan will explain how to deal with this waste. We note that the amount of garbage created is likely to be proportionate to the size of the ship and the number of persons on board.

Fishing for Litter is a voluntary scheme and does not come under MARPOL Annex V. Consequently, it is not subject to these regulations. The MARPOL Annex V amendment will require the recording of wastes covered by that Annex, e.g., garbage generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically.

A seventh responder commented that it is important that there is clarity and certainty in law, and highlighted the importance of proposed changes being finalised and communicated to those in the affected industry as early as possible. To this end, changes to the policy and legislative framework on this matter merited an appropriate awareness-raising campaign. Regarding the Marine Guidance Notice (MGN) relating to these proposed amendments, MGN 632, whilst the responder had no comments specifically, they highlighted more general concerns about having a range of MGNs, with potentially overlapping content that may also be partially disapplied or superseded, can cause confusion. The responder would welcome a more user-friendly process, achieved by collating relevant requirements into one accessible and up to date document. The responder felt that it is not desirable that MGNs regularly need to be issued to clarify uncertain legislation.

Government comments

This consultation serves in part as an awareness-raising opportunity to highlight the proposed changes in GRB requirements that have been negotiated at an international level through the IMO. As the proposed changes are relatively minor and not of an unduly onerous nature, we feel that this level of awareness-raising is appropriate. Nonetheless, we note your general comments relating to clarity and certainty in law and of communicating proposed changes to regulations in a timely manner.

We note your comments and thank you for your response. Regarding MGNs in general, whilst this is outside of the scope of this consultation and the proposed changes it relates to, the MCA remains open to investigating ways to improve our regulatory output.

Six responders made comments in covering letters outside of the consultation form. Two noted that they had no specific comments to submit, whilst two were broadly supportive but could not comment on the proposals. One responder repeated the points raised in the response for the fifth question. One responder noted that they had no concerns about the proposed regulation, noting that whilst a small number of boats that fall within the responder’s remit would be required to carry a GRB, the responder did not consider that this would be onerous for those impacted.

Section 4: MCA Response

4.1 The consultation has demonstrated broad support for the proposed measures. The responses have revealed some misunderstanding over the nature of the proposals, which have been addressed in replies to the individual responders and through this report. The consultation has not revealed any areas of the SI or MGN that need to be amended.

We have taken into consideration consultation feedback and have reviewed and revised the DMA to update the number of ships affected to give more consideration to the impact of the amendment on the fishing industry. We note it remains the case that this measure is not disproportionate to fishers, as the merchant fleet continues to represent a significantly larger proportion of ships that will be impacted.

The regulatory amendments will now be submitted for final clearances so they may be signed by the Minister and laid before Parliament. The amended regulations are to come into force on 1 May 2024.

Section 5: Who Responded

5.1 Responses were received from the following companies and organisations:

• Enviromanagement
• Ballastwater Equipment Manufacturers’ Association (BEMA)
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
• Blue Funnel
• Workboat Association
• Chamber of Shipping
• National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)
• Port of London
• Kommunernes International Miljøorganisation (KIMO)
• Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation (NIFPO)
• Scottish Islands Federation Marine Litter Working Group
• Law Society of Scotland
• Natural England
• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF)
• Royal Yachting Association (RYA)