Speech by Sylvia Bretschneider

Page 1:Statementby the President of theParliament of Mecklenburg-VorpommernSylvia Bretschneiderpresented at the17" Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference“Energy Efficiency and Climate Change”Third Session“Report on the Exercise of the Observer Status at HELCOM —in Particular Focusing on the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Planand on Maritime Safety”2 September 2008Visby, GotlandSwedenEmbargoed until the end of the speech.Check against delivery!Page 2:Introduction:Ladies and Gentlemen,| am pleased to be able to speak to you about an important topic today: maritime policy.“The sea does not separate nations; it unites them. The sea creates a world ofneighbours.” Today, statements like this are prompted by globalisation. For the Baltic Sea,which is an inland sea, this has applied for centuries.We - the Baltic Sea countries — make a living from the sea, and we live with the sea. Muchmore so than many people realise. And we need to continue to raise this awareness, inview of the more and more intensive use of the Baltic Sea, in view of the ecologicalcondition of the Baltic Sea, and in view of the climate discussion.Today, things simply are not the way Ernest Hemingway emotionally described them nottoo long ago, in the first half of the last century: “The sea is the last free place in the world!”We depend on the seas for our livelihood. The seas are changing drastically due to man-made factors and climate change, on an unprecedented scale and at an ever increasingpace.We still need to raise the awareness of these issues among all people in all walks of life, inbusiness life as well as in our private life. Politicians will have to continue to improve thecurrent rules and respond to changing conditions in order to sustainably reconcileeconomic and ecological interests in the long term.Exercise of the observer status:Ladies and Gentlemen,Since its establishment in 1991, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference has regularlydealt with maritime issue that were often the key themes of the BSPC’s annualconferences. With these issues, the BSPC has also established itself as a political forumat European level.Close cooperation in a spirit of trust has developed with HELCOM, in particular due to thework done by the BSPC’s Committee on Maritime Safety or COMS. This is underpinned bythe observer status which the BSPC exercises at HELCOM’s annual meeting and at theHeads of Delegation or HOD meetings. It is also reflected in the BSPC’s cooperation in the“Implementation Group” for the Baltic Sea Action Plan.2Page 3:In my report, | would mainly like to inform you about some of the key points of the BSPC’sexercise of the observer status at HELCOM since our conference last year. This time, |have not prepared a written report because last year | gave a detailed account of thetechnical and political problems we encountered when the Baltic Sea Action Plan wasdeveloped. Now this plan needs to be implemented and supported by the governments. Inaddition, representatives of the Standing Committee and of the member parliaments werepresent at the Heads of Delegation meetings and at the meetings of the ImplementationGroup.Furthermore, there has been a change in rapporteurs because our highly esteemedcolleague Ole Stavad no longer stood for election to the Folketing. At this point, | wouldalso like to thank him very much for the many years in which we have cooperated veryclosely in a spirit of trust. We will certainly miss him and his stimulating statements duringour annual conferences.Ladies and Gentlemen,As you all know, the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting on 15" November 2007 in Krakowadopted the Baltic Sea Action Plan after — well, let’s say — an “environmental tour deforce”. At the end of the day, this plan is designed to be a model of a regional conventionfor the Baltic Sea, as an integral part of the European Marine Strategy FrameworkDirective of 17" June 2008. The ultimate purpose of the plan is that the Baltic Sea states“take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status in themarine environment by the year 2020 at the latest”. The plan defines targets to this endand with a view to fair burden sharing.At the twenty-second and twenty-third meetings of the heads of delegation, which tookplace in mid-September in Helsinki and in mid-October in Berlin, there were intensivediscussions about more than 300 reservations and proposed amendments that had beensubmitted by HELCOM Contracting Parties on the Baltic Sea Action Plan for the segments“Eutrophication”, “Hazardous Substances”, “Biodiversity and Nature Conservation” and“Maritime Activities”. The objective was to reconcile the positions of the Baltic Sea states,some of which were highly controversial. The political debates were focused on nationalemission quotas for nutrient and pollutant inputs from agriculture and waste waterdischarges, as well as the comparability and application of measured data.The main purpose of the twenty-fourth HOD meeting at the end of October in Helsinki wasto prepare the Ministerial Meeting in Krakow. At the time, there was no willingness to cometo an agreement. The HELCOM Chairman therefore warned the Contracting Parties thatthe plan might fail. He pointed out that, to his mind, this would jeopardise HELCOM’sPage 4:international reputation and credibility. At our conference last year in Berlin, we clearlyexpressed our concern about this matter.At the Ministerial Meeting in Krakow, only very few open issues were still on the agenda: totake actions designed to diminish nutrient inputs no later than 2016, to take all necessarysteps to designate the relevant parts of the agricultural land in the catchment area of theBaltic Sea as a zone vulnerable to nitrates, and to substitute polyphosphates in laundrydetergents initially in the framework of national programmes. It was agreed that the nextHELCOM Ministerial Meeting in 2010 should take a final decision on this latter point, aswell as on restricting or banning the use of mercury in products and processes. Theparticipants of the Krakow meeting also agreed that another conference should be held todiscuss the implementation of the plan. They decided that essentially this conferenceshould be used to define the obligations of each country. In this context, the ContractingParties should make binding commitments not only in terms of financial resources but alsowith regard to their national priorities.In view of the different national interests, the representatives of the BSPC expressed theirconcern in Krakow that some Contracting Parties seemed to be more interested insupporting their agriculture, their fishing industry and sea transport than in the protection ofthe marine environment. They reminded the environment ministers and high-rankinggovernment representatives of the resolutions adopted by the 16" BSPC in Berlin anddrew particular attention to the results of the Working Group on Eutrophication. They alsoemphasised that the parliaments of the Baltic Sea states supported the governments andencouraged the governments to take effective action.In January 2008, the 25" HOD meeting in Helsinki mainly dealt with the establishment andthe organisation of the Implementation Group (IG) for the Baltic Sea Action Plan as apolitical steering committee. The objective of the Implementation Group is to coordinatethe work done by the HELCOM working groups for the relevant segments of the actionplan, the financing and the assessment of the benefits of actions, as well as scientific andtechnical activities in order to interlink the action plan at European and international level.In future, this working group will play a very important political role because it will preparethe decisions on the input quotas and obligations of specific countries in the sub-regions.The annual Commission meeting at the beginning of March this year had been precededby the third “HELCOM Stakeholder Conference”. Since the financing of cost-efficientactions is crucial for the success of the Baltic Sea Action Plan, the discussions werefocused on relevant investments, opportunities and projects in the private and internationalcontext (EU funds, for example). It was pointed out that while financing opportunities wereavailable to a certain extent, there were some shortcomings with regard to the preparation,implementation and coordination of projects. In addition, it was said that priority had to bePage 5:given to financing realistic actions in order to guarantee that the action plan would beimplemented. This will also be one of the responsibilities of the Implementation Group.Another issue that the Stakeholder Conference focused on was the comprehensive spatialplanning for marine areas to which the Contracting Parties have committed themselves bysigning the action plan. In many Baltic Sea states, spatial planning is a mandatory part ofnational law; however, this does not apply to the Exclusive Economic Zones and the highseas. For the Baltic Sea, the conference participants felt that cross-border regional andspatial planning was urgently needed in order to minimise conflicts of interests inconnection with the implementation of the action plan.At the subsequent 29"" HELCOM meeting, the Commission adopted a resolution toestablish the Implementation Group and defined its terms of reference, which | havealready outlined. In this context, Ole Norrback was appointed as the chairman of theImpelmentation Group. Ms Gestrin from the Finnish Parliament, Ms Thérnroos from theParliament of Aland and | were appointed as representatives of the BSPC.With regard to Annex III (Criteria and measures concerning the prevention of pollution fromland-based sources) of the Helsinki Convention, Article 20 para (1) was amended to theeffect that the most environmentally friendly practice and the state of the art should beapplied to future measures. This is true in particular for plant nutrients and plant protectionproducts. In addition, individual licences will be issued in future by the competentauthorities in the field of animal production as of certain upper limits. However, theContracting Parties were given the possibility to file objections by 15 August. But, as far as| know, no objections had been raised by this date.Furthermore, it was agreed in Helsinki by all the Contracting Parties — except for Russia —that a common paper should be submitted to the European Commission to presentproposals for additional measures to reduce the input of nutrients and pollutants fromagricultural sources. These proposals will be included this year in the discussions on theso-called “health check” of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in Europe. There was acontroversial debate about the possible introduction of a trading system for nutrientquotas. The Implementation Group was asked to continue to discuss this issue.The discussions at 26 HOD meeting, which was held in Helsinki again at the beginning ofJune, focused on the first meetings of the Implementation Group. Between the lines,participants expressed the concern that the action plan might not be implemented in timeand that its success might be called into question because of different national interests.The Chairman of the Implementation Group had already voiced these concerns at the Maymeeting of the Standing Committee of the BSPC.Page 6:The main point of criticism of some Contracting Parties is still the maximum allowablenutrient inputs into the defined sub-regions of the Baltic Sea which all Contracting Partieshad adopted in Krakow. In this context, it was decided that the work of the ImplementationGroup should be more actively supported by scientists and experts and that the co-operation with MONAS should be intensified.One issue that remained open was the question of whether a Joint Ministerial Meeting withOSPAR should be held, as agreed at the Joint Meeting in 2003.With regard to the discussion on the payment of equal contributions to finance the work ofHELCOM, the Contracting Parties for the first time presented concrete timetables.According to these timetables, Estonia will waive its discount or rebate for small EUcountries, which is currently borne by other Contracting Parties, in 2012-13; Latvia willfollow one year later and Lithuania in 2015-16.Ladies and Gentlemen,There is one specific issue that is discussed again and again at many HELCOM meetings:the Baltic Sea Gas-Pipeline. This private-sector project of pan-European dimensions wasincluded in the framework of the Trans-European Networks (TEN) in 2003 by a resolutionadopted by the European Parliament and the Council. The purpose of the pipeline is totransport Europe’s expected additional demand for gas. The pipeline will be routed throughthe Exclusive Economic Zones of Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany, aswell as the territorial waters of Russia and Germany.However, the pipeline may cross sites that are contaminated by ammunition and otherwar-time remnants. These sites will be examined and, if possible, avoided or given specialtreatment to help minimise the risks they pose. This will be decided by the relevantnational authorities on the basis of environmental impact assessments.Compliance with obligations under international law to protect the environment and theparticipation of all — and | emphasise — all the countries concerned will be based on theESPOO Convention. By the way, this is also in line with what the European Parliament hasrecently demanded.Unfortunately, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) documentation submitted bythe Consortium in May this year was incomplete. This was strongly criticised, and rightlyso. Work is currently being done to provide the missing information in order to initiate thefollowing ESPOO procedure in October. The national EIA procedures are expected to becompleted and documented by the end of this year. In 2009, this will be followed byadditional participation and consultation meetings.6Page 7:Maritime safety:Ladies and Gentlemen,| would briefly like to address another important area of maritime policy: maritime safety,which also plays an important role in the “maritime activities” segment of the Baltic SeaAction Plan.The issues at stake are largely still the same ones that have been discussed for a longtime now: air pollution, the illegal and accident-related discharge of oil and otherhazardous substances, as well as the accidental introduction of originally non-residentanimal and plant species, so called alien-species.When HELCOM adopted its Copenhagen Declaration in 2001 — to which the BSPC hadmade many contributions — the organisation responded to key political demands for animprovement of maritime safety. In the following years, we continued to contribute to thediscussion on improving maritime safety in the Baltic Sea; we formulated far-reachingdemands and gave political support to the implementation process. Not all of themeasures that we considered to be necessary were adopted; and of course, theimplementation of the measures that were adopted takes time. However, we simply haveto accept that maritime law is international law and that this law is largely determined bythe International Maritime Organisation (IMO).HELCOM regularly reviews the status of implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration,and it monitors, analyses and evaluates loopholes in the law as well as shortcomings withregard to the implementation of the Declaration in the Baltic Sea countries. Today, we cansay that the Contracting Parties comply with most of their obligations. And | think, we canalso say that our Baltic Sea has become safer in the past few years. It has become saferbecause of the measures that have been initiated, in particular the extension of thedeepwater routes and the technical measures designed to increase safety and to improvemonitoring.To further improve preventive safety in the future, my wish would be — as proposed by theSouthern Baltic Sea Parliamentary Forum in its resolution and also by the Parliament ofMecklenburg-Vorpommern — that a programme should be prepared to progressivelydevelop and introduce a satellite-based, emission-related monitoring system for ships.However, one point of criticism still remains: the conditions for the designation of ports ofrefuge for ships in distress and for the provision of emergency capacity (such as resourcesfor rescue operations and for combating oil spills) are still not satisfactory. In this context,we should also try to find a solution to the problem of liability and compensation issues inemergencies as soon as possible. For the Baltic Sea region, there are currently plans to7Page 8:conclude cost reimbursement agreements which go beyond the provisions laid down ininternational conventions that are currently in force. With regard to the problem of thetransit of single-hull tankers with hazardous cargo, work is currently being done on aProcedure to make such tankers recognisable for all Baltic Sea countries.There are also still problems with regard to the availability and — where they exist — the useof port reception facilities for ship-generated waste. The facilities and systems availablewill have to be expanded, and more financial incentives will have to be offered.It is still important to stop the discharge of waste water from ships into the Baltic Sea.Cruise ships and other passenger ships as well as ferries are still allowed to dischargetheir untreated waste water into the Baltic Sea. We will therefore have to supportHELCOM’s efforts to convince IMO to designate the Baltic Sea as a special area wheredischarges of waste water from ships are banned. All the Baltic Sea countries will have toput more pressure on the IMO in this respect. We will also have to make sure that thewaste water from smaller vessels can be disposed cost-effectively in the port collectionfacilities.One of the biggest environmental problems caused by shipping are emissions from shipsinto the atmosphere. Worldwide, ships are responsible for about 12 per cent of total NO,emissions, 8 per cent of sulphur dioxide emissions, and 2 per cent of CO, emissions; andtheir shares are growing. The IMO has tried for a long time now to introduce emissionreduction measures. Unfortunately, however, we cannot expect that we will achieveSuccess quickly in terms of the average service life of ships, the exploding fuel costs andthe requirements with regard to fuel quality. It will be important to designate sea areassuch as the Baltic Sea as special zones that can only be navigated by ships with low-emission fuels and engines. The Baltic Sea was designated as a sulphur monitoring area(SECA — SO, Emission Control Area) to which only ships burning low-sulphur fuels havehad access since 2006; however, the defined limit is still too high. In the medium term, theEU limit of 0.1 per cent sulphur — which will be introduced in 2010 for inland waterwayvessels and ocean-going ships lying in port - should also be applied to regular shipping.In view of the drastic increase in emissions and their impact, HELCOM has asked the IMOMarine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) to support the introduction of stricterinternational provisions for the protection of the Baltic Sea.Page 9:Parliament of Mecklenburg-VorpommemPresidentSylvia BretschneiderSchloss SchwerinLennéstrasse 119053 Schwerin (GERMANY)Phone: +49-385-525-2100Fax: +49-385-525-2107Email: _ sylvia.bretschneider@landtag-mv.deWeb: www. landtag-mv.de