"Cruise Tourist? Most Norwegians don't like you."

[Steerpike58]

On 10/22/2022 at 5:54 AM, chengkp75 said:

However, Viking is registered in Norway's "second register", the NIS (Norwegian International Ship).  This exempts the ship from many of the requirements that are placed on Norwegian (NOR) registered ships, like wages, crew nationality, working conditions, etc.  The NIS was created as a way to compete with "flags of convenience" ships, and is not considered a "flag of convenience" simply because the ships fly the Norwegian flag.  There are limitations on NIS ships regarding voyages and port calls, much like the US's PVSA and Jones Act.

 

I just took my first cruise and I'm very interested in this. I chose Viking in part because their ships are newer and therefore likely less polluting, and of course smaller. 

 

Do some port cities (or host countries) have laws that require any visiting ship to meet certain environmental laws?  I just got done cruising in Italy/Croatia/Greece - all part of the EU - and I imagine they might have laws requiring some degree of environmental compliance - engine emissions, and possibly issues such as garbage disposal, waste disposal, etc. And if a region as big as the EU had such laws, it would impact visits to non-EU countries since the ship would have to comply with the most restrictive port-of-call. 

 

I guess question #1 is, are there any 'international' laws that address environmental aspects of cruise ships, and #2 is, are there individual countries that go over and above these international laws? 

 

I presume all countries would 'like' to impose greater restrictions on things like wages and working conditions of ship workers that visit their ports, but have to balance that against the fear of losing ship business? 

 

A tangentially related question is one of 'supplies'.  I was thinking through the amazing logistical challenges of operating a cruise; do they 'stock up' on fresh food in every port (or every 3rd port, or whatever)? How often do they refuel? 

 

On 10/22/2022 at 9:18 AM, Mich3554 said:

Many, myself included, cruise and think ‘yep, gotta come back here again’, and go for a land trip.  I had a taste, I would like to see more.  A little something is better than nothing.
In addition, when we left out of Bergen, we spent 3 days there before we boarded….hotels, shopping and restaurants.  We try to do this from of most cities we embark or disembark a ship in.

...

This is a good point, worth emphasizing. We just cruised to Kotor (Montenegro) - a city I'd never even heard of before (embarrassing to say!) - and vowed to return for a longer visit soon. We also fell in love with Istanbul and are planning a longer return visit. So cruises truly are a great 'sampler'! 

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, Steerpike58 said:

 

I just took my first cruise and I'm very interested in this. I chose Viking in part because their ships are newer and therefore likely less polluting, and of course smaller. 

 

Do some port cities (or host countries) have laws that require any visiting ship to meet certain environmental laws?  I just got done cruising in Italy/Croatia/Greece - all part of the EU - and I imagine they might have laws requiring some degree of environmental compliance - engine emissions, and possibly issues such as garbage disposal, waste disposal, etc. And if a region as big as the EU had such laws, it would impact visits to non-EU countries since the ship would have to comply with the most restrictive port-of-call. 

 

I guess question #1 is, are there any 'international' laws that address environmental aspects of cruise ships, and #2 is, are there individual countries that go over and above these international laws? 

 

I presume all countries would 'like' to impose greater restrictions on things like wages and working conditions of ship workers that visit their ports, but have to balance that against the fear of losing ship business? 

 

A tangentially related question is one of 'supplies'.  I was thinking through the amazing logistical challenges of operating a cruise; do they 'stock up' on fresh food in every port (or every 3rd port, or whatever)? How often do they refuel? 

 

This is a good point, worth emphasizing. We just cruised to Kotor (Montenegro) - a city I'd never even heard of before (embarrassing to say!) - and vowed to return for a longer visit soon. We also fell in love with Istanbul and are planning a longer return visit. So cruises truly are a great 'sampler'! 

 

The marine industry is highly regulated, with pollution requirements outlined in the international convention MARPOL. The requirements of MARPOL are enacted by each of the Flag States that are signatory to the convention, in their shipping acts.

 

In 2020, the maximum sulphur content was reduced from 3.5% to 0.5%, either through lower sulphur bunkers or exhaust scrubbers. In addition, MARPOL lists "Emission Control Areas", where sulphur is limited to 0.1%. These areas are located in Europe & North America + others.

 

An increasing number of ports are providing shore power at the berths, so cruise ships can shut down the prime movers, with power for the hotel load provided by the shore grid.

 

Supplies - Viking maintains a central warehouse in Germany, with most stores shipped by container. In addition, the ships have the ability to purchase some local victuals. Most re-storing takes place at turnaround ports

 

Ship's bunker as required, normally where fuel is cheapest.

 

[uktog]

Norway in particular have been very active in mandating deadlines by which cruise ships must use shore power in port. By 2025 it is going to be an issue for older vessels who cannot convert. As I understand it Bergen and Flam already requires it and Alesund has just put all its infrastructure in to support the change 

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, Steerpike58 said:

I guess question #1 is, are there any 'international' laws that address environmental aspects of cruise ships,

As Andy (Heidi13) says, the IMO (International Maritime Organization, part of the UN) passes international conventions, which signatory nations then pass into their law.  There are 147 member nations of the IMO.  These conventions cover pollution (MARPOL as Andy says, which covers air pollution, oil pollution, garbage, sewage wastes), the construction and operation of the ship with regards to safety (SOLAS), the training of crew (STCW), working conditions (MLC2006), security (ISPS), and operations and maintenance of the ships (ISM).  These regulations apply to all shipping, not just cruise ships.  Remember, cruise ships make up only about 5% of the world's shipping tonnage, and cruise ship crews make up about 10% of the 1.8 million mariners around the world.

 

9 hours ago, Steerpike58 said:

#2 is, are there individual countries that go over and above these international laws? 

Yes.  Many countries have gone over and above the international laws, for instance there are ECA's (Emission Control Areas), where as Andy says, the sulfur limits on fuels are severely restricted.  These areas are the Baltic, North Sea, and North America.  Additionally, EU ports require special fuels or shore power when a ship is docked.  Some countries, notably the US enact stricter regulations regarding safety, training, certification, and inspection than the international conventions allow, but by those conventions, these stricter laws only apply to ships that fly the US flag.

 

9 hours ago, Steerpike58 said:

I was thinking through the amazing logistical challenges of operating a cruise; do they 'stock up' on fresh food in every port (or every 3rd port, or whatever)?

Typically, all food, beverages, alcohol, and other supplies (replacements for dishes and glassware, everything that is needed to operate the hotel), engine parts and supplies, are loaded at the embarkation port.  I don't think that Viking does a "behind the scenes" tour, but you can google this for other cruise lines, or there are TV shows about cruise ships that show the intricate dance that is embarkation loading.  Only on longer cruises, say 3 weeks or more, will they load food again, outside of the embarkation port.

 

9 hours ago, Steerpike58 said:

How often do they refuel?

This can vary depending on the itinerary, but lets say every 2-3 weeks on average.  And, the fuel bill is $1-3 million each time.

[duquephart]

I remember the behemoths/hordes descending upon Skagway and wondering how long Alaska was going to be OK with that.

[LindaS272]

2 hours ago, duquephart said:

I remember the behemoths/hordes descending upon Skagway and wondering how long Alaska was going to be OK with that.

SE Alaska tourism was gutted during the pandemic, and jobs are hard to find there in any case. I think they are generally fine with making $$$$. 😄 (Speaking as someone who used to live in Anchorage—“a half hour from the ‘real’ Alaska 😆).

Edited October 24, 2022 by LindaS272

[duquephart]

Pretty hard to find someone working Alaska tourism who is actually from Alaska.

[Steerpike58]

19 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

As Andy (Heidi13) says, the IMO (International Maritime Organization, part of the UN) passes international conventions, which signatory nations then pass into their law.  There are 147 member nations of the IMO.  These conventions cover pollution (MARPOL as Andy says, which covers air pollution, oil pollution, garbage, sewage wastes), the construction and operation of the ship with regards to safety (SOLAS), the training of crew (STCW), working conditions (MLC2006), security (ISPS), and operations and maintenance of the ships (ISM).  These regulations apply to all shipping, not just cruise ships.  Remember, cruise ships make up only about 5% of the world's shipping tonnage, and cruise ship crews make up about 10% of the 1.8 million mariners around the world.

 

Yes.  Many countries have gone over and above the international laws, for instance there are ECA's (Emission Control Areas), where as Andy says, the sulfur limits on fuels are severely restricted.  These areas are the Baltic, North Sea, and North America.  Additionally, EU ports require special fuels or shore power when a ship is docked.  Some countries, notably the US enact stricter regulations regarding safety, training, certification, and inspection than the international conventions allow, but by those conventions, these stricter laws only apply to ships that fly the US flag.

I'm still reading about all this (thanks for all the details) but I did stumble across this page - https://sfbos.org/cruise-ship-terminal-piers-30-and-32-report-ii - basically a detailed document prepared by the San Francisco Board Of Supervisors discussing potential new restrictions on cruise ship operations in the future. It refers to efforts by Alaska, Hawaii, Monterey Bay, and other cities around the US to impose tighter restrictions on cruise ships. The document dates back to 2003, so pretty old by now, but does give some insight. 

 

It also makes this comment: "A Port Economic Impact Study showed that over $35 million in annual economic benefits are derived from the cruise industry to the City and County through fees, purchases, supplies, and tourism. " - this somewhat counters the idea that visiting cruise ships provide no value to the local economies of the host port. 

 

But the part I'm still struggling to understand is, can a port (let's say, San Francisco) impose restrictions higher than the international standards on 'non-US-Flagged' carriers? As I understand it, there are virtually no US flagged carriers any longer, so why would Alaska, Hawaii, San Francisco, and other cities in the US bother to create all these restrictions if they can't impose them on what sounds like the vast majority of carriers? Do the international rules explicitly forbit any member country from imposing anything higher? 

 

I note this comment in the linked doc above: "In addition, coastal states, such as Florida, Alaska and California have enacted similar laws strictly regulating pollution from ships traveling within state waters. These laws, which supplement federal laws, also apply to foreign-flag vessels and are in some instances even more stringent."

 

19 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Typically, all food, beverages, alcohol, and other supplies (replacements for dishes and glassware, everything that is needed to operate the hotel), engine parts and supplies, are loaded at the embarkation port.  I don't think that Viking does a "behind the scenes" tour, but you can google this for other cruise lines, or there are TV shows about cruise ships that show the intricate dance that is embarkation loading.  Only on longer cruises, say 3 weeks or more, will they load food again, outside of the embarkation port.

 

This can vary depending on the itinerary, but lets say every 2-3 weeks on average.  And, the fuel bill is $1-3 million each time.

Does this apply to fresh fruit? We were quite impressed by the quality of the fruit on our 14-day cruise, so I'm guessing they were acquiring fresh fruit on at least a weekly basis. 

[Mrs Miggins]

The pollution issue was the main reason why the proposed cruise ship terminal in Greenwich did not go forward.  Because it was in a heavily populated area the local air quality is already compromised and the developer apparently could not meet the very high cost of supplying onshore power.  In addition there was very vocal local opposition.   

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, Steerpike58 said:

It also makes this comment: "A Port Economic Impact Study showed that over $35 million in annual economic benefits are derived from the cruise industry to the City and County through fees, purchases, supplies, and tourism. " - this somewhat counters the idea that visiting cruise ships provide no value to the local economies of the host port. 

I think the vast majority of San Francisco cruise ship calls are "turn around" days, and therefore, they are adding in the value of food and supplies purchased locally, as well as food and lodging from passengers arriving a day or two early or staying after.

 

4 hours ago, Steerpike58 said:

But the part I'm still struggling to understand is, can a port (let's say, San Francisco) impose restrictions higher than the international standards on 'non-US-Flagged' carriers? As I understand it, there are virtually no US flagged carriers any longer, so why would Alaska, Hawaii, San Francisco, and other cities in the US bother to create all these restrictions if they can't impose them on what sounds like the vast majority of carriers? Do the international rules explicitly forbit any member country from imposing anything higher? 

This depends.  Yes, as I've said, the US created, in conjunction with Canada, the North American ECA, which restricts emissions from ships by restricting sulfur content in fuel below what is allowed in the rest of the world.  (0.1% sulfur, against 0.5% worldwide) The IMO adopted the US/Canada proposal, and it applies to all ships.  So, nations can impose stricter standards, in certain conditions, over ships, especially if they gain approval from the IMO for the restriction.  Here you run into the most gray of legal areas, the overlapping jurisdiction between "port state" (the nation where the ship is located) and "flag state" (the nation where the ship is registered), when a ship is in another nation's waters.  In the interest of international commerce amity, it is generally held that things that are "external" to the ship (sales taxes, commerce, customs, pollution, etc) fall under the jurisdiction of the "port state", and the port state is free to impose whatever laws they wish.  "Internal" policies and procedures on the ship (crew wages, working conditions, ship construction, safety, operation and maintenance, etc) are held to be under the jurisdiction of the "flag state", unless the "safety or good order" of the port state is affected.  In addition to the 3 ECA's I mentioned, there are specific areas of the world that have stricter garbage or sewage disposal regulations, some of  these the countries involved have submitted to the IMO and are adopted into the international conventions, some only apply to areas within a country's territorial waters, and they are free to impose those limits on all ships.

 

4 hours ago, Steerpike58 said:

Does this apply to fresh fruit? We were quite impressed by the quality of the fruit on our 14-day cruise, so I'm guessing they were acquiring fresh fruit on at least a weekly basis. 

Probably not.  There is a whole department dedicated to handling the food in storage (they don't do anything about preparation).  This "provisions" department will grade boxes of produce when it comes onboard to say "this box is used first, these can be used in a couple of days, and these can hold for the end of the voyage", based on the condition of the product at delivery.  Then, once in the walk-in coolers, which have ozone generators in them, and CO2 monitors to control venting (both of which can control ripening), they will go through boxes daily and pick out produce that has started to go off, and dispose of it, tomato by tomato, to keep it from affecting the rest of the case.  In many cases, they will specify to the supplier that they want 5 cases of ripe bananas, and 20 cases of green bananas.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Mrs Miggins said:

The pollution issue was the main reason why the proposed cruise ship terminal in Greenwich did not go forward.  Because it was in a heavily populated area the local air quality is already compromised and the developer apparently could not meet the very high cost of supplying onshore power.  In addition there was very vocal local opposition.   

Yes, this is why there are about 20 or so ports in the US that can supply shore power to cargo ships, but only about 4-5 that can accommodate cruise ships.  A cargo ship needs about 700kw of power at the dock, while a cruise ship needs 7-8,000kw, and the cargo ship needs 480v power (normal land industrial power), while the cruise ship requires 10,000v power (what comes from the "high tension" long distance transmission lines).

[Steerpike58]

On 10/25/2022 at 2:53 AM, chengkp75 said:

...

... Then, once in the walk-in coolers, which have ozone generators in them, and CO2 monitors to control venting (both of which can control ripening), they will go through boxes daily and pick out produce that has started to go off, and dispose of it, tomato by tomato, to keep it from affecting the rest of the case.  In many cases, they will specify to the supplier that they want 5 cases of ripe bananas, and 20 cases of green bananas.

Thanks for the extra info. I've been searching for more details of the use of ozone in the storage of fresh produce - on cruise ships or in general - and not finding much. It seems Ozone has seen use on ships as a general 'room sanitizer', but I couldn't find any description of ozone use in the storage areas. Apparently ozone is somewhat controversial in that it can be damaging to humans. Here's an article from an 'ozone system' manufacturer that talks about the value of ozone as a room decontaminator - APPLICATIONS AND USES FOR OZONE (o3ozone.com) "Cruise ship companies can use ozone generators for room decontamination and odor removal just as hotels and motels." ... and it does have a casual reference to "Preservation, storage and transportation of fruit and vegetables", but in all its examples, it never really mentions cruise ship food storage. This page - Ozone Treatment of Fruit & Vegetable Rinse Water | Spartan (spartanwatertreatment.com) talks about the use of ozone for fruits and vegetables, but the application looks to be a 'rinse', not air-based. 

Just curious if you have any links to articles on the topic - fascinating stuff. 

 

Also, in my search for info on cruise ship food storage, I stumbled across this Nat Geo video on YouTube; great documentary!  Do you happen to know - in the video they show lots of food plates covered in what look like plastic covers / domes, to keep the food warm / safe while being delivered to tables or rooms.  Are they plastic, and if so, are they disposable? That would be a helluva lot of waste! 

Edited October 31, 2022 by Steerpike58

[chengkp75]

Ozone can be used to disinfect fruits and vegetables by killing bacteria on the surface of the fruit, but the main use in food storage is to react with ethylene.  Ethylene is the VOC that plants give off that causes ripening.  By having ozone react with ethylene (to produce CO2 and water), you delay the ripening.  This is similar to what is done for some expensive fruits (mainly "stone" fruits like peaches and mangoes) when shipped in a refrigerated container.  Instead of introducing ozone to prevent ripening, the entire atmosphere inside the container is removed, and replaced with 100% nitrogen.  Without oxygen, the fruit cannot produce ethylene, and so will virtually never ripen.

 

The food covers are plastic, and are washed before each use.  They are not disposable.

[ronrythm]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Ozone can be used to disinfect fruits and vegetables by killing bacteria on the surface of the fruit, but the main use in food storage is to react with ethylene.  Ethylene is the VOC that plants give off that causes ripening.  By having ozone react with ethylene (to produce CO2 and water), you delay the ripening.  This is similar to what is done for some expensive fruits (mainly "stone" fruits like peaches and mangoes) when shipped in a refrigerated container.  Instead of introducing ozone to prevent ripening, the entire atmosphere inside the container is removed, and replaced with 100% nitrogen.  Without oxygen, the fruit cannot produce ethylene, and so will virtually never ripen.

 

The food covers are plastic, and are washed before each use.  They are not disposable.

On the other end, suppliers to your local grocery store use ethylene gas to force fruits, especially bananas to ripen. Back when I worked at a grocery store, one of my coworkers accidentally ordered 120 boxes of ungassed bananas for the weekend. The buying public was not pleased. 
Enjoy 

 

[Cienfuegos]

The city of Key West in Florida tried to regulate the size of cruise ships calling on their port. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis overrode that attempt with a law that placed all ports and port authorities in Florida under the Governor's control. The city had been concerned with the impact of large cruise ships on the coral reefs and fishing business. And the smothering impact of 10,000 people swarming their streets for a few hours.

 

Although the port authorities still function, they are subject to the executive oversight.

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, Cienfuegos said:

placed all ports and port authorities in Florida under the Governor's control.

IIRC, the major port authorities in Florida (Miami, FLL, PC, Tampa and Jacksonville) were exempted from this statute.  Wonder why?

[Cienfuegos]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

IIRC, the major port authorities in Florida (Miami, FLL, PC, Tampa and Jacksonville) were exempted from this statute.  Wonder why?

Showing those hippies and 60s refugees in Key West a thing or two.  I believe smaller ports in Fort Pierce and Port St Joe were also included in the legislation.

[OneSixtyToOne]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

IIRC, the major port authorities in Florida (Miami, FLL, PC, Tampa and Jacksonville) were exempted from this statute.  Wonder why?

Follow the money

[chengkp75]

17 minutes ago, OneSixtyToOne said:

Follow the money

Bingo

[Clay Clayton]

Having lived for six years in Key West, I can relate to those who have issues with cruise ships.  While for some it is NIMBY, in my case it was completely related to the number of passengers ashore at one time. It was very easy for the entire town to be overwhelmed and it made it unenjoyable for not only us locals but for the cruise passengers also. 
 

The worse I recall (and this was pre RC’s Oasis class vessels) was a day when there were six ships in port on a single day. There were almost as many passengers as residents!  I actually went downtown to see what it was like and it was so packed people could hardly move. 
 

Hopefully, Key West and the state of Florida can reach some sort of agreement so Key West can remain enjoyable for everyone. 

[millybess]

22 hours ago, Clay Clayton said:

Having lived for six years in Key West, I can relate to those who have issues with cruise ships.  While for some it is NIMBY, in my case it was completely related to the number of passengers ashore at one time. It was very easy for the entire town to be overwhelmed and it made it unenjoyable for not only us locals but for the cruise passengers also. 
 

The worse I recall (and this was pre RC’s Oasis class vessels) was a day when there were six ships in port on a single day. There were almost as many passengers as residents!  I actually went downtown to see what it was like and it was so packed people could hardly move. 
 

Hopefully, Key West and the state of Florida can reach some sort of agreement so Key West can remain enjoyable for everyone. 

When we were in Norway in May of this year, we did the Norwegian Forest Hike -- a Viking excursion.  We had a lovely, elderly, knowledgeable Norwegian guide who was able to answer all of our questions.  However, it was pretty obvious that we were in the way of the early morning runners and bicyclists in the forest.  There were many sweaty scowls and stops and starts.  It was a small trail and there were only about 20 of us, but I felt a little sorry for them.  The guide had to keep telling us to stay off of the trail.  There is certainly a positive and a negative to being a host to a Viking ship.  

[sugarside]

Gary Bembridge,Tips for Travellers has a new youtube video out today and he touches on the new regulations that certain ports in Norway will bring into use in 2025. They are  world heritage sites only.

[Clay Clayton]

4 hours ago, sugarside said:

Gary Bembridge,Tips for Travellers has a new youtube video out today and he touches on the new regulations that certain ports in Norway will bring into use in 2025. They are  world heritage sites only.

He also mentions the protestors and their posters.