Implementation of IMO Legal Instruments: International Technical and Financial Cooperation - Prevention of Pollution of the Marine Environment from Vessels - page 129

and 7.2 , most of the blacklisted flag States are from the developing world; indic-
ative of less-than encouraging overall implementation and compliance with
MARPOL 73/78 and other IMO Conventions in the developing countries.

7.3.2 Reception Facilities

The provision of reception facilities has been a debatable issue even before the
adoption of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention, which obliges State parties to provide
such facilities. Developing countries did not treat this obligation as legally binding.
States parties have repeatedly ignored their obligation to provide reception facilities
in the ports within their jurisdiction.
One of the major causes of this reluctance is that, in the MARPOL 73/78 and
other IMO Conventions, there are no provisions for sanctions for a failure to
provide reception facilities. Yet, the provision of reception facilities is vital for
the successful implementation of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. The underlying
philosophy of making provisions for reception facilities is that, if discharge of oily
wastes and other substances is prohibited in the sea, there must be facilities in the
shore for receiving wastes retained in the ships. 29 The high cost of reception
facilities is one of the causes of developing countries reluctance in this regard.

A report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
estimated that the cost of establishing a reception facility in developing countries
was

'

560 million for the period 1993-2000. 30 This amount has probably increased
since. The oil exporting developing countries (OPEC members 31 ) are not providing
reception facilities due to a lack of political will, not lack of funds. Environmental
conservation has never been an important issue in their domestic political agenda;
hence they lack any incentive. Conversely, it is because of technical and financial
inability that the Non-OPEC developing port States are not able to provide recep-
tion facilities. Efforts at the international level to overcome this problem have been
negligible, at best. 32 According to Mitchell:

$

[w]hether non-compliance come from an absence of capacity or of incentives, financial
mechanism could have overcome the problem, but IMO has never established a program to
finance facility costs for developing countries. . . .. . .. . .. . . . the governments of developed
countries have been reluctant to fund facilities in their own ports, let alone elsewhere. 33

of inspections and detentions over a 3-year rolling period for flags with at least 30 inspections in
the period.” For an explanation see, Paris MoU, New targeting lists Paris MoU, https://www.
parismou.org/new-targeting-lists-paris-mou , last accessed on 15 July 2014.
29

Tan ( 2006 ), p. 255.
30 Mitchell ( 1994a , b ), p. 208.
31 The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an organisation constituted
by 12 oil producing countries including: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Qatar,
Indonesia, Libya, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Nigeria, Ecuador, Angola and Gabon.
32 Mitchell ( 1994a , b ), p. 207.
33 Ibid, p. 208.