Schulte report at 19th BSPC

Interim Reportby the Chairman of theBSPC Working Group on Integrated Maritime PolicyJochen Schulte, MP(State Parliament Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)on the Occasion of the19th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC)Second Session30 August 2010MariehamnÅland, FinlandNot to be released before the speech is commencedCheck against delivery!INTRODUCTION:Ladies and Gentlemen,in my capacity as the Chairman of the BSPC Working Group on Integrated MaritimePolicy, I’d like to thank you for the invitation to this lovely place, the hospitality extended tome, and the chance to give you an interim report on our activities.Politics is a fast-moving business: In many cases, current topics and even politiciansfrequently change. However, let me briefly recapitulate some basic facts on IntegratedMaritime Policy and its recent development in the light of substantive consistency, eventhough the BSPC – albeit with different foci - has already dealt with some aspects of thisissue before.As you know, some 100 million people live in the Baltic Sea Region today. They generateslightly more than 1,200 billion euros a year, which is approximately 11 percent of theEuropean (EU 27) gross domestic product (GDP). Marine and coastal activities make up asignificant proportion of the regions’ economic performance. In past decades, divergingsea use requirements and sector-related interests demonstrated that the different sectorssuch as the maritime economy, maritime traffic, energy production but also fisheries andtourism may have developed on separate tracks for too long a time, thereby resulting in asituation where the seas were subject to an ever more extensive use by and for the benefitof these sectors.It was against this backdrop that the European Commission published its Communicationon an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union* including an Action Plan as a so-called Blue Book in 2007, which seeks to achieve closer cooperation at all levels ofdecision-making as well as an efficient cross-cutting coordination of all maritime actions.To this end, the Commission, at the end of 2009, submitted a progress report on thisissue, which provides a substantive assessment of the measures previously taken underthe new Integrated Maritime Policy and submits further proposals for future maritimeactions.The Integrated Maritime Policy now serves as a superstructure for several other maritimestrategies at the European, national, regional and sub-regional levels, including the* Full title of the Communication: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, theCouncil, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 10 October2007 on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union (COM (2007) 575 final).2European Marine Strategy Directive*, which acts as the so-called environmental pillar.From the Commission’s point of view, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Regionrepresents a regional concept for the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy inthis region, with the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan serving as the environmental pillar ofthe concept. (Ms Brusendorff, HELCOM’s Executive Secretary, has already mentioned thispoint.)In its June 2010 Conclusions, the Council of the European Union, with respect to resourceefficiency, competitiveness, and climate action, highlighted the crucial importance of themaritime sectors for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. In this context, maritimetraffic, infrastructure, climate protection, the ports and logistics centres and their inter-modal connection with the European transport network are essential to smart, sustainableand inclusive growth. Also, as far as the transferability of measures is concerned, theBaltic Sea Region can serve as a model for other sea regions.WORKING GROUP MEETINGS:Ladies and Gentlemen,let me give you a brief run-down on the composition of the Working Group and thesubjects discussed at our meetings before addressing the main results achieved there.The Working Group, which now comprises 20 members of 17 national and regionalparliaments and parliamentary assemblies, held its inaugural meeting in January 2010 atthe Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) in Rostock and discussed thesubject areas to be dealt with. Also, a work programme and timetable as well as theworking methods were laid down there. An agreement was reached that transport issues,aspects of environment and nature conservation, Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP), portinfrastructure and port hinterland connections should be addressed in the first year. Mostof the technical input was to be provided in hearings by national and international expertsfrom various levels.The second meeting of the Working Group where our Swedish colleague Ms LisbethGrönfeldt Bergman was elected Vice Chair took place in April of this year at the European* Full title of the Directive: Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THECOUNCIL establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (COM(2005) 0505 final).3Parliament and the Committee of Regions in Brussels. Members of the EuropeanParliament, the European Commission, the European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO) andthe European Community Ship-Owners’ Association (ECSA) engaged in an in-depthdiscussion on European Integrated Maritime Policy, Trans-European Networks, maritimetraffic and the associated economic problems, environmental aspects, short-sea shipping,and the cooperation between the European Union and Russia on maritime affairs, which Iconsider extremely important in and for the Baltic Sea Region.In June the third meeting of the Working Group took place at the Folketing inCopenhagen. Members of the world’s leading shipping company, the A.P. Møller MærskGroup, the Danish Ship-Owners’ Association, the Danish Maritime Safety Authority, andthe European Environment Agency (EEA) discussed the following issues: Measures toimprove maritime safety, the economic consequences of designating the Baltic Sea as anEmission Control Area, ways of improving and extending short-sea shipping, opportunitiesprovided by “Green Shipping“ for reducing the adverse environmental effects of maritimeshipping as well as new technologies for improving navigation in the Baltic Sea.Now, from the point of view of the Working Group, I’d like to turn to the main results wetook home from the expert hearings. Ladies and gentlemen:Speaking with reference to Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP), experts had emphasizedthat a common spatial planning for the entire Baltic Sea Region would be called for infuture in order to minimize cross-border conflicts of interest. The construction of offshorewind farms may serve as an example in this context. Also, designating areas suitable fordevelopment as well as prohibited zones in the Baltic Sea will be required to an increasingextent. In summary, it may be said that insufficient attention is still being paid to MaritimeSpatial Planning (MSP) as an efficient planning tool. Another point of criticism concernedthe fact that there are significant differences in the application of this tool in the Baltic SeaRegion. In this connection, the meeting recommended that administrative decisions andmeasures taken in the States bordering on the Baltic Sea should be rendered legallybinding. It will be important for the future that a greater number of States bordering on theBaltic Sea and a greater number of sea areas should participate in the European“BaltSeaPlan” project, a possible follow-up project or similar projects.Our discussions on port infrastructure were directly linked to the trans-Europeantransport axes due to the hinterland connection of the ports. The fact that thecompetitiveness of the ports largely depends on their function and the services they offer,their geographical position and their hinterland connections was emphasized. Also, it is4obvious that the global flows of goods – irrespective of the ongoing financial and economiccrisis – are mainly handled by ever-bigger vessels. In this light, then, the recommendationswe submitted are logical: First, major ports in the Baltic Sea Region should be developedstrategically and in a multi-modal manner. Secondly, these ports should be connected tothe European core transport network at sea and ashore; also, in the scope of reviewing theTEN-T projects, the priority projects should be interlinked and gaps be filled in order tofacilitate high frequency multi-modal transport operations. The Russian transport networkis to be included in these measures.The designation of the Baltic Sea as a Sulphur Oxide (SOx) Emission Control Area(SECA) was the starting point of the discussions on environmental actions in maritimetraffic and the economic impact of this IMO measure. From an environmental perspective,this measure was welcomed. However, experts feared that the gradual reduction of thesulphur content in marine fuels might lead to a drastic increase in transport costs – by asmuch as 60 percent, depending on the current price of fuels. As a result, transportoperations in the Baltic Sea Region could be moved back to the road again in an order ofmagnitude of up to 20 percent or, in the opinion of some experts, even 50 percent. Thisdevelopment would be counter-productive as far as the desired environmental effects andshort sea shipping are concerned. In order to mitigate these competitive disadvantagessuffered by the regions, the requirement has been put forward that other European seaareas should also be designated as Emission Control Areas. The 18th Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference (BSPC) had already taken up this issue in Paragraph 12 of theConference Resolution adopted in Nyborg.In the case of older vessels, the treatment of exhaust emissions might serve as analternative solution to technical problems involving the use of low sulphur marine fuels,provided these ships use ordinary bunker oil - that is to say fuels with a higher sulphurcontent. Consequently, if a treatment of such exhaust emissions is carried out, theemissions thus treated may be the same as those of ships using low sulphur fuels.However, experts have told us that retrofitting older vessels with this technology is onerousand costly. Nevertheless, such a retrofit could be a good idea considering that the vesselshave long life cycles of more than 30 years.In addition, the Working Group recommends the following: First, to encourage theInternational Maritime Organization (IMO) to move the start of the worldwide lowering ofthe sulphur content of marine fuels to 0.5 percent to an earlier date, secondly, to examinewhether and to what extent an even further reduction to 0.1 percent would result in5unacceptable competitive disadvantages in the Baltic Sea Region, and what measuresmight be taken to avoid or compensate for such disadvantages.All experts and politicians have described short sea shipping as a relatively eco-friendlyalternative to inland transport. However, they also referred to the use of shore-sideelectricity at berth and alternative fuels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a necessaryand promising way of dealing with pollutant emissions from shipping. These measures callfor creating an appropriate standardized port infrastructure – not only in the Baltic SeaRegion – and for developing standardized technical interfaces and financial incentives. So,for instance, the European Union could introduce a tax exemption on the shore-sideelectricity used by ships. This would already be a first step. In addition, short sea shippingin Europe would be particularly suited to using alternative propulsion systems andtechnologies (gas generators, fuel cell technology, etc.). In my opinion, the governmentand the business sector ought to work harder than before to achieve this goal.Harmonized data communication, strict traffic monitoring and mandatory pilotage intricky sea areas continue to be regarded as ways of further enhancing maritime safety.The GALILEO satellite navigation system in combination with the Global NavigationSatellite System (GNSS) may be of special relevance in this context; however, the systemwould have to be advanced more swiftly than before and, with respect to GNSSinfrastructure, extended to many Baltic ports. Also, it was generally understood that thecontinuous traffic monitoring and management provided should be improved for the entireBaltic Sea Region by harmonizing existing vessel monitoring and traffic managementservices. All national systems must be compatible with one another.However, technical upgrading isn’t everything, ladies and gentlemen. I am sure thatmandatory pilotage can provide additional safety. Although it is true that more than 90percent of all hazardous cargo carriers with a draught exceeding 11 metres have compliedwith the relevant IMO recommendation by availing themselves of pilotage services on avoluntary basis, we should continue to encourage the IMO to introduce mandatory pilotagefor large vessels transiting the Baltic Sea.Short sea shipping is a different kettle of fish. In this context, the Working Group is infavour of looking into the extent to which pilotage can be dispensed with if the masters andofficers have sufficient knowledge of the routes operated. This measure could enhance thecompetitiveness of small enterprises and reduce turn-around and travel times, therebyultimately saving costs.6With regard to actions aimed at enhancing competitiveness, experts, when referring tocross-border inter-modal transport operations, highlighted the need to initiate measuressuch as the use of a single language as in air transport and the standardization of customsand tax procedures.In connection with the incident in the Gulf of Mexico, actions to improve accidentprevention and the safety of technical facilities as well as the provision of sufficientnumbers of suitable maritime accident control capacities at sea and ashore were regardedas another important point.SUMMARY:Ladies and Gentlemen,let me summarize as follows: The first-year meetings of the BSPC Working Group onIntegrated Maritime Policy were focused on port infrastructure and logistics as required.The meetings clearly showed that, in this connection too, maritime safety and climateprotection constituted the principal political content of deliberations and were closely linkedto the competitiveness of the Baltic Sea Region. The harmful effects of ship-generatedemissions and the designation of the Baltic Sea as an Emission Control Area were at thecentre of discussion, especially during the Copenhagen meeting.As far as the second year is concerned, the Working Group will have to agree on furtherpriorities for work. In my opinion and owing to the discussions held so far, the followingissues could be considered: Ways of using state-of-the-art marine engineeringtechnologies, in particular technologies to reduce fuel consumption and emissions,improving the competitiveness of ports in relation to one another - including theirequipment with disposal capacities for wastes and effluents – and the use of MaritimeSpatial Planning (MSP) as a mandatory planning tool in the construction and linkage ofinfrastructure facilities. Greater attention should be accorded to Clean Baltic Shipping,particularly in regard to environmental issues; Clean Baltic Shipping can be a majorcompetitive and locational advantage for the Baltic Sea Region.In the context of this advantage, I’d like to refer to the most recent activities of theEuropean Commission, which – in cooperation with public private partnerships (PPP) -intends to sponsor new TEN-T projects in the fields of Motorways of the Sea (MoS) andintegrated eco-friendly transport systems to the amount of more than 7 billion euros. The7principal objectives of the EU include better environmental compatibility of all modes oftransport, improvements in logistics, and the use of intelligent transport systems.Cooperation with the competent CBSS Expert Group on Maritime Policy has alsoundergone a favourable development. It was interesting for me to see how this group dealtwith the subject; the group regards itself as a network for initiating maritime clusters and asa mediator in the fields of science, research and public relations with the aim of promotinga common Baltic identity. The two Working Groups can learn and benefit from each other.We should maintain this constructive exchange in my opinion.For further details I would ask you to refer to the Working Group’s interim report, which willbe available to you here in Mariehamn and on the Internet.CLOSING REMARKS:Ladies and Gentlemen,in conclusion I’d like to thank you again for the trust placed in the Working Group andmyself by the Standing Committee and the entire BSPC.I would like to express my personal thanks to my parliamentary colleagues in the WorkingGroup for the friendly and constructive cooperation we enjoyed. My special thanks goes tomy colleague Lisbeth Grönfeldt Bergman who did such a wonderful job of standing in forme in Copenhagen when my health prevented me from taking part in this very interestingevent.Also, on behalf of all members of the Working Group, I’d like to express my thanks to theexperts and the members of the administrative departments of the parliaments whoprovided substantive support to the activities of the Working Group and took care of theorganization.Thank you for your attention.8Landtag Mecklenburg-VorpommernJochen SchulteSchloss SchwerinLennéstraße 119053 Schwerin (DEUTSCHLAND)Phone: +49 385 525.2336Fax: +49 385 525.2338eMail: jochen.schulte@landtag-mv.deWeb: www.landt-mv.de9