Meeting 5 Summary Report 24.3.2011

Page 1:Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceWorking Group on Integrated Maritime Policy23" May 2011To:Representatives of Parliaments,Parliamentary Assemblies,Institutions and Working Group Membersof the Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceAbstract of the 5"" Session of the Working Group on “IntegratedMaritime Policy, especially infrastructure and logistics” of theBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Stockholm on 24" March2011The 5° meeting of the Working Group “Integrated Maritime Policy, especiallyinfrastructure and logistics” was held on 24" March 2011 at the Riksdagen, SwedishParliament, Stockholm under the direction of Chairman Mr Jochen Schulte (StateParliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany). 28 representatives from 13parliaments and parliamentary assemblies as well as 7 experts and the Chairman of theCBSS Expert Group on Maritime Policy, Mr Lars Almklov, attended the meeting.In the first segment of the session representatives from the German Shipowners’Association, the Association of Northern German Chambers of Industry and Commerce,the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, the HELCOM RESPONSE Group,the Shortsea Promotion Centre Finland, the European Commission and the VASAB-HELCOM Maritime Spatial Planning Working Group informed the participants about theeconomic impact of the classification of the Baltic Sea as a Sulphur Emission ControlArea, oil spill liability and International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, Responsecapacities to combat oil-spills and hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea Region,measures to improve Co-Modality and Maritime Spatial Planning. The following providesa brief summary of their conclusions and recommendations to the Working Group.Mr Gernot Tesch (Scandlines Deutschland GmbH, German Shipowners’ Association)presented the findings of a recent German study about a possible modal backshift as aconsequence of MARPOL Annex VI regulations regarding sulphur content in ship fuels.1Page 2:The study was entitled “Reducing the sulphur content of shipping fuels further to 0.1 % inthe North Sea and Baltic Sea in 2015: Consequences for shipping in this shipping area.”In terms of the containment of CO2 emissions, shipping had many advantages overother methods of transport, but SOx and NOx emissions were still a cause for concern.The decision of the IMO member states regarding the MARPOL Annex VI Regulations toreduce sulphur content in shipping fuels to 0.1% had been made without any impactassessment, and resulted in a division in shipping burdens perpetuating the likelihood ofa modal-shift. The study assessed the real costs associated with the implementation ofthese regulations in terms of competition based on isolated shipping corridors. Mostlikely volume losses between 10%-20% already would lead to a closure of the traderoute and a 100% modal shift.The proposed solutions to attain the sulphur regulations through scrubber technology,alternative fuels (LNG), the adjustment of sulphur caps in tandem and a postponementstrategy were additionally analyzed. The problems associated with technological,infrastructural development, and retrofitting made scrubber technology an unattractivesolution. Mr. Tesch additionally noted that the solution that seemed most likely was theincreased utilization of LNG products in tandem with an interim solution for the existingfleet.The second presentation was given by Mr Martin Kruse (Association of NorthernGerman Chambers of Industry and Commerce). According to the Association ofNorther German Chambers of industry and Commerce, already a reduction to 0.5%would be a benefit for nature and would impose significantly lower costs on theeconomies in the Baltic Sea Region. He gave a short overview of existing impactassessment studies on the subject. Comparing the interests of the differentcommissioners, the (shipowners’) associations were mainly interested in the question ofmodal shift, and the European Union itself was looking on the issue of ShortseaShipping and on modal questions as well. The Scandinavian and the Baltic states hadstrong fear of losing international competitiveness by the new regulations. The volume ofshipping would decline considerably in the Baltic Sea and the new regime would givesevere disadvantages to the Baltic Sea Region's economy. He also mentionedstatements by the Baltic Sea Port Organisation and a letter to the European Commissionsigned by 50 organisations, including the German Shipowners’ Association and theAssociation of Northern German Chambers of Industry and Commerce. Concluding, MrKruse asked the Working Group members to promote the 0.5 limit on European leveland, if possible, within IMO, for the best of the Baltic Sea Region.Mr Mans Jacobsson (Former Director of the International Oil Pollution CompensationFunds — |OPC Funds) started his presentation by pointing out that oil pollution wasanother topic of great importance for all people around the Baltic. The Civil LiabilityConvention was ratified by 123 states and the Fund Convention by 105 states. The2Page 3:Conventions largely applied to pollution damage caused by oil spills from laden tankersand spills of bunker oil from empty tankers in certain circumstances.Under the Civil Liability Convention, the ship owner was liable regardless of anyevidenced negligence on the part of the crew or shipmaster (“strict” or “objectiveliability”). If the ship owner was exonerated under one of the few defences admissibleunder the Civil Liability Convention, if he was originally found to be liable and did nothave the ability to pay and did not possess the necessary insurance coverage, or if thedamage exceeded the permissible limitation amounts for the ship owner, the FundConvention would apply. The main costs associated with oil spills were propertydamage, costs of clean up, losses in various industries and environmental damage.When oil was spilled at sea, measures were taken to pre-emptively clean up the spill atsea, in order to avoid the costs associated with cleaning up the oil spill on land. As ageneral conclusion, the international community had worked reasonably well in mostcases which was also shown by the number of Fund member states. All the states closeto the Baltic Sea were members of the 1992 Fund and all coastal states of the Balticexcept for the Russian Federation were members of the Supplementary Fund.Governments and parliaments had to see a benefit and consider worthwhile burdeningtheir oil industry with a contribution to the Funds.The fourth presentation by Mr Bernt Stedt (Chairman of HELCOM RESPONSE Groupand head of the response unit at the Swedish Coast Guard Headquarters) was regardingthe topic of current levels of preparedness in the Baltic Sea region for a major oil spill. Atany given moment, there were at least 2,000 ships in the Baltic Sea Area. The hightraffic had led to roughly 100 accidents annually in the Baltic Sea, although only afraction has resulted in oil spills (a total of 5 in 2009).The HELCOM Response Group had worked on requirements for emergencies andresponse capacities. The Group worked with airborne surveillance both nationally andbilaterally, as well as led to the development of the current response manual, whichinstructed on topics ranging from the proper reporting and alert system that applied to allstates to financial aspects when giving or requesting assistance.The present status of the Baltic Sea Area response capacity was in comparison to manyregions quite well prepared. The “HELCOM fleet,” the European Maritime SafetyAgency's (EMSA) contribution of three vessels, the ‘'HELCOM Seatrack Web,’ as well asaerial flights helped monitor and contain oil spills utilizing national, bilateral, andinternational support mechanisms.Ms Riitta Péntynen (Shortsea Promotion Centre Finland) focused in her presentationon inter-modality and maritime transport. Her primary thesis was that while each of themodes had its strengths, the transport modes should complement each other, notcompete with each other. With regard to the European Commission’s Transport White3Page 4:Paper in 2006 co-modality, sustainable transport and environmental impacts of transportwere of increasing importance; however, it was also important to develop the linksbetween transport modes (ports, logistic centres, inland and dry ports; as well asinformation flow in the transport chain).Additionally, the European Commission Communication and Action Plan on freightlogistics (2007), which also followed an inter-modal approach and the EuropeanCommission's Communication on a European Ports Policy (COM(2007) 616) were alsomentioned. The European Commission's Initiative “Towards a European maritimetransport space without barriers’, included a new concept of a “Blue Belt” launched in2010. This was intended to reduce administrative changes related to EU maritimetransport.In sum, the simplification and harmonisation of administrative and custom procedureswas important for all transport modes, and should be achieved through the promotion ofco-modality through a number of consolidative and logistical measures.The sixth presentation from Mr Pierre Schellekens (European Commission, Head ofRepresentation in Sweden) focused on the EC Communication on Maritime SpatialPlanning (MSP). There were economic, environmental and social benefits to be derivedfrom increased and integrated cross-border planning of the areas at sea. This supposeda common understanding of what was MSP and this had been some work in developingawareness of the needs and of the concept of maritime spatial planning which was still ahew concept for many (very few of the EU member states actually had MSP). TheEuropean Commission had launched in 2008 a roadmap for MSP which had establishedten principles on which planning should be based. The European Commission was nowin the process of launching an impact assessment on how MSP should be taken forwardat EU level. MSP should be carried out by the member states and in the member states.Major economic benefits resulted from reduced transaction costs for maritime actors anda more secure, stable environment for investments. Furthermore, it was anenvironmental tool and a tool for maritime transport.The seventh presentation by Mr Sten Jerdenius (Vice-Chairman VASAB-HELCOMMaritime Spatial Planning Working Group) focused on cooperation in terms of MSP inthe Baltic Sea Region.There were two organisations in the BSR working with MSP, one of them being VASAB(Vision and Strategies around the BSR) and the other being HELCOM. VASAB hadstarted working with MSP by making a compendium which gave a good description onthe state of play of all Baltic Sea states (to be downloaded on the VASAB homepage). Atthe starting point of MSP one had to take note of the very severe environmental situationin the Baltic Sea and of the increased competition for sea areas. Very huge differencesexisted between the Baltic Sea States as far as MSP was concerned, and therefore the4Page 5:starting point for introducing MSP was very different in the different countries. BothHELCOM and VASAB had decided to set up a joint working group on MSP for the BSRin order to support this process. All the Baltic Sea states and the European Commissionwere taking part. This was a very good arrangement because the European Commissionreceived direct information on the ongoing processes in the member states and themember states had the possibility to influence the commission in its work on MSP. Thegroup had drafted MSP principles, adopted by both organisations, and was the onlyformal group in Europe on MSP.The presentations are available on the following BSPC website:http://Awww.bspc.net/page/show/217_(Folder: Related Information; sub: BackgroundDocuments),2°" Session SegmentIn the second segment of the session the chairman informed about proceedings for aplanned joint meeting of the three maritime working groups of CBSS, BSSSC and BSPCin connection with the European Maritime Day on 20" May 2011 in Gdansk. Theintention of this common event was to make a broader European public aware of themaritime cooperation in the model region Baltic Sea, to illustrate the integrated politicalapproaches and to promote a more regular and structured dialogue between differentlevels of political decision-making in the region, Therefore, he suggested that the threebodies should meet again in tandem with the group’s regular final working group sessionin Schwerin on 20°/21" June in Schwerin in order to speak about further cooperation.The participanis agreed.Mr Lars Almklov (Chairman of the CBSS Expert Group on Maritime Policy) gave a shortbackground on the Expert Group on Maritime Policy which had a three-year mandatefrom the Council. The Expert Group worked on a basis of an integrated approach tomaritime policy including all relevant sectoral policy fields and taking into account theirmutual impacts. The Expert Group was currently composed of civil servants from 11member states including the European Commission which was represented by DGMARE. In addition, the mandate of the Expert Group was to cooperate closely andexchange information with the relevant strategic partners of the CBSS and otherstakeholders, particularly mentioned the BSPC and its working group on maritime policy.The Baltic represented a particular potential in this respect due to the high density ofmaritime activities and also the upcoming regulations on sulphur emissions and possiblyalso NOx emissions from shipping. Turning to the joint event which had been proposedto take place during the European Maritime Day in Gdansk, there had already beencontacts on a working level between the groups and there was an agreement to worktowards a joint event hosted by the three groups during the European Maritime Day inGdansk with a focus on the potential for an improved cooperation between the groups.5Page 6:The sixth and final session will be held in Schwerin, Germany, from 19" to 21% June2011, focusing on the infrastructure of ports, including aspects of cruise tourism, shoreside power supply, port reception facilities, Clean Baltic Shipping and probably satellite-supported navigation systems for ports. The discussion should centre on the politicalrecommendations and the report of the working group for the 20" BSPC in Helsinki in2011.\ntJoche chiChairmanContact:Landtag Mecklenburg-VorpommernSecretariat of the Committee on European and Legal AffairsInternational SecretariatGeorg StratkerLennéstraRe 119053 SchwerinGermanyTel: +49 385 525.1530Fax: +49 385 525.1535mailto:europaausschuss@landtag-mv.deaq-rav.de