maritime activities in the baltic sea.pdf

8/14/2019 Maritime Activities in the Baltic Sea.pdf

1/68

Maritime Activities in the Baltic Sea

Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No.123

Helsinki CommissionBaltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

An integrated thematic assessmenton maritime activit ies and response to

pollution at sea in the Baltic Sea region


2/68


3/68

1

Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 123

Maritime Activities in the Baltic Sea

An integrated thematic assessment onmaritime activities and response to pollutionat sea in the Baltic Sea region

Helsinki Commission

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission


4/68

2

Published by:

Helsinki Commission (HELCOM)

Katajanokanlaituri 6 B

FI-00160 Helsinki, Finland

Web: www.helcom.

Authors

Monika Stankiewicz (Ed.), HELCOM Professional Secretary

Hermanni Backer, HELCOM Project ResearcherNikolay Vlasov, HELCOM Information Secretary

For bibliographic purposes this document should be cited as:

HELCOM, 2010

Maritime Activities in the Baltic Sea An integrated thematic assessment on maritime activities

and response to pollution at sea in the Baltic Sea Region. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 123

Information included in this publication or extracts thereof are free for citing, provided

acknowledgment of the source is made

Copyright 2010 by the Baltic Marine Environment

Protection Commission Helsinki Commission

Language revision: Howard McKee M.Ed., Key Image Ltd

Design and layout: Michael Hassett, Lonely Sardine Productions

Cover photos: Maritime Ofce in Gdynia, Poland

Number of pages: 65

Printed by: Erweko Painotuote Oy, Finland


5/68

3

Preface

Maritime safety and response to accidents at seahave high priority in the Baltic Sea region dueto the natural conditions and the high densityof shipping. More than three decades ago theBaltic Sea countries decided to jointly tacklethese issues under the framework of HELCOM,the intergovernmental organization working toprotect the Baltic marine environment and toensure the safety of navigation.

During the last decade shipping has steadilyincreased around the Baltic Sea, reectingintensifying international co-operation andeconomic growth. Both the numbers and thesizes of ships have grown and the trend is

expected to continue. This leads to increasedpollution and other pressures on the marineenvironment. Also, the dramatic rise in oiltransportation signicantly raises the risk of alarge oil spill in the Baltic marine area.

Recognizing these critical changes, in 2007 theHELCOM countries and the European Uniondevised a set of measures to advance the safetyof navigation, including prevention of marinepollution, and to reduce environmental impactsof shipping as well as facilitate emergency

response in the region. These measures are partof the overarching HELCOM Baltic Sea ActionPlan to radically reduce pollution to the marineenvironment and restore its good ecologicalstatus by 2021.

The thematic assessment on maritimeactivities in the Baltic Sea is a direct follow-up of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan,along with three other similar assessmentson eutrophication, hazardous substancesand biodiversity. The maritime assessment isintended to provide baseline data on shipping

and other maritime activities in the Baltic Sea,and an overview of measures that are beingimplemented in order to achieve the objectivesof the Baltic Sea Action Plan concerning

the reduction of pollution, improvement ofnavigational safety and response capacity inthe region. It also includes recommendationson further necessary steps to implement theHELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan.

Today, the main environmental impacts ofshipping and other activities at sea includeair pollution, illegal deliberate and accidentaldischarges of oil, hazardous substances andother wastes, and the unintentional introductionof invasive alien organisms via ships ballastwater or hulls. Shipping adds to the problem ofeutrophication of the Baltic Sea with its nutrientinputs from nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and

sewage discharges.

HELCOM has been developing its ownregulations to address these sources of pollutionto the marine environment. Additionally, theHELCOM countries have been jointly contributingto the development, by the International MaritimeOrganization (IMO), of relevant global legislationto ensure that the highest practicable standardsto control and prevent pollution from ships areapplied in the Baltic Sea. Recently, the Baltic Seastates resolved to act jointly within the IMO to

apply stricter controls over the sources of nutrientpollution. This includes introduction of newstandards for nutrients in sewage dischargesfrom ships and tightening of regulations on shipsNOx emissions.

This assessment, prepared by the HELCOMSecretariat, presents the current maritime andresponse situation in the Baltic Sea region basedon the latest data emerging from monitoringactivities supported by national information. It ishoped that this assessment provides a soundbasis for further decisions to reach the goal of

the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan to havemaritime activities in the Baltic Sea carried out inan environmentally friendly way.


6/68

4

Preface .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table of contents .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. . 4

Executive Summary .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. . 6

Chapter I: Introduction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8

Ships in numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Transportation of cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Global processes behind the increasing Baltic trafc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Other types of maritime activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Policy framework beyond HELCOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Chapter II: Safety of navigation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 18

Overview of shipping accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Existing regulations and regional cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Chapter III: Accidental pollution .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 26

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Environmental impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Existing regulations and regional cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Chapter IV: Illegal pollution .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 30

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30


Existing regulations and regional cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Chapter V: Emissions .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... ... .. . 38

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38


TABLE OF CONTENTS


7/68

5

Existing regulations and regional cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Chapter VI: Sewage ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... ..44

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Environmental impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46



Chapter VII: Transfer of alien species . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . 48

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Environmental impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48



Chapter VIII: Necessary steps to implement the HELCOM

Baltic Sea Action Plan .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... . 52

Ratication of international conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Improving the safety of navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Enforcing the law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Strengthening response capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Reducing emissions and discharges from ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Preventing the spread of alien species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Developing and testing regional approaches to Maritime Spatial Planning . 57

Reference list .... .... .... ... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... . 58

Annexes ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Glossary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63


8/68

6

The Baltic Sea has always been a difcult areafor ships to navigate, due to its narrow straitsand shallow waters. It is also an area of heavymaritime trafc which has grown remarkablyduring recent years, and is predicted to growalso in the future. This rise in shipping is due tothe economical growth as well as increasing oilproduction and transportation activities. However,it results in increasing risks of major pollutionaccidents, which could have a devastatingimpact on the marine environment, especially inthe costal waters. The winter conditions in thenorthern Baltic Sea, and especially in the Gulf ofFinland, add to these risks.

There are around 2,000 sizable ships at seaat any one time. The number of ships enteringor leaving the Baltic Sea via Skaw in 2009 hasincreased by 20% since 2006. Approximately,20% are tankers, carrying as much as 166 milliontonnes of oil.

Also the amount of oil turnover in the largest oilterminals surrounding the Baltic Sea has beengrowing each year reaching 251 million tonnesin 2008. Due to the construction and expansionof Russian oil terminals, the export of Russian

oil alone through the Baltic ports, currently at thelevel of 111 million tonnes, is expected to reach180 million tonnes in 2020.

Each year there are 120-140 shipping accidentsin the Baltic Sea area. The number of accidentshas risen since 2006, which can be linked tothe 20% increase in ship trafc. The majorityof accidents are groundings and collisions.The share of groundings in the total number ofaccidents is higher for the Baltic Sea than forother European waters.On average, 7% of the shipping accidents in

the Baltic Sea results in some kind of pollution,usually containing not more than 0.1-1 tonnes ofoil. For the last six years, no major accidental oilspill has happened in the Baltic Sea.

Every ship entering the Baltic Sea must complywith the anti-pollution regulations of the HelsinkiConvention and MARPOL Convention, includingthose resulting from the designation of theBaltic Sea area as a Special Area for preventionof pollution by oil (Annex I of MARPOL) andgarbage (Annex V). Even though strict controls

over ships discharges have been establishedby the Baltic Sea countries, illegal spills anddischarges continue to happen.

Fortunately, the number of deliberate, illegal oilspills has been reduced dramatically over the lasttwenty years, from 763 spills in 1989 to 178 spillsin 2009. Also, the size of the spills has beendecreasing - most are less than one cubic metreand even less than 100 litres today.

However, the cumulative effects of suchsmaller accidental and illegal spills have directharmful impacts. Oiled birds and mammalssuffer from hypothermia or intoxication, whichare particularly lethal to the avian fauna. Itis estimated that 100,000500,000 ducks,guillemots and other bird species die each yearowing to small oil spills.

NOx emissions from ships contributeconsiderably to the most severe environmentalproblem of the Baltic Sea, namely eutrophication.Eutrophication is caused by excessive inputsof nutrients - nitrogen and phosphorus - to themarine environment, and results in algal blooms,murky waters, loss of submerged aquaticvegetation, and lifeless zones on the sea oor.

Shipping has its share in atmospheric nitrogendeposition through the emission of NOx from

the operation of ships diesel engines. AnnualNOx emissions from the Baltic shipping arecomparable to the combined land-based NOxemissions from Finland and Sweden. NOxemitted to the air is deposited both directly ontothe sea surface and in the catchment area, fromwhere part of the nitrogen drains into the seavia rivers. NOx deposited onto the Baltic Sea isparticularly effective in causing eutrophication.

During 20002006, shipping in the Baltic wasthe fth greatest contributor (5% and on average11,500 tonnes of N annually) to the total nitrogen

deposition to the Baltic Sea basin. The Balticshipping contribution to the total depositednitrogen was even higher in 2007, and reached12,400 tonnes.

After the Baltic Sea SOx Emission Control Areaentered into force in 2006, SOx emissions fromships have steadily decreased. During 2008,135,000 tonnes of SOx was emitted by ships inthe Baltic Sea, which is 8% less than two yearsbefore. A further decrease in sulphur oxidesemissions is expected due to stricter regulations

for sulphur content in marine fuel introduced bythe revised MARPOL Annex VI.

Executive Summary


9/68

7

A cut in NOx emissions from ships in theBaltic Sea required by the revised Annex VIwill be much less signicant, and not sufcient

to counterbalance the increasing emissionsrelated to the predicted growth in maritimetransportation, unless the Baltic Sea isdesignated as a NOx Emission Control Area.

Further, nitrogen loads to the Baltic Seaoriginating from ships sewage dischargescontribute to eutrophication. While these loadsare relatively small compared to the total nutrientload to the Baltic Sea, they are, however,signicant due to the sensitivity of the Baltic Seato eutrophication. Nutrients in sewage discharge

may have considerable effects on the growthof pelagic phytoplankton since the nutrients aredischarged directly to the open sea ecosystem.Due to increasing shipping, more alien speciesare nding their way into the Baltic Sea than everbefore. The species are most often deployingballast water and hull-fouling as vectors. Theinvaders can induce considerable changes in thestructure and dynamics of marine ecosystemsand can also hamper the economic use of the

sea or even represent a risk to human health.Over 100 non-native aquatic species have beenrecorded in the Baltic Sea to date, and around80 of these have established viably reproducingpopulations in some parts of the Baltic. Eightnew species have been observed during the pastve years alone. Most of these invasive speciesoriginate from freshwater or brackish waterenvironments, particularly from North America orthe Ponto-Caspian region.

Heavy shipping also has a number of othernegative impacts on the marine environment,especially in shallow areas, including underwaternoise and the release of anti-fouling chemicals

used on ship hulls, which cause acute effects onorganisms, especially at lower trophic levels ofthe food web.

Apart from shipping, there are also othermaritime activities that have an impact on theBaltic Sea, including energy-related activities,like wind power production, oil extraction andgas pipelines, as well as sheries and leisureboating.

Nikolay Vlasov, HELCOM


10/68

8

Map 1:Ship trafc in the Baltic Sea during one week

in 2008. Data are calculated on a grid, showing the

areas of heavy trafc. Source: HELCOM AIS.

50000

54000

58000

62000

66000

2006 2007 2008 2009

Due to its narrow straits, shallow waters andits vast labyrinths of skerries and islands, theBaltic Sea has always been a difcult area for

ships to navigate; nevertheless, the Baltic hasalways also been a blessing. Together with theforests and elds it has been a central lifelineto peoples living on these northern shores andthis relationship continues today in the formof a multitude of maritime activities. Alongsidemaritime trafc, which has grown remarkablyduring recent years, there are extensive plansfor wind power and continuing sheries amongothers. The role of the rst part of this report isto give a short overview of a suite of maritimeactivities in the Baltic Sea to be complemented

by more specic chapters mainly focusing onshipping.

Chapter I: Introduction

Ships in numbers

Since 1 July 2005, the whole Baltic Sea areahas been covered by an interlinked network ofland-based Automatic Identication System (AIS)stations. AIS was invented for the exchange ofinformation between ships and between shipsand shore stations. Ship trafc in the Baltic Seabased on AIS signals is presented on Map 1.

The HELCOM shore-based AIS network providesa monitoring tool for supervision, risk analyses,search and rescue operations, port Satecontrol, identication of illegal polluters, securityand other safety-related tasks to ensure safenavigation. Additionally, AIS information is usedfor estimating ship emissions and monitoringnon-compliant ships entering the sea.

The maritime transportation intensity in the BalticSea has increased signicantly during recentyears with more than 2,000 sizable ships at sea

at any one time, and this is predicted to increaseeven further.

In 2009, vessels entered or left the Baltic Seavia Skaw 62,743 times (gure representing thenumber of crossings through a pre-dened AISline, Map 2). This number has increased by morethan 20% since 2006 (Figure 1). Approximately21% of those ships were tankers, 46% othercargo ships, and 4.5% passenger ships.

Additionally, heavy ship trafc goes through the98-kilometer long Kiel Canal linking the BalticSea with the North Sea. In total, 30,314 shipspassed through the Kiel Canal in 2009 (www.

kiel-canal.org).

Figure 1.Number of ships entering or leaving the Baltic Sea viaSkaw (crossings through a pre-dened AIS line), 2006-2009.


11/68

9

Map 2.Number of ships crossing pre-dened AIS lines in the Baltic Sea by ship type, 2009.Source: HELCOM AIS.


12/68

10

Table 1.Number of ships crossing pre-dened AIS lines in the Baltic Sea, 2006-2009. Datasource: HELCOM AIS. Other refers to other types of ships; No Info refers to unspecied ships.

Passenger Cargo Tanker Other No info Total

2006 42731 226855 67458 39627 - 376671

% 11.3 60.2 17.9 10.5 - 100.0

2007 43215 237342 69335 56981 6901 413774

% 10.4 57.4 16.8 13.8 1.7 100.0

2008 49355 210021 61996 122029 10297 453698

% 10.9 46.3 13.7 26.9 2.3 100

2009 42408 200595 69021 73906 8096 394026

% 10.8 50.9 17.5 18.8 2.1 100

Table 2. Number of ships crossing pre-dened AIS lines in the Baltic Sea by draught, 2009. Datasource: HELCOM AIS.

Figure 2. Number of ships crossing pre-denedAIS lines in the Baltic Sea by ship type, 2006-2009.

Draught

15 m Unknown Total

Total 246211 60323 24341 6156 5457 1064 50474 394026

Percentageof tot.

62.50% 15.30% 6.20% 1.60% 1.40% 0.30% 12.80% 100.00%

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

2006 2007 2008 2009

Passenger ships Tankers Other cargo ships

The overall number of vessels crossing allpre-dened AIS lines in the Baltic Sea in2009 is lower by 13% than in 2008 (Table1) a reection of the economic turndownthe region has been experiencing. However,when observing the number of specic shiptypes crossing AIS lines, it can be seen that thenumber of tankers has increased (Figure 2).

The majority of all ships in the Baltic Sea aresmaller vessels with a draught less than 7 m

(Table 2).


Maritime Ofce in Gdynia, Poland


13/68

11

108.1 122.8137.7

162.4 170.3203.5

221.2233.7245.3251.4

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

80 81 94

108129

144 151171 170 166

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 4. Amount of oil transported to and from the Baltic Seavia the Great Belt, 2000-2009. Data source: SHIPPOS (2000-

2007) and the Danish reporting system (2008-2009).

Figure 3: Amount of oil transported via the 16 largest oilterminals in the Baltic Sea area during 1997, and 2000-2008.

Data source: HELCOM MARIS.

The total amount of cargo handled in the portssurrounding the Baltic Sea was 822.4 milliontonnes in 2008, which is 3% more than in 2006,but 0.4% less than 2007. The two biggest portswere Primorsk and St. Petersburg, accountingfor 16% of the total trafc volumes (Srkirvi etal. 2009).

The amount of oil turnover in the 16 largest oilterminals of the Baltic Sea has been growingeach year (Figure 3). Oil terminals with overthree million tonnes turnover per year are shownon Map 3 (next page).

Also transportation of oil to and from the BalticSea via Skaw has grown over the years;however, a slight decrease was seen in 2009over 2008 (Figure 4).

The oil transportation is predicted to increasefurther, especially in the Gulf of Finland, dueto the construction and expansion of Russianoil terminals. The export of Russian oil alonethrough the Baltic ports, currently at the levelof 111 million tonnes, is expected to reach 180

million tonnes in 2020.

Transportation of cargo



14/68

12

Map 3. Major oil terminals along the Baltic Sea coastline. Data source: HELCOM MARIS.



15/68

13

Table 3. Development of international seaborne trade for selectedyears (million of tonnes loaded). Data source: UNCTAD. aIron ore,

grain, coal, bauxite/alumina and phosphate; bPreliminary.

Year Oil Main bulksa Other dry

cargo

Total (all

cargoes)

1970 1,442 448 676 2,566

1980 1,871 796 1,037 3,704

1990 1,755 968 1,285 4,008

2000 2,163 1,288 2,533 5,984

2006 2,648 1,888 3,009 7,545

2007 2,705 2,013 3,164 7,882

2008 b 2,749 2,097 2,322 8,168

Global processes behind theincreasing Baltic trafc

Economic growth within the region, inEurope and globally brings with it increasingtransportation volumes, both in terms of oil andother cargo. This is reected directly in shippingwhich, according to the International MaritimeOrganization (IMO), transports 90% of worldtrade. The world eet has consequently almostdoubled in tonnage during the last thirty years.

The growth of shipping has been particularlyfast during the rst decade of the 21st centurycorresponding to the accelerating pace of worldtrade. In terms of total seaborne trade, the worldexperienced an increase from six to more thaneight thousand million tonnes during 2000-2008 (Table 3), corresponding to an increaseof around 36% (UNCTAD 2009). These globaldevelopments are also reected in the Baltic Searegion transport volumes growing until recently.



16/68

14

Map 4. Planned and existing wind farms in the Baltic Sea.

Other types of maritime activities

Energy-related activities

Besides shipping, and the closely relateddevelopments in harbours, also other types ofhuman activities can be considered under themaritime heading. This includes mainly energy-related activities, of which wind power is perhapsthe most rapidly expanding eld. Wind powerdevelopments, in turn, are linked to ClimateChange mitigation concerns, including the EU2007 goal aiming at 20% for renewable energysources by 2020. Although there are currentlyonly a few large wind farms in operation in the

Baltic Sea, numerous wind farms are planned oralready going through an Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) process (Map 4).

Although wind farms are not a source of directchemical or biological pollution they have othereffects, both environmental and aesthetic, someof which remain controversial. Regardless oftheir environmental effects, wind farms competefor space with, e.g. shipping, particularly innarrow straits and other densely used areas.

In addition to wind farms, the two Baltic oilplatforms Petrobaltic in the Polish exclusive

economical zone (EEZ), and D-6 in the Russianterritorial waters of Kaliningrad Oblast can alsobe mentioned in this context. The operation ofthese oil platforms has not been observed tocause any signicant environmental problems;however, possible growth in oil and gasextraction activities may be a potential source ofenvironmental concern.

Currently, there are at least three planned gaspipeline routes in the Baltic Sea: Baltic GasInterconnector from Germany to Sweden;BalticPipe from Denmark to Poland; and NordStream from Russia to Germany across the Gulfof Finland and the Baltic Proper. The largest

of the three, the Nord Stream construction,will consist of two pipelines, both 1,200 kmlong, with a diameter of 122 cm. The NordStream transboundary Environmental ImpactAssessment and permitting procedures werenalised in 2010 with construction (started April2010) planned to be completed by 2012.

Fisheries

The most important and internationally managedand assessed sh stocks caught offshore in the

Baltic Sea are those of cod (caught by bottomand midwater trawling and longlines), herring andsprat (midwater trawling) and salmon (longlines).Fishery activities regarding these species arein principle international, even if relatively fewvessels from outside the region sh in the Baltic.The present regional management structure forthese species is based on a bilateral agreementbetween the Russian Federation and theEuropean Union achieved in 2009. Other speciesmainly caught inshore are of more local concern,and are consequently managed nationally for themost part.

In terms of intensity, shery activities are mainlyconcentrated in the southern parts of the BalticSea, even if important sheries of salmon aswell as herring and sprat also take place in thenorthern parts. However, due to data accessissues it is currently difcult to get accurateinformation on shing vessel movementscomparable to AIS information (e.g. Map 1)even if the European Vessel Monitoring System(VMS) continuously monitors bigger shingvessels. However, this might change in the future

as already now, the new European regulation199/2008provides a (conditional) legal basis forsharing VMS information.



17/68

15

Figure 5. Recreational boats: Population for someBaltic countries. Note that gures include boats

of all sizes, also smaller open types. HELCOM/

Hermanni Backer. Data sources: websites of

European Boating Association, International

Boating Industry.

Leisure crafts

The majority of leisure boats in the Baltic Seaarea belong to residents of Denmark, Finlandand Sweden (Figure 5) with boat ownershipmuch less common in the other countries. InDenmark and Finland, the number of privatelyowned boats used specically along the BalticSea coast is around 400,000, and in Swedenthe number is 450,000; these estimates includevessels ranging from rowboats to motor andsailing boats with overnight capacity (SCB 2004).In Estonia and Latvia, the number of leisureboats is about 14,500 and 7,300, respectively.Offshore sailing and boating crossing national

borders is still relatively uncommon in the Balticeven if it is increasing rapidly.



18/68

16

Policy framework beyond HELCOM

The law of the sea and the InternationalMaritime Organization

Shipping is perhaps the most international ofthe world's industries, serving more than 90% ofglobal trade by carrying huge quantities of cargo.

For more than two centuries and until recently,the vast areas of ocean were open and free withall states enjoying the freedom of navigation,uncontrolled shing, the right to lay and maintainsubmarine cables and pipelines, and the freedomto y over areas beyond a limited area of a

territorial sea.

For the rst time in history, sea boundaries havebeen agreed in the UNCLOS Convention (theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of theSea), open for signature in 1982.

Beyond territorial waters, the Convention allowsthe creation of an exclusive economic zone areaof up to 200 nautical miles in order for coastalstates to gain economic benet from areasfurther off their shores: notably rights over shing

and the exploitation of non-living resources. Atthe same time, however, neighbouring land-

locked and geographically disadvantaged stateshave also been given some rights over theseareas.

The countries acceptance of the coastalstate jurisdiction over a 200-mile EEZ has arevolutionary effect the elimination of freedomin shing and giving a coastal states sovereignrights over the exploitation, conservation andmanagement of living resources.

The seabed beyond the limits of nationaljurisdiction was accepted as a common heritageof mankind. Further, the traditional right ofinnocent passage through territorial waters is

also recognised.

UNCLOS comprises 320 articles and nineannexes, governing all aspects of ocean spacefrom delimitations to environmental control,scientic research, economic and commercialactivities, technology and the settlement ofdisputes relating to ocean matters.

In 1948, an international conference in Genevaadopted a convention formally establishingthe International Maritime Organization. The

IMO Convention entered into force in 1958.IMO is the global regulator of shipping, and itsmain task has been to develop and maintaina comprehensive regulatory framework forshipping. Its remit today includes safety,environmental concerns, legal matters, technicalcooperation, maritime security and the efciencyof shipping.

As a result of IMOs work, a comprehensivebody of international conventions, supportedby hundreds of recommendations governingevery facet of shipping, has been created. The

conventions concern the prevention of pollutionfrom ships, standards of training for seafarers,search and rescue, oil pollution response,harmful anti-fouling systems on ships, alienspecies transferred via ballast water of ships,and more.

EU initiatives related to maritimeactivities

The EU Green Paper on the future MaritimePolicy (2006) and its Blue Book/Action Plan An

Integrated Maritime Policy for the EuropeanUnion (2007) have, in general, put furtheremphasis on the role of maritime economies inachieving green growth in Europe. Within the


aritime Ofce in Gdynia, Poland


19/68

17

Integrated Maritime Policy framework, HELCOMhas been actively participating in developing,inter alia, the concept of regional Baltic SeaMaritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and theEMODNET data structures together with theMember States.

HELCOMs efforts to develop Maritime SpatialPlanning is rooted in the Baltic Sea Action Plan,which committed the coastal countries andthe European Commission to jointly developby 2010, as well as test, apply and evaluateby 2012, in cooperation with other relevantinternational bodies, broad-scale, cross-sectoral,marine spatial planning principles using as an

overarching principle the Ecosystem Approachthat reect the specic conditions and needs inthe Baltic Sea Region, as well as the HELCOMRecommendation 28E/9 on the development ofbroad-scale marine spatial planning principlesin the Baltic Sea area. Regional MSP principlesto full the BSAP commitment, developed jointlywith other regional organisations, are anticipatedto be adopted in HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in2010.

In 2009, the EU Strategy and Action Plan for the

Baltic Sea Region were adopted. The strategy isthe rst EU macro regional strategy to address,on a voluntary basis, common challenges, likethe deteriorating state of the Baltic Sea, poortransport links, barriers to trade and energysupply concerns, through integrated approachand coordinated actions. The four cornerstones

of the Strategy are to make this part of Europemore:

Environmentally sustainable (e.g. reducingpollution in the sea);

Prosperous (e.g. promoting innovation insmall and medium enterprises);

Accessible and attractive (e.g. bettertransport links); and

Safe and secure (e.g. improving accidentresponse).

HELCOMs measures included in the MaritimeActivities segment of the HELCOM Baltic SeaAction Plan have served the development ofthe many strategic and cooperative actions aswell as ag ship projects of the EU Strategy forthe Baltic Sea Region in its environmental pillar(priority areas 2 and 4) and safety and securitypillar (priority areas 13 and 14).

The EU Strategy has been given an additionalpolitical support and has strengthened thecommitments already made by the Baltic Sea

countries in the BSAP. It has also pushed fora more coordinated approach among differentauthorities in the countries, local governments,NGOs and other stakeholders in implementingvarious activities, including those aiming atmaking the Baltic Sea region an environmentallysustainable as well as a safe and secure place.



20/68

18

6256

6171

142 146

117 120

136

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Figure 6. Number of shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea, 2000-2008. Data up to 2003 arenot fully comparable with data for the following years due to a different reporting scheme.

Chapter II: Safety of Navigation

The Baltic Sea is an area of heavy maritimetrafc, which has grown remarkably during recentyears, and is predicted to grow also in the future.This rise in shipping is due to economical growthand increasing oil production and transportationactivities; however, it is also resulting inincreasing risks of major pollution accidents,which could have a devastating impact on themarine environment, especially in the costalwaters. The winter conditions in the northernBaltic Sea, especially in the Gulf of Finland, addto these risks.

Overview of shipping accidents

There are some 120-140 shipping accidentsin the Baltic Sea area annually (Figure 6)(HELCOM 2009a). The number of accidents hasrisen since 2006, which can be linked to the 20%increase in ship trafc (Table 1). The numberof ships involved in accidents in the Baltic Searepresents around 16% of the European totalfor 2008 (754 vessels involved in 670 accidents)(EMSA 2009).

Almost all accidents occur very close to shore orin harbours (Map 5).

Cargo vessels are the main group of shipsinvolved in accidents, followed by passengerships and tankers (45%, 18% and 10%,respectively, in 2008). An almost identical shareof different ship types in accidents can beobserved for EU waters (EMSA 2009).

Since 1 July 2005, the whole Baltic Sea areahas been covered by land-based AutomaticIdentication System (AIS) stations, making theBaltic Sea the rst region in the world capable ofmonitoring ship trafc in real-time, considerablyincreasing the safety of navigation. Fortunately,since the Fu Shan Hai incident in 2003,resulting in the release of 1,200 tonnes of fuel oil,no major shipping accident has occurred in theBaltic Sea.

This chapter focuses on issues, in general terms,relating to the safety of navigation and on risksof shipping accidents. Accidental pollution iscovered in Chapter III.

ergey Vlasov


21/68

19

Map 5. Spatial distribution of shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea, 2008.


22/68

20

Figure 7 and 8. Share of tankers and cargo

ships (other than tankers), respectively, in thetotal number of accidents and in the overall shiptrafc in the Baltic Sea, 2006-2009. Ship trafc is

reected as the number of ship crossings through

pre-dened AIS lines.

1513

10

18 17

14

02468

1012

14161820

2006 2007 2008

%

Share (%) of accidents involving tankers

Share (%) of tankers in the overall traff ic in the Baltic Sea


56 5545

60 57

46

0

20

40

60

80

2006 2007 2008

%

Share (%) of accidents involving cargo ships other than tankers

Share (%) of cargo ships other than tankers in the overall ship

traff ic in the Baltic Sea

When comparing the share of different shiptypes in accidents and in overall ship trafc in theBaltic Sea, it can be noted that tankers make uparound 14-18% of the overall trafc, while theirshare in accidents is 10- 15% (Figure 7). Forother cargo ships the share in accidents and theoverall trafc remains at the same level (Figure8). A more sophisticated risk analysis would beneeded to draw any nal conclusions on whichvessel groups pose the highest risks and why.None of the tankers involved in the polutionaccidents in the Baltic Sea over the years weresingle-hull tankers.

Almost half of the reported accidents in 2008

were the result of human factors, followed bytechnical and external factors (Figure 9).

Due to many shallow areas, especially in theDanish straits, the Baltic Sea is much moredifcult to navigate than many other areas inEurope. This can be seen when comparingthe share of groundings in the total number ofaccidents for the Baltic Sea and in Europeanwaters. In 2008, 60 groundings were reportedby HELCOM countries (Figure 10), accountingfor 44% of the total number of accidents, while

in and around EU waters the share of vesselsinvolved in groundings for the same year was29% (EMSA 2009).

The majority of grounded vessels (65%) did nothave a pilot onboard at the time of incident. Onthe other hand, small vessels with a draught ofless than 7 metres accounted for 80% of the



23/68

21

Figure 9. Causes of shipping accidents (%) in theBaltic Sea, 2004-2008.

0

20

40

60

80

100

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

39 42 36 32

47

6 6

912

1820

26

15 20

138

19

54

727

7

35 32

15

%

Human factor External factor Technical factor Other factor No information

11 119

24

44

54 54

40 41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Figure 10. Number of ship groundings in theBaltic Sea, 2000-2008.

Figure 11. Number of ship collisions in theBaltic Sea, 2000-2008.

groundings; small vessels are not covered byIMOs recommendations on the use of pilotage.

Some 58% of all groundings registered in 2000-2008 took place in the south-western Baltic Sea,including the Danish straits.

Collisions are the second most frequent type ofshipping accidents in the Baltic Sea, amountingto 41 cases (30%) of all accidents in 2008(Figure 11) and 288 cases (32%) for the period2000-2008.

Ship to ship collisions accounted for 39% ofall collision cases in 2008. The rest of the

cases were collisions with xed and/or oatingstructures, e.g. piers and navigation signs.

36 3741

30

57

53

46

54

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008



24/68

22

19

12

0

13

30

22

20

2826

0 0

15

25

16

23

1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Collision with vessel Collision with object Collision with vesseland object

No information

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Figure 12. Types of ship collisions in the Baltic Sea, 2004-2008.


On a positive note, the number of ship to shipcollisions has almost halved since 2005-2006,whereas the number of collisions with objectshas remained largely unchanged (Figure 12).

Approaches to ports and the Danish straits arethe most risky areas for ships to collide, while thenumber of incidents in the Gulf of Finland hassubstantially decreased (from 15 in 2005 to fourin 2008).

Existing regulations and regionalcooperation

The International Convention for the Safety

of Life at Sea, 1974, and its Protocol of 1988(SOLAS Convention) is generally regarded asthe most important of all international treatiesconcerning the safety of merchant ships. Themain objective of the SOLAS Convention is tospecify minimum standards for the construction,equipment and operation of ships, compatiblewith their safety.

Regulations 20 and 21 of Annex I to theMARPOL Convention are also important as theyset the phase-out schedule for single-hull tankers

and introduce a ban on the carriage of heavygrades of oil by single-hull tankers. While somespecic exemptions can be made from theseregulations, parties to MAPROL Conventionare, however, entitled to deny entry of a single-hull tanker which has been granted such anexemption into their ports.Additionally, EC Regulation 1726/2003 on theaccelerated phasing-in of double-hull tankers,requires that no oil tankers carrying heavygrades of oil, irrespective of its ag, shall be

allowed to enter or leave ports or offshoreterminals or to anchor in areas under thejurisdiction of an EU member state, unless sucha tanker is a double-hull tanker.

In 2009, the third maritime safety package wasadopted by the EU. It includes a number ofdirectives and regulations aimed at tighteningsafety regulations for ships ying an EU memberstate ag or navigating in European waters.The package includes measures on compliancewith ag State obligations; common rulesand standards for ship inspection and surveyorganizations; port State control; maritimecasualty investigation; liability of passenger

ships; insurance of shipowners for maritimeclaims; and vessel trafc monitoring. Themeasures will come into effect in 2010.

In addition to the number of IMO conventionsdealing with safety of navigation, the Baltic SeaStates have agreed on certain safety measuresin the Baltic Sea area, including: ship trafcmonitoring; ship routing systems includingnumerous trafc separation schemes and deepwater routes; ship reporting; pilotage; andmeasures related to safety of winter navigation

(HELCOM 2009b). The Mariners Routeing Guidefor the Baltic Sea has been prepared and isavailable in a form of a chart serving as a singlesource of navigational information for shipssailing in the Baltic Sea. The web-based versionof the Mariners Routeing Guide for the BalticSea is available at: www.helcom.dk/map.

Ship reporting systems

Four reporting systems are in force in the BalticSea area, out of which the following three aremandatory, requiring a ship to submit a report to

the Vessel Trafc System (VTS) Centre:

BELTREP in the Great Belt Trafc Area,applying to ships with a gross tonnage equalto or exceeding 50 GT, and all ships with anair draught of 15 metres or more;

GOFREP in the Gulf of Finland, applyingto ships with a gross tonnage equal to orexceeding 300 GT;

GDANREP on the approaches to the Polish

Ports in the Gulf of Gdask, applying topassenger ships certied to carry more than12 passengers; ships with a gross tonnage


25/68

23

equal to or exceeding 150 GT; and allvessels engaged in towing.

IMO also recommends that large shipsnavigating the water of the Sound betweenDenmark and Sweden participate in the reportingservice SOUNDREP.

Mandatory ship reporting systems have alsobeen established nationally by the Baltic SeaStates in approaches to oil terminals.

Deep water routes

A transit route (Route T) through the Kattegat,

the Great Belt and the Western Baltic has beenestablished for deep draught ships passingthrough the shallow entrances to the BalticSea. Seven other deep water routes have beenestablished:

DW Route Between Hatter Rev and HatterBarn for ships with a draught exceeding 13metres;

DW Route Off the East Coast of Langelandfor ships with a draught exceeding 13metres;

DW Route Kadetrenden northeast ofGedser for deep draught ships;

DW Route Off Gotland Island for all shipspassing east and south of the island ofGotland bound to or from the north-easternpart of the Baltic, with a draught exceeding12 metres;

DW Route Inside the borders of the TSSfrom Gogland Island to Rodsher Island

intended for the passage of ships with adraught up to 15 metres, including ladentankers sailing from Primorsk;

DW Route Inside the borders of the Northland Sea TSS; and

DW Route Inside the borders of South landSea TSS and Off Lgskr TSS.



26/68

24


Trafc separation schemes

Trafc separation schemes are established andadopted by IMO in the following parts of theBaltic Sea area:

Area in the Baltic

SeaNumber of trafc

separation schemes

In Sams Belt/Great

Belt

2

In the Sound 2

Off Kiel lighthouse 1

South of Gedser 1

North of Rgen 1

In Bornholmsgat 1

South of land Island 1

In the Gulf of Gdask 2

South of Gotland

Island

1

Entrance to the Gulf

of Finland

2

In the Gulf of Finland 5North and South

land Sea

2

Pilotage

Pilotage services are established locally by thecoastal states. IMO recommends that whennavigating the Sound, local pilotage servicesshould be used by:

loaded oil tankers with a draught of 7 metresor more;

loaded chemical tankers and gas carriersirrespective of size; and

ships carrying a shipment of irradiatednuclear fuel, plutonium and high-level

radioactive wastes (INF cargoes).

IMO also recommends that when navigatingRoute T, established pilotage services shouldbe used by large ships with a draught of 11metres or more; and ships carrying a shipment ofirradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high-levelradioactive wastes (INF cargoes).

Certied Baltic deep sea pilots are available in allBaltic Sea States.

Safety of winter navigationAdequate ice strengthening is required forships sailing in ice according to HELCOM

ritime Ofce in Gdynia, Poland


27/68

25

Implementation of the HELCOM BalticSea Action Plan

In the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, theContracting Parties agreed, among others, tosupport IMO initiatives for introducing a generalcarriage requirement for the Electronic ChartDisplay and Information System (ECDIS)as early as possible, and to request IMO todevelop a concrete time schedule. ECDIS cansubstantially improve safety of navigation.

Based on the support of also Baltic Seacountries, IMO adopted in 2009 the amendmentto Chapter 5 of SOLAS regarding carriage

requirements for shipborne navigational systems

Recommendation 25/7 on the safety of winternavigation in the Baltic Sea area. Informationon ice conditions, trafc restrictions, icebreakers

and other issues relevant to mariners navigatingin during wintertime can be obtained from thewebsite: www.baltice.org.

Additional information about ice conditions in theBaltic Sea countries can be obtained from thecommon website of the national ice services ofthe Baltic Sea States at: www.bsis-ice.de.

and equipment under which, cargo ships, tankersand passenger ships engaged in internationalvoyages shall be tted with an ECDIS accordingto the specic timetable (Annex 1). The SOLASamendments should be deemed to have beenaccepted on 1 July 2010 and should enter intoforce on 1 January 2011. The new regulationsmean that a majority of the ships in the BalticSea will be carrying ECDIS onboard by 2018 atthe latest.

Progress has also been achieved regardingthe development of new AIS binary messages.While their use is not mandatory on ships, theycan carry additional information of great value to

ships and shore authorities.

Based on the experience of the Baltic Sea regionand the results of the HELCOM supported BalticAIS Trial Project (AISBALTIC), a proposal foramendments to the binary messages - nowcalled AIS application-specic messages - wasmade to IMO, as required by the HELCOMBSAP. In 2009, IMO approved, in principle, anew SN circular on the Guidance on the useof AIS application-specic messages, which isexpected to be adopted by the Maritime Safety

Committee in 2010.



28/68

26

0

2

4

6

810

12

14

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Recent major pollution accidents in the Baltic Sea:

1990 Volgoneft, 700-800 tonnes of waste oil; nearly all oil recovered at sea 2001 Baltic Carrier, 2,700 tonnes of oil; around 50% of oil recovered at sea

2003 Fu Shan Hai, 1,200 tonnes of fuel oil; around 1,100 tonnes of oil recovered at sea

Figure 13. Number of shipping accidents resulting in pollution, 2000-2008.

Chapter III: Accidental pollution

Although most of the shipping accidents inthe Baltic Sea do not result in any pollution,the risk of a major spillage of oil or hazardoussubstances is profoundly present. Big tankers,carrying as much as 100,000 150,000thousands tones of oil, are particularly the focusof attention.

At the global level, the number of oil spills fromtankers has decreased from 25.5 spills per yearon average in the 1970s to 3.3 spills per year thiscentury; further, the quantities of oil spilled fromtankers has decreased (www.itopf.com).

It is not only tankers that can be a source of oil

pollution since other types of ships carry largequantities of bunker fuel as well. Accidental spillsof hazardous substances that are transported ascargo are also a threat, especially as they aremuch more difcult to combat.

While there is a need to constantly increase thesafety of navigation in the Baltic Sea, the risk ofaccidental spills can never be eliminated. For thisreason, the Baltic Sea countries cooperate toenhance their readiness to effectively respond topollution at sea and to improve their emergency

and response resources.

Overview

As mentioned, the number of shipping accidentsin the Baltic Sea is increasing. On average,7% of these accidents resulted in some kind ofpollution, usually containing not more than 0.1-1tonnes of oil. The number of pollution incidents

Environmental impact

Despite the increasing preparedness ofHELCOM Contracting Parties, a major oil spillwould likely have severe impacts both in the

offshore as well as coastal areas. However, theexact consequences are difcult to predict as theimpact mostly depends on the size of the spill;the type of oil; the weather and sea conditions;and, more importantly, the location and season.The impact is also generally more severe if theoil reaches the shore; further, crude oil or heavyoil presents a more lasting hazard compared toeasily evaporating light oil such as diesel oil.

Environmental impacts closer to the shore areeasier to observe and monitor while impacts

throughout the offshore areas are easier toquantify. Of all casualties among the wildlife,such as seabirds, only a fraction is usuallyoffshore. Marine mammals and turtles areusually less impacted.

Assessing the possible environmental effects of aworst case oil spill scenario in the Baltic Sea canonly be made by looking at the consequences of

varies between the years, from zero in 2002 tonine in 2008 (Figure 13). There have been nomajor oil spills in the Baltic Sea since 2003.In 2008, nine out of 135 accidents reportedby the HELCOM countries resulted in spillageof approximately 6.5 tonnes of different typesof oil, including diesel oil, crude oil and mazut(HELCOM 2009a).


29/68

27

accidents elsewhere in the world. As an example,the major oil accident (>30.000 tonnes leaked)of M/T Prestige in the Atlantic coast of Spain in2002 caused a signicant short-term reduction inthe phyto- and zooplankton biomass, a reducedabundance and species richness of littoralinvertebrates and sh reproduction. It also killedor harmed about 200,000 sea birds and a fewsea turtles. Some other studies demonstrated asignicant egg and adult mortality of peregrinefalcons. In the Baltic, cascading ecosystemeffects of oil, from phytoplankton to higher trophiclevels, are poorly known; however, it is expectedto be harmful due to decreased food availabilityresulting in an increased bioaccumulation of toxic

chemicals of types other than carbohydrates inthe oil spill itself.


The Baltic Sea countries maintain the abilityto respond to pollution incidents threateningthe marine environment, including adequateequipment, ships and manpower preparedfor operations in coastal waters as well as onthe high sea.

Principles, rules and operational procedures forjoint international response operations have beenput in place by HELCOM, including a reportingsystem on accidental spills, requesting andproviding assistance as well as solving relatednancial issues.

Due to the sensitive ecological condition of theBaltic Sea area, HELCOM countries agreed thatresponse to oil should take place by the use ofmechanical means as far as possible. Responseby using dispersants should be limited, sinkingagents should not be used at all and absorbentsonly when appropriate.

Today, the HELCOM eet has more than 48 oil-combating ships on standby, including three oilspill recovery vessels chartered by the EuropeanMaritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to top-up theavailable response resources.

There are two major IMO conventions dealingwith pollution-related shipping incidents. The1990 International Convention on Oil PollutionPreparedness, Response and Cooperation(OPRC) has been ratied by all HELCOMcountries. The 2000 Protocol on Preparedness,



30/68

28

Chapter III: Accidental pollution

Implementation of the HELCOM BalticSea Action Plan

Assessment of the risk of pollution fromships

Substantial resources to respond to pollution atsea do exist in the Baltic Sea region. To date,however, no comprehensive Baltic-wide analysishas been carried out to conrm whether theexisting emergency and response capacities aresufcient to tackle major spills of oil or hazardous

substances. Such an analysis is required by theHELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan and HELCOMRecommendation 28E/12 on sub-regionalcooperation in response eld and will be donewithin the BRISK Project (Sub-regional risk ofspill of oil and hazardous substances in the BalticSea).

Based on the risk assessment, the ContractingParties are required by the HELCOM BSAPto identify gaps in emergency and responseresources at the sub-regional level, and prepare

concrete programmes for fullling them by 2013for pollution by oil, and by 2016 for responseto accidents involving hazardous substances.Identifying such gaps is also part of BRISK.

Part-financed by the European Union

(European Regional Development Fund)

Places of Refuge

The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan puts anobligation on the Contracting Parties to developby 2009 and implement by 2010 a mutual planfor places of refuge, and to investigate therelated issues of liability and compensation.Such a mutual plan for places of refuge has beendeveloped as a new HELCOM Recommendation.

A Mutual Plan for Places of Refuge is anagreement among the Baltic Sea countries to

provide a basis for considering, due to somespecic circumstances, the granting of a placeof refuge to a ship in a response zone of acountry other than the one in which the needof assistance originally started; this meansthat the best shelter could be granted to a shipirrespective of countries borders.

According to the Recommendation, a place ofrefuge can be requested from a neighbouringcountry due to lack of adequate shelter in thevicinity of an accident or unfavourable weather

conditions. Financial or commercial reasonscannot be the basis for such a request, neithercan a lack of response resources.

Response and Cooperation to Pollution Incidentsby Hazardous and Noxious Substances (OPRC-

HNS Protocol) has been ratied by ve HELCOMcountries.

Additionally, a system of international liabilityand compensation conventions has beendeveloped over the years to enable the recoveryof certain damage and operation costs related topollution from ships, predominately oil tankers.The ratication status of the international IMOconventions related to compensation and liabilityby the Baltic Sea countries is presented inAnnex 2.

The BRISK Project is co-nanced by theEuropean Regional Development Fund within

the Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013(approx. EUR 2.5 million) and will be run until 24April 2012.


31/68

29

Oiled wildlife response

Major progress has also been achieved withinHELCOM, in cooperation with Sea Alarm andWWF Finland, to put an international policyframework in place for cooperation and mutual

assistance in oiled wildlife response, as agreedin the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan.

A new HELCOM Recommendation settingthe standards for the planning of oiled wildliferesponse has been developed. The draftRecommendation species how HELCOM

countries should put an integrated wildliferesponse plan in place as part of the overall

contingency plan, either at a national or sub-national/local level to guarantee the coordinatedconduct of response; the swift mobilization ofresources; the use of appropriate rehabilitationand health and safety protocols if rehabilitation isdecided; and the likelihood of successful claim tointernational compensation funds.

Additionally, HELCOM procedures forinternational oil spill response operations,included in the Response Manual, have beenamended to enable mutual assistance when

dealing with major oiled wildlife incidents.Through the use of the standard PollutionReporting System, HELCOM countries can nowrequest the assistance of equipment, as well astrained personnel and volunteers to deal withoiled wildlife from neighbouring countries.

The Recommendation also aims at creating aharmonised liability and compensation regime in

the whole Baltic Sea region, whereby possibledamage costs related to a place of refugesituation could be, to the fullest possible extent,recovered from the international liability andcompensation funds.




32/68

30

Figure 15.Illegal oil discharges by spill size duringaerial surveillance in the Baltic Sea, 1998-2009.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

no inf ormatio n > 100 m3 10-100 m3 1-10 m3 < 1m3

509763

424373

544461588

649413438454488472390

344278293

224236238210178

010

2030405060708090

0100

200

300

4000500

600

oil spills flight hoursFigure 14. Total number of surveillance ight hours by HELCOMcountries and observed illegal oil spills in the Baltic Sea, 1998-2009.

Chapter IV: Illegal pollution

All ships entering the Baltic Sea need to complywith the anti-pollution regulations of the HelsinkiConvention and MARPOL Convention, includingthose resulting from the designation of the BalticSea area as a Special Area for the preventionof pollution by oil (Annex I of MARPOL) andgarbage (Annex V). Even though strict controlsover ships discharges have been establishedby the Baltic Sea countries, illegal spills anddischarges continue to happen.

Overview

The number of detected oil spillages in the BalticSea has been decreasing over the past years,

even though the density of shipping has rapidlygrown and aerial surveillance in the countries

has increased (Figure 14). Until 2009, therehad been more than 200 illegal oil spills fromships observed each year; fewer spills weredetected during 2009 (HELCOM 2010). Thefollowing statistics only include detectionsmade by surveillance aircraft; they not takeinto account observations made by othermeans (e.g. helicopters or ships), fromland or by leisure boaters and are thusunderestimated.

The size of slicks is also declining - today,the majority are smaller than a cubic metre,or even less than 100 litres (Figure 15).

Most of the illegal oil discharges are detectedalong major shipping routes (Map 6).


33/68

31

Map 6. Spatial distribution of illegal oil spills observed during aerial surveillance by HELCOM countries, 2009.


34/68

32


No data exists on illegal discharges of othertypes of pollution from ships in the Baltic Seaas these are much more challenging to monitor.However, this does not imply that there is nocontrol over these discharges, as other means,like port State control, are used by the Baltic Seacountries to ensure law enforcement and shipcompliance with anti-discharge regulations.

Evidence of other pollution, like garbage ormarine litter, can be visible in the sea. As thereare various possible sources of marine litter, it isusually very difcult to attribute it to any specichuman activity, including shipping. Marine litterenters the sea from both land-based sources

(e.g. tourism and recreational use of the coasts,shing by the rivers and intentional wastedumping) and from ships (commercial shippingand pleasure craft) as well as other installationsat sea.

The magnitude of the marine litter problem isgenerally assumed to be somewhat smallerin the Baltic compared to, e.g. the North Sea.However, due to the absence of any regularmonitoring, the factual basis of this overview isdifcult to determine. According to a literature

review conducted in 2007 (HELCOM 2007a),some 20 items on average are found per 100 mstretch in the Baltic Sea, even if some areas aremore heavily littered reaching densities similar tothe North Sea coasts of 1,000 items per 100 m.In the Baltic, as elsewhere in the world, tracesof plastic microbers have been found to beabundant. The origin of such micro-particles,as that of marine litter in general, is difcult todetermine.


Although most oil spills detected in theBaltic are fairly small illegal or accidentalspills, their cumulative effects are, however,signicant. Smaller oating concentrationsof oil can have direct harmful impacts: oiledbirds and mammals suffer from hypothermiaor intoxication. According to some estimation(BirdLife International 2007), 100,000500,000ducks, guillemots and other bird species areestimated to die annually due to these smalloil spills. Further, in a study published in2005 (Pikkarainen & Lemponen 2005), totalhydrocarbon concentrations between 0.13 and

1.8 g/L were detected in the Baltic Sea waterfrom the Arkona Basin to Bothnian Bay. Thehighest concentrations were detected in the Gulfof Finland and northern and central Baltic Proper.The effects of such background concentrationsare diverse and might be signicant in thelong term through bioaccumulation andsedimentation.

Plastic particles, whether microscopic or larger,can have a range of effects on the marine life.As an example of the effects of larger particles,

various species, like sh-catching birds, areworldwide commonly found dead with plasticparticles in their stomachs. Recent studies havediscovered that plastic micro-particles, like thosefound in Baltic seawater, enter to and accumulatein animals such as blue mussels and maythus have signicant food-web consequences(Browne et al. 2008).



35/68

33

1HELCOM Recommendation 19/10 Application by the

Baltic Sea states of guidelines for holding tanks/oily waterseparating or ltering equipment for ships of less than 400tons gross tonnage.


Ship-generated waste

In accordance with the MARPOL Convention,far-reaching prohibitions and restrictions on anydischarge into the sea of oil or oily mixtures havebeen introduced by the Baltic Sea States. Theprohibition of oil discharges applies not only todischarges from the cargo tanks of oil tankersbut equally to discharges from the machineryspaces of any ship. Only if the oil content in theefuent does not exceed 15 parts per million cana discharge be permitted. For ships of 400 gross

tonnage and above, the oil ltering equipmentmust be provided with arrangements ensuringthat any discharge of oil or oily mixtures isautomatically stopped when the oil content in theefuent exceeds 15 parts per million.

Ships of less than 400 tonnes gross tonnage,ying the ag of a Baltic Sea State, shouldcomply with the adopted HELCOM guidelines1concerning holding tanks/oily water separating orltering equipment.

The discharges of noxious liquid substancesare also strictly regulated. There is a prohibitionon discharges from tanks that have containedCategory X, Y or Z substances, specied byIMOs International Code for the Constructionand Equipment of Ships Carrying DangerousChemicals in Bulk (IBC Code). This categorisesnoxious liquid substances (NLS) carried inbulk according to their magnitude of harm tothe marine environment if discharged, unlessspecic provisions of Annex II Regulationsfor the Control of Pollution by Noxious LiquidSubstances in Bulk to the MARPOL Convention

are met.

Tanks having contained Category X substancesmust be pre-washed before a ship leavesthe port of unloading and the resultant tankwashings delivered to a reception facility. Theconcentration of the substance in the efuent tothe facility must be at or below 0.1% by weightand the tank must be fully emptied.

For high-viscosity or solidifying substances inCategory Y, the specied pre-wash procedure

must be applied and the residue discharged to aport reception facility until the tank is empty.

The cargo residues in Category Y or Z must beremoved to specied small quantities and anytank washings must be discharged to a receptionfacility of the port of unloading or another portwith a suitable reception facility, provided that ithas been conrmed that a reception facility atthat port is available and is adequate for such apurpose. The eventual discharge of any residuesof substances in Category X, Y or Z into the seamust comply with specic provisions for eachsubstance category on the speed of the ship,discharge below the waterline, distance from thenearest land and depth of water.

The discharge of sewage from ships is prohibited

within 12 nautical miles of the nearest landunless sewage has been comminuted anddisinfected using an approved system, and thedistance from the nearest land is more thanthree nautical miles. When discharging from asewage holding tank, the discharge must, in anycase, be at a moderate rate and the ship must beproceeding en route at a minimum speed of fourknots. Only if an approved sewage treatmentplant (according to IMO requirements) is usedonboard can the discharge take place anywherein the Baltic Sea.

The discharge of garbage is prohibited; foodwastes, however, may be discharged but no lessthan 12 nautical miles from the nearest land.

There is also a general ban on dumping andincineration of other wastes in the entire BalticSea area - not incidental to or derived from thenormal operation of ships. Dumping means anydeliberate disposal at sea of wastes or othermatter from ships, or any deliberate disposal ofships at sea. The prohibition of dumping does notapply to the disposal of dredged materials at sea,

provided specic provisions are complied with.

Ships ying the ag of a Baltic Sea State shouldhave onboard garbage retention appliancessuitable for the collection and separation ofgarbage.

All the discharge regulations, described above,apply equally to small ships, including shing


36/68

34

2HELCOM Recommendation 28E/10 Application of

the no-special-fee system to ship-generated wastesand marine litter caught in shing nets in the BalticSea area.


vessels, working vessels and pleasure craft.This includes small ships tted with a toiletwhich must comply with the sewage dischargeregulations of Annex IV to the MARPOLConvention and be able to connect to sewage

reception facility pipes. Small ships built before 1January 2000 can be exempted by the Baltic Seacountries from this obligation if the installationof toilet retention systems in these ships istechnically difcult, or the cost of installation ishigh compared to the value of the ship.

All ships, with some exceptions, are under anobligation to deliver to a port reception facility,before leaving the port, their ship-generatedwastes and cargo residues that cannot belegally discharged under the global MARPOLConvention, or under the Helsinki Convention.

Exemptions can be granted from mandatorydischarge of all waste to a port receptionfacility taking into account the need for specialarrangements, e.g. passenger ferries engaged inshort voyages.

According to MARPOL and the HelsinkiConvention, the Contracting Parties shall ensurethe provision of adequate facilities at ports and

terminals for the reception of oily waste frommachinery spaces, garbage and sewage.

According to Regulation 6 of Annex IV of theHelsinki Convention, in case of inadequate

reception facilities, ships shall have the rightto properly stow and keep wastes onboard fordelivery to the next adequate port receptionfacility. The port Authority or the Operator shallprovide a ship with a document informing on theinadequacy of reception facilities.

To eliminate illegal discharges and encouragethe delivery to shore facilities of ship-generatedwastes, including sewage as of 1 January 2006,HELCOM has established a no-special-feesystem2 for the use of port reception facilities.Under this system, ships are not charged for

using such reception facilities; costs are insteadrecovered from general harbour fees or generalenvironmental fees, for instance.

The above HELCOM requirements addressingpollution by ship-generated waste are commonlyknown as the Baltic Strategy (the Strategy forPort Reception Facilities for Ship-generatedWastes and Associated Issues).

Surveillance for spills

Cooperation on aerial surveillance within theBaltic Sea area has been established withinthe framework of the Helsinki Convention,which requires the Contracting Parties to take



37/68

35

3HELCOM Recommendation 12/8 Airborne surveillancewith remote sensing equipment in the Baltic Sea area.

measures to conduct regular surveillanceoutside their coastlines, and to develop andapply, individually or in cooperation, surveillanceactivities covering the Baltic Sea area in order

to spot and monitor oil and other substancesreleased into the sea.

The purpose of aerial surveillance is to detectspills of oil and other harmful substances whichcan threaten the marine environment. If possible,the identity of a polluter should be establishedand a spill sampled from both the sea surfaceand onboard the suspected offender.

Further, HELCOM Recommendation 12/83recommends that the Contracting Parties take

actions to cover the whole of the Baltic Sea areawith regular and efcient airborne surveillance,develop and improve the existing remote sensingsystems and coordinate surveillance activitieswhich take place outside territorial waters.

Apart from regular national surveillance,the Baltic Sea countries jointly undertakeCoordinated Extended Pollution ControlOperation (CEPCO) ights to monitor mainshipping routes. Two such operations arenormally arranged annually. During CEPCOights, several HELCOM countries jointly carry

out continuous aerial surveillance activities for24 hours or more along predetermined routes inareas where operational spills are likely. In 2009,a Super CEPCO operation was held instead,during which aircraft from several countriessurveyed the sea area for six days.

CEPCO ights are also planned to supportnational aerial surveillance activities by detectingillegal discharges which would not be disclosedby routine national ights. This enables arealistic estimation of the total number of oil

spills discharged into the Baltic Sea during onerandomly selected day.

Implementation of the HELCOMBaltic Sea Action Plan

The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan requiresthe Contracting Parties to further enhancesatellite and aerial surveillance to cover thewhole Baltic Sea area to improve the detection ofillicit spills by ships.

Most Baltic Sea countries conduct nationalsurveillance and there is a constant improvementin the equipment. In total, 5,046 surveillanceight hours were carried out by the Baltic Seacountries in 2009, which is 10% more than theyear before (Figure 14).

In 2009, for the rst time in the Baltic Sea, aSuper CEPCO operation was organised. Theoperation revealed only three minor oil spillsduring six days of continuous aerial surveillanceover a large area of the Baltic Sea betweenGotland and the Gulf of Finland.

Satellite images delivered to the Baltic Seacountries by EMSA are of great value for theefcient use of limited surveillance resources.Altogether, EMSA provided 608 satellite scenesfor the Baltic Sea countries in 2009, indicating280 possible oil spills; 163 (58%) were veriedby aircraft, of which 34 (21%) were conrmed asbeing mineral oil. The Baltic Sea region has oneof the highest rates of verications and feedbackon satellite oil spill indications.

Additionally, the Baltic Sea is covered by satellitesurveillance within the CleanSeaNet satelliteservice of EMSA. The satellite images aredelivered in near real time to provide the rst

indication of possible oil slicks to be checked byaircraft on a spot.



38/68

36


The best way to evaluate the number of illegaloil discharges is to reect it as a Pollution perFlight Hour (PF) Index, which compares the totalnumber of observed oil spills to the total numberof ight hours. A decreasing PF Index over theyears indicates less oil spills or/and increasedsurveillance activity. The PF Index for the BalticSea is showing a decreasing trend over theyears (Figure 16).

It is difcult to prosecute the ship responsible forillegal discharging activities. In a vast majority ofcases of detected illegal discharges, the pollutersremain unknown. In 2009, out of the total numberof conrmed illegal discharges (178) as few as in

eight cases (4.5%) the polluters were identied.In 2008, this number was higher at 21 casesout of a total of 210 spills. The identication ofships suspected of illegally discharging oil intothe sea is facilitated by the Seatrack Web oil driftforecasting system developed within HELCOM.This tool, in combination with AIS, is used forbacktracking and forecasting the simulationof detected oil spills, and matching the shiptracks with an oil spill backtracking trajectory.The tool has also been integrated with satelliteinformation to increase the likelihood that the

polluters would be identied.

The Contracting Parties also agreed in theHELCOM BSAP to enhance the availability of

Figure 16. Pollution per Flight Hour Index for the Baltic Sea, 1989-2009.

adequate reception facilities for ship-generatedwastes and the mandatory delivery of waste.The increased use of port reception facilitiescan be illustrated by comparing the amount ofthe delivered waste to the number of calls atports. The increasing trend indicates a positivedevelopment.

Figure 17illustrates the ratio between theamount of garbage delivered to PRF and thetotal number of calls by ships in ports of veBaltic Sea countries (no data is available for theremaining countries). In three countries, there isan increase in the amount of garbage delivered;in one country, a slightly decreasing trend can

be observed (no trend can be determined for thefth country due to the short data set).

The values themselves should not to becompared between the states due to the differentnature of ship trafc in the ports and differentunits (m3 and tonnes).

The ratio between the amount of sewagedelivered to PRF and the number of passengership calls in ports of four HELCOM countries (forwhich data are available) is presented in Figures

18and 19.

0.219

0.162

0.108

0.223

0.1840.184

0.183

0.1190.119

0.091

0.1010.090

0.0810.071

0.0560.054

0.0400.046

0.060

0.0460.035

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


39/68

37

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Sweden

Poland

Latvia

Russia (St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad)

Lithuania

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2005 2006 2007 2008

Sweden

Russia (St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Po la nd L atvia

Figure 17. Comparison of the amount of garbagedelivered to ports in Sweden, Poland, Latvia,Russia (St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad), andLithuania to the total number of calls at these

ports.

Figure 18. Comparison of the amount of sewagedelivered to ports in Sweden and Russia to the

total number of passenger ship calls at these

ports, 2005-2008.

Figure 19. Comparison of the amount of sewagedelivered to ports in Poland and Latvia to the total

number of passenger ship calls at these ports,

2005-2009. Maritime Ofce in Gdynia, Poland


40/68

38

Figure 20. Annual emissions of NOx, SOx (in kilotonnes) and CO2(in megatonnes) from

shipping in the Baltic Sea, 2006-2008. Source: Finnish Meteorological Institute.

371

400 393

147 137 13517.5

19.3

18.9

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2006 2007 2008

megatonnes

kilotonnes

NOx SOx CO2

Chapter V: Emissions

The normal operation of a ship creates pollutionthrough exhaust gas emissions. The mainpollutants concerned are nitrogen oxides (NOx)and sulphur oxides (SOx). In addition, thereleased carbon dioxide (CO

2) contributes to

global climate change. NOx is emitted to theair mainly from the operation of diesel engines,while SOx emissions result from the combustionof marine fuels and directly depend on thesulphur content of the fuel.

Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention is theglobal instrument regulating emissions frommerchant ships. Some major revision of AnnexVI has taken place recently, which will result in

cuts in emissions of NOx and SOx. Especially,emissions of sulphur oxides in marine regionsdesignated as a SOx Emission Control Area(SECA) like the Baltic Sea - will be reducedsignicantly and will result in an improvementof air quality and reduced health risks in coastalareas within the next couple of years.

A cut in NOx emissions from ships in the BalticSea required by the revised Annex VI, however,will be much less signicant. This will not besufcient to counterbalance the increasing

emissions related to the predicted growth inmaritime transportation unless the Baltic Sea isdesignated as a NOx Emission Control Area.

There has been increasing global calls to combatCO

2emissions from maritime trafc in line with

other industrial sectors through, e.g. a revisionof the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC). The internationalcommunity is still undecided on the issue.Regardless of the fate of these negotiations,

Overview

Nitrogen oxides emissions from ships in theBaltic Sea reached 393,000 tonnes in 2008(Figure 20), and are comparable to thecombined land-based NOx emissions fromFinland and Sweden (Jalkanen & Stipa 2009).The emissions of NOx seem to be levelling offafter a strong increase in 2006-2007, probablydue to the global nancial crisis and smallervolumes of cargo transported.

Around 40% of the NOx emission comes fromnew ships, built after 1.1.2000. Ships built in the1990s and 1980s produce ~23% and ~17% ofthe NOx emissions, respectively.

Based on the share in the total number of ships,it can be concluded that the share of NOxemissions from passenger ships, ro-ro ships andtankers in the total NOx emissions is relativelyhigher than from other ships (Figure 21) (IMO2008a).

In 2008, more than a half (52%) of the annualNOx emissions were generated by ships yingthe ags of the HELCOM countries; 16% fromvessels ying a ag of EU Member States fromoutside the HELCOM area; and a third (32%)came from ships under other countries ags(Jalkanen & Stipa 2009).

The geographical distribution of NOx emissionsis presented in Map 7.

other regional Baltic Sea measures on, e.g. NOxand SOx, will also have an effect in terms ofGHG reductions, albeit limited.


41/68

39

Figure 21. Shares of total NOxemissions by ship type, comparedto ships share in the trafc in the

Baltic Sea, 2006.

Map 7. Spatial distribution of NOx emissions from ships in the Baltic Sea, 2008. Values are givenin tonnes per grid cell of 9 x 9 km. Source: Finnish Meteorological Institute.

5.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

20.5

4.6

20.4

34.4

17.714.1

16.7

31.7

12.3

5.27.9

4.04.5

share og ship types in total number of ships %

share of NO amissions from different ship types in total annual NO emmisions, %x x


42/68

40

Chapter V: Emissions

After the Baltic Sea SECA entered into force in2006, SOx emissions from ships have decreasedsteadily. During 2008, 135,000 of SOx wereemitted by ships into the Baltic Sea, which is 8%less than two years before (Figure 20).

CO2emissions from Baltic shipping slightly

decreased in 2008, after a 14% rise between2006 and 2007 (Figure 20).


NOx emissions from ships contributeconsiderably to the most severe environmentalproblem of the Baltic Sea, namely eutrophication.

Eutrophication is caused by excessive inputsof nutrients - nitrogen and phosphorus - to themarine environment, and results in algal blooms,murky waters, loss of submerged aquaticvegetation, and lifeless zones without oxygen onthe sea oor.

Riverine load is the biggest source of nitrogeninputs to the sea (75%), mainly related toagriculture and municipal wastewater. However,another major pathway (25% of the total load) isthe emissions of NOx and ammonia (NH

3) to the

air and the subseque

maritime activities in the baltic sea.pdf

Documents