WG IMP Final Report August 2011 pdf

Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceBSPC Working Group onIntegrated Maritime PolicyFinal ReportBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Secretariatwww.bspc.netc/o Nordic CouncilVed Stranden 18DK-1061 Copenhagen K.Phone (+45) 33 96 04 00www.norden.org.US 2011:417BSPC Working Group onIntegrated Maritime PolicyFinal ReportSchwerin, August 22nd 2011Final Report of the Working Group The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferenceon Integrated Maritime Policy (BSPC) was established in 1991 as a forum forUS 2011:417 political dialogue between parliamentarians fromthe Baltic Sea Region. BSPC gathers parliamentar-© Nordic Council, Copenhagen 2011Print: Rosendahls – Schultz Grafisk ians from 11 national parliaments, 11 regionalText: Bodo Bahr, Iris Putz, Georg Straetker, parliaments and 5 parliamentary organizationsAdministration of the Landtag Mecklenburg- around the Baltic Sea. The BSPC thus constitutes aVorpommern unique parliamentary bridge between all the EU-Photos: Uwe Balewski and Jan Widberg and non-EU countries of the Baltic Sea Region.Copies: 250 BSPC aims at raising awareness and opinion onissues of current political interest and relevancePrinted on environmentally-friendly paperfor the Baltic Sea Region. It promotes and drivesvarious initiatives and efforts to support a sus-tainable environmental, social and economicdevelopment of the Baltic Sea Region. It strives atenhancing the visibility of the Baltic Sea RegionBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and its issues in a wider European context. Thewww.bspc.net Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference is the annualgeneral assembly in the Baltic Sea Region forJan Widbergbroad political debate on Baltic Sea issues. TheHead of BSPC SecretariatConference resolutions are political tools whichjw@norden.orgenables the BSPC to launch and sustain politicalinitiatives, and to approach the governmentsand regional organizations on issues of commoninterest. The BSPC has a number of working bod-BSPC Secretariaties at its disposal, which serve as resources forc/o Nordic Councildriving and implementing BSPC priorities andVed Stranden 18objectives. A Standing Committee is responsibleDK-1061 Copenhagen K.for the follow-up of BSPC resolutions, for identify-Phone (+45) 33 96 04 00ing and addressing issues within the BSPC field ofwww.norden.org.responsibility, and for preparing the annual Con-ferences. The BSPC Working Groups are politicalvehicles with the overall objective of elaboratingjoint political positions and recommendationson issues of common interest in the Baltic SeaRegion. BSPC external interfaces include parlia-mentary, governmental, sub-regional and otherorganizations in the Baltic Sea Region and theNorthern Dimension area, among them CBSS,HELCOM, the Northern Dimension Partnershipin Public Health and Social Well-being (NDPHS),the Baltic Sea States Sub-regional Cooperation(BSSSC) and the Baltic Development Forum.Contents1. Introductory Remarks ............................................ 52. Preface ............................................................. 73. Political Recommendations ..................................... 114. Mandate and Framing Issues .................................... 175. The Working Group and its Themes:Maritime Policy Areas ............................................ 25Emission Reduction and Competitiveness. .................... 25Maritime Transport. .............................................. 33Port Infrastructure ............................................... 34Maritime Safety ................................................... 37Maritime Spatial Planning ....................................... 416. Working Group Activities. ....................................... 45Procedure and Mode of Work ................................... 45Sessions Overview ............................................... 48Course and Results of the Working Group Sessions .......... 567. Baltic Sea Maritime Cooperation ............................... 83Annexes:List of Working Group and Staff Members,Working Group Contact ......................................... 89List of Experts who have addressed the Working Group ... 100Midterm Report – Working Group Chairman’sSpeech at the 19th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference on 29th – 31st August 2010 ..................... 103Working Group Chairman’s Speech at the 20th Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference on 28th – 30th August 2011 .... 109Working Group Vice-Chairman’s Report on the EuropeanMaritime Day Joint Event on 20th May 2011 in Gdansk .... 12020th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Resolution. ..... 12351. Introductory RemarksThe 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) was heldon 28th – 30th August 2011 in Helsinki and saw a highly contro-versial debate on a particular issue of maritime policy in the Bal-tic Sea Region.For this reason, I decided to add a few additional introductoryremarks to this Final Report of the Working Group on IntegratedMaritime Policy, reflecting the latest development of the discus-sions and the outcome of the Conference for its readers.The subject of stricter sulphur limits for ship fuels in SulphurEmission Control Areas (SECAs) – as the Baltic Sea Region – andtheir possible effects on the competitiveness of the Baltic mari-time sector had already been a focal point for discussions in thecourse of a number of our Working Group sessions. Although theWorking Group had in the end adopted a consensual recommen-dation during its final session in Schwerin in June 2011, the topicwas again discussed very controversially among the different del-egations during the Conference.In fact, the measures of the International Maritime Organization(IMO) to reduce the sulphur emissions from ships is a crucialissue which reflects a central challenge of an integrated maritimepolicy (not only in the Baltic Sea Region), running through theentire work of the Group, to find a balance between economicand environmental concerns. Complying with the stronger limitswill require considerable financial investments for shipowners.At the same time, investments for the development of the infra-structure on land and at sea are needed in order to ensure thesupply of low-sulphur fuels. This will increase costs for sea trans-port and could lead to a modal shift from sea to land transportwhich benefits neither our economies nor the environment andwould therefore be an undesired effect for all of the maritime Bal-tic Sea countries. Different opinions among the delegationsexisted – and continue to exist – on how this could be preventedin the best way. Therefore, some changes to the original textregarding the subject of sulphur limits (former point 11 of thepolitical recommendations of the Working Group) had to beimplemented. The new, more open, formulation now is a solutionwhich all delegations can live with.6 Introductory Remarks PrefaceBut in the end, the BSPC followed the recommendation of theWorking Group to urge the governments of the Baltic Sea coun-tries to take precautions and to start initiatives to prevent a modalbackshift in traffic from sea to land. Furthermore, they arerequested to support incentives for the modification of existingships and work actively within the IMO for a speedy designation offurther sea areas, such as the Mediterranean Sea, as SECA, therebyabolishing competitive disadvantages for the Baltic Sea Area.For the delegation of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the head ofthe delegation to the 20th BSPC, Ms Renate Holznagel, Vice Presi-dent of the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, madeclear in her final speech at the Conference that working on a com-mon Resolution is an extremely intense and exciting process witha sometimes unpredictable outcome. Nevertheless it is amazingthat, even after tough debating, the Conference always manages toreach a formulation everybody can agree on in the end. For her del-egation, the formulation would be interpreted in the way agreedupon and suggested by the Working Group.Indeed, we will have to ensure that the increase of sulphur limitswill not lead to a traffic shift from the Baltic Sea to the road. Theshipping companies of our region need time to adapt to the newrequirements. For this, we may also require transitional arrange-ments within the legal framework of the International MaritimeOrganization. There was a broad agreement among the participat-ing delegations that measures should be taken to prevent a modalbackshift in traffic from sea to land. The detailed shaping of thesemeasures will have to follow and this debate should be taken intothe regional and national parliaments.Finally, I pointed out in my speech at the Conference that eco-nomic and environmental aspects of maritime policy need not beopposites and that we should make the full use of the potential ofpossible synergy effects between maritime policy issues and thetopics of the newly founded BSPC Working Group on “GreenGrowth and Energy Efficiency”.The Final Report has been completed by the final version of theResolution adopted by the Conference on 30th August 2011, myspeech at the Conference and by the CVs of the Working GroupMembers.Jochen Schulte, September 2011Introductory Remarks Preface 72. PrefaceMaritime policy issues have always played a key role on the agendaof the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC), having recog-nized that all countries around the Baltic Sea share many commonsea-related challenges and opportunities that are closely inter-linked.Since 2006, the BSPC is actively committed to the development ofan integrated maritime policy for the entire Baltic Sea Region andhas called on the governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the Coun-cil of the Baltic Sea States, the Helsinki Commission and the Euro-pean Union “to work for an integrated maritime policy in order tocreate favorable conditions for a prosperous, socially balanced andecologically sustainable development of the Baltic Sea Region” and“to establish a balance between the many competing economicbenefits of the sea on the one hand, and adequate protection of themarine environment on the other, so as to allow an economicallyand ecologically sustainable use of marine resources1”. In subse-quent years, the BSPC has continued to address maritime issuesand has, in its 16th (Berlin), 17th (Visby), 18th (Nyborg) and 19th(Mariehamn) Conference Resolutions, adopted a number of sub-stantial recommendations regarding aspects of maritime transportand infrastructure, short sea shipping, maritime spatial planning,environmental protection and maritime safety and security.With this background, the BSPC has considered it necessary to fur-ther deal with the issue in depth in the framework of a workinggroup and has therefore, during its 18th Conference in Nyborg on31st August 2009, asked the Standing Committee to establish aWorking Group on Integrated Maritime Policy, especially infra-structure and logistics, to submit reports to the 20th BSPC. Underthe auspices of the Standing Committee of the BSPC, the WorkingGroup was introduced on 13th November 2009.During its nearly two years of existence, the Working Group hasgained a deeper insight into a wide range of different specificaspects of an integrated maritime policy. The integrated approachto the subject offered the potential of involving a wide range ofstakeholders and faciliated a broad, cross-sectoral dialogue on mari-time issues within the Baltic Sea Area. Within its six working ses-1 Conference Resolution adopted by the 15th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Rey-kjavik on 5th September 2006, regarding the European Maritime Policy and the Baltic SeaAction Plan.8 Preface Prefacesions the Working Group has seen 30 presentations by national andinternational experts and representatives from shipping compa-nies, national and European Shipowners’ associations, shipbuilders,port authorities and associations, national maritime authorities andadministrations, maritime safety authorities, environmental agen-cies and organisations, transport agencies, universities and mari-time research institutes as well as regional and national ministriesand European institutions on such different maritime related issuesas maritime spatial planning, port infrastructure and sustainableport development, short sea shipping and co-modality, transportefficiency and safety at sea, environmental aspects and ways for thereduction of emissions from shipping, challenges of sea transportunder ice-conditions, response capacities to combat oil-spills andhazardous substances and trends of the shipbuilding industry.In its first year, the Working Group, according to its mandate, hasfocused on the areas of transport, environment and nature protec-tion, maritime spatial planning, infrastructure and hinterland con-nections, maritime safety and related aspects of maritime policyand has hereto presented political recommendations to the 19thBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Mariehamn which havebeen fully incorporated into the 19th Conference Resolution andare also part of the Interim Report delivered by the Working Groupon 30th August 2010. During the second year, questions of portinfrastructure and ways for improving competitiveness in the mari-time sector while at the same time exploring possibilities for thereduction of emissions from maritime shipping were identified aspriorities in developing the Group’s further work programme.Another commitment of the Working Group has been to engage inthe further development of the cooperation with the Council ofthe Baltic Sea States and the Baltic Sea States Subregional Coopera-tion on maritime issues.Maintaining maritime issues as a high priority will be important forthe further development of the Baltic Sea countries and for theregion as a whole. We see the need to continue the work of theBSPC in the field of an integrated maritime policy. Moreover, webelieve that a continued close cooperation of the BSPC with themaritime policy groups on CBSS and BSSSC will increase chancesof realizing common interests and bringing forward commonissues of the region. The modes for such continued cooperationshould be decided by the BSPC Standing Committee. An integratedmaritime policy for the Baltic Sea Region is necessary in order tomake common needs and potentials of the regional maritime sec-tor more visible in Europe and beyond. Strengthening publicawareness for maritime policy in the region and ensuring that itsPreface Preface 9influence in the international debate is maintained and enhancedis one major role for us as parliamentarians. Therefore, we will con-tinue our commitment to promote an integrated maritime policythroughout the region and to encourage civil society and regionalstakeholders to participate in shaping a future maritime policy forthe Baltic Sea Region.In this report, the Working Group presents the results of its two-year work and gives an overview of its entire activities.On behalf of the Working Group, we would like to thank the BalticSea Parliamentary Conference for setting up this Working Group.Also, we would like to express our gratitude to the BSPC Secretar-iat and the staff members of the participating parliaments for theirexcellent cooperation and skilful support as well as to the expertswho have contributed to stimulating our debate with their inter-esting presentations and arguments and have helped the WorkingGroup in shaping its Recommendations.Jochen Schulte Roger JanssonChairman Vice-Chairman10 PrefacePreface 113. Political Recommendations forthe 20th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConferenceOn the basis of its mandate, the Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference Working Group on Integrated Maritime Policy hasdiscussed the issue of an integrated maritime policy in theBaltic Sea Region and has during its 6th session in Schwerinon 20th June 2011 unanimously decided to submit the fol-lowing political recommendations regarding emissions reduc-tion and competitiveness, maritime transport, maritime spa-tial planning, port infrastructure, maritime safety, integratedmaritime policy in general and cooperation in the Baltic SeaRegion to the 20th BSPC in Helsinki on 28th – 30th August2011:The participants, elected representatives from the Baltic Sea Statesand European Parliament,call on the governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS and theEU• to revisit the political recommendations concerning IntegratedMaritime Policy contained in the 19th BSPC Resolutions from20102;• to intensify research and to promote the use of alternativemarine fuels such as – for example – Liquefied Natural Gas(LNG) in the Baltic Sea Region and others by supporting inno-vative emission reduction technologies and by creating incen-tives for investments in the development of the necessary portinfrastructure with a well developed network of filling stationsand uniform industry and usage standards (103);• against the background of new studies on the implications ofthe intended reduction of the sulphur content of ship fuels to2 See page 6 f. for the political recommendations already adopted by the 19th BSPC.3 The numbers in brackets reflect the chronological order of the elaboration of the recom-mendations in the two years of the mandate of the Working Group; RecommendationsNo. 1 – 9 having already been included into the Conference Resolution adopted by the19th BSPC in Mariehamn on 31st August 2010, they are listed further below; Recommen-dations No. 10 – 18 are to be submitted to the 20th BSPC in Helsinki (the chosen numera-tion is also referred to in Section 4 of the Report).12 Political Recommendations for the 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Political Recommendations for the 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference0,1 percent from the year 2015 in the framework of the inter-national MARPOL convention– to take precautions and to start initiatives to prevent amodal backshift in traffic from sea to land for example– by a moratorium period for existing ships not longerthan 2025,– by extending the timeframe for the gradual limits ofsulphur,– by incentives to support the modification of existingships– to work actively within the International Maritime Organi-zation (IMO) for a speedy designation of further sea areas,such as the Mediterranean Sea, as Sulphur Emission ControlAreas (SECA), thereby abolishing competitive disadvantagesfor the Baltic Sea Area can be prevented (11);• to work for a reduction of administrative obstacles for cross-border maritime traffic (12);• to develop maritime spatial planning as an important instru-ment for an optimized interaction between the actors in thevarious maritime sectors in the interest of a more efficient andsustainable usage of sea waters and coastal regions, to createnational, compatible spatial planning concepts and therebypromote a stronger cross-border cooperation between the Bal-tic Sea countries (13);• to support a sustainable port development by the developmentof environmental port services in order to reduce environmen-tal pollution for port residents and simultaneously strengthenthe competitiveness of the ports (14);• to further implement an integrated maritime policy with regardto its economic and ecological significance for the entire BalticSea Area particularly by– developing and promoting integrated maritime lead pro-jects for the entire Baltic Sea Area (e. g. Clean Baltic Ship-ping, Galileo Research Port Rostock, SUCBAS – Sea Surveil-lance Cooperation Baltic Sea) also in the areas of “green,save transport and a clean environment” for the strengthen-ing of environmentally friendly goods traffic and the portcooperation in the whole Baltic Sea Area in order to furtherpromote the maritime policy in the consciousness on theEuropean level,Political Recommendations for the 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Political Recommendations for the 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference 13– promoting and facilitating the cooperation on all levels ofmaritime governance and by– the development of national integrated maritime policies ofthe member states (15);• to support integrated activities of the Baltic Sea Region in theareas of maritime research, technology and innovation, inorder to use the growth potential of new maritime sectorssuch as energy generation in offshore installations and offshoretechnologies, the security and surveillance technique as well asmaritime environmental technology and to enhance access tofuture markets; for this purpose, create necessary political andjudicial frameworks and disseminate best practices (16);• to further develop cruise tourism as a maritime growth sectoragainst the background of its importance for the whole BalticSea Region for example by attractive inland tourist offers andconcepts of common marketing in this field of tourism (17);• to proceed with the development and implementation of meas-ures for safe operation of ships in severe and icy winter condi-tions (18).Additionally, the Working Group recommends to include intothe Draft Resolution’s general part a further passage withregard to the cooperation with CBSS and BSSSC, taking up thefirst joint event of a BSPC working group with workinggroups of CBSS and BSSSC on the occasion of the EuropeanMaritime Day on 20th May 2011 in Gdansk:• welcoming the joint event of the Working Group on IntegratedMaritime Policy of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferencewith the Expert Group on Maritime Policy of the Council ofthe Baltic Sea States (CBSS) and the Working Group on Mari-time Policy of the Baltic Sea States Subregional Cooperation(BSSSC) on 20th May 2011 and supporting the further coordi-nation and joint activities between these and other institutionsand organizations.14 Political Recommendations for the 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Political Recommendations for the 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceRegarding the Recommendations elaborated by the WorkingGroup during the course of the first year of its existence, hav-ing already been incorporated into the Resolution adopted bythe 19th BSPC in 2010, it is intended to include a referenceunderlining them once more in the 20th BSPC Resolution.Therefore they are relisted below:• promote new measures in view of reduction of harmful emis-sions:– render more active support than heretofore to short seashipping as an eco-friendly alternative to inland transport;– investigate to what extent the reduction of the sulphur con-tent of ship fuels may result in competitive disadvantages tothe economy in the Baltic Sea Region and elaborate propos-als on how to avoid such disadvantages while maintaininghigh environmental standards in the maritime sector;– actively support the projects approved for funding underthe Baltic Region Programme, especially such projects withthe objective to reduce harmful emissions from ships anddevelop reception facilities for waste water from ships inthe ports of the Baltic Sea (1);• support the implementation of improved security and fire pre-vention measures regarding vessels, terminals, ports, sea andshore-line constructions as well as the use of environmentallyfriendly substances to alleviate damages caused by accidents(2);• extend the obligatory use of pilots in risk areas of the Baltic Seaand strictly implement the ban on transporting oil in single-hulled tankers (3);• initiate measures which 1) pave the way for and promote theuse of a single language in international transport operations atsea and on land, and 2) standardize and facilitate the implemen-tation of joint customs and taxation procedures (4);• continue to ensure improvements to the transport infrastruc-ture in the Baltic Sea Region and, while focussing in particularon developing land and sea routes, promote a transport policythat is in principle governed by the idea that transport opera-tions should be carried out in an eco-friendly way, supportedby an interconnected infrastructure (5);Political Recommendations for the 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Political Recommendations for the 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference 15• make sure that the EU TEN-T core network must be made up ofnodes (capitals, other cities or agglomerations of supra-regionalimportance, gateway ports, intercontinental hub ports and air-ports, the most important inland ports and freight terminals)and connections of the highest strategic and economic impor-tance linked with key infrastructure in third countries (includ-ing Russia) (6).• attach particular importance to the strategic development ofthe seaports with associated logistics centers and rail terminalsin order to create national, regional and European networks. Inthis context, gaps in the priority TEN projects should be filledand the projects should be linked and consolidated into a corenetwork (7);• support initiatives for improving safety of navigation and envi-ronmental risk reduction in the Baltic Sea and addressing thehuman factor including support of initiatives that can lead toless administrative burdens by harmonizing and elaborating theexisting ship reporting systems (SRS) and vessel traffic services(VTS) in the Baltic Sea (8);• strengthen the joint regional as well as national preparednessand capacity to tackle major spills of oil and hazardous sub-stances, for instance by sub-regional preparations, coordinationand exercises, as pursued in the HELCOM BRISK project, andby procuring sufficient supplies of oil spill and hazardous sub-stances recovery equipment (9);16 Political Recommendations for the 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferencePolitical Recommendations for the 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference 174. Mandate and Framing IssuesMandateThe concept of an integrated maritime policy has a strong par-liamentary history in the Baltic Sea Region. Based on the recog-nition that policies in the Baltic Sea countries to a large extenthave a maritime dimension and that all maritime related mat-ters are interlinked and therefore must be developed in ajoined-up way, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC)has, beginning with its 15th Conference Resolution in 2006,continuously and repeatedly addressed the necessity of an inte-grated maritime policy for the entire Baltic Sea Region and hassupported activities in this direction. Within the past six years,the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference has adopted a series ofpolitical recommendations in this field.The 15th (2006) BSPC called on the governments in the BalticSea Region, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the HelsinkiCommission and the European Union “to work for an integratedmaritime policy in order to create favorable conditions for aprosperous, socially balanced and ecologically sustainabledevelopment of the Baltic Sea Region” and “to establish a bal-ance between the many competing economic benefits of thesea on the one hand, and adequate protection of the marineenvironment on the other, so as to allow an economically andecologically sustainable use of marine resources”. Furtherrequests of the Conference related to marine sciences and tech-nologies and their integration in future research programmes, aEuropean fisheries policy taking into account the particularitiesof the Baltic Sea Region and implementing the principle of sus-tainable fisheries and a strengthened cooperation in the field ofmaritime safety and security.Both the 16th (2007) and the 17th (2008) BSPC called on thegovernments in the Baltic Sea Region, the Council of the BalticSea States and the European Union to take concrete stepstowards developing the Baltic Sea Region into Europe’s modelmaritime region, i.e. into the cleanest and safest sea of Europeand by recommending that all Baltic Sea States ratify existinginternational conventions on marine environmental protection(16th BSPC), recognizing that maritime policy must be seenwithin an overarching framework of sustainable development,environment, marine spatial planning, safety at sea and intermo-18 Mandate and Framing Issues Mandate and Framing Issuesdality (17th BSPC). The 16th BSPC also requested, against thebackground of the rapidly increasing amount of oil transports inthe Baltic Sea Region, to ensure a high level of maritime safetyand security, in particular by improving the Baltic Sea coast-guard practices, promoting innovative navigation technologiesand introducing the use of pilots in difficult sea routes. The 17thBSPC formulated demands regarding the full commitment to theimplementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan andmeasures against eutrophication, supporting and encouragingglobal regulations ensuring a high level of safety and environ-mental standards in the Baltic Sea and supporting the harmoni-zation of vessel traffic services and the development of a satel-lite-based, emission-related monitoring system for ships through-out the Baltic Sea Region.Demands by the Baltic parliamentarians regarding maritimesafety and security and environmental protection in the regionwere further elaborated by the 18th (2009) BSPC, requestingthat the governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the Council ofthe Baltic Sea States and the European Union should promoteand support initiatives and measures such as enhancing thejoint preparedness to tackle oil spills, ship traffic monitoring andsurveillance systems and that they encourage active coopera-tion with the International Maritime Organization on the devel-opment of measures to reduce the environmental impacts ofshipping, support the designation of further sea basins as Sul-phur Emission Control Areas and the BSSSC Action Plan “CleanBaltic Shipping”.With this background, the participants of the 18th BSPCresolved with their consent to the final declaration on 1st Sep-tember 2009 in Nyborg, Denmark, under subparagraph 38 toestablish a Working Group on Integrated Maritime Policy, espe-cially infrastructure and logistics to submit a report to the 20thBSPC.Under the auspices of the Standing Committee of the BSPC, theWorking Group was introduced on 13th November 2009 andJochen Schulte, MP, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, appointed asChairman of the Group. All BSPC member parliaments and par-liamentary organizations were entitled to appoint delegates tothe Working Group.The Working Group commenced its work in January 2010 inRostock and has delivered a Midterm Report to the 19th BSPCon 30th August 2010 in Mariehamn, Å ́land Islands (which can bedownloaded from the BSPC Website).Mandate and Framing Issues Mandate and Framing Issues 19In accordance with its mandate and the objectives of the BSPCWork Programme 2010–2011, the Working Group should pro-mote the development of an Integrated Maritime Policy andelaborate joint political positions and recommendations for theresolution to be adopted by the 20th BSPC.The Working Group was also asked to strive to establish contactsand exchange with other initiatives and organizations activewithin this field.Framing IssuesIntegrated maritime policy is a concept for different policy lev-els, regional and national, the European Union level and interna-tional levels. Taking up the idea of an integrated approach onmaritime affairs, different organizations in the Baltic Sea Regionhave in the meantime established working groups on maritimepolicy. An integrated maritime policy for the Baltic Sea Regionneeds close coordination with other existing or newly createdformats of cooperation in the region, that are working in thesame field. The Working Group therefore encourages furthersteps and has developed intensified activities in this direction(see Section (6)).HELCOM is a key Baltic organisation that has already been work-ing for more than 30 years on the improvement of the environ-mental situation of the Baltic Sea. The Maritime Group of HEL-COM works to prevent any pollution from ships including delib-erate operational discharges as well as accidental pollution. TheBaltic Sea Action Plan of HELCOM, adopted in November 2007and based on the ecosystem and integrated policy approach, isan essential instrument to address environmental challenges ofthe Baltic Sea, thus contributing to an integrated maritime policyof the Baltic Sea Region, sharing the same cross-sector approach,though with a more specific focus on aspects of protection. TheChairman of the HELCOM RESPONSE Group has significantlycontributed to the results of the Working Group on maritimesafety by giving a presentation on the preparedness for a majoroil spill in the Baltic Sea. The BSPC has repeatedly confirmed itsfull support for HELCOM activities and in particular for the HEL-COM Baltic Sea Action Plan.Baltic maritime policy needs to be closely linked and coordi-nated with the Northern Dimension policy. Following a recom-mendation of the 15th BSPC in Reykjavik in 2006, a Partnershipon Transport and Logistics has been established in the frame-20 Mandate and Framing Issues Mandate and Framing Issueswork of the Northern Dimension in October 2009, with a cur-rent focus on maritime transport. The Second Northern Dimen-sion Parliamentary Forum on 22nd/23rd February 2011,within its Conference Statement regarding the Northern Dimen-sion Partnership on Transport and Logistics, asks the govern-ments of the Northern Dimension cooperation to give the mari-time dimension of the partnership due attention (further recom-mendations regarding the strategic development of seaports, thereduction of harmful emissions from shipping and the improve-ment of port reception facilities, safety of maritime navigationand emergency capabilities). The question of how to combinethe integrated maritime policy and the Partnership of Transportand Logistics within the Northern Dimension will have to be fur-ther discussed.The Council of the Baltic Sea States Expert Group on MaritimePolicy (CBSS EGMP) was established in 2009 and is composedof civil servants from eleven Baltic Sea countries including theEuropean Commission. It is intended to contribute to sustaina-ble growth and employment in the maritime sector, to combineand better coordinate all sea related activities and tasks, as wellas to strike an appropriate balance between economic, socialand ecological aspects. The Expert Group is cross-sectoral andcoordinates its work mainly within the priority areas of Eco-nomic Development and the Environment. Its three-year man-date ends in November 2012, while the current German Presi-dency (since July 2011) is exploring possibilities for a prolonga-tion.The Baltic Sea States Subregional Cooperation (BSSSC) Work-ing Group on Maritime Policy’s aim is to bundle and formulatethe interests of the Baltic Sea Regions in a maritime policy andorganize relevant political support. Founded in 2008, the stand-ing working group currently has members from Denmark, Ger-many, Norway, Poland, Russia and Sweden.VASAB is an intergovernmental multilateral cooperation in spa-tial planning and development between eleven countries of theBaltic Sea Region. A new VASAB Long-Term Perspective wasendorsed on the 16th October 2009. The Ministers underlinedthat new common responsibilities and challenges had emergedwhich called for deeper pan-Baltic cooperation on spatial plan-ning and development and the integration of spatial develop-ment policies into all relevant sectors. There was also a growingunderstanding that the Baltic Sea itself is in urgent need of mari-time spatial planning.Mandate and Framing Issues Mandate and Framing Issues 21The Baltic Sea Forum is a non-profit organization which sup-ports the economical, political and cultural cooperation in theBaltic Sea Region. It was founded in 1992 in Helsinki as a Ger-man-Finnish organization named Pro Baltica Forum. It supportsthe cooperation with the Baltic States as well as with the wholeBaltic region, sees to the relations between the European Unionand Russia and the development of the south-north-relationbetween the Baltic and the Mediterranean. The Baltic Sea Forumhas an extended network of members, representatives and part-ners from all fields of activity such as from the economy, politics,culture as well as science in the Baltic region and Central Europe.The Baltic Sea Commission of the Conference of PeripheralMaritime Regions (CPMR) has a Working Group on maritimeissues that is currently focusing on maritime spatial planning andintegrated coastal zone management, maritime safety and bluegrowth and naval industry. The Baltic Sea Commission is organiz-ing 26 regions in seven countries around the Baltic Sea (Finland,Sweden, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Norway, Denmark). The BSCcounts several national capitals as members and the organizationalso has the majority of the Baltic Sea islands as members.The “Baltic Europe” Intergroup of the European Parliamentwas formed in 2004 as a forum for discussion and promotion ofeconomic actions, environmental protection, and geopoliticalproblems of the Baltic Sea Region. One of the most significantachievements of “Baltic Europe” was establishing Europe’s Strat-egy for the Baltic Sea Region which was passed in the EP at theend of 2006.The “Seas and Coastal Affairs” Intergroup of the European Par-liament was founded in March 2010. Main issues include mari-time security, sustainable development of the coastal areas, searoutes, employment, innovations and the impact of the CommonFisheries Policy on the European maritime policy. The “Seas andcoastal affairs” Intergroup is a space for discussions about issuesconcerning the Baltic Sea, Atlantic Ocean, North Sea, Black Seaand Mediterranean Sea.The Intergroup “Baltic Sea Regions” of the Committee of theRegions was set up in 2008 and deals with different aspects ofthe development and integrated maritime policy around the Bal-tic.22 Mandate and Framing Issues Mandate and Framing IssuesDealing with the subject matter as a whole, the European Com-mission in 2007 has launched an Integrated Maritime Policyfor the European Union, whose main objective is to maximizethe sustainable use of the oceans and seas while enablinggrowth of the maritime economy and coastal regions. It aims atproviding a coherent policy framework to develop integratedresponses to maritime challenges of globalization and competi-tiveness, climate change, degradation of the marine environ-ment, maritime safety and security, energy security and sustaina-bility and thereby enabling a better balance between economic,social and ecological aspects of maritime policy. According tothe European Commission, integrated maritime policy makingrequires and promotes reinforced cooperation and effectivecoordination of all maritime-related activities and tasks at thedifferent decision-making levels. The European integratedapproach to maritime policy intends to include regionalizationand strengthening of stakeholder involvement and requiresmoving away from very fragmented, sectoral policy approaches.On 15th October 2009, the European Commission issued aCommunication on the International dimension of the Inte-grated Maritime Policy of the European Union, recognizing thatthe Integrated Maritime Policy cannot only be considered as aEuropean policy, as it is an issue for the entire Baltic Sea Region,and that its success will depend on the extent to which allneighboring countries can be included in the process. On 30thSeptember 2010, the European Commission proposed a Regula-tion for continued financial support of the EU’s Integrated Mari-time Policy, for the period between 2011 and 2013. This pro-posal establishes a programme aimed at supporting the meas-ures planned to further the development and implementation ofthe IMP. The programme will provide financial resources forachieving the objectives and priorities set out in the action planwhich was adopted in 2007.The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)4, adoptedby the European Commission in June 2009 and endorsed by theEuropean Council in October 2009, is a macro-regional strategyfor the European Union with a high proportion of actions ofmaritime nature and therefore can be seen as a first step toimplement the integrated maritime policy on a regional basis.Key maritime actions of the EUSBSR include the development ofmaritime governance structures, maritime spatial planning andin particular cross-border approaches, sustainable fisheries, mari-time surveillance and integration of different surveillance sys-tems across borders and sectors, clean shipping, motorways of4 COM(2009) 248 und SEK(2009) 712/2.Mandate and Framing Issues Mandate and Framing Issues 23the sea, maritime transport space without barriers, implementationof the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, accelerated imple-mentation of the Baltic Sea HELCOM action plan, development ofmaritime clusters, maritime training and education. On 22nd June2011, the European Commission provided a first progress reporton the implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy.24 Mandate and Framing IssuesMandate and Framing Issues 255. The Working Group and itsThemesMaritime Policy AreasFollowing the above described integrated approach, the WorkingGroup on Integrated Maritime Policy has dealt with different spe-cific aspects of Maritime Policy that in the view of its membersneeded to be discussed in greater depth, giving special attentionto links and interferences between the various maritime sectors.This section provides an overview of the focus areas within thebroad thematic range of maritime policy handled in the course ofthe debate, taking up the main issues raised by the Working Groupmembers and the experts heard in the light of ongoing develop-ments. The aim is to outline the background to the elaboration ofthe political recommendations by the Working Group.Emission Reduction and competitivenessPolitical recommendations relating to ‘Emissions Reduction andCompetitiveness’: 1, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16Safeguarding and improving the competitiveness of the Baltic SeaRegion and of its maritime economy in global markets while pro-tecting the marine natural resources has been a central concern ofthe working group.The Baltic maritime industry has a long tradition and is one of themost important branches of the future in the region with a highpotential for growth and employment. On the other hand, due toincreasing shipping activities and although being by far the mostenvironmentally mode of transport, marine shipping is contribut-ing considerably to the air and sea pollution in the Baltic SeaRegion.Emissions of sulphur oxides (SO ) from shipping due to combus-xtion of marine fuels with high sulphur content contribute to airpollution, harming the environment through acidification as wellas human health, particularly around coastal areas and ports. Nitro-gen oxide (NO ) emissions from ships, like SO emissions, causex xacid depositions that can be detrimental to the natural environ-ment and contribute to eutrophication. For a sustainable develop-ment of the region, it is also in the interest of maritime industry to26 The Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themescontribute to the reduction of emissions caused by shipping oper-ations.The provisions of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)on the sulphur content in shipping fuels and the economicimpacts of the designation of the Baltic Sea as a Sulphur EmissionControl Area (SECA) have been a focal issue in the workinggroup’s debates. The international low-emission requirements area joint challenge for the Baltic Sea countries and for their shippingindustries and therefore need greater attention. While supportingthe IMO regulations in general, many members of the WorkingGroup believed that the decision was made with too little consid-eration for the possible consequences for the maritime-related sec-tors in the region.The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution fromShips (MARPOL Annex VI) defines two sets of emission and fuelquality requirements: global requirements and more stringentrequirements applicable to ships in emission control areas. Exist-ing emission control areas include:• Baltic Sea (SO , adopted: 1997 / entered into force: 2005)x• North Sea (SO , 2005/2006)x• North American ECA, including most of the US and Canadiancoast (NO & SO , 2010/2012)x xMARPOL Annex VI limits the maximum sulphur content of fuel to4.5 percent. This is going to be changed to 3.5 percent after 1st Jan-uary 2012 and to 0.5 percent after 2020 (or 2025, depending onthe outcome of a review in 2018). In SECAs sulphur limit in fuel is1 percent until 1st July 2015 when it changes to 0.1 percent. Forthe Baltic Sea Region, the sulphur content in shipping fuels is lim-ited to 0.1 % as of 2015.Date Sulphur Limit in FuelGlobal SECA2000 1.5 % 4.5 %2010 1.0 %2012 3.5 %2015 0.1 %2020* 0.5 %* alternative date is 2025, to be decided by a review in 2018While supporting in general the internationally agreed environ-mental targets, the Working Group members attach great impor-tance to prevent distortion of competition to the disadvantage ofThe Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themes 27Photo by Uwe Balewski, Landtag Mecklenburg-Vorpommernthe Baltic Sea Region. In the view of many experts, the implemen-tation of stricter sulphur regulations is not only a question of com-peting within this area with road or rail transport, but also of com-petitiveness of the Baltic Sea Region with other regions. In partic-ular, disadvantages for shipping going in and out of the Baltic Seacompared to other shipping routes worldwide should be avoided.Therefore, the Working Group reaffirms and extends the demandof the 18th BSPC to work actively within the IMO for European-wide solution for SECAs and a speedy designation of further seaareas, such as the Mediterranean Sea, as SECAs, in order to reachequal competitive conditions at least on the European level.In the first year of its mandate, the Working Group has consulteddifferent experts on that matter. A. P. Møller Maersk Group as theworld’s largest shipping company explained that for larger compa-nies the reduction of the sulphur content in marine fuels to 0.1percent as of 2015 was feasible since the differences in fuel priceswere for them negligible. Additionally, the oil industry increasinglymanaged to produce low sulphur distillates in a cost-effective way.In contrast, the Danish Shipowners’ Association pointed out thatsmaller shipping companies, mainly operating in the Baltic SeaArea, would be much more affected by the designation of the Bal-tic Sea as a SECA than companies offering intercontinental ser-vices. The gradual reduction in sulphur levels by more than 90 per-28 The Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its ThemesPhoto by Jan Wibergcent adopted within the IMO posed great technical and economicchallenges for the companies concerned. For shipping solely in theBaltic Sea, there was a significant risk that business would be dis-placed to other means of transportation, where the costs would belower. The European Community Shipowners’ Associationexpected substantial price increases in bunker costs, in the totalship costs as well as in the freight rates and, as a consequence, ashift from sea to land transport by 20 to 50 percent.Meanwhile, in light of the recommendations suggested by theWorking Group and incorporated into the Resolution of the 19thBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, several impact studies on theimplications of the intended reduction of the sulphur content ofship fuels to 0.1 percent from the year 2015 have been presented.According to these studies, the future requirements of a maximumlevel of 0.1 percent sulphur in bunker fuels would induce a modalshift towards road transport, if nothing was done additionally. Dur-ing the fifth session of the Working Group, the German Shipown-ers’ Association presented findings of a recent study of the InstituteThe Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themes 29Photo by Jan Wibergof Shipping Economics and Logistics Bremen (September 2010)coming to the result that serious impacts on the competitivenessof the Baltic Sea Shipping are going to be expected, leading to aconsiderable shift from marine to road transport. The predictedincrease in road traffic would counteract the environmental objec-tive and the politically desired shifting traffic from the road to thesea. According to the Association of Northern German Chamber ofIndustry and Commerce, a sulphur limit of 0.1 percent in 2015would have a negative impact on competitiveness of industries inthe affected Northern EU countries, leading to substantial costincreases for sea transport, changing logistic flows in Europe and aconsiderable traffic shift from sea to road. An overview of existingimpact assessment studies on the subject given by Mr MartinKruse, Association of Northern German Chamber of Industry andCommerce, showed that issues of modal shift and Short Sea Ship-ping were in the center of concern and that the Scandinavian andBaltic states in particular had strong fear of losing internationalcompetitiveness by the new regulations. The volume of shippingwould decline considerably in the Baltic Sea and the new regime30 The Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its ThemesgrebdiWnaJdnanremmoproV-grubnelkceMgatdnaL,ikswelaBewUybsotohPThe Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themes 31would give severe disadvantages to the Baltic Sea Region’s econ-omy.With regard to the expected costs, some experts and WorkingGroup members proposed to take into consideration a limitedreduction of the sulphur content planned for the SECAs from2015 to only 0.5, because this limit would already represent aconsiderable improvement for the environment and wouldimpose significantly lower costs on the economies in the BalticSea Region. A proposal for initiating a general revision of MARPOLAnnex VI was debated as well, but did not find a consensus in theworking group.Experts made clear that while the new sulphur regulations wouldpose no greater problems for new ship constructions, it was verydifficult and cost-intensive for a large number of existing ships toadapt to the new environmental requirements. With regard to thelong life cycle of a ship (compared to the life cycle of a truck: fivetimes longer) it was important to reach more flexibility for theshipping industry during a transitional period, allowing them todevelop the instruments necessary to adjust to the new stand-ards. Therefore, the Working Group demands a moratorium periodfor existing ships, which should not be longer than 2025, the dateof the introduction of the general global sulphur limit of 0.5 per-cent. This would particularly improve the situation of those shipowners, mainly smaller companies, who continually and exclu-sively operate in the Baltic Sea.At the same time, the Working Group stands for any measureshelping to reduce sulphur emissions in shipping. Several alterna-tives have been discussed.The development and use of innovative maritime technologiesto limit So emission is considered a promising option and shouldxbe supported on national and on European level. Marine enginemanufacturers have started building engines complying with thenew standards.The use of exhaust gas cleaning systems for desulphurizationusing sea water (scrubber technology) is considered by expertsas no real alternative as the space requirements and weight ofscrubber technology pose great problems in sea transport.The perspectives for the use of alternative fuels, in particularLiquefied Natural Gas (LNG) in maritime transport have beendiscussed by the Working Group. LNG was described by expertsas a competitive marine fuel, particularly in view of the Emission32 The Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its ThemesControl Areas, currently available on the global market at lowerprice than distillates. From an environmental point of view, LNGbrings many advantages as it causes neither SO nor particle emis-xsions and very low NO emissions and is also useful in considera-xtion to the reduction of CO emissions. Major challenges to the2widespread economical use of LNG as ship fuel are the transportroom needed for larger tanks and the necessary reduction in trans-port capacity, the establishment of necessary port infrastructurefor distribution of LNG fuel in the Baltic Sea Region (a network ofLNG terminals) as well as missing industrial standards required assupporting framework conditions. At present, Norway is the onlycountry in northern Europe disposing of an adequate LNG-supplystructure. If potential LNG suppliers are expected to invest in portinfrastructure, political intervention by the states and economicincentives are required.In order to remain economically competitive, ship operation has tobe profitable and environmentally compatible. By using low-sul-phur fuels, shipping can enhance its reputation as an environmen-tally-friendly mode of transport on the path to further growth. Atthe same time, the shipbuilding industry and the supply industry,in particular the engine manufacturers are provided with greatopportunities to promote innovative techniques for more climateand environment protection and to secure innovation-based com-petitive advantages.The Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themes 33Maritime TransportPolitical recommendations relating to ‘Maritime Transport’: 1, 4,5, 6, 12, 15Transport and logistics have been one main focus area of the work-ing group, being closely interrelated with every other maritimeeconomic activity. Transport routes are the arteries for the econ-omy, for the accessibility of regions and customers.Growing trade creates pressure on the transport network in theBaltic Sea Region. An effective transport system is needed to ensurethe competitiveness of the Baltic’s trade and industry.Policy priorities for maritime transport in the Baltic Sea Regionthat have been discussed by the Working Group include short seashipping, co-modality, the development of transport infrastructure,including port infrastructure and port industry and the Europeanmaritime transport space without barriers. Important future activi-ties concerning transport infrastructure policies are the furtherdevelopment of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T)and of the “Motorways of the Sea” (MoS) and the development ofports and their hinterland connections.Short Sea Shipping, in comparison to other transport means, hasbeen described by experts as extremely energy efficient having ahigh potential as an environmental and economic alternative toland transport in Europe. Being consistent with the goals of EU forenergy efficiency, the promotion of short sea shipping is one of themain areas of the European Transport Strategy. Main challenges areenvironmental regulations, in particular regarding the reduction ofsulphur and carbon emissions. In that respect, innovation andresearch are important to keep maritime transport and short seashipping competitive on an international level. In addition, thetransport system itself has to be further developed, strategic, tech-nical and infrastructure bottlenecks have to be eliminated and theintegration in the transport chain has to be improved. Short-seashipping has the potential to create alternative clean routes along“Motorways of the Sea” between EU ports, but there is still muchunexplored potential for developing a comprehensive short seashipping network across the Baltic Sea Region. Short sea shippingshould become a component of an integrated, inter-modal trans-portation system.The concept of intermodality, as it has been presented in theEuropean Commission’s Transport White Paper in 2006, includesthe combined and efficient use of different modes of transport to34 The Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themesreach an optimal transport system. According, to Ms Ritta Pön-tynen, Shortsea Promotion Centre Finland, modes should comple-ment each other, not compete with each other and an optimal useof modes created an effective transport system. For the furtherimprovement of intermodal transportation, she considered itimportant to develop the links between transport modes (ports,logistic centers as well as the information flow in the transportchain). There needed to be a high level of functionality, efficiencyand integration between the transport modes.Another important issue for maritime transport in the Baltic SeaRegion seen by the Working Group is administrative simplifica-tion and harmonization. The European Commission’s initiative“Towards a European maritime transport space without barriers”,adopted in 2009, intends to increase the efficiency and productiv-ity of European sea ports by simplifying administrative and cus-toms procedures and making increased use of information andcommunication technologies (e-maritime).The Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) is the base of infra-structure for the development of the macro-region Baltic Sea and acompetitive transport system. The TEN-T projects and “Motorwaysof the Sea” can be used to build up the necessary infrastructure formaritime trade. In that respect, the Working Group sees the neces-sity to develop major ports in the Baltic Sea Region strategically.This must go hand in hand with further developing their hinter-land connections and with better integrating the Baltic Sea Portsinto the core axes of the European Transport Network at sea andashore. The Russian transport network is to be included in thesemeasures.Port InfrastructurePolitical recommendations relating to ‘Port Infrastructure’: 1, 2,4, 10, 14, 15 and 17The infrastructure of a port is seen as a key to its success, requiringcontinuous development and adaptation. Regulations need to beadhered to, running a port must be economically sustainable andenvironmental friendliness practiced. Important current aspectswith regard to port infrastructure as part of an integrated maritimepolicy for the Baltic Sea Region have been the topic of severalexpert presentations given to the Working Group.The differing regulations within the ports have been subject tocriticism particularly by yard operators and ship owners, and clearThe Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themes 35nremmoproV-grubnelkceMgatdnaL,ikswelaBewUybsotohP36 The Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themesrules for ship construction and a common regulation for the entireBaltic Sea Region have been demanded, including joint customsand taxation procedures. It is an aspect for ports to consider and tothereby contribute to the harmonization of procedures and regula-tions in the Baltic Sea Region.A topic of much discussion is the usage of liquefied natural gas(LNG). The focus on alternative marine fuels such as LNG and oth-ers is increasing as regulations are toughened and the environmen-tal pollution of the Baltic Sea is progressing. Investments in thedevelopment of the necessary port infrastructure with a networkof filling stations are measures to be considered by a number ofports around the Baltic Sea. Mr. Manfred Müller-Fahrenholz (Manag-ing Director of Neptun Shipyards) argues that a challenge today isthat LNG is still expensive and not available everywhere. “A com-plex distribution system is needed, where every vessel can bunkerand is independent of individual systems. There must be a suffi-cient supply chain which covers fuel and is fit for other purposessuch as other goods delivery and good waste management”. Toarrive at this level, investment is required and potential fundingmechanisms must be elaborated. An important potential fundingmechanism for investments related to ecologic infrastructuredevelopments such as LNG facilities and waste water reception isthe European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 2014-2020.Overall it is clear that the development of environmental port ser-vices will also contribute to strengthening the competitiveness ofports. It is an aspect that must be kept in mind and further high-lights the need for investment in this area.As large volumes of waste arrives at the ports, the availability ofsystems dealing with this waste become necessary and receptionfacilities for waste water from ships in the ports of the Baltic Seaneed to be developed. Following the presentation of Mr ErikAndersson Pauldin, Ports of Stockholm can serve as an example ofhow ports can manage their waste, using incentives for sorting outship-generated waste and adding no special fees for waste han-dling. Waste is delivered to the municipality system via the portand is taken care of by the city and used, for instance, for heating.Moreover, good results have been achieved by cooperation withother ports. For example, an agreement between the Ports ofStockholm and the Port of Helsinki for improving grey and blackwater facilities proved mutually beneficial.A topic of debate remains the issue of shore side electricity (SSE).Ships use their Auxiliary Engines (AE) to produce electricity fortheir activities while they stay in ports. One measure to reduceemissions from AEs while at berth is to provide electricity to theThe Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themes 37ships from the national grid. To provide ships with electricity, a shoreside electricity supply arrangement is required, also known as ‘cold-ironing’. The question of its usage is debated, as some hold that SSEwill transfer the problems (emissions in port) to other parts of theworld (emissions resulting from the transport of raw material andfrom the energy conversion at the power plant) and others argue thatshore side electricity is indeed an advantage as ship emissions arereduced and should be developed further. It should be flagged that inthe case of SSE operation at ports, there is a necessity to arrive atcommon standards and uniform technical interfaces around the BalticSea.Moreover, cruise tourism plays a key role for a vast number of portsaround the Baltic Sea and cooperation of the ports in the field ofcruise tourism is to be promoted. Ports and cities profit from theincome generated by visitors and for ports to receive cruise vesselsaccording infrastructural investments must be undertaken and facili-ties be incorporated in the ports infrastructure. In addition, for portsto be sustainable, an expansion and modernization of existing searoutes and connections to the hinterland is necessary, enabled by thecreation of a well-balanced relation between land-based and maritimetransport which not only takes air pollution into account, but alsolimits land consumption, noise pollution as well as the use of availa-ble resources.Maritime SafetyPolitical recommendations relating to ‘Maritime Security’: 2, 3, 8,9, 16 and 18Maritime safety is a complex and multifaceted issue. The BSPC has, inclose cooperation with HELCOM, been giving priority attention tothe issue of safety at sea for 10 years. Already in 2001, the 10th BSPCin Greifswald adopted a Resolution containing extensive recommen-dations regarding shipping safety and has set up a working groupwhich under the chair of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has treated thesubject comprehensively in the subsequent years and whose recom-mendations have become part of the following Conference Resolu-tions. A series of measures have been implemented since then. How-ever, not only the fast increase of transport of oil and hazardous sub-stances, but also the constant growth of the size of ships still remainsa big challenge needing a high level of attention and further measuresin the future.With this background, the Working Group on Integrated Maritime Pol-icy has tackled this issue and sees it as central to the future well-being38 The Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its ThemesnremmoproV-grubnelkceMgatdnaL,ikswelaBewUybsotohPThe Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themes 39of the Baltic Sea Region and its people. To improve security of ship-ping and to reduce the risk of environmental hazards is a challengethat requires much attention. For instance, the use of pilots in riskareas, the harmonization of existing ship reporting systems and thesupport of measures for safe operation of ships in icy conditionshave been identified by the working group as potentially impor-tant contributions to a safe Baltic Sea.A major topic is the danger of oil spills. There is a significantincrease of oil transportation taking place on the Baltic Sea, witharound 100 accidents taking place annually, the most commontypes being groundings and collisions. Mr. Francis Zachariae (Dep-uty Director General of the Danish Maritime Safety Administra-tion) argues in the second session of the working group that inci-dents such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mex-ico and other accidents underline the importance of planningahead to avoid and if necessary to be prepared to tackle such acci-dents. Many of the experts confirmed that the challenge indeedconsists in the increased oil transportation, which in the Baltic Seahas doubled between 2000 and 2007 and is likely to continue toincrease further. Moreover, it is highly likely that oil tankers andcargo ships will increase in size, leading to ever larger amounts ofoil on board of these ships that make their journey across the Bal-tic Sea.Extending the obligatory use of pilots in risk areas of the Baltic Seaand strictly implementing the ban on transporting oil in single-hulled tankers are necessary measures that need to be undertakenin order to help deal with the increase of ship number and sizeand to make ship journeys across the Baltic Sea safer by minimiz-ing the risk of accidents and spills of oil and hazardous substances.Moreover, it is important to strengthen the joint regional as well asnational preparedness and capacity to tackle major spills. The HEL-COM BRISK project is an example of an undertaking in this direc-tion, the projects overall objective being to contribute to the devel-opment of an appropriate level of preparedness in the whole Bal-tic Sea Region to tackle major accidental spills.As oil traffic on the Baltic and the ship size is expected to rise, amonitoring and routing system for ships at sea should be estab-lished for maritime safety to be enhanced. The harmonization andelaboration of existing ship reporting systems (SRS) and vessel traf-fic services (VTS) in the Baltic Sea is encouraged by the WorkingGroup. The aim of vessel traffic services is to prevent accidents atsea and thus contribute to the safety of the environment and of lifeat sea. For this purpose, information has to be provided in situa-tions of emergency and exchanged with the stakeholders. A ship40 The Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themesreporting system enables a speedy identification of vessels in thearea of a distress situation, along with their positions, courses, andspeeds and in sum improves the likelihood of aid reaching a boatin a distress situation quickly during emergencies. In the opinionof the experts, a harmonization of these monitoring and routingsystems across the Baltic Sea has the potential to improve thesafety of navigation within each monitored area. Moreover, the useof satellite supported navigation systems to strengthen the safetyof navigation at sea and in the ports is to be promoted. An exam-ple of a project in the field is SEAGATE where a facility supportingthe development and testing of maritime applications of the Euro-pean satellite system Galileo has been installed in the Port of Ros-tock.Further, the improvement of security and fire prevention measuresis important and looking back to the Deepwater Horizon oil spillshows just how necessary such measures are in case of accidents.Moreover, the preparedness and capacity to tackle major spills ofoil and hazardous substances should be supported by procuringsufficient supplies of oil spill and hazardous substances recoveryequipment.During winter, substantial parts of the Baltic Sea are covered withice. Therfore another challenge in the area of maritime safety isthe sea transport under ice conditions in the Baltic Sea. The work-ing group holds that it is important to proceed with the develop-ment and implementation of measures for safe operation of shipsin severe and icy winter conditions. As Mr. Illmari Aro (FinnishTransport Agency) states, due to the limited amount of icebreak-ers, vessels have to manage 50 until 60 percent of their journeythrough ice alone, so there certainly remains room for improve-ment. Particularly for Finland, Sweden, Russia and Estonia, icebreak-ers are a must and these countries therefore face the largest chal-lenges when it comes to icy winter conditions. Good and effectivecooperation between icebreaking authorities and operators acrossthe Baltic Sea can potentially improve the safety of winter naviga-tion in ice conditions. Steps in this direction are being undertaken,such as the deeper cooperation regarding icebreaking servicesagreed to in 2010 by Finland and Sweden for the Bay of Bothnia,the Bothnian Sea and the Åland Archipelago.The Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themes 41Maritime Spatial PlanningPolitical recommendation relating to ‘MaritimeSpatial Planning’: 13Given the exploitation of the Baltic Sea in particular through fish-ing, maritime transport and the energy sector and in the light ofthe discussions taking place on environmentally protected areas, asystem that organizes the efficient use of maritime space becomesa necessity. Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) is as a tool of greatpotential in that it combines all possibilities of using the sea in amore efficient way whilst keeping in line with the principles ofsustainability, both ecologically and economically. The Baltic SeaRegion is particularly ideal for research activities in general and forMSP in particular, as many countries are closely connected by theinland sea. The Baltic Sea offers a considerable potential for mari-time use, with nearly every area of it usable in some form oranother. These areas consist of shipping areas, platforms, pipelines,cables, offshore wind farms, natural reserves and tourism areas forinstance. Those manifold possibilities of use are and can be profita-ble for all Baltic Sea countries. However, the potential for conflictcannot be neglected. In order to co-ordinate the beneficial usagesand the growing conflict of maritime uses it has become apparentthat an integrative and sustainable approach is needed which takesinto account the economic and the scientific use, the ensuredsecurity and efficiency of shipping as well as the protection of themarine environment.The necessity of preparing a joint MSP for the Baltic Sea is empha-sized as a consequence of the various economic and environmen-tal concerns of the Baltic Sea Region and will help to avoid ortackle conflicts should those arise whilst enabling a screening forbeneficial usages of maritime areas. A joint plan is according toexperts, an indispensable instrument for the coordination of activi-ties in the coastal regions and at sea whilst simultaneously show-ing responsible ways of managing the resources of these areas. Themonitoring of the sea is important and it is more efficient todevelop a joint plan rather than having every country create andimplement individual plans. Awareness and a common understand-ing of MSP have to be built as the concept of MSP is still relativelynew to many countries. The countries are therefore encouraged tocooperate and to establish national, compatible spatial planningconcepts.Actions on the international level have for instance been the road-map launched by the European Commission in 2008 for MSP andthe Commission is currently in the process of launching an impact42 The Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its ThemesnremmoproV-grubnelkceMgatdnaL,ikswelaBewUybsotohPThe Working Group and its Themes The Working Group and its Themes 43assessment on how MSP should be taken forward at EU level. More-over, a joint HELCOM-VASAB Maritime Spatial Planning WorkingGroup has been established to further long-term sustainable man-agement and planning for the whole Baltic Sea.As a concrete example of the use of MSP many experts and politi-cians see the possibility of using the Baltic Sea for offshore windfarms, which is considered an important source of alternativeenergy. The potential for conflict with shipping increases for everyplant installed and it is therefore necessary to find a balanced solu-tion. Also, the aspect of tourism has to be taken into account as theview across the open sea may be disturbed. In the view of theexperts, a large number of offshore wind farms anticipated to beinstalled in the future, it will be necessary to lead shipping routesaround those offshore wind farms at a sufficient distance and toensure that collisions of vessels with wind power plants are pre-vented. International cooperation on this aspect is and will beimportant and a coordinated cross-border maritime spatial plan-ning is likely to have a positive impact on the installation and per-formance of offshore wind parks in the Baltic Sea. As stated by theexperts, MSP is an economic tool to provide actors who wanted toengage in maritime activities with the necessary security and sta-bility for their investments. Additionally, it is an environmental tooland a tool for maritime transport.44 The Working Group and its ThemesThe Working Group and its Themes 456. Working Group ActivitiesProcedure and Mode of WorkDuring the 1st meeting in Rostock, it was agreed upon to take upthe subject areas of transport, environment and nature protection,maritime spatial planning, infrastructure and hinterland-connec-tions in order to stabilize the Baltic Sea Region and to strengthenits competitiveness. It was also decided to consult national andinternational experts and parliamentarians in the framework ofhearings on different political levels and to cooperate with rele-vant expert-groups from the CBSS, HELCOM and other institutionsand organizations in order to elaborate political recommendations.The next sessions would be held in Brussels on 19th/20th April2010 and 14th/15th June 2010 in Copenhagen.During the 2nd meeting in Brussels, it was decided that the Chair-man would provide an interim report of the working group for the19th BSPC in Mariehamn. The next session would be held inCopenhagen on 15th June 2010. The working group will preparefirst political recommendations for the 19th Baltic Sea Parliamen-tary Conference (29th – 31st August 2010) in Mariehamn, Åland,based on the expert hearings, consultations and political debates.Concerning the report and draft recommendations for the resolu-tion, it was decided that the secretariat would prepare first draftrecommendations for the Expanded Standing Committee on 3rdJune in Vilnius which would be circulated by email and consideredin detail at the next working group session in Copenhagen. Thedraft interim report will be discussed as well. It was also decidedto pick up questions of competitiveness among regions and portsin the Baltic in the second half of 2010.At the 3rd session in Copenhagen, Denmark, the working groupdecided on first political recommendations for the 19th BSPC reso-lution in Mariehamn on 29th – 31st August 2010 and agreed to thestructure and thematic content of the Chairman’s draft interimreport, which was based on the expert hearings, consultations andpolitical debates. Concerning the draft recommendations, it wasdecided that the discussed and proclaimed modifications and sup-plements had to be submitted by 23rd June 2010 to the secretariatin Schwerin. Moreover, the meeting agreed on the working plan forthe 20th BSPC. The next session should be held in one of the BalticStates as a two-day meeting during the 47th calendar week of 2010(22nd until 26th November). The 5th session is planned for the12th calendar week of 2011 (21st – 25thMarch) in Sweden as a46 Working Group Activities Working Group Activitiestwo-day meeting as well. The final session will be held in Schwerin,Germany, on 20thand 21st June 2011.The 4th session took place in Tallinn, Estonia. As an outcome of thediscussions, the participants agreed on the continuation of theworking plan for the next year until the 20th BSPC. The 5th sessionwill be held in Stockholm, Sweden, on 24th March, and will focuson ways of improving competitiveness in the maritime sector andon maritime spatial planning. The 6th and final session will takeplace in Schwerin, Germany, from 19th – 21st June 2011 with themain focus on the infrastructure of ports, including technical chal-lenges of cruise tourism, the discussion of political recommenda-tions and the report of the working group for the 20 th BSPC inHelsinki in 2011. In this context, the participants decided to elabo-rate first recommendations for discussion by the 5th session inStockholm in order to submit key points for the Enlarged StandingCommittees’ consultations in May 2011. Last recommendationsshould be added to the draft resolution subsequent to the final ses-sion by the end of June 2011. Mr Roger Jansson (Ålands Lagting)was appointed new vice-chairman of the working group, succeed-ing Ms Lisbeth Grönfeldt-Bergman who retired from the Swedishparliament in September 2010.The meeting gave the chairman andthe vice-chairman the mandate as political representatives of theBSPC-Working Group on Integrated Maritime Policy for the Euro-pean Maritime Day on 20th May 2011 in Gdansk. The EuropeanCommission would like to present a tripartite event of maritimeactors from the CBSS, BSSSC and the BSPC which will be preparedby Germany. Further, the working group agreed to not only formu-late recommendations for the resolution in the form of brief andprecise political demands as it was held that in some cases it mightbe useful to include technical details in order for the resolution toremain understandable and clear. Finally, the participants decidedto create a directory of all working group members based on astandard form which will be distributed to the parliamentary sec-retariats by email.The 5th session took place in Stockholm, Sweden. During the sec-ond part of the session the chairman informed about proceedingsfor a planned joint meeting of the three maritime working groupsof CBSS, BSSSC and BSPC in connection with the European Mari-time Day on 20th May 2011 in Gdansk. The intention of this com-mon event was to broaden the awareness of the European publicon the maritime cooperation in the model region Baltic Sea, toillustrate the integrated political approaches and to promote amore regular and structured dialogue between different levels ofpolitical decision-making in the region. Therefore, he suggestedWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 47that the three bodies should meet again in tandem with thegroup’s regular final working group session in Schwerin on20th/21st June in order to speak about further cooperation. Theparticipants agreed. The 6th and final session will be focusing onthe infrastructure of ports, including aspects of cruise tourism,shore side power supply, port reception facilities, Clean Baltic Ship-ping and on satellite-supported navigation systems for ports. Thediscussion should centre on the political recommendations andthe final report of the working group for the 20th BSPC in Helsinkiin 2011.The 6th session took place in Schwerin, Germany, from the 20th– 21st June 2011. The working group draft political recommenda-tions for the 20th BSPC were discussed and agreed upon. On theday following the working group meeting, the agreed upon draftpolitical recommendations would once again be sent to the partic-ipants for final suggestions, which would have to reach the secre-tariat by the upcoming Thursday after the conference. Moreover,the structure of the final report was discussed and it wasannounced that the draft of the final report was planned to be sentto the participants at the end of July/beginning of August for com-menting by the middle of August. The 6th session also saw the pres-entation of several expert speakers on the issue of port infrastruc-ture. Moreover, a meeting with representatives of the BSSSC andCBSS maritime working groups took place with the prospect offurther exchange also in the future.48 Working Group Activities Working Group ActivitiesSessions OverviewThe Working Group has conducted six meetings as shown in thetable below.20th/21st January First session of the Working Group, in the premises of2010 the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency in Ros-(Rostock, Germany) tock– objectives, mandate and timeframe of the WG– Discussion on WG priorities, working plan and activi-ties,– Presentation on function and fields of activity of theFederal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency in Ros-tock by Ms Monika Breuch-Moritz (President ofthe Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency),– Presentation on Maritime Spatial Planning in the Bal-tic Sea Region by Mr Helmuth von Nicolai, Minis-try for Transport, Building and Regional Develop-ment Mecklenburg Western Pommerania,– Presentation on tasks, development potentials andcurrent issues of Baltic Sea Ports by Dr. Ulrich Bau-ermeister, Port of Rostock,– Presentation on the Work of the CBSS Expert Groupon Maritime Policy by Mr Christer Pursiainen, Sec-retariat of the CBSS,– Presentation on the Research Port of Rostock by MsSylvia Westland, Research Port Rostock, Networkfor Maritime Applications,– Presentation on maritime research using the Mari-time Simulation Centre Warnemünde – MSCW – byProf. Dr. Knud Benedict, University of Wismar.Working Group Activities Working Group Activities 49grebdiWnaJybsotohP50 Working Group Activities Working Group Activities15th/16th April Second session of the Working Group2010(Brussels, Belgium) Expert Presentations on different issues of the EUIntegrated Maritime Policy and the cooperationbetween the EU and Russia in these fields:– Presentation on maritime traffic and emissions – greenand short sea shipping by Mr Alfons Guinier, Euro-pean Community Shipowners’ Association,– Presentation on the implementation of the EU Inte-grated Maritime Policy by Ms Izolda Bulvinaite,European Commission, DG MARE),– Presentation on the areas of European Transport Policyby Mr Werner Kuhn, MEP, Committee on Transport,– Presentation on Maritime and Ports Policy by MrGiovanni Mendola, European Commission, DGMOVE,– Presentation on measures to improve Short Sea Ship-ping by Mr Patrick Norroy, European Commission,DG MOVE,– Presentation on Logistics, Co-Modality, Motorways ofthe Sea & Marco Polo by Mr Pavel Stelmazczykm,European Commission, DG MOVE,– Presentation on the sustainable development of portsas an EU policy by Mr Patrick Verhoeven, EuropeanSea Ports Organization,– Presentation on the development of the relationsbetween the EU and Russia by Mr Knut Flecken-stein (MEP, Chairman EU-Russia cooperation commit-tee),– Presentation on the Russian Parliament‘s Commissionon Maritime Policy by Mr Nikolay Lvov, MP, Moscow,grebdiWnaJybotohPWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 5115th June 2010 Third session of the Working Group(Copenhagen, Den-mark)Expert Presentations on environmental aspectsof maritime policy and on maritime safety:– Presentation on Efficient, Safe and Sustainable Trafficat Sea by Mr Francis Zachariae, Danish MaritimeSafety Administration,– Presentation on Emission Control Areas (ECAs) aschallenges and possibilities for short sea shipping byMr Jan Fritz Hansen, Danish Shipowners’ Associa-tion,– Presentation the ECAs compliance strategy of aninternational shipping line by Mr Niels Mortensen,Maersk Maritime Technology,– Presentation on the Expert Group on Maritime Pol-icy of the CBSS by Ms Raimonda Liutkevicience,Chair of the Expert Group on Maritime Policy,– Presentation on environmental aspects of green ship-ping by Ms Jacqueline McGlade, European Envi-ronment Agency,– Discussion and vote on the Draft Political Recom-mendations and the Interim Report of the WorkingGroup for the 19th BSPĆ29th – 31 August 19th BSPC in Mariehamn, Åland Islands2010(Mariehamn, ́Åland – Presentation of the Working Group’s Midterm ReportIslands)grebdiWnaJybotohP52 Working Group Activities Working Group Activities22nd/23rd Forth session of the Working GroupNovember 2010(Tallinn, Estonia) Expert Presentations on options for the reduc-tion of emissions from maritime shipping, mari-time vessel and traffic monitoring and maritimeshipping in ice-conditions:– Presentation on MARPOL Anne VI / Technology andCompliance by Ms Ramona Zettelmaier and Prof.Dr. Karsten Wehner, Lloyd’s Register Hamburg,– Presentation on Hydrodynamic Optimization ofShips by Mr Jürgen Friesch, Hamburgische Schiff-bau-Versuchsanstalt (HSVA),– Presentation on LNG-Infrastructure in the BSR – Stateand Perspectives by Mr Mogens Schrøder Bech,Danish Maritime Authority,– Presentation on examples for a harmonized and over-all Supervision of Sea Transport in the Baltic SeaRegion – the Gulf of Finland Ship Reporting System(GOFREP) by Mr Are Piel, Estonian Maritime Admin-istration,– Presentation on Challenges of Sea Transport underIce-Conditions in the Baltic Sea Region by Mr IlmariAro, Finnish Transport Agency in order of HELCOM- Appointment of Mr Roger Jansson as new vice-chairgrebdiWnaJybotohPWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 5323rd/24th March Fifth session of the Working Group2011(Stockholm, Swe- Expert Presentations on ways for improving com-den) petitiveness in the maritime sector:– Presentation on The economic impact of the classifica-tion of the Baltic Sea as a Sulphur Emission ControlArea SECA by Mr Gernot Tesch, Scandlines Deutsch-land GmbH and German Shipowners’ Association,– Presentation on The Impacts of IMO‘s New SulphurEmission Regulations in the Baltic Sea by Dr. MartinKruse, Northern German Chamber of Industry andCommerce,– Presentation on oil spill liability and International OilPollution Compensation Funds (IOPC Funds) by MrMans Jacobsson, former Director of the IOPC Funds,– Presentation on Response capacities to combat oil-spills and hazardous substances by Mr Bernt Stedt,HELCOM Response Chair,– Presentation on measures to improve co-modality byMs Riitta Pöntynen, SPC Finland,– Presentation on EC Communication on Maritime Spa-tial Planning issued on 17th December 2010 – COM(2010) 771 – and the Baltic Sea Region by Mr PierreSchellekens, European Commission, Head of Repre-sentation in Sweden,– Presentation on Baltic Sea Cooperation in MaritimeSpatial Planning – VASAB – HELCOM by Mr StenJerdenius, Vice-Chairman VASAB-HELCOM MaritimeSpatial Planning Working Group,– Presentation on the work of the CBSS Expert Group onMaritime Policy by Mr Lars Almklov, Chairman of theCBSS Expert GroupgrebdiWnaJybotohP54 Working Group Activities Working Group Activities– Participation in common maritime working group presentation of CBSS,BSSSC and BSPC at the European Maritime Day on 20th May 2011 in Gdansk– Common maritime working group session of CBSS, BSSSC and BSPC togetherwith 6th BSPC Working Group Session in Schwerin on 20th June 201119th – 21st June Sixth session of the Working Group,2011(Schwerin, Germany) Expert Presentations on Port Infrastructure:– Presentation on challenges for port infrastructuredevelopment respecting trends of the shipbuildingindustry by Mr Manfred Müller Fahrenholz, Nep-tun Werft,– Presentation on ecological specifications of GermanShipowners taking Scandlines as Example by Dr.Hans-Jörg Wenzel, P+S Werften Stralsund,– Presentation on the ports of Stockholm as a sustain-able cruise Destination by Mr Erik AnderssonPauldin,– Presentation on practical solutions for clean ship-ping by pilots in Baltic Sea ports by Mr Sten Björk,Port of Trelleborg,– Presentation on possibilities for policy and adminis-trations to support clean shipping by Mr Jörg G.Sträussler, Baltic Energy Forum,– Presentation on the Port of Rostock as a logistics cen-ter at the Baltic Sea by Mr Jörg Litschka, RostockPort– Report from Vice-Chairman Roger Jansson on JointEuropean Maritime Day Event in Gdansk– Common discussion with outgoing and incomingChair of CBSS Expert Group on Maritime Policy, MrLars Almklov and Mr Dietrich Seele, and Chair-man of BSSSC Working Group on Maritime Policy, MrStefan Musiolik, on possibilities for a closer coop-eration in the maritime field– Discussion and adoptin of political recommenda-tions for the draft resolution of the 20th BSPC in Hel-sinki– Visit to Rostock Port and Caterpillar Motors in Ros-tock and to Warnemünde Cruise Terminal28th – 30th 20th BSPC in Helsinki, Finland,August 2011(Helsinki, Finland) – Presentation of the Working Group’s Final ReportWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 55grebdiWnaJybsotohP56 Working Group Activities Working Group ActivitiesCourse and Results of the Working Group SessionsThis section contains an outline of all experts and their presenta-tions as shown during the six sessions and highlights the mainpoints of discussion. The presentations can be downloaded from thehomepage of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (www.bspc.net) under. http://www.bspc.net/page/show/217 (Folder: RelatedInformation; sub: Background Documents).Inaugural session of the “Working Group on Inte-grated Maritime Policy, especially infrastructureand logistics” in Rostock, 21st and 22nd January2010The inaugural meeting of the “Working Group on Integrated Mari-time Policy, especially infrastructure and logistics” was held underthe chairmanship of Mr. Jochen Schulte (MP, Mecklenburg-WesternPomerania) in the premises of the Federal Maritime and Hydro-graphic Agency in Rostock, Germany, on 21st and 22nd January 2010.32 participants, experts, representatives of parliaments and parlia-mentary assemblies and from the administration as well attendedthe meeting. The main topics of the agenda were the objectives andmain topics of the working group, the scope of its mandate, theworking group methods employed as well as time frames, schedul-ing, and additional matters. The initial thematic introduction wasconducted by experts in order to provide the participants withimportant aspects of the range of issues the working group will dealwith in future:Ms. Monika Breuch-Moritz, President of the Federal Maritime andHydrographic Agency, welcomed the participants and introducedthem to the responsibilities of the federal agency and informed themof important aspects of infrastructure and logistic from the point ofview of maritime spatial planning.Mr. Helmuth von Nicolai, Head of the Spatial Planning Division inthe Ministry of Traffic, Building and Regional Development of Meck-lenburg-Vorpommern, discussed the topic of maritime spatial plan-ning and its current status and key aspects for the Baltic Sea Region.Mr. Ulrich Bauermeister, Managing Director of Rostock Port,briefed the participants on the port infrastructure and its interfaceswith other means of transport (water, rail, road), the upgrading of thehinterland-connections, and on logistics optimization with the goalof speeding up goods traffic.Working Group Activities Working Group Activities 57Mr. Christer Pursiainen from the Secretariat of the Council of theBaltic Sea States (CBSS) illustrated the activities of the CBSS ExpertGroup on Maritime Policy for permitting the use of synergies andstrengthening the co-operation between the BSPC and the CBSS inaccordance with corresponding intentions of the BSPC.Ms. Sylvia Westland, Network for Maritime Applications at theRostock Research Port, dealt with the area of research and its linkswith the maritime economy and underlined the dependence of themaritime economy on an efficient and safe infrastructure and onthe modernization of technical applications for the improvement ofmaritime safety and security.Mr. Knut Benedict, Wismar University, Department of MaritimeStudies, informed of maritime training opportunities, as well as ofthe connections between maritime training and other relevantareas.It was agreed to handle the subject areas of transport, environmentand nature protection, maritime spatial planning, infrastructure andhinterland-connections in order to stabilize the Baltic Sea Regionand to strengthen its competitiveness. Moreover, it was decided toconsult national and international experts and parliamentarians inthe framework of hearings on different political levels and to co-operate with relevant expert-groups from the CBSS, HELCOM andother institutions/organizations in order to elaborate political rec-ommendations.On 22nd January 2010 the participants visited the Maritime Sim-ulation Center Warnemünde (MSCW) where they were informedon the basic and follow-on training of seafaring personnel with theaid of the Vessel Traffic Service Simulator, the Ship Handling Simula-tor and the Ship Engine Simulator.2nd Session in Brussels, 15th and 16th April 2010The second meeting of the Working Group on “Integrated MaritimePolicy, especially infrastructure and logistics” was held in Brusselsunder the chairmanship of Mr. Jochen Schulte (MP, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) in the premises of the European Parliamentand the Committee of the Regions on 15th and 16th April 2010.27 Representatives of 13 parliaments and parliamentary assembliesattended the meeting. The working group was extended by MPsfrom the Russian Council of Federation, the Finnish Parliament andby the Land Parliament Schleswig-Holstein. Ms. Lisbeth GrönfeldtBergman (MP, Sweden) from the Nordic Council was appointed58 Working Group Activities Working Group ActivitiesVice-Chair. Members of the European Parliament, representatives ofthe European Commission and the Committee of the Regions aswell as representatives from the European Ports Organization andthe European Community Shipowners Association informed theparticipants about issues on the EU Integrated Maritime Policy,Trans European Networks, maritime transport and environmentalaspects, short sea shipping and the cooperation between the EUand Russia in these fields.Mr. Nikolay Lvov (MP, Parliament of Russia) explained the workand cooperation of the Russian Parliaments’ Commission on Mari-time Policy, which was set up in 2006 and which deals with the uti-lization of marine resources, maritime traffic and safety as well asenvironmental issues.Mr. Werner Kuhn (MEP, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) gave anintroduction of the focal points and the development of the Euro-pean Transport Policy from the European Parliament’s point of theview. He described the fundamental importance of the Trans-Euro-pean-Networks (TEN-T) and Motorways of the Sea (MoS), the Har-bor-Infrastructure and their connections to the hinterland.Mr. Knut Fleckenstein (MEP, Chairman EU-Russia cooperationcommittee) illustrated the relationship between the EU and Russia.The co-operation is based on special policies which have to bestrengthened in the future. He stressed the need for legally bindingagreements which included all fields of co-operation. Mobility andpossibilities for the trade of goods were essential.Mr. Patrick Norroy (EU Commission, DG MOVE) gave an insightinto the topic “Measures to promote Short Sea Shipping” on thebasis of the Commission’s Transport Strategy up to 2018. He high-lighted three challenges: the reduction of pollutant emissions, theeffects of the economic crisis including the increasing prices offuels as well as the improvement of transport systems and the elim-ination of technical and infrastructural bottlenecks.Mr. Pawel Stelmaszczyk (EU Commission, DG MOVE) briefed theparticipants on the revision of the TEN-T, MoS and the Marco-Poloproject which will be better financed in future. The latter projectwill be broadened to passenger traffics and linked with clear objec-tives on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.Mr. Patrick Verhoeven (European Sea Ports Organization, ESPO)illustrated the theme “Port infrastructure and the effects of envi-ronmental legislation” and the societal integration. The 1.200 portsin Europe were very diverse in size, ownership, organization andWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 59sustainability as well as depending on their location. He stated thatthe awareness of port managers of environmental issues was grow-ing all over the world as a result of the legislation and the need forsaving costs and that maritime spatial planning would be an impor-tant instrument in order to deal with conflicts of interests. Moreo-ver, he criticized that the EU legislation did not work effectivelyand demanded a better dialogue between industry, NGOs, EU mem-ber states and the EC. He also referred to the “World Ports ClimateInitiative” for strengthening the efforts of combating hazardousemissions of ships in ports. Regarding the revision of the TEN-T, hedemanded the identification of priorities.Mr. Alfons Guinier (Secretary General of the European Commu-nity Shipowners’ Association ECSA), focused his presentation onthe sulphur content in bunker fuels, the promotion of short seashipping and finally on the European maritime transport spacewithout barriers. He stated that European ship owners controlled41% of the global merchant fleet which meant that Europe was aleader in shipping. Regarding the emissions, he underlined thatshipping was an environmentally friendly way of transportation.With a share of 90%, shipping was most eminent for the globaltrade but on the other hand shipping was responsible for 2-4% ofthe global CO2-emissions. With reference to the sulphur emissionsin bunker fuels ECSA welcomed the decisions of the IMO toreduce the content to 0.1% up to 2015 in SECA but he saw the riskof a modal shift (up to 50%) from sea to land. A change from 1.5%to 0.5% would mean an increase of bunker fuel costs of 20 to 30%,a reduction to 0.1% an increase up to 60%. According to studies, byusing 0.1% sulphur in bunker fuels and having a modal shift of only20% the reduction of external costs would completely disappear.So the studies described 0.5% of sulphur in bunker fuels as a win-win-situation. Moreover, he urged for a better taxation and customsclearance.Mr. Dr. Gerhard Stahl, (Committee of the Regions) welcomed theparticipants and explained the organization and its tasks. Heinformed that the Committee of the Regions had built up the Inter-group “Baltic Sea Regions” which dealt with different aspects ofthe development and integrated maritime policy around the Baltic.In this framework, the topics logistics and infrastructure were inthe main focus of the political discussions. He said that this sectorwas a political challenge because different aspects were affecting alarge scale of economic, environmental and social matters. On theother hand, the Committee of the Regions supported the EU BalticSea Strategy by contributing ideas and initiatives to the Commis-sion.60 Working Group Activities Working Group ActivitiesMs. Izolda Bulvinaite (EC, DG Mare) focused on the implementa-tion, situation and prospects of the IMP. She illustrated that the DGMare had been reorganized with special regard to the IMP and thecharacteristics of the sea basins in Europe. The main goal of theIMP was that different demands and interests of the sea had to beweighted up carefully in a cross-sectoral approach for guarantee-ing a sustainable development. She defined the integration of mari-time surveillance systems, maritime spatial planning (MSP) andmaritime data as an important basis for the IMP. Further, theexchange of data between the different sectors had to be strength-ening for more efficiency. She informed that the European Counciland the Regions called for the implementation of the IMP on aregional basis considering the geographical characteristics, eco-nomic and social situation and environmental challenges. Inter aliakey actions of the IMP were the development of good maritimegovernance structures, the implementation of the MSP, the realiza-tion of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the HEL-COM Baltic Sea Action Plan.Mr. Giovanni Mendola (EC, DG Move) explained the Communi-cation on the EU-Strategy for maritime transport up to 2019 andthe revision of the European ports policy. Summarizing, he out-lined some strategic goals to stabilize the role of Europe as a keyplayer on the global market: European shipping in globalize mar-kets, human resources, seamanship and maritime know-how, co-operation on the international level, use of the full range of shortsea shipping and transport services, investments in research andinnovation, maritime safety and last but not least in technologiesfor green shipping. With regard to the port policies he focused onstate aid and environmental guidelines as well as on social dia-logue. He stated that financial support and investments were essen-tial to raise the importance of ports for the economy. Also, portshad to be adapted to environmental legislation and rules. A set ofguidelines would probably be adopted in 2010. Consultationsbetween port stakeholders and public authorities should go handin hand with social partners.Mr. Aleksey Zinoviev (MP) presented the Kaliningrad region portinfrastructure and the main transport connections. He complainedthat the Kaliningrad region was not always present in the projectspresented by the EU. So he was interested in additional contacts,business and participation in EU projects. He stated the importantstrategic position of the Kaliningrad ports in the Baltic and theirconnection with the main European transport routes. The portshad been under reconstruction recently to comply with state-of-the-art technology and infrastructure. A new deepwater port wasalso under construction.Working Group Activities Working Group Activities 61The meeting decided that the Chairman would give an interimreport of the working group at the 19th BSPC in Mariehamn.3rd Session in Copenhagen, 15th June 2010The 3rd Meeting of the Working Group on “Integrated MaritimePolicy, especially infrastructure and logistics” was held in Copenha-gen under the chairmanship of Ms. Lisbeth Grönfeldt Bergmann(Nordic Council, Sweden) in the premises of the Danish Folketingon 15th June 2010. 34 representatives from 13 parliaments andparliamentary assemblies in addition to 5 experts attended themeeting. In the first part of the session, representatives from theCouncil of the Baltic Sea States, the world’s largest shipping com-pany A. P. Møller Mærsk Group, the Danish Shipowners’ Association,the European Environment Agency as well as the Danish MaritimeSafety Administration informed the participants about co-operationto improve maritime safety and security, the effects of the designa-tion of the Baltic as an Emission Control Area (ECA) with regard tostrategies of shipping enterprises, measures for the improvementand extension of short sea shipping, economic demands on envi-ronmentally friendly ports and Green Shipping, environmentalaspects of shipping in the Baltic as well as the EfficienSea Projectwhich aims at improving the Baltic with a focus on the environ-ment and the safety of navigation.Ms. Raimonda Liutkeviciene (Council of the Baltic Sea States)explained the work and co-operation of the CBSS Expert Group onMaritime Policy with other institutions involved in these fields. Sheunderlined that she was very pleased with the systematicexchange of information between the relevant working groups ofCBSS and BSPC. She remarked that the working group was consti-tuted in 2009 with a mandate for three years. The chairmanshiprotated on an annual basis; this year it would pass on from Lithua-nia to Germany and in the next to Norway. According to Ms. Liutke-viciene the working group defines itself as a platform for theexchange of information in the Baltic Sea Region, for the purposesof initiating maritime clusters, bringing together science, researchand support projects, as well as identifying gaps in strategic pro-jects (e. g. SubMariner, BaltSeaPlan, EfficienSea and Clean BalticShipping). In the long run it was also intended to raise publicawareness of maritime affairs and promote a “common Baltic iden-tity“. One key result had been the Baltic Sea Action Summit held inHelsinki at the beginning of 2010, under Lithuanian leadership.Finally Ms. Liutkeviciene suggested presenting the collaborationresults obtained jointly with the BSPC Working Group on Inte-62 Working Group Activities Working Group Activitiesgrated Maritime Policy during the European Maritime Day on 20thMay 2011 in Gdansk.Mr. Niels Bjørn Mortensen (A.P. Møller Mærsk Group, MærskMaritime Technology) cited the Baltic Sea as an example for anEmission Control Area and explained how the A.P. Møller MærskGroup met its international obligations relating to the protectionof the environment in maritime transport. He explained that thegroup, which was the largest container shipping company world-wide, had more than 250 large vessels. In addition to that, the samenumber of vessels was chartered. In this context the company feltobliged to prevent environmental and climatic damage caused byship operation. The focus was put on the gradual transition fromsulphur-containing heavy fuel oils to low-sulphur distillate fuels –as requested by the IMO – and the application of flue gas desul-phurisation technologies. He continued that a reduction of sulphurcontent to 0.1 % in marine fuels from 2015 was feasible for largercompanies since the difference in price between fuel of 0.5 % and0.1 % sulphur content was presently only 10 USD/t. In addition, theoil industry increasingly managed to find cost-effective ways toproduce low-sulphur distillates. With regard to the possibility ofprescribing low-sulphur fuels for the Baltic Sea Region at an earlierdate than proposed by the IMO, Mr. Mortensen stated that, in aglobal context, this had already been applied off the coasts of theUnited States and Canada. So far there was evidence of neither dis-tortions of competition nor a short supply of low sulphur-contentmarine fuels. The line shipping sector had adapted to these condi-tions on a voluntary basis. He attested that neither bio fuels nornuclear fuels have the potential to replace mineral fuels in mari-time transport. Considering both costs and technical complica-tions, this could only work with LNG. But first a sufficient technicalinfrastructure needed to be established in ports. Furthermore, thetransport capacity was reduced by the larger LNG fuel tanks. Bycontrast, onshore power supply (cold ironing) for vessels in portscould only lead a “niche existence“ due to technical obstacles andthe considerable effort involved. He rejected subsidies for maritimeshipping, arguing that the maritime sector had to practice sustaina-ble management policies.Mr. Jan Fritz Hansen (Danish Shipowners’ Association) illustratedthat his association represented 100 shipping companies, whichtransported approximately 10 % of the world’s transport tonnage.He stated that shipping companies working mainly in the BalticSea Region were much more affected by the designation of the Bal-tic as a SECA than companies working on an intercontinental basis.Nevertheless, a notable shift from sea to road transport had not yetWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 63been observed since sea transport offered substantial economicand ecological advantages under the existing general conditions.Considering the fact that shipping traffic will further increase, hecontinued, emissions of sulphur dioxide had to be reduced. But thegradual reduction of sulphur by more than 90 % as agreed via theIMO marked a significant technical and economic challenge for thecompanies affected. This is why there was a close cooperationwith research and development institutes in this field. The purposewas to reduce the CO emissions by 30 % and the SO - and NO2 x xemissions by 90 % each in the near future. The measures for therealization of these goals shall be managed in Denmark or acrossScandinavia respectively by a so-called “industrial group“. Withrespect to the expected costs, however, the companies also dis-cussed whether a reduction of the sulphur content in marine fuelsto 0.5 % was not more cost-effective than the application of newtechnologies. Therefore, in 2018 a study on the global conse-quences of the designation of ECAs would be submitted. Thismight possibly lead to a revision of Annex VI of the MARPOL Con-vention. He continued to point out that it was the aim of the Dan-ish Shipowners’ Association to gain more flexibility for the compa-nies during the current transition period. Only the use of LNG asmarine fuel on a broader scale allowed for a quick reduction of thepollutant emissions. But this would fail, predominantly due to thelack of the required infrastructure. He also pleaded for the reduc-tion of subsidies for the shipping sector which in his opinion con-stituted a distortion of competition. He requested that the criteriafor measures in the framework of TEN-T and for the developmentof Motorways of the Sea be modified in such a way that Europeanfunds could be used for the establishment of an LNG infrastructureacross the Baltic Sea.Ms. Jaqueline McGlade (European Environment Agency) startedher presentation with an overview of the goals and the organiza-tional setup of EEA. She explained the agency followed a holisticapproach for the analysis of the state of the environment and forthe assessment of the anthropogenic influences on the environ-ment. Special attention was given to how the specifications madeby the European environmental legislation were implemented inthe respective fields of politics. In addition, emission inventoriesand analyses among other accounts were conducted with respectto the impact of landside transport corridors, while intermodaltransport and the optimization of transport chains were also evalu-ated. She criticized that the respective member states oftendelayed turning in their data to the EEA. As a particular environ-mental problem in the field of maritime shipping she pointed outthe introduction of invasive species into the seas through ballast64 Working Group Activities Working Group Activitieswater. Due to the changing conditions (e. g. climate change, nutri-ent and pollutant emissions), more and more invasive speciesinhabited the Baltic Sea, thus competing with and threatening localspecies. Ms McGlade pointed out that there was no single cause,but rather a combination of many causes which led or had led to adrastic negative change of the Baltic Sea biotopes. With regard toenvironmental monitoring, she underlined that the instruments ofair and satellite surveillance constituted great progress towards thelocalization of pollution discharges, which in turn had led to a sig-nificant decrease in the illegal discharges from ships. She attestedthat the European shipping companies had a high level of coopera-tion when it came to providing information on the quantificationof emissions relevant to the climate. As for the negative effects ofmaritime shipping, she explained that the resulting pollutant emis-sions (especially sulphuric oxides, nitrogen oxides, airborne parti-cles and volatile organic compounds) deteriorated the air qualityparticularly in northern Europe, increasing the mortality rate. Shestated that the reduction of the sulphur content especially inmarine fuels would lead to a considerable reduction of air pollu-tion. She considered the financial effort associated with the use oflow-sulphur marine fuels as being cost-effective, since theexpenses for the countering of negative effects on the environ-ment and on the population were considerably higher than theinvestments to be made. This position had public support. Closingher presentation, Ms McGlade welcomed the political recommen-dations proposed by the working group for the 19th BSPC.Mr. Francis Zacharie (Danish Maritime Safety Administration)informed the working group about the EfficienSea Project whichhad 16 partners from the Baltic Sea Region. The three-year project(2009-2011) was financed by 18 million € through European funds(INTERREG IVB) aimed especially at improving maritime safety byusing e-navigation. In his opinion, ensuring maritime safety andsecurity was the basis of human activities at sea. DMSA focused onthe maritime traffic through the Danish straits with approximately70,000 movements per year. Further services provided by DMSAwere the operation and maintenance of lighthouses/navigationallights and conventional support including traffic control (water-level reports, nautical charts, weather forecasts, other informationservices, etc.) and coastal rescue with the help of 21 emergencyunits. He pointed out that in the framework of prevention meas-ures the improvement of maritime training and the quality of ship-masters were by far the most important factors in preventing mari-time accidents. On the basis of the IMO definition of e-navigation,he explained how the shipmasters received information that wasonly relevant for the trip, which would be processed by means ofan integrated system. Presently a prototype of a model was beingWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 65developed in order to facilitate the steering of the ship from depar-ture in a port until the landing in another port. The systemincluded for example the ship’s papers, course calculations, posi-tioning and further relevant data. Presently the Øresund served as atesting area and was monitored jointly with Sweden through theVessel Traffic Service Center in Malmö. Cooperation partnersinclude ferry lines, pilots, tug boats and tankers. Mr. Zacharie con-tinued that the designation of further test areas such as the Gulf ofFinland and the Gulf of Gdansk were being considered, in order toevaluate the transferability of this system to other marine areas. Inthat case, the project would need to be prolonged by three moreyears, which he did not exclude at the present time. Concluding,he invited further partners to join the EfficienSea Project and pro-posed that the working group should place greater emphasis onthe improvement of maritime safety in their political recommenda-tions.4th Session in Tallinn, 22nd/23rd November 2010The 4th Meeting of the Working Group “Integrated Maritime Policy,especially infrastructure and logistics” was held in Tallinn underthe chairmanship of Mr. Jochen Schulte (State Parliament Mecklen-burg-Western Pomerania, Germany) in the premises of theRiigikogu on 23rd November 2010. 26 representatives from 15 par-liaments and parliamentary assemblies as well as 5 expertsattended the meeting. In the first part of the session, representa-tives from Lloyd’s Register in Hamburg, the Hamburgische Schiff-bau-Versuchsanstalt (HSVA), the Danish Maritime Authority, theEstonian Maritime Administration (Vessel Traffic Services Centre)and from the Finnish Transport Agency (on behalf of HELCOM)informed the participants about options for the reduction of emis-sions from maritime shipping (low-emission propulsion systemsand ship operation technologies, treatment of exhaust gases, shipbuilding and refitting with regard to the current state of researchand perspectives in the ship-building sector as well as setting upan LNG infrastructure in the Baltic Sea Region), maritime shippingin ice conditions and maritime vessel and traffic monitoring.Ms. Ramona Zettelmaier (Lloyd’s Register, Hamburg) outlinedthe legal framework on the international level and the timeline forthe reduction of SO -, NO - and CO -emissions. She reported thatx x 2on the basis of Annex VI of the MARPOL convention the NO Emis-xsion Control Areas (NECAs) were obliged to reduce emissions con-siderably from 2016 in order to comply with the applicable emis-sion standard fixed in TIER III. As a consequence, a fundamentalchange to the marine propulsion and operation technologies in66 Working Group Activities Working Group Activitiesthe NECAs was required. From 2015 this was also applicable to theSO -Emission Control Areas (SECAs) since also the gradual reduc-xtion of the sulphur content in marine fuels to 0.1 % had an enor-mous impact on the ship operation technology. Subsequently, sheillustrated the change of the fuels used during the past 30 yearswhich was primarily due to the tightening of environmental regu-lations. Today, mainly middle distillates were used and had been ref-erence fuels for the MARPOL convention since 2008. Takingaccount of the respective fuel regulations of the different sea areas,the vessels were equipped with different fuel tanks. This madethem less cost-effective. A solution might be on the one hand com-bining the use of middle distillates and the application of exhaustgas treatment (scrubbing) in order to reduce SO -emissions and onxthe other hand modernizing the propulsion technology so as toreduce NO -emissions (new injection technologies, application ofxwater-fuel emulsions). According to her, new vessels could be runwith LNG and could keep all emission standards without any prob-lems; but there was still a huge number of vessels with “antiquatedtechnology“. In addition, the use of LNG required special safetyengineering. Ship operation had to be both profitable and environ-mentally compatible. Technology had to be functional, reliable,durable and easy to handle. Against this background she claimedthat firstly there should be one consistent and proportionate PortState Control worldwide and that the ports should have sufficientreception facilities in order to prevent distortion of competition;secondly she demanded a certification of bunker suppliers; thirdlythere should be standardized criteria for exhaust gas treatment;fourthly and finally Ms Zettelmaier claimed that research in the useof alternative fuels had to be intensified.Mr. Jürgen Friesch (Hamburgische Schiffsbau-VersuchsanstaltGmbH, HSVA) illustrated the possibilities of hydrodynamic optimi-zation of ships and ship propulsion systems with the aim of reduc-ing emissions. He pointed out that more than 95 % of the goodstraded worldwide were transported by ship, primarily slow-goingcontainer ships and tankers. According to him their efficiencycould be considerably improved by modifying the hull form (espe-cially the length-width ratio), the machines and propulsion tech-nologies as well. But this could only succeed if no standard shipsdesigned on the drawing board were used; instead, ships had to bedesigned for their main intended use. A modified length-width ratiowhile retaining the same tonnage and speed could save 25 % ofenergy. Already a 10% speed reduction of speed could reduceenergy consumption by 40 %. Yet there were limits depending onthe ship-specific operating range and speed range which them-selves were related to the width, length, hull form, and draught ofthe ship as well as to the propeller type and the engine speed. HeWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 67added that also the surface of the underwater hull played animportant role. Water resistance could be reduced by up to 30 % bysmoothing welding seams and using improved smoothed paints.Further ways of reducing water resistance were the use of newtechnologies like air injection at the bottom of the hull, a balancedand precise ballast distribution, the optimization of the propellerdesign and the use of additional jets and fins. Further on he brieflyreferred to alternative propulsion technologies like fuel cells,nuclear power and the use of solar and wind energy, some of themto be used as add-ons (e.g. wind power). Closing his presentation,he claimed that the future political focus should particularly be puton technologies designed to reduce emissions, taking into accounthydrodynamic aspects of ship design.Mr. Mogens Schrøder Bech (Danish Maritime Authority) pre-sented the current status of the Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)-infra-structure in the North Sea, the English Channel and in the BalticSea Region and outlined new perspectives for the use of LNG inmaritime transport, based on a strategic discussion paper. In gen-eral, the use of LNG required the establishment of specific techni-cal prerequisites. In addition, safety aspects both on the ships andin the ports had to be considered. Nevertheless, he described LNGas a competitive marine fuel – particularly in view of the EmissionControl Areas (ECAs) – which currently was available on the globalmarket at lower price than distillates. Further he pointed out that ifpotential LNG suppliers were expected to invest in port infrastruc-ture, political intervention by the states and economic incentiveswere required. Only then would consumers be ready to use thisenvironmentally friendly fuel which caused neither SO nor partic-xulate emissions and very low NO emission. Further, a network ofxLNG-filling stations as well as industrial standards (and public regu-lations if necessary) was required as supporting framework condi-tions. He recommended carrying out a feasibility study for the Bal-tic region, to serve as a basis of decision-making both for politicsand industry. In order to promote the use and acceptance of LNG,he continued, it was vital to use the latest technologies (newengines or retrofitting), to increase the number of filling stations(both stationary and mobile) and integrate them into the supplynetwork, starting with the existing regular service. At present Nor-way was the only country in northern Europe disposing of an ade-quate LNG-supply structure. The only LNG-terminal currently beingplanned in the Baltic region was Szczecin. Norway and Denmarkwere partners in a pilot project which investigated until the end of2012 the feasibility of the use of LNG in the Baltic region. He con-cluded that ECA provisions set the competitiveness of short seashipping under pressure. Action had to be taken to avoid a modal68 Working Group Activities Working Group Activitiesback shift from water to road transport. New technologies ofGreen Shipping had to be introduced.Mr. Are Piel (Vessel Traffic Services Centre, Estonian MaritimeAdministration) illustrated “Examples for a harmonized and overallsupervision of sea transport in the Baltic Sea Region“, using theGulf of Finland as an example. He started his presentation by out-lining the hydro-graphical and morphological characteristics ofthis sea area which had a high traffic density due to tankers goingfrom and to Russia, ferry and cruise traffic. In addition the NorthStream gas pipeline was being built, and more than 100 days peryear maritime traffic had to cope with ice. He continued that therisk potential for the region was ever increasing due to increasingoil and freight transports on ever growing vessels. Based on theHELCOM Copenhagen Declaration of 2001, Russia, Finland andEstonia had agreed to create a common and binding traffic man-agement and monitoring system with the aim of enhancing safety.VTS (Vessel Traffic Service) was mainly radar-based and offered traf-fic guidance services; GOFREP (Gulf of Finland Reporting System)was AIS-based and managed the standardized cross-border surveil-lance of maritime traffic. But the system could not be applied forinternational waters to the desired extend, he added, since to datecompetencies were not clarified and transmission processes werenot consistent. Information referring to the name, position, speedand course of the ship were given as so-called short reports or fullreports, respectively, to the respective coastal station. Sometimesreporting was very labor- and time-intensive for the shipmasters;e.g. on a trip from the Mediterranean to the Gulf of Finland a vesselhad to give eleven reports to the coastal stations altogether. Againstthis background the Safe Sea Net was applied, a network whichinterlinked databases of different systems and nations providedusers with the requested data. In addition a Single Window facilitywas used which provided national regulatory documents for cus-toms, Port State Control, weather services etc. at one single loca-tion. He continued that from the side of the European Commissiona common communication platform entitled “MARSUNO – Mari-time Surveillance North” was planned, aiming at the reduction ofadministrative effort of cross-border maritime traffic, providing traf-fic information and appropriate instruments for pollution controland identifying rescue efforts and fisheries control.Mr. Ilmari Aro (Finnish Transport Agency – FTA, on behalf of HEL-COM) informed the participants about the special conditions andrequirements of maritime shipping in the Baltic region in ice con-ditions. He explained that during an average winter FTA-icebreak-ers had to keep approx. 800 km of iced sea routes navigable formaritime traffic (pre-defined routes along the coastline). It was theWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 69goal to achieve a maximum waiting time of four hours for the ves-sels and enable them to cruise at a speed of 10 knots. In winter2009/2010 almost 8,000 vessels in the Baltic had received assis-tance by the FTA, nearly 3,000 of them in the Gulf of Finland, hecontinued. Due to the limited amount of icebreakers the vesselshad to manage up to 60 % of their ice trip alone. For this reasonspecial requirements had to be fulfilled both regarding the vesselsand the crew. According to him the main problems in ice condi-tions were sea spray icing, insufficient vessels and inadequatetrained shipmasters. Finland had a fleet of nine icebreakers in agood state although some of them were more than 30 years old.Further he explained that for maritime shipping in ice conditionsthere were certain restrictions, classified according to the ice thick-ness (there were four classes: 10-15, 15-30, 30-50, and more than 50cm). Only those vessels received assistance by icebreakers whichcorresponded to certain ice classes and dead weights. Theserestrictions were aimed to keep out unsuitable vessels in winter.Thus, safety of navigation and continuity of winter traffic should beguaranteed. The Baltic Icebreaker Meeting (BIM), he continued,was a common information platform for the Baltic region whichwas running by all countries bordering the Baltic Sea (except Lith-uania). It also had an interface with the HELCOM database. Thisyear Finland and Sweden had concluded a separate co-operationagreement for the Gulf of Bothnia and the Åland Sea area. Last win-ter Finland had spent 38.5 million euros on icebreaking, 10 millionout of that for fuel.5th Session in Stockholm, 23rd/24th March 2011The 5th meeting of the Working Group “Integrated Maritime Policy,especially infrastructure and logistics” was held on 24th March2011 at the , Swedish Parliament, in Stockholm under the directionof Chairman Mr. Jochen Schulte (State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany). 28 representatives from 13 parlia-ments and parliamentary assemblies as well as 7 experts and theChairman of the CBSS Expert Group on Maritime Policy, Mr. LarsAlmklov, attended the meeting. During the first part of the session,representatives from the German Shipowners’ Association, theAssociation of Northern German Chambers of Industry and Com-merce, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, theHELCOM RESPONSE Group, the Shortsea Promotion Centre Fin-land, the European Commission and the VASAB-HELCOM MaritimeSpatial Planning Working Group informed the participants aboutthe economic impact of the classification of the Baltic Sea as a Sul-phur Emission Control Area, oil spill liability and International OilPollution Compensation Funds, response capacities to combat oil-70 Working Group Activities Working Group Activitiesspills and hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea Region, measuresto improve co-modality and maritime spatial planning. The follow-ing provides a brief summary of their conclusions and recommen-dations to the Working Group.Mr. Gernot Tesch (Scandlines Deutschland GmbH, German Ship-owners’ Association) presented the findings of a recent Germanstudy about a possible modal backshift as a consequence of MAR-POL Annex VI regulations regarding sulphur content in ship fuels.The study was entitled “Reducing the sulphur content of shippingfuels further to 0.1 percent in the North Sea and Baltic Sea in 2015:Consequences for shipping in this shipping area.” In terms of thecontainment of CO emissions, shipping had many advantages over2other methods of transport, but SO and NO emissions were still ax xcause for concern.The decision of the IMO member states regarding the MARPOLAnnex VI Regulations to reduce sulphur content in shipping fuelsto 0.1% had been made without any impact assessment, andresulted in a division in shipping burdens perpetuating the likeli-hood of a modal-shift. The study assessed the real costs associatedwith the implementation of these regulations in terms of competi-tion based on isolated shipping corridors. Most likely, volumelosses between 10%-20% already would lead to a closure of thetrade route and a 100% modal shift.The proposed solutions to attain the sulphur regulations throughscrubber technology, alternative fuels (LNG), the adjustment of sul-phur caps in tandem and a postponement strategy were addition-ally analyzed. The problems associated with technological, infra-structural development and retrofitting made scrubber technologyan unattractive solution. Mr. Tesch additionally noted that the solu-tion that seemed most likely was the increased utilization of LNGproducts in tandem with an interim solution for the existing fleet.The second presentation was given by Mr. Martin Kruse (Associa-tion of Northern German Chambers of Industry and Commerce).According to the Association of Northern German Chambers ofIndustry and Commerce, already a reduction to 0.5% would be abenefit for nature and would impose significantly lower costs onthe economies in the Baltic Sea Region. He gave a short overviewof existing impact assessment studies on the subject. Comparingthe interests of the different commissioners, the (shipowners’)associations were mainly interested in the question of modal shift,and the European Union itself was looking on the issue of ShortseaShipping and on modal questions as well. The Scandinavian andWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 71the Baltic states had strong fear of losing international competitive-ness by the new regulations. The volume of shipping woulddecline considerably in the Baltic Sea and the new regime wouldgive severe disadvantages to the Baltic Sea Region’s economy. Healso mentioned statements by the Baltic Sea Port Organization anda letter to the European Commission signed by 50 organizations,including the German Shipowners’ Association and the Associationof Northern German Chambers of Industry and Commerce. Con-cluding, Mr Kruse asked the Working Group members to promotethe 0.5 limit on European level and, if possible, within IMO, for thebest of the Baltic Sea Region.Mr. Måns Jacobsson (Former Director of the International OilPollution Compensation Funds – IOPC Funds) started his presenta-tion by pointing out that oil pollution was another topic of greatimportance for all people around the Baltic. The Civil Liability Con-vention was ratified by 123 states and the Fund Convention by 105states. The Conventions largely applied to pollution damage causedby oil spills from laden tankers and spills of bunker oil from emptytankers in certain circumstances.Under the Civil Liability Convention, the ship owner was liableregardless of any evidenced negligence on the part of the crew orshipmaster (“strict” or “objective liability”). If the ship owner wasexonerated under one of the few defenses admissible under theCivil Liability Convention, if he was originally found to be liableand did not have the ability to pay and did not possess the neces-sary insurance coverage, or if the damage exceeded the permissi-ble limitation amounts for the ship owner, the Fund Conventionwould apply. The main costs associated with oil spills were prop-erty damage, costs of clean up, losses in various industries andenvironmental damage. When oil was spilled at sea, measures weretaken to preemptively clean up the spill at sea, in order to avoidthe costs associated with cleaning up the oil spill on land. As a gen-eral conclusion, the international community had worked reasona-bly well in most cases which was also shown by the number ofFund member states. All the states close to the Baltic Sea weremembers of the 1992 Fund and all coastal states of the Balticexcept for the Russian Federation were members of the Supple-mentary Fund. Governments and parliaments had to see a benefitand consider worthwhile burdening their oil industry with a con-tribution to the Funds.The fourth presentation by Mr. Bernt Stedt (Chairman of HEL-COM RESPONSE Group and head of the response unit at the Swed-ish Coast Guard Headquarters) was regarding the topic of currentlevels of preparedness in the Baltic Sea Region for a major oil spill.72 Working Group Activities Working Group ActivitiesAt any given moment, there were at least 2,000 ships in the BalticSea Area. The high traffic had led to roughly 100 accidents annu-ally in the Baltic Sea, although only a fraction has resulted in oilspills (a total of 5 in 2009).The HELCOM Response Group had worked on requirements foremergencies and response capacities. The Group worked with air-borne surveillance both nationally and bilaterally, which led to thedevelopment of the current response manual, which instructedon topics ranging from the proper reporting and alert system thatapplied to all states as well as financial aspects when giving orrequesting assistance.The present status of the Baltic Sea Area response capacity was incomparison to many regions quite well prepared. The “HELCOMfleet,” the European Maritime Safety Agency’s (EMSA) contributionof three vessels, the ‘HELCOM Seatrack Web,’ as well as aerialflights helped monitor and contain oil spills utilizing national,bilateral, and international support mechanisms.Ms. Riitta Pöntynen (Shortsea Promotion Centre Finland)focused in her presentation on inter-modality and maritime trans-port. Her primary thesis was that while each of the modes had itsstrengths, the transport modes should complement each other,not compete with each other. With regard to the European Com-mission’s Transport White Paper in 2006 co-modality, sustainabletransport and environmental impacts of transport were of increas-ing importance; however, it was also important to develop thelinks between transport modes (ports, logistic centers, inland anddry ports; as well as information flow in the transport chain).Additionally, the European Commission Communication andAction Plan on freight logistics (2007), which also followed aninter-modal approach and the European Commission’s Communi-cation on a European Ports Policy (COM(2007) 616) were alsomentioned. The European Commission’s Initiative “Towards aEuropean maritime transport space without barriers” included anew concept of a “Blue Belt” launched in 2010. This was intendedto reduce administrative changes related to EU maritime transport.In sum, the simplification and harmonization of administrative andcustom procedures was important for all transport modes, andshould be achieved through the promotion of co-modalitythrough a number of consolidating and logistical measures.The sixth presentation from Mr. Pierre Schellekens (EuropeanCommission, Head of Representation in Sweden) focused on theWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 73EC Communication on maritime spatial planning (MSP). Therewere economic, environmental and social benefits to be derivedfrom increased and integrated cross-border planning of the areas atsea. This supposed a common understanding of what MSP is andthere had been some work in developing awareness of the needsand of the concept of maritime spatial planning which was still anew concept for many (very few of the EU member states actuallyhad MSP). In 2008, the European Commission had launched a road-map for MSP which had established ten principles on which plan-ning should be based. The European Commission was now in theprocess of launching an impact assessment on how MSP should betaken forward at EU level. MSP should be carried out by the mem-ber states and in the member states. Major economic benefitsresulted from reduced transaction costs for maritime actors and amore secure, stable environment for investments. Furthermore, itwas an environmental tool and a tool for maritime transport.The seventh presentation by Mr. Sten Jerdenius (Vice-ChairmanVASAB-HELCOM Maritime Spatial Planning Working Group)focused on cooperation in terms of MSP in the Baltic Sea Region.There were two organizations in the Baltic Sea Region workingwith MSP, one of them being VASAB (Vision and Strategies aroundthe Baltic Sea Region) and the other being HELCOM. VASAB hadstarted working with MSP by making a compendium which gave agood description on the state of MSP of all Baltic Sea countries (tobe downloaded on the VASAB homepage). At the starting point ofMSP one had to take note of the very severe environmental situa-tion in the Baltic Sea and of the increased competition for seaareas. Very large differences existed between the Baltic Sea coun-tries as far as MSP was concerned, and therefore the starting pointfor introducing MSP was very different in the various countries.Both HELCOM and VASAB had decided to set up a joint workinggroup on MSP for the BSR in order to support this process. All theBaltic Sea countries and the European Commission were takingpart and it was a very good arrangement as the European Commis-sion received direct information on the ongoing processes in themember states and the member states had the possibility to influ-ence the Commission in its work on MSP. The group had draftedMSP principles, adopted by both organizations, and was the onlyformal group in Europe on MSP.The presentations are available on the following BSPC website:http://www.bspc.net/page/show/217 (Folder: Related Information;sub: Background74 Working Group Activities Working Group Activities6th Session in Schwerin, 19th – 21st June 2011The 6th and final session of the BSPC Working Group on “Inte-grated Maritime Policy” took place in Schwerin, Germany, between19th and 21st June 2011 at the premises of the State Parliament ofMecklenburg-Western Pomerania.The session saw expert presentations on the issue of port infra-structure and the challenges faced in the Baltic Sea Region relatedto integrated maritime policy. Mr. Schulte welcomed the experts.Mr. Manfred Müller-Fahrenholz (Managing Director of NeptunShipyards) introduced the sister companies Mayer Shipyard in Pap-enburg and the Neptun Shipyard in Rostock. He explained theshipbuilding process and continued with the building programmewhich, for example, includes passenger ships, lifestock carries, gastankers and container ships. He stated that it is easy to define val-ues for air emission regulation but how to achieve them would bethe question. Mr. Müller-Fahrenholz explained that his companywould see LNG as a main future fuel. In his opinion, a competitivesystem that is available for everyone must be developed becausetoday LNG is expensive and not everywhere available. Mr. Müller-Fahrenholz mentioned the issue of shore power after he explainedthe disadvantages of the use of catalysts and scrubbers. In his opin-ion, the supply of shore power is difficult. A lot of energy and infra-structure is required for this and the shore has to be capable ofdealing with this. Cables, feeding lines, a standardization of ship toshore connections and a control system need to be installed. It canbe done, but the conditions under which the electricity supply ismade may not be environmentally friendly. Lastly, Mr. Müller-Fahr-enholz touched on the topic of rules and regulations. There are var-ious regulations in the Baltic Sea, he stated, but also regulationswithin each individual state. There must be clear rules for the oper-ators of the yards regarding the construction of future ships, howto develop changes for the vessels to make them able to serveports in sensitive areas while also giving the passengers a qualita-tively high journey and not pollute the environment.Mr. Hans-Jörg Wenzel (Project Manager at P+S Werften) gave hispresentation on Ecological ship specifications: realization at theRoPAX GR12 ferries for Scandlines. Mr. Wenzel thereafter presenteda couple of concepts of vessels operated with alternative energy,such as the vessel operation with modern sail concepts (SKYSAIL/BELUGA). He underlined that as long as these technologies are nottechnically matured, yards and owners would have to take smallsteps based on the state of the art. The RoPAX GR12 ferries mightbe an innovative energy-optimized ferry project. The vessels inWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 75their design already differ to current ferries in the Baltic, becauseof certain aspects on the line Rostock – Gedser. For the Baltic Seathe hull optimization is a significant part of the design, Mr. Wenzelstated. Another part of this energy optimization is the sophisticatedpropulsion system. The 2 x gensets of 4300 kW each and the 3 xmain engines of 4500 kW each will be used in accordance to theneeds of the nautical situation. With regard to the problematic ofLNG the challenges for the harbors are how to provide and how toensure a safe operation. If the LNG for dual-fuel concepts shall beused for these passenger ferries, a safe infrastructure for LNG bun-kering has to be established by 2015, Mr. Wenzel argued.Mr. Erik Andersson Pauldin (Ports of Stockholm) thanked thehosts for the invitation and the possibility to speak on the topic ofPorts of Stockholm as a sustainable cruise destination. The City ofStockholm is the owner of Ports of Stockholm. Since 1990 theregion has grown and the population of Stockholm will also con-tinue to rise until the year 2030. This is on the one hand a gooddevelopment but on the other hand also a big challenge especiallywhen it comes to building new departments and to constructing asustainable traffic and transport system. Mr Pauldin explained thatPorts of Stockholm has three ports. One port is located directly inthe city of Stockholm and two harbors nearby Stockholm. In 2010Ports of Stockholm had more 12 million ferry and cruise passen-gers and a flow of goods of 8.4 million tonnes. The turnover con-ducts approximately 68 million Euros. The environmental impactby a port, Mr Pauldin continued, can and should be looked at fromtwo points, namely from the direct impact, such as impact fromones own operational activities, and from the indirect impact,which is the impact that the ports customers and ship ownershave on the environment. For example, we gave discounts tovessles for reducing sulphur and nitrogen oxides emissions, forsorting out ship-generated waste and for low water content insludge.Due to the environmental work of Ports of Stockholm, the NOxemissions from vessels could be reduced by 40% between 1995and 2006. For the same period, sulphur could be reduced by 60%and all tankers have double bottom hulls.Mr. Sten Björk (Port of Trelleborg, Project Leader Clean Baltic SeaShipping) began his presentation on the Clean Baltic Sea Shippingproject by speaking about the origin of the project and informedabout its main objectives. There were for example pilot projectswith shore side electricity for ferries and cruisers that had beenstarted by the Port of Oslo and Trelleborg. Moreover, pilot projectswith voluntary ferry owner port agreements for pumping over allsewage and biological wastes when in port had been started in the76 Working Group Activities Working Group ActivitiesPorts of Stockholm, Trelleborg and Helsinki. Mr. Björk explainedthat the project had introduced four working groups and one ofthem would deal with the issue of LNG. He affirmed that oneshould try to get away from fossil energy. In Skåne biogas methaneproduction had started. Mr. Björk stated that in the pilot projects,several issues were looked at. For example, the port of Klaipedawould elaborate how local small scale LNG logistics to ships couldbe derived from a large LNG import terminal and the port of Trelle-borg would elaborate how Bio-LNG logistics could be organizedfrom a biogas plant to ships at the berths. Coming to the chal-lenges faced, Mr. Björk argued that a joint clean shipping strategywould require intensive cooperation between all stakeholders. Thefinal goal for the project might be a Baltic Sea free from water andair pollution. It would be a large goal but one that was achievable.Mr. Jörg Sträussler (Clean Baltic Sea Shipping, Baltic EnergyForum) gave his presentation on What can parliamentarians doto support Clean Shipping? One of the first issues he touchedupon was that of eutrophication. If nothing was done, the BalticSea would be dead by 2020,he argued. Air pollution was not aminor polluter of the Baltic Sea he argued and told the participantsthat HELCOM states that shipping contributes by 16% to air pollu-tion, making it the largest single emission source for NO in thexHELCOM area. Moreover, Mr. Sträussler underlined that EMSA hasfound 50 different systems for waste and wastewater managementbeing implemented at 50 different ports. He advocated joint regu-lations and joint systems. Clean shipping would need a clear strat-egy, Mr. Sträussler stated. Therefore it would be ideal to have a clearcut and coherent integrated clean shipping part in the integratedmaritime policy. Mr Sträussler stated that the innovation curve ofLNG started fairly slowly, but he was certain that as the year 2015was approaching as regards SO or 2016 as regards NO , the inno-x xvation curve and the implementation curve would drasticallyincrease. Mr. Sträussler added that bilateral contracts for the reduc-tion of ship borne wastewaters such as those undertaken betweenStockholm, Turku and Helsinki should also be arranged betweenother nations of the Baltic Sea Region. Thereafter, Mr. Sträusslerindicated where in the Baltic Sea Region LNG production facilitiesare located, under construction, near development or where dis-cussions are taking place but no further steps have been taken. Mr.Sträussler underlined his believe that LNG would be the optimumsolution for shipping as regards fuel. Funding of shipping shouldbe focused on clean shipping, Mr. Sträussler further explained. Thefocus should incorporate LNG, shore side electricity, fuel cells,hydrogen, methanol and others and the majority of funding shouldgo to conversion of ships to green ships rather than to the con-struction of new ships. When thinking about clean shipping, aWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 77focus should also be on research and development, Mr Sträusslerstated. In the Baltic Sea countries, research and development plat-forms on clean shipping were needed and the existing maritimeclusters should be joined. There remains a big gap concerning thetreatment of LNG in relation to other fuels. Heavy fuels were non-taxed, so ship owners could rely on the fact that their fuels areexempted from taxes. Moreover, tax reductions on shore side elec-tricity already existed in Germany and Sweden, but these taxationsshould be harmonized, Mr. Sträussler held. Clean Shipping shouldbe anchored in European policies. For instance, not much wasmentioned on clean shipping in the Integrated Maritime Policy ofthe European Union, Mr. Sträussler criticized. There was a gap andpoliticians should arrange for clean shipping to become a visiblepart of this policy.The second session dealt with fields of cooperation. ChairmanJochen Schulte welcomed the guests from the Baltic Sea StatesSubregional Cooperation (BSSSC) and the Council of Baltic SeaStates (CBSS).Vice-Chairman Roger Jansson who had represented the WorkingGroup in Gdansk gave a short report on the European MaritimeDay event. He called the event a promising premiere as it had beenthe first ever common presentation of the maritime policy groupsof the three organizations to a larger European public.As outgoing Chair of the CBSS Expert Group on Maritime Policy(EGMP), Mr. Lars Almklov mentioned the five CBSS long termbroad priority areas being environment, economic development,energy, education and culture, civil security and the human dimen-sion. To focus on these areas, it had been decided to establishexpert groups which could include experts with a clear and time-limited mandate and tasks. The EGMP was a cross-sectoral groupwith three focus areas, the main focus area being the economicdevelopment, including innovation and competitiveness and afavorable business environment, fostering entrepreneurship, clus-ter development, transport and logistics and research and develop-ment in the maritime policy field. The second focus of the groupwas energy, including energy security and efficiency as well as theenvironmental aspect of energy efficiency in the maritime policyfield. The EGMP had focused on having a close relation with BSPCand BSSSC. On the issue of environmental protection, Mr. Almklovexplained that the current Norwegian chairmanship had alsoorganized three meetings, including a workshop focusing on pro-moting LNG as an environmental friendly alternative to existingfuels for shipping which was in particular relevant for the BalticSea, bearing in mind the new sulphur and possible NOX regula-78 Working Group Activities Working Group Activitiestions for the region. He noticed that the potential of LNG was oneitem of common interest of the EGMP and the BSPC WorkingGroup.The incoming Chair of the CBSS EGMP, Mr. Dietrich Seele, gavean outline of the plans of the upcoming German CBSS presidencywhich would start officially on 1st July 2011. Maritime policywould be one of the most important priorities of the German pres-idency. The presidency wanted to continue and intensify the workof the EGMP in this respect. In accordance with the elements ofcompetitiveness, environment and climate change, the priorities ofthe German presidency were the following: improving the dia-logue of maritime policy actors and pooling the maritime policyinitiatives of BSPC, BSSSC and CBSS, strengthening innovation bysupporting maritime research and maritime clusters in the BSR andby further development of existing databases of maritime rele-vance, developing the possibility to support politically cross-secto-ral projects that served as an example to demonstrate the addedvalue of Baltic Sea cooperation. The CBSS had already successfullysupported some very important projects, e.g. Clean Baltic Shipping(which would now receive EU funding from the Baltic Sea Pro-gramme). Another new element would be to build up an exchangeof information and experience with other European maritimeareas. There would be more sea basin strategies in the near futureand it seemed to be useful to have a regular exchange of informa-tion and experience in that respect.The Chairman of the BSSSC Working Group on Maritime Policy, Mr.Stefan Musiolik, said that he also considered the first joint eventof the three Maritime Working Groups in Gdansk as quite success-ful. With the Schwerin meeting the second step was made and hehoped there would be further steps. The task of BSSSC was to pro-mote and advocate the interests of the regions to decision-makerson the national and European level. For example, during the con-sultation process for the Baltic Sea Strategy, a common statementby the BSSSC was issued and now, during the phase of implementa-tion the BSSSC also gave its vote to raise the voice of the regions. AWorking Group of the BSSSC on Maritime Policy has been estab-lished in 2008. This working group has developed a five pointaction plan. The action plan consisted of the following five points:onshore power supply for ships in harbors to reduce emissions,environmentally differentiated harbor dues, a voluntary ban ofwastewater discharges in the Baltic Sea, awarding of best practicein clean shipping and sustainable port management which wasimportant to raise awareness and the introduction of labels forClean Baltic Shipping and sustainable ports. This five point actionplan had been developed within BSSSC, but it was supported alsoWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 79by five other Baltic Sea organizations (Union of Baltic Cities, BalticSea Commission, B 7 Baltic Islands, Baltic Development Forum andEuroregion Baltic). It had been quite helpful that different organi-zations had spoken with one voice. The action plan had been fullyintegrated into the Baltic Sea Strategy proposed by the EuropeanCommission in June 2009 which helped a lot in moving forward inthis policy field. Mr. Musiolik has also mentioned the idea of anINTERREG project for Clean Baltic Sea Shipping and invited theBSPC to join the project by becoming a member of the PoliticalCommittee.Mr. Roger Jansson suggested to make a recommendation to theStanding Committee of the BSPC according to Mr. Musiolik’s offer.Mr. Dietrich Seele added ideas for cooperation and a concretedialogue between the different organizations. He understood themeeting today as a starting point and as a core group for furtherorganizations which should be involved during the next weeksand months. The CPMR, the Baltic Sea Commission and the BalticSea Forum were very keen on joining this cooperation. He men-tioned in his introductory speech that Germany would look intothe architecture of Baltic Sea cooperation and would like to gener-80 Working Group Activities Working Group Activitiesate more transparency and efficiency of the whole Baltic Sea archi-tecture.Chairman Jochen Schulte proposed to prepare a common paperof the BSPC, CBSS and BSSSC including the major points of Mr.Seele.Mr. Dietrich Seele agreed with Mr. Schulte’s proposal and said itwould be possible to create a coherent strategy.Also Mr. Stefan Musiolik supported the idea to create a coregroup of the three organizations which could be supplemented byfurther organizations. He pointed out that the common meeting inSchwerin was a promising start, but in front of the background ofthe possible end of the BSPC Working Group on Integrated Mari-time Policy in August, he asked himself how the promising stepscould be continued and who would take them. It was very promis-ing to come together, but there would be some continuity needed.Chairman Jochen Schulte added at the end of the second sessionthat it would be planned to integrate a paragraph in the finalreport on supporting further coordination and joint activitiesbetween these institutions and that this paper could be a first stepto support such activities.Chairman Jochen Schulte opened the discussion on the draftpolitical recommendations of the WG for the 20th BSPC, the finalreport and on additional matters (morning and third session). Hepointed out that the draft as handed out to the participants duringthe third session had been adjusted to meet the suggested changesas agreed on during the morning session. The Working Group suc-cessively decided on the recommendations which will be submit-ted for the resolution of the 20th BSPC.On the 21st June 2011, the participants travelled to Rostock and tothe district Warnemünde to see and hear about Rostock Port, Cater-pillar Motors and Warnemünde Cruise Terminal. Port representa-tives explained that the main focus of the port is ferry and ro-rotraffic and that Rostock is the only deep sea port on the GermanBaltic coast. Moreover, the port has a high-capacity road and rail-road network to the hinterland with short transit times to metro-politan areas and economic hubs such as Berlin, Leipzig, Pragueand Hamburg. It was stated that the infrastructure developmentshould be in line with sustainability and environmental friendli-ness. A next step in an environmentally friendly direction would beWorking Group Activities Working Group Activities 81the supply of shore side electricity, shore side gas and LNG facili-ties. Feasibility studies on the LNG issue were in progress.Thereafter, the participants joined a guided tour around RostockPort and visited Caterpillar Motors in Rostock, where a presenta-tion was given which explained Caterpillar as a company, its prod-ucts and how the company tries to meet the challenges posed byIMO legislation concerning the reduction of NOx and SOx. There-after, a guided tour through the manufacturing hall followed. Dur-ing the tour, the participants were able to see several ship motors,including a VM 43 C engine with an output range of 16000 kW.The final visit for the group was at Warnemünde Cruise Termi-nal. Cruise shipping at Warnemünde Cruise Terminal is also oper-ated by Rostock Port. It is one of the most important cruise portsin Germany and the base port for AIDA cruises.82 Working Group ActivitiesWorking Group Activities 837. Baltic Sea Maritime CooperationIn the BSPC Work Programme for 2010/2011, one of the objectivesstated is to support the policies of the CBSS and to further the co-operation between the CBSS and the BSPC, for instance by sustain-ing contacts and cooperation between secretariats, by attempting tosynchronize priorities, and by maintaining an interaction betweenworking bodies of the BSPC and the CBSS, such as the BSPC WorkingGroups and the CBSS Expert Groups and Task Forces. Civil Security,including Trafficking and Integrated Maritime Policy are priorities in2011 both of BSPC and CBSS. In the 19th BSPC Resolution, BSPC rec-ognizes the usefulness of this interaction as a joint resource in fol-lowing and addressing the economic, social and political challengesof the Baltic Sea Region. BSPC furthermore calls upon the govern-ments of the Baltic Sea Region to consider ways to furtherstrengthen cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region between the CBSSand the BSPC in order to ensure cohesion and to avoid divisions inthe Baltic Sea Region.At the 8th Baltic Sea States Summit organized by the CBSS in June2010, BSPC Chairwoman Ms. Christina Gestrin reaffirmed the close,continuous and constructive interaction between CBSS and BSPC. Inthe opinion of BSPC, CBSS had a central role as a driver for compre-hensive action to manage the challenges of the Baltic Sea Region.BSPC on its side had a pronounced ambition to synchronize itsobjectives and priorities with those of the corresponding bodies ofthe CBSS. She also said that the Baltic Sea Region was bustling withactors and initiatives. A practical and more structured dialoguebetween stakeholders would strengthen both their individual andtheir combined capacity to deal with the challenges of the Region.She called for developing ideas for future cooperation.As collaborative policy-making is the essence of an integrated mari-time policy, the working group has put a particular focus on theissue of cooperation and has undertaken several steps for new coop-erative approaches in the Baltic Sea Region. Most recently, the outgo-ing and incoming chair of the CBSS EGMP, Mr. Lars Almklov (Norwe-gian Ministry of Trade and Industry) and Mr Dietrich Seele (GermanFederal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development) aswell as the Chairman of the BSSSC Working Group on Maritime Pol-icy (WGMP), Mr. Stefan Musiolik, have actively taken part in a com-mon working group session in Schwerin on 20th and 21st June 2011and thereby have shown their great interest in a closer cooperation84 Baltic Sea Maritime Cooperation Baltic Sea Maritime Cooperationwith the parliamentary bodies of the Baltic Sea Region. Oneweek ahead of the official start of the German CBSS Presidencyon 1st July 2011, the designated Chairman of the CBSS EGMPgave an outlook on the priorities and the work programme for2011/2012. The Chairman of the BSSSC WGMP gave a report onhis working group’s activities. In particular he informed aboutrecent developments in the project Clean Baltic Shipping andinvited the BSPC to become a member of the Political Committeesupporting that project. This question will have to be decided onby the Standing Committee.During their common session, the representatives of the CBSSand BSSSC maritime working groups and the members of theBSPC Working Group on Integrated Maritime Policy also dis-cussed possibilities for a closer cooperation in maritime affairs.Mr. Seele presented a list of suggestions for joint activities, rang-ing from mutual and regular information exchange, commonmonitoring of maritime activities of the EU Baltic Sea Strategy,creating an inventory of existing regional or national maritimepolicies, to developing jointly political guidelines for the future.Strengthening visibility and raising awareness were also consid-ered as very important aspects. He pointed out that Germanywould like to generate more transparency and efficiency in thearchitecture of the Baltic Sea cooperation as a whole and tostrengthen the Baltic Sea Region as a very efficient pillar of theworldwide architecture of maritime policy. He could imaginethat the priorities within the three organisations could differ tosome degree, but there could be a certain division of labourbetween the different organisations and Groups. Strengtheningawareness could in his view be a specific task and priority of par-liamentarians having impact in the regions to strengthen effortsin that respect. He understood the meeting in Schwerin on 20thJune as a starting point and as a Core Group for further organisa-tions which should be involved during the following weeks andmonths. He also mentioned that the Baltic Sea Commission of theConference of Peripheral Maritime Regions and the Baltic SeaForum were very keen on joining this cooperation. He suggestedorganising an annual assembly of all interested maritime organi-sations in the Baltic Sea Region, discussing guidelines for thefuture. Finally, he stressed that he would like the presented sug-gestions to be understood as a very informal set of ideas thatcould be further developed or amended by the members of theother maritime working groups.At the end of the debate, Mr. Musiolik considered it very impor-tant for the further building up on the first very promising com-Baltic Sea Maritime Cooperation Baltic Sea Maritime Cooperation 85mon activities that all three working groups could continue theirwork to further deepen their cooperation. The efforts alreadybeen made by all of the three maritime groups would risk to bein vain without a continuous working structure.At the European Maritime Day in Gdansk on 20th May 2011,the Working Group on Integrated Maritime Policy has beenengaged in organizing a common event of the maritime workinggroups of BSPC, CBSS and BSSSC under the title “Common vision,linking efforts, strengthening visibility”. Vice-Chairman RogerJansson co-chaired the joint meeting which included an openingaddress by Mr. Grzegorz Grzelak, Chairman of the Committee onInterregional and International Cooperation of the Sejmik of theVoivodeship Pomorskie, representing the Southern Baltic Sea Par-liamentary Forum and the host country of this year’s EuropeanMaritime Day. The joint event was intended to promote theopportunities and potentials of the Baltic maritime sector and anincreased, more structured dialogue for the development of fur-ther common activities of institutions and organizations involvedin maritime affairs in the Baltic Sea Region. The representatives ofthe three working groups called the event a promising premiereas it had not only been the first ever common presentation of themaritime policy groups of the three organizations to a largerEuropean public, but it also should mark – as it had been agreedupon by all participants – the beginning of a closer, more regulardialogue between the three organizations on marine relatedissues in the near future. Mr. Seele expressed the hope that thiscould become a tradition, to be continued on the occasion of thefollowing European Maritime Day in Gothenburg in 2012.In the recent progress report of the EU Strategy for the BalticSea Region published by the European Commission on 22ndJune 2011, the joint event and the improved cooperation ofBSPC, CBSS and BSSSC in maritime affairs was acknowledged bythe European Commission as a best practice example for mari-time governance.The common event has also been the topic of an article pub-lished in the June issue of the CBSS magazine Balticness.The work of the BSPC Working Group on Integrated MaritimePolicy was acknowledged as well in the Oslo Declaration of the16th CBSS Ministerial Meeting on 7th June 2011.Conversely, the Working Group on Integrated Maritime Policy hassuggested to include an additional text taking up the first jointevent of a BSPC working group with working groups of CBSS and86 Baltic Sea Maritime Cooperation Baltic Sea Maritime CooperationBSSSC in the introduction of the Draft Resolution for the 20thBSPC.Over the past two years, the three successive chairpersons ofthe CBSS EGMP have actively participated in working group ses-sions of the BSPC Working Group on Integrated Maritime Policy,starting with Ms. Raimonda Liutkeviciene, representing the Lith-uanian Presidency at the 3rd Working Group session in Copen-hagen, followed by Mr. Lars Almklov representing the Norwe-gian Presidency who has participated in the 5th and the 6thWorking Group session in Stockholm and Schwerin and con-cluded by Mr. Dietrich Seele, representing the current GermanPresidency as of 1st July 2011 who has also participated at the6th Working Group Session in Schwerin.Moreover, the joint activities of the three working groups havealready attracted first interested organizations who would liketo join them in the future work of their trilateral cooperation. Ina letter of 17th June 2011 addressed to the Chairman of theWorking Group, the Baltic Sea Commission of the CPMRexpressed interest in participating in joint exchange on mari-time issues with the three working groups.In its 18th Resolution, the BSPC called on the governments inthe Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS and the European Union, regard-ing Cooperation in the Region, to “define and pursue a commonpolitical agenda for the Baltic Sea Region, e.g. by devising a jointunderstanding of governance, leadership and division of labouramong the leading regional and subregional actors in theRegion, and by enhancing coordination between them”. Theproposals presented by the new Chairman of the CBSS EGMP atthe Schwerin Session on 20th June are in great parts consistentwith requests from the BSPC in earlier Resolutions and thus rep-resent a good opportunity for a real progress in the Baltic mari-time cooperation.Collaboration between different maritime-related policy fields,different levels of political decision-making on regional, national,European and international level and looking for synergiesbeing a key element of an Integrated Maritime Policy for the Bal-tic Sea Region, continuous effort will be required to developand coordinate common fields of interest and to realise com-mon maritime objectives in order to strengthen the regionalapproach for an Integrated Baltic Maritime Policy. With one ofthe competitive advantages of the region being its already exist-ing high degree of integration, the Baltic Sea Region couldBaltic Sea Maritime Cooperation Baltic Sea Maritime Cooperation 87become a forerunner in integrative and collaborative policy-mak-ing.88 AnnexesAnnexesAnnexes 89Annex 1Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceWorking Group on Integrated Maritime PolicyCurricula of the members1. ChairLand Parliament Mecklenburg-Western PomeraniaParliamentary Group: Social Democrats (SPD)Elected: since 2002Parliamentary Function: Chairman of the Committeefor Economy, Labour andTourism; Member of theCommittee for Traffic, Build-ing and Regional PlanningJochen Schulte Parl. Group Function: Speaker for Economy, LabourChairman Market and TrafficYear and Place of birth: 1962, HerfordEducation: University, Degree in LawResidence: RostockProfession: Advocate2. Vice ChairÅland Parliament – Ålands LagtingParliamentary Group: The Moderates of ÅlandElected: 1979 until 2003 and since2007Parliamentary Function: Member of the Social andEnvironmental Committee,Autonomiy Polica Bord andChancellery CommissionRoger Jansson Year of birth: 1943Vice-ChairResidence: MariehamnProfession: Master of Economies3. Vice ChairNordic Council / Parliament of SwedenParliamentary Group: Moderate Coalition Party ofSwedenElected: 2006 – 2010Year and Place of birth: 1948Residence: GöteborgLisbeth Grönfeldt-BergmanVice-Chair90 Annex 1 Annex 14. Baltic AssemblyEstonian Parliament – RiigikoguParliamentary Group: Estonian Green PartyElected: 2007Parliamentary Function: Chairman of the Environ-ment Committee ofRiigikoguParl. Group Function: MemberYear and Place of birth: 1965, TallinnMart JüssiEducation: University of Tartu 1992,MSc in animal ecologyResidence: TartuProfession: Estonian Naturalists’ Soci-ety, member; Estonian Theri-ological Society; MarineMammal Society; EstonianFund for Nature (ELF)Board member; NPA KeriSociety (as ELF representa-tive), member of the Man-agement BoardLatvian Parliament – SaeimaParliamentary Group: Alliance of political partiesUnityElected: 2002Parliamentary Function: Chairman of the Budgetand Finance (Taxation)Committee; Member of theGovernment Review Com-mitteeJa ̄nis ReirsParl. Group Function: MemberYear of birth: 1961Education: University of Latvia, Facultyof Economics, major inindustrial planningResidence: RigaProfession: Department Director at theDeutsche-Lettische Bank; aBoard Member of the Trastakomercbanka; Director ofthe SIA Prudentia; Chair-man of the Board at the ASSpodr ̄ı baAnnex 1 Annex 1 91Lithuanian Parliament – SeimasParliamentary Group: Social DemocratsElected: Since 2004Parliamentary Function: Member of the Committeeon Rural Affairs, DeputyChairman of Commission forMaritime and Fishery AffairsYear and Place of birth: 1941 SakiaiBronius PauzaEducation: University of AgricultureResidence: Vilnius5. DenmarkDanish Parliament – FolketingParliamentary Group: Social DemocratsElected: 2001–2011Year of birth: 1950Niels SindalDanish Parliament – FolketingParliamentary Group: Social Democratic PartyElected: Since 1998Parliamentary Function: Member of the ForeignAffairs committee and theEuropean Affairs CommitteeParl. Group Function:Year and Place of birth: 1974 CopenhagenJeppe KofodEducation: Master of Public Administra-tionResidence: Svaneke92 Annex 1 Annex 16. FinlandFinnish Parliament – EduskuntaParliamentary Group: Social DemocratsElected: 1999Parliamentary Function: Member of the Grand Com-mittee Vice-member in Envi-ronment committeeChair of the Finnish delega-tion in Council of EuropeSusanna Huovinen Parl. Group Function: MemberYear and Place of birth: 1972, Liminka, FinlandEducation: Masters degree on social sci-encesResidence: JyväskyläProfession: MP7. GermanyCity-State Parliament of the Free andHanseatic City of BremenParliamentary Group: Social Democrats (SPD)Elected: 1999 – 2010, since February2010 Senator for Economics,Labour and PortsParliamentary Function: Former Chairman of theCommittee for Port Affairs;former Member of the Com-mittee for the implementa-Martin Günthnertion of the reform of the fed-eral system in BremenParliamentary Group Former Deputy Chairman ofFunction: the SPD-ParliamentaryGroup of the Bremen StateParliament;Deputy Chairman of theBremerhaven District SPDYear and Place of birth: 1976 BremerhavenEducation: Studies in Philosophy andCultural History of EasternEurope;Public Relation DegreeResidence: BremerhavenProfession: Independent Communica-tions and Public RelationsConsultantAnnex 1 Annex 1 93City-State Parliament of the Free andHanseatic City of BremenParliamentary Group: Social Democrats (SPD)Elected: since 1995Parliamentary Function: Chairman of the Committe forPort Affairs; Member of theCommittee for FinanceParl. Group Function: Speaker for Port PolicyYear and Place of birth: 1962, BremerhavenFrank SchildtEducation: Architectural DraughtsmanResidence: BremerhavenProfession: Chairman of the EmployeeCommittee of the Waste-Disposal CompanyBremerhaven (optional)City-State Parliament of the Free andHanseatic City of HamburgParliamentary Group: Christian Democrats (CDU)Elected: since 2004Parliamentary Function: Chairman of the budget com-mitteeYear and Place of birth: 1973, HamburgEducation: Diplom politic scientistRoland Heintze Residence: HamburgLand Parliament Mecklenburg-Western PomeraniaParliamentary Group: Christian Democrats (CDU)Elected: Since 2002Parliamentary Function: Member of the Committee forEuropean Affairs and Law;Member of the Committee forAgriculture, Environment andConsumer ProtectionParl. Group Function: Speaker for Legal AffairsDr. Henning vonYear and Place of birth: 1934, RostockStorchEducation: University, Degree in LawResidence: Bad DoberanProfession: Advocate94 Annex 1 Annex 1Land Parliament of Schleswig-HolsteinParliamentary Group: Free Democratic Party (FDP)Elected: Since 2009Parliamentary Function: Member of the Committeefor EuropeParl. Group Function: Speaker for Europe andwomenEducation: Legal studiesKirstin FunkeLand Parliament of Schleswig-HolsteinParliamentary Group: Alliance ‘90/The GreensElected: Since 2009Parliamentary Function: Vice-Member of the Commit-tee for education and EuropeParl. Group Function: Speaker for education andtrainingInes Stehlau Residence: HalstenbekGerman Parliament – BundestagParliamentary Group: Free Democratic Party (FDP)Elected: Since 2009Parliamentary Function: Member of the Committee onTransport, Building and urbanaffairsParl. Group Function: Speaker for Shipping andPortsTorsten StaffeldtYear and Place of birth: 1963 BremenEducation: Dipl.-Ing. Mechanical Engi-neeringResidence: BremenProfession: EmployerAnnex 1 Annex 1 958. Nordic CouncilFinnish ParliamentParliamentary Group: National Coalition PartyYear of birth: 1951Lyly RajalaÅland Parliament – Ålands LagtingParliamentary Group: Conservative GroupElected: 2003Parliamentary Function: Member of the Committeeon Business and IndustryYear and Place of birth: 1973Residence: JomalaFredrík Karlström Profession: Entrepreneur9. NorwayNorwegian Parliament – StortingetParliamentary Group: Progress PartyElected: September 2009Parliamentary Function: Transport and communica-tionParl. Group Function: MemberYear and Place of birth: 26.05.1957 KristiansandIngebjørg Amanda Education: Business and ITGodskesen Residence: ArendalProfession: Self-employed and RegionSecretary from Progress Party96 Annex 1 Annex 110. PolandSejm of the Republic of PolandParliamentary Group: Parliamentary Club of the Lawand JusticeElected: 25 September 2005Year and Place of birth: 1961 in GydniaResidence: GydniaZbigniew Kozak11. Russian FederationDuma KaliningradAlexey ZinovievThe State Duma of the federal Assembly of the Russian fed-erationElected: Since 2008Parliamentary Function:First deputy of the chairmanof Committeeof the Council of Federationon affairsof the North and the smallpeople;Member of the Committee ofNikolay Lvov theCouncil of Federation on thenationalMaritime policyYear and Place of birth: 1948, ArkhangelskEducation: The Arkhangelsk forest univer-sity EngineerResidence: Moscow12. SwedenSwedish Parliament – Sveriges RiksdagParliamentary Group: The Social Democratic PartyElected: since 2002Parliamentary Function: Member of Committee onIndustry and TradeDeputy member of Commit-tee on Civil AffairsYear of birth: 1960Börje VestlundResidence: StockholmAnnex 1 Annex 1 97Working Group Members1. Jochen Schulte MP, ChairmanState Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,Germany2. Roger Jansson MP, Vice Chair (from 4th session)Parliament of Åland, Finland3. Lisbeth MP, Vice Chair (up to 3rd session)Grönfeldt Nordic Council, Parliament of SwedenBergman4. Mart Jüssi MP, Baltic Assembly, Parliament of Estonia5. Janis Reirs MP, Baltic Assembly, Parliament of Latvia6. Bronius Pauza MP, Baltic Assembly, Parliament of Lithuania7. Niels Sindal MP, Parliament of Denmark8. Jeppe Kofod MP, Parliament of Denmark (from 3rd session)9. Susanna Huovinen MP, Parliament of Finland10. Martin MP, City-State Parliament of the Free and HanseaticGünthner City of Bremen, Germany (first session)11. Frank Schildt MP, City-State Parliament of the Free and HanseaticCity of Bremen, Germany (from 2nd session)12. Roland Heintze MP, City-State Parliament of the Free and HanseaticCity of Hamburg, Germany13. Dr. Henning von MP, State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,Storch Germany14. Kirstin Funke MP, State Parliament Schleswig-Holstein, Germany15. Ines Strehlau MP, State Parliament Schleswig-Holstein, Germany16. Torsten MP, Deutscher Bundestag, GermanyStaffeldt17. Lyly Rajala MP, Nordic Council, Parliament of Finland18. Fredrik MP, Nordic Council, Parliament of Åland, FinlandKarström19. Ingebjørg A. MP, Parliament of NorwayGodskesen20. Zbigniew Kozak MP, Parliament of Poland21. Alexey MP, Parliament of the Kaliningrad Region, RussianZinoviev Federation22. Nikolay Lvov MP, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation23. Börje Vestlund MP, Parliament of SwedenStaff Members:Bodo Bahr State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,GermanyGeorg Strätker State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,GermanyGerald Gutzeit State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,GermanyDr. Wolfgang Röhl State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,GermanyIris Putz State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,GermanySolveig State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,Herrmannsen GermanySteffen Davids State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,Germany98 Annex 1 Annex 1Ulrike Dufner State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,GermanyAleksandra State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania,Szczepanski GermanyNiclas Slotte Parliament of Åland, FinlandMarika Laizane- Baltic AssemblyJurkaneSilga Lejasmeiere Baltic AssemblyIngrida Putnina Baltic Assembly, Parliament of LatviaEne Röngelep Baltic Assembly, Parliament of EstoniaSkirmaitas Baltic Assembly, Parliament of LithuaniaStrimaitisPeder Pedersen Parliament of DenmarkHardo European ParliamentMüggenburgJaakko Hissa Parliament of FinlandKatharina Köhler City-State Parliament of the Free and Hanseatic City ofBremen, GermanyJutta Schmidt- State Parliament Schleswig-Holstein, GermanyHolländerKenneth Ekberg Nordic CouncilHalla Nolsøe Paulsen Nordic CouncilJan Widberg Head of BSPC SecretariatKamilla Kjellgard Parliament of DenmarkPatrick Zilliacus Nordic Council, Parliament of FinlandBjörn Andreassen Parliament of NorwayThor Bostad Parliament of NorwayKjell Myhre-Jensen Parliament of NorwayAndrey Federal Assembly of the Russian FederationShchegolikhinAlexander Sokolov Federal Assembly of the Russian FederationSergey Russian Mission to EUKudryavtsevEva Smekal Parliament of SwedenHelena Lundstedt Parliament of SwedenBengt Ohlsson Parliament of SwedenFrom November 2009 till December 2010 the International Divi-sion of the State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Ger-many has been secretariat for Working Group. The Division “Secre-tariat of the Committee on European and Legal Affairs, Interna-tional Secretariat” of the State Parliament Mecklenburg-WesternPomerania has been secretariat for the Working Group since then.Annex 1 Annex 1 99Working Group Point of ContactMr Georg SträtkerHead of Division, State Parliament Mecklenburg-Western PomeraniaSecretariat of the Committee on European and Legal Affairs/International SecretariatLennéstrasse 119053 SchwerinGermanyphone: +49 385 525.1530telefax: +49 385 525.1535Email: europaausschuss@landtag-mv.deWeb: www.landtag-mv.deMr Jan WidbergHead of the BSPC Secretariatc/o Nordic CouncilVed Stranden 18DK-1061 CopenhagenDenmarkphone: +45 24 699 446telefax +45 33 11 1870email: jw@norden.orgWeb: www.bspc.net100 Annex 2 Annex 2Annex 2List of Experts who have addressed the WorkingGroup• Erik Andersson Pauldin, Ports of Stockholm, Ports of Stock-holm – A Sustainable Cruise Destination• Ilmari Aro, Finnish Transport Agency in order of HELCOM,Challenges of Sea Transport under Ice-Conditions in the BalticSea Region• Dr. Ulrich Bauermeister, Port of Rostock, Baltic Sea Ports:Tasks, development potentials and current issues• Prof. Dr. Knud Benedict, University of Wismar, Competencyand Strategy of HS Wismar, On maritime research using the Mar-itime Simulation Centre Warnemünde – MSCW –• Sten Björk, Port of Trelleborg, Practical solutions for cleanshipping by pilots in Baltic Sea ports• Monika Breuch-Moritz, Federal Maritime and HydrographicAgency Germany, presentation on functions and fields of activ-ity of the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency in Ros-tock• Izolda Bulvinaite, European Commission, Implementation ofthe Integrated Maritime Policy• Knut Fleckenstein, MEP, Chairman EU-Russia cooperationcommittee, Development of the relations between the EU andRussia• Jürgen Friesch, Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt(HSVA), Hydrodynamic Optimization of Ships in the designstage and in service – What can be gained by efficient hullforms and propulsors?• Jacqueline McGlade, European Environment Agency, Environ-mental aspects of green shipping• Alfons Guinier, European Community Shipowners’ Associa-tion, Requirements to the port infrastructure and logistic portreception facilities, effects on environmental regulationsAnnex 2 Annex 2 101• Jan Fritz Hansen, Danish Shipowners’ Association, ECAs –Challenges and Possibilities for Short Sea Shipping• Måns Jacobsson, former Director of the IOPC Funds, Oil spillliability and International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds(IOPC Funds)• Sten Jerdenius, Vice-Chairman VASAB-HELCOM Maritime Spa-tial Planning Working Group, Baltic Sea Cooperation in MaritimeSpatial Planning – VASAB – HELCOM• Werner Kuhn, MEP, Committee on Transport, The Areas of Euro-pean Transport Policy• Dr. Martin Kruse, IHK Nord, The Impacts of IMO‘s New Sul-phur Emission Regulations in the Baltic Sea – An Overview• Jörg Litschka, Rostock Port, The Port of Rostock –LogisticsCenter at the Baltic Sea• Giovanni Mendola, European Commission, DG MOVE, Mari-time and Ports Policy• Niels Mortensen, Maersk Maritime Technology, ECAs compli-ance strategy of an international shipping line• Manfred Müller Fahrenholz, Neptun Werft, Challenges forPort Infrastructure Development today and in the futurerespecting trends of the Shipbuilding Industry• Helmuth von Nicolai, Ministry for Transport, Building andRegional Development Mecklenburg Western Pommerania, Mari-time Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea Region• Patrick Norroy, European Commission, Measures to improveShort Sea Shipping• Are Piel, Estonian Maritime Administration, Examples for a har-monized and overall Supervision of Sea Transport in the BalticSea Region – The Gulf of Finland Ship Reporting System (GOF-REP)• Riitta Pöntynen, SPC Finland, Measures to improve co-modal-ity102 Annex 2 Annex 3• Pierre Schellekens, European Commission, Head of Repre-sentation in Sweden, EC Communication on Maritime SpatialPlanning issued on 17th December 2010 – COM (2010) 771 –and the Baltic Sea Region• Mogens Schrøder Bech, Danish Maritime Authority, LNG-Infrastructure in the BSR – State and Perspectives• Bernt Stedt, HELCOM Response Chair, Response capacities tocombat oil-spills and hazardous substances• Jörg G. Sträussler, Baltic Energy Forum, What can policy andadministrations do to support clean shipping?• Gernot Tesch, Scandlines Deutschland GmbH and GermanShipowners’ Association, The economic impact of the classifica-tion of the Baltic Sea as a Sulphur Emission Control Area (S)ECA• Patrick Verhoeven, European Sea Ports Organization, Sustain-able Development of Ports – An EU-policy• Prof. Dr. Karsten Wehner, Lloyd’s Register Hamburg, MAR-POL Annes VI / Technology and Compliance• Dr. Hans-Jörg Wenzel, P+S Werften Stralsund, Ecological Spec-ifications of German Shipowners taking Scandlines as Example• Sylvia Westland, Research Port Rostock, Network for Mari-time Applications• Francis Zachariae, Danish Maritime Safety Administration,Efficient, Safe and Sustainable Traffic at Sea• Ramona Zettelmaier, Lloyd’s Register Hamburg, MARPOLAnnes VI / Technology and Compliance• Alexey Zinovev, Kaliningrad region port InfrastructureAnnex 2 Annex 3 103Annex 3Interim Reportby the Chairman of the BSPC Working Group on Integrated MaritimePolicy Jochen Schulte, MP (State Parliament Mecklenburg-Vorpom-mern) on the Occasion of the19th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Confer-ence (BSPC)Second Session 30 August 2010MariehamnÅland Islands, FinlandINTRODUCTION:Ladies and Gentlemen,in my capacity as the Chairman of the BSPCWorking Group on Integrated Maritime Policy, I’d like to thank you forthe invitation to this lovely place, the hospitality extended to me, andthe chance to give you an interim report on our activities.Politics is afast-moving business: In many cases, current topics and even politi-cians frequently change. However, let me briefly recapitulate somebasic facts on Integrated Maritime Policy and its recent developmentin the light of substantive consistency, even though the BSPC – albeitwith different foci – has already dealt with some aspects of this issuebefore.As you know, some 100 million people live in the Baltic SeaRegion today. They generate slightly more than 1,200 billion euros ayear, which is approximately 11 percent of the European (EU 27)gross domestic product (GDP). Marine and coastal activities make upa significant proportion of the regions’ economic performance. In pastdecades, diverging sea use requirements and sector-related interestsdemonstrated that the different sectors such as the maritime economy,maritime traffic, energy production but also fisheries and tourism mayhave developed on separate tracks for too long a time, thereby result-ing in a situation where the seas were subject to an ever more exten-sive use by and for the benefit of these sectors.It was against thisbackdrop that the European Commission published its Communica-tion on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union includ-ing an Action Plan as a so-called Blue Book in 2007, which seeks toachieve closer cooperation at all levels of decision-making as well asan efficient cross-cutting coordination of all maritime actions. To thisend, the Commission, at the end of 2009, submitted a progress reporton this issue, which provides a substantive assessment of the meas-ures previously taken under the new Integrated Maritime Policy andsubmits further proposals for future maritime actions.The IntegratedMaritime Policy now serves as a superstructure for several other mari-time strategies at the European, national, regional and sub-regional lev-els, including the European Marine Strategy Directive, which acts asthe so-called environmental pillar. From the Commission’s point of104 Annex 3 Annex 3view, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region represents a regionalconcept for the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy inthis region, with the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan serving as theenvironmental pillar of the concept. (Ms Brusendorff, HELCOM’sExecutive Secretary, has already mentioned this point.)In its June2010 Conclusions, the Council of the European Union, with respectto resource efficiency, competitiveness, and climate action, high-lighted the crucial importance of the maritime sectors for smart, sus-tainable and inclusive growth. In this context, maritime traffic, infra-structure, climate protection, the ports and logistics centres andtheir inter-modal connection with the European transport networkare essential to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Also, as far asthe transferability of measures is concerned, the Baltic Sea Regioncan serve as a model for other sea regions.WORKING GROUP MEETINGS:Ladies and Gentlemen,let me give you a brief run-down on the com-position of the Working Group and the subjects discussed at ourmeetings before addressing the main results achieved there.TheWorking Group, which now comprises 20 members of 17 nationaland regional parliaments and parliamentary assemblies, held itsinaugural meeting in January 2010 at the Federal Maritime andHydrographic Agency (BSH) in Rostock and discussed the subjectareas to be dealt with. Also, a work programme and timetable as wellas the working methods were laid down there.An agreement was reached that transport issues, aspects of environ-ment and nature conservation, Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP), portinfrastructure and port hinterland connections should be addressedin the first year. Most of the technical input was to be provided inhearings by national and international experts from various levels.The second meeting of the Working Group where our Swedishcolleague Ms Lisbeth Grönfeldt Bergman was elected Vice Chairtook place in April of this year at the European Parliament and theCommittee of Regions in Brussels. Members of the European Par-liament, the European Commission, the European Sea Ports Organi-zation (ESPO) and the European Community Ship-Owners’ Associa-tion (ECSA) engaged in an in-depth discussion on European Inte-grated Maritime Policy, Trans-European Networks, maritime trafficand the associated economic problems, environmental aspects,short-sea shipping, and the cooperation between the EuropeanUnion and Russia on maritime affairs, which I consider extremelyimportant in and for the Baltic Sea Region.In June the third meet-ing of the Working Group took place at the Folketing in Copen-hagen. Members of the world’s leading shipping company, the A.P.Møller Mærsk Group, the Danish Ship-Owners’ Association, the Dan-ish Maritime Safety Authority, and the European EnvironmentAnnex 3 Annex 3 105Agency (EEA) discussed the following issues: Measures to improvemaritime safety, the economic consequences of designating the Bal-tic Sea as an Emission Control Area, ways of improving and extend-ing short-sea shipping, opportunities provided by “Green Shipping“for reducing the adverse environmental effects of maritime shippingas well as new technologies for improving navigation in the BalticSea.Now, from the point of view of the Working Group, I’d like toturn to the main results we took home from the expert hearings.Ladies and gentlemen:Speaking with reference to Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP),experts had emphasized that a common spatial planning for theentire Baltic Sea Region would be called for in future in order tominimize cross-border conflicts of interest. The construction of off-shore wind farms may serve as an example in this context. Also, des-ignating areas suitable for development as well as prohibited zonesin the Baltic Sea will be required to an increasing extent. In summary,it may be said that insufficient attention is still being paid to Mari-time Spatial Planning (MSP) as an efficient planning tool. Anotherpoint of criticism concerned the fact that there are significant differ-ences in the application of this tool in the Baltic Sea Region. In thisconnection, the meeting recommended that administrative decisionsand measures taken in the States bordering on the Baltic Sea shouldbe rendered legally binding. It will be important for the future that agreater number of States bordering on the Baltic Sea and a greaternumber 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 thetrans-European transport axes due to the hinterland connec-tion of the ports. The fact that the competitiveness of the portslargely depends on their function and the services they offer, theirgeographical position and their hinterland connections was empha-sized. Also, it is obvious that the global flows of goods – irrespectiveof the ongoing financial and economic crisis – are mainly handled byever-bigger vessels. In this light, then, the recommendations we sub-mitted are logical: First, major ports in the Baltic Sea Region shouldbe developed strategically and in a multi-modal manner. Secondly,these ports should be connected to the European core transport net-work at sea and ashore; also, in the scope of reviewing the TEN-Tprojects, the priority projects should be interlinked and gaps befilled in order to facilitate high frequency multi-modal transportoperations. The Russian transport network is to be included in thesemeasures.The designation of the Baltic Sea as a Sulphur Oxide(SOx) Emission Control Area (SECA) was the starting point ofthe discussions on environmental actions in maritime traffic and theeconomic impact of this IMO measure. From an environmental per-106 Annex 3 Annex 3spective, this measure was welcomed. However, experts feared thatthe gradual reduction of the sulphur content in marine fuels mightlead to a drastic increase in transport costs – by as much as 60 per-cent, depending on the current price of fuels. As a result, transportoperations in the Baltic Sea Region could be moved back to the roadagain in an order of magnitude of up to 20 percent or, in the opinionof some experts, even 50 percent. This development would be coun-ter-productive as far as the desired environmental effects and shortsea shipping are concerned. In order to mitigate these competitivedisadvantages suffered by the regions, the requirement has been putforward that other European sea areas should also be designated asEmission Control Areas. The 18th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Confer-ence (BSPC) had already taken up this issue in Paragraph 12 of theConference Resolution adopted in Nyborg.In the case of older ves-sels, the treatment of exhaust emissions might serve as an alternativesolution to technical problems involving the use of low sulphurmarine fuels, provided these ships use ordinary bunker oil – that isto say fuels with a higher sulphur content. Consequently, if a treat-ment of such exhaust emissions is carried out, the emissions thustreated may be the same as those of ships using low sulphur fuels.However, experts have told us that retrofitting older vessels with thistechnology is onerous and costly. Nevertheless, such a retrofit couldbe a good idea considering that the vessels have long life cycles ofmore than 30 years.In addition, the Working Group recommends thefollowing: First, to encourage the International Maritime Organiza-tion (IMO) to move the start of the worldwide lowering of the sul-phur content of marine fuels to 0.5 percent to an earlier date, sec-ondly, to examine whether and to what extent an even furtherreduction to 0.1 percent would result in unacceptable competitivedisadvantages in the Baltic Sea Region, and what measures might betaken to avoid or compensate for such disadvantages.All experts andpoliticians have described short sea shipping as a relatively eco-friendly alternative to inland transport. However, they also referredto the use of shore-side electricity at berth and alternative fuels suchas liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a necessary and promising way ofdealing with pollutant emissions from shipping. These measures callfor creating an appropriate standardized port infrastructure – notonly in the Baltic Sea Region – and for developing standardized tech-nical interfaces and financial incentives. So, for instance, the Euro-pean Union could introduce a tax exemption on the shore-side elec-tricity used by ships. This would already be a first step. In addition,short sea shipping in Europe would be particularly suited to usingalternative propulsion systems and technologies (gas generators, fuelcell technology, etc.). In my opinion, the government and the busi-ness sector ought to work harder than before to achieve this goal.Harmonized data communication, strict traffic monitoringand mandatory pilotage in tricky sea areas continue to beAnnex 3 Annex 3 107regarded as ways of further enhancing maritime safety. The GALILEOsatellite navigation system in combination with the Also, it was gen-erally understood that the continuous traffic monitoring and man-agement provided should be improved for the entire Baltic SeaRegion by harmonizing existing vessel monitoring and traffic man-agement services. All national systems must be compatible with oneanother.However, technical upgrading isn’t everything, ladies andgentlemen. I am sure that mandatory pilotage can provide addi-tional safety. Although it is true that more than 90 percent of all haz-ardous cargo carriers with a draught exceeding 11 metres have com-plied with the relevant IMO recommendation by availing themselvesof pilotage services on a voluntary basis, we should continue toencourage the IMO to introduce mandatory pilotage for large vesselstransiting the Baltic Sea.Short sea shipping is a different kettle offish. In this context, the Working Group is in favour of looking intothe extent to which pilotage can be dispensed with if the mastersand officers have sufficient knowledge of the routes operated. Thismeasure could enhance the competitiveness of small enterprises andreduce turn-around and travel times, thereby ultimately saving costs.With regard to actions aimed at enhancing competitiveness, experts,when referring to cross-border inter-modal transport operations,highlighted the need to initiate measures such as the use of a singlelanguage as in air transport and the standardization of customs andtax procedures.In connection with the incident in the Gulf of Mex-ico, actions to improve accident prevention and the safety of techni-cal facilities as well as the provision of sufficient numbers of suitablemaritime accident control capacities at sea and ashore wereregarded as another important point.SUMMARY:Ladies and Gentlemen,let me summarize as follows: The first-yearmeetings of the BSPC Working Group on Integrated Maritime Policywere focused on port infrastructure and logistics as required. Themeetings clearly showed that, in this connection too, maritime safetyand climate protection constituted the principal political content ofdeliberations and were closely linked to the competitiveness of theBaltic Sea Region. The harmful effects of ship-generated emissionsand the designation of the Baltic Sea as an Emission Control Areawere at the centre of discussion, especially during the Copenhagenmeeting.As far as the second year is concerned, the Working Groupwill have to agree on further priorities for work. In my opinion andowing to the discussions held so far, the following issues could beconsidered: Ways of using state-of-the-art marine engineering tech-nologies, in particular technologies to reduce fuel consumption andemissions, improving the competitiveness of ports in relation to oneanother – including their equipment with disposal capacities forwastes and effluents – and the use of Maritime Spatial Planning108 Annex 3 Annex 4(MSP) as a mandatory planning tool in the construction and link-age of infrastructure facilities. Greater attention should beaccorded to Clean Baltic Shipping, particularly in regard to envi-ronmental issues; Clean Baltic Shipping can be a major competitiveand locational advantage for the Baltic Sea Region.In the context ofthis advantage, I’d like to refer to the most recent activities of theEuropean Commission, which – in cooperation with public privatepartnerships (PPP) – intends to sponsor new TEN-T projects in thefields of Motorways of the Sea (MoS) and integrated eco-friendlytransport systems to the amount of more than 7 billion euros. Theprincipal objectives of the EU include better environmental com-patibility of all modes of transport, improvements in logistics, andthe use of intelligent transport systems.Cooperation with the com-petent CBSS Expert Group on Maritime Policy has also undergonea favourable development. It was interesting for me to see how thisgroup dealt with the subject; the group regards itself as a networkfor initiating maritime clusters and as a mediator in the fields of sci-ence, research and public relations with the aim of promoting acommon Baltic identity. The two Working Groups can learn andbenefit from each other. We should maintain this constructiveexchange in my opinion.For further details I would ask you to referto the Working Group’s interim report, which will be available toyou here in Mariehamn and on the Internet.CLOSING REMARKS:Ladies and Gentlemen,in conclusion I’d like to thank you again forthe trust placed in the Working Group and myself by the StandingCommittee and the entire BSPC.I would like to express my per-sonal thanks to my parliamentary colleagues in the Working Groupfor the friendly and constructive cooperation we enjoyed. My spe-cial thanks goes to my colleague Lisbeth Grönfeldt Bergman whodid such a wonderful job of standing in for me in Copenhagenwhen my health prevented me from taking part in this very inter-esting event.Also, on behalf of all members of the Working Group,I’d like to express my thanks to the experts and the members ofthe administrative departments of the parliaments who providedsubstantive support to the activities of the Working Group andtook care of the organization.Thank you for your attention.Annex 3 Annex 4 109Annex 4Final Reportby the Chairman of the BSPC Working Group on Integrated Mari-time Policy Jochen Schulte, MP (State Parliament Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) on the occasion of the20th Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference (BSPC)Second Session29 August 2011Helsinki, FinlandINTRODUCTION:Ladies and Gentlemen, in my capacity as the Chairman of the BSPCWorking Group on Integrated Maritime Policy, I’d like to thank youfor the invitation to Helsinki and to the Eduskunta, giving me thechance to present you the Final Report on our activities.Almost exactly a year ago, I have presented the Interim Reportof our Maritime Working Group at Mariehamn and – in order toavoid duplications – I will in this report focus on the most recentdevelopments and issues that have been in the centre of work ofour Group in the past year.For our people who live to a large extent at, off and with the sea,an integrated maritime policy in the Baltic Sea Region means firstand foremost to find common, Baltic-wide answers to commonchallenges. The global development of the recent years that beganas a financial and economic crisis and meanwhile affects the stabil-ity of entire national economies has also affected the maritimeeconomies in our regions. The economies in the Baltic Sea Regionare still suffering from the effects of the crisis and are in the pro-cess of undergoing radical changes and resulting adaptations.A development of which even us politicians do not know in detailwhere it will finally lead us.Ladies and Gentlemen, Safeguarding and strengthening the com-petitiveness and the future viability of our region is to a considera-ble extent related to our maritime industries. At the same time, wemust succeed in finding a balance with the aims of marine environ-mental protection and improving the environmental status of theBaltic Sea throughout this transitional period. And this, ladies andgentlemen, has been a major focus of our work in the second yearof the Working Group’s mandate.This task can only be successfully addressed with an integratedapproach. This also means that such an integrated approach mustinvolve the different actors of the different maritime sectors anddecision-makers at different political levels. Under this premise wehave, in the course of our 6 Working Group sessions during bothyears of our mandate heard altogether 42 experts and stakeholders.110 Annex 4 Annex 4This included presentations by shipping companies and shipown-ers’ associations, shipbuilders, ports authorities and national mari-time authorities and administrations, maritime safety authorities,environmental agencies and organisations, transport agencies, mar-itime research institutes, regional and national ministries and Euro-pean institutions. A detailed list of the experts heard can be foundin the written Final Report.For some it may seem that we have dealt too much with detailsand technical specifications. But – as in many other areas – thequestions connected with this topic are so complex that it wouldbe a fundamental mistake to try to find adequate answers to thequestions raised without excellent experts. Only on a solid basispoliticians can develop the necessary far-reaching, soundly-basedpolitical recommendations.Furthermore, Ladies and Gentlemen, we actively engaged inefforts to strengthen the cooperation between different actors andorganisations and on different levels of political decision-making inthe Baltic Sea Region in the maritime policy field.This year, for the first time, we therefore have actively partici-pated as Working Group at the European Maritime Day – on thispoint may I address a special word of thanks to my esteemed col-league Roger Jansson, Vice Chairman of this Working Group.And we have, also for the first time, had a joint working sessionwith our – so to speak – natural partner, the CBSS. I will come backto that later.WORKING GROUP MEETINGS – SECOND YEAR:Ladies and Gentlemen, Before addressing main results that havebecome part of the Draft Resolution I would like to begin with abrief overview on the subjects discussed in the second year of theWorking Group.The forth meeting of the Working Group convened inNovember 2010 in Tallinn. In Estonia our colleague Roger Jans-son was elected new Vice Chair.This meeting focused on options for the reduction of emissionsfrom maritime shipping, maritime vessel and traffic monitoring andmaritime shipping in ice-conditions including presentations byLloyd’s Register Hamburg, Hamburg Shipbuilding Research Insti-tute, the Danish Maritime Authority, the Estonian Maritime Adminis-tration and the Finnish Transport Agency. I am very pleased that MrAre Piel from the Estonian Maritime Administration joins us againtoday and will give an updated presentation of the Gulf of FinlandShip Reporting System (GOFREP) as an example for a harmonisedmaritime surveillance system to the Conference.The fifth meeting of the Working Group was held in theSwedish Parliament in Stockholm in March this year, concen-Annex 4 Annex 4 111trating on ways for improving competitiveness in the maritime sec-tor, seeing expert presentations by representatives of the GermanShipowners’ Association and the Northern German Chamber ofIndustry and Commerce on the economic impact of IMO’s new sul-phur regulations in the Baltic Sea, a former director of the Interna-tional Oil Pollution Compensation Funds on oil spill liability and theChairman of HELCOM Response on Response capacities to combatoil-spills and hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea Region, a repre-sentative of the Shortsea Promotion Centre, Finland, on measures toimprove co-modality and a representative of the European Commis-sion as well as of the joint VASAB-HELCOM Maritime Spatial PlanningWorking Group on Maritime Spatial Planning in the Baltic SeaRegion.The meeting was also attended, dear colleagues, by the Chairmanof the CBSS Expert Group on Maritime Policy, Mr Lars Almklov. Hegave an overview of the Expert Group’s work. Also against this back-ground, the Working Group agreed on participating in a Joint Eventof the three maritime groups of CBSS, BSPC and BSSSC on the occa-sion of the European Maritime Day on 20th May 2011 in Gda-nsk.In June 2011 the sixth and final meeting of the WorkingGroup took place at the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpom-mern in Schwerin, Germany. Under the general theme of port infra-structure, representatives of the Neptun and P + S Shipyards, of thePorts of Stockholm, Trelleborg and Rostock, and of the Baltic EnergyForum gave expert presentations on challenges for port infrastruc-ture, ports as logistic centres, ports as sustainable cruise destinations,ecological specifications for shipowners and Clean Baltic Shipping.In order to combine the expert presentations with some practicalexperiences, a visit to Rostock Port and Caterpillar Motors in Ros-tock -where the group was given a presentation on the developmentof environmentally-friendly dual-fuel engines for ships – and toWarnemünde Cruise Terminal were also part of the meeting.For the first time at the Working Group session in June 2011, rep-resentatives of the CBSS Expert Group on Maritime Policy (the out-going Norwegian Chair Mr Lars Almklov and the incoming GermanChair Mr Dietrich Seele) and of the BSSSC Working Group on Mari-time Policy (Chairman Mr Stefan Musiolik and WG member Ms Mar-lene Rothe) joined the Working Group members for a commonworking group session with a discussion on possibilities for acloser cooperation in the maritime field between the three organisa-tions.Ladies and Gentlemen, please allow me now to give you a shortoverview on the main results achieved from the point of view of theWorking Group in its second year. As has already been pointed out,these results are based on the expert hearings and discussions in thegroup.112 Annex 4 Annex 4One of the central themes of the second year was securing thelong term competitiveness of the maritime economy and strength-ening the region as business and technology location.At the same time, the efficient and sustainable improvement ofclimate and environmental protection in maritime traffic was con-sidered as a similar important objective.Ladies and Gentlemen, To combine both fundamental targetswas seen as essential for a long term positive and sustainable devel-opment of the Baltic Sea Region and its maritime sector.Shipping and the maritime economy are among the mostimportant economic branches in every Baltic Sea country. Theycontribute significantly to growth and employment in the region.A competitive maritime sector can, moreover, create impulsesfor growth also for many other branches in the region, interferingin one way or another with maritime policy issues.Fostering the competitiveness and long-term viability of themaritime economy, in particular of the shipbuilding and the ship-ping sector, maritime and port industries, was therefore seen ascrucial by working group members.The Baltic Sea Region should be promoted as a place for mari-time business.Concerns of the Working Group members that have alreadybeen expressed in the Interim Report regarding imminent compet-itive disadvantages for Baltic Sea shipping as a consequence of thedesignation of the Baltic Sea as Sulphur Emission Control Area(SECA) have even increased during the second year of work.According to different new studies – although they are partlybeing disputed as for example most recently a study carried out bythe Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics Bremen (2010),– the use of low-sulphur marine fuels according to new IMOrequirements lead to significantly higher costs in maritime traffic.Nevertheless, none of the Working Group members takes the viewthat, for this reason, the protection of our environment for futuregenerations should be questioned. Nonwithstanding this, effortsmust be made to prevent that sea transport will lose significanttransport shares to land transport.Indeed all members of the Working Group agreed that we can-not risk that traffic flows will be shifted from sea to road after hav-ing attempted for years – at least I can state that for Germany – toget traffic moved from road to sea.While supporting the IMO environmental regulations in gen-eral, many members of the Working Group believed that the deci-sion was made with too little consideration for the possible conse-quences for the maritime-related sectors in the region.For an effective and uniform environmental standard and toavoid distortions of competition to the disadvantage of the BalticSea Region, the Working Group reaffirms and extends the demandAnnex 4 Annex 4 113of the 18th BSPC to work actively within the IMO for a European-wide solution for SECAs and a speedy designation of further seaareas, such as the Mediterranean Sea, as SECAs.Furthermore, the Working Group recommends after an inten-sive discussion that adequate, accompanying measures should betaken in order to prevent unwanted modal shifts from sea to roadweakening the competitive position of Baltic Sea Shipping.Dear colleagues,Even if different solution approaches were suggested by expertsand discussed by the Working Group – in the end strengtheningthe competitiveness of Baltic Sea shipping will have to include theecological concerns of the region.At the end – and I emphasize: at the end -, all Working Groupmembers agreed that according to the IMO decision the aim of areduction of sulphur emissions on the Baltic Sea should be main-tained. Nevertheless, dear colleagues, this was initially also openlydiscussed.But, Ladies and Gentlemen,As the environmental damages cannot be limited regionally ornationally the same goes for competition which also does not endat the borders of the Baltic Sea states. And therefore, a fundamentalrequirement remains that the sulphur content in ship fuels notonly has to be reduced for the Baltic Sea Region, but also for othersea basins.Indeed, this form of equal treatment would ensure that ourregion will not be exposed to severe disadvantages compared toother regions. In the competition with other regions, a level play-ing field would be reached in this respect. Besides, this would alsoserve environmental aspects.Furthermore, the Working Group agreed, after intensive discus-sions during the Schwerin session, on taking up some examples ofpossible counter measures in order to prevent a modal shift toroad traffic.The Working Group supports in this respect any measures forlow-emission shipping. In particular, it has been pointed out byexperts that the stricter environmental requirements offer greatchances for the development of innovative, environmentally-friendly solutions for the shipping sector, including the use ofalternative fuels and energy sources and innovative ship propul-sion systems. And from my own experience, I can say that it is veryimpressive to see a huge new ship engine operated with liquefiednatural gas – as we have during our final meeting including anexcursion to the world’s largest manufacturer of ship engines inRostock.114 Annex 4 Annex 4But, Ladies and Gentlemen,If we want innovative, environmentally-friendly solutions, the busi-ness operating conditions for affected companies have to becoherent and, moreover, the infrastructural framework has to bedeveloped.Dear colleagues,Let me take up another point from the Final Report of the WorkingGroup.The whole field of new marine technologies is a maritimegrowth area.Baltic maritime technology companies have excellent technicalknow-how and a high innovation potential that should be furtherdeveloped, e. g. in the sector of offshore energy generation.The Working Group therefore recommends that integrated activi-ties of the Baltic Sea Region in the areas of maritime research, tech-nology and innovation in order to use the growth potential of newmaritime sectors such as energy generation in offshore technolo-gies, security and surveillance techniques as well as maritime envi-ronmental technology should be supported and access to maritimefuture markets should be enhanced.Ladies and Gentlemen,Shipping and Shipbuilding policy will in any case remain prioritythemes for the Baltic Sea Region and in particular for us as parlia-mentarians representing the regional interests of our people andindustries. And in my view, we will have to continue to addressthese issues in future conferences.This sounds almost self-evident and banal. But only apparently,and I would expressively warn against neglecting these basic top-ics. Viable future strategies for the maritime sector will have to bedeveloped. Efforts should be focused on the development of inno-vative, environmentally-friendly, maritime technologies and solu-tions. With the necessary accompanying measures, the new envi-ronmental requirements and their implementation could be turnedinto a competitive advantage for the maritime sector in the BalticSea Region, offering new possibilities for shipbuilding and supplierindustries, as for example engine manufacturers, but also others, toadvance innovative techniques for more climate and environmen-tal protection.Regarding maritime transport and ports policy the WorkingGroup focused in its second year on inter-modal transport solu-tions and measures to improve co-modality as well as on environ-mental port services and products. Experts have emphasized that,for the further development of environmentally-friendly maritimetransport systems, the efficiency of combined traffic has to beAnnex 4 Annex 4 115increased and the integration between transport modes needs tobe further developed.The infrastructure of a port being a key to its success, it requirescontinuous development and adaptation. The differing regulationsregarding ports in the Baltic Sea Region complicating cross-bordermaritime transport and causing competitive distortions have beencriticized by experts requesting a harmonization of proceduresand regulations in the Baltic Sea Region. Administrative obstaclesfor cross-border maritime traffic should be reduced to a minimum.Initiatives intending to increase the efficiency and productivity ofEuropean sea ports by simplifying administrative and customs pro-cedures and making increased use of information and communica-tion technologies (e-maritime), like the European Commission’sinitiative “Towards a European maritime transport space withoutbarriers” are therefore welcomed.It should be taken into account that ports become more andmore modern service providers, in particular with regard to envi-ronmental requirements for maritime transport. Experts gave aninsight into current challenges for ports operators. A topic of muchdiscussion was the usage of liquefied natural gas and developmentof the necessary port infrastructure needed around the Baltic Sea.Another current issue is the availability of systems and receptionfacilities for waste water from ships in the ports of the Baltic Sea.Port representatives presented examples for sustainable wastemanagement systems for ports using incentives. A topic of debateremains the usage of shore side electricity. Some see it as one pos-sible measure to reduce emissions from ships while they stay inports, but common standards and uniform technical interfacesaround the Baltic Sea would be needed. The project Clean BalticShipping which was presented to the Working Group by its projectleader, offers a number of environment- and climate-friendly solu-tions for shipping and for ports and could be used as a competitiveadvantage for the Baltic Sea Region. The Working Group recom-mends supporting a sustainable port development and environ-mental port services in order to reduce environmental pollutionfor port residents and simultaneously strengthen the competitive-ness of the Baltic Sea ports.For further details I would ask you to refer to the Working Group’sFinal Report, which will be available to you here in Helsinki and onthe Internet.COOPERATION AND FOLLOW-UP OF THE WORKINGGROUPLadies and Gentlemen,Maritime issues will continue to play a key role in the Baltic SeaRegion and therefore have a major influence on the work of the116 Annex 4 Annex 4BSPC also in the future. I firmly believe that our preoccupation asBSPC with this subject matter will, of course, not end with theFinal Report our Working Group. Many current issues of maritimepolicy, dear colleagues, are in fact undergoing a dynamic develop-ment and need to be further treated. Therefore we have to thinkabout how to continue our work in the best way.Allow me to point out in this respect, that in its June 2011 pro-gress report on the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region the Euro-pean Commission particularly mentioned the enhanced cooper-ation of BSPC, CBSS and BSSSC in maritime affairs as a best prac-tice example for maritime governance.I think this is a big success and recognition accorded our workand we should build up on this first step in the near future. Andthis is something the BSPC has been working on in recent years:Common consultations together with the CBSS, the governmentsof the Baltic Sea States. The joint event of the three maritimeexpert and working groups of CBSS, BSPC and BSSSC in connec-tion with the European Maritime Day in Gdansk on 20th Maythis year was a promising start for an intensified and more struc-tured dialogue of our organisations on maritime issues. Representa-tives of all three organisations were very actively involved in thepreparation and worked out common ideas for the presentation.During that event, in which our Working Group was representedby Vice Chairman Roger Jansson, the three maritime policy groupspresented themselves and their work together to a larger Europeanpublic and discussed under the motto “Common vision, linkingefforts, strengthening visibility” possible ways for a closer coopera-tion to achieve common goals for the Baltic Sea Region.A Report by Vice-Chairman Roger Jansson on the joint event isenclosed as attachment to the Final Report of the Working Group.The first practical result of this joint event was the agreementabout a common maritime working group session with repre-sentatives of all three organisations which took place on the occa-sion of the sixth meeting of our Working Group in June 2011 inSchwerin.I was very pleased that the chairmen of the maritime expertand working groups of CBSS and BSSSC followed my invitation tocontinue our intensified dialogue started in Gdansk within theframework of the Schwerin Working Group session and therebydemonstrated their great interest in working together more closelyand in a more structured way with the parliamentary level of BalticSea cooperation.During that meeting, the (at that time designated) Chairman ofthe CBSS Expert Group on Maritime Policy, Mr Dietrich Seele, gavean outlook on the priorities and the work programme of the2011/2012 German CBSS Presidency.Annex 4 Annex 4 117The Chairman of the BSSSC Working Group on Maritime Policygave a report on his working group’s activities. In particular heinformed about recent developments in the Clean Baltic Shippingproject and invited the BSPC to become a member of the PoliticalCommittee supporting that project.During our common session with representatives of the CBSSand BSSSC maritime working groups, also in this respect therewere also already discussed future possibilities for a closer cooper-ation in maritime affairs. The Chairman of the CBSS Expert Groupon Maritime Policy Mr Seele, for example, mentioned a number ofconcrete possibilities for joint activities and initiatives, rangingfrom mutual and regular information exchange, common monitor-ing of maritime activities of the EU Baltic Sea Strategy, creating aninventory of existing regional or national maritime policies, todeveloping jointly political guidelines for the future.In my view, dear colleagues, strengthening visibility and raisingawareness in the maritime policy field is also an important aspect.This opinion was share by the Chairman of the CBSS Expert Groupon Maritime Policy. He pointed out that Germany during the CBSSPresidency would like to generate more transparency and effi-ciency in the architecture of the Baltic Sea cooperation as a wholeand to strengthen the Baltic Sea Region as a very efficient pillar ofthe worldwide architecture of maritime policy.In the result, the Chairman of the CBSS Expert Group on Mari-time Policy therefore understood the common session in Schwerinas starting point and as Core Group for the cooperation with fur-ther organisations, which should be involved in the future.Many of these suggestions brought forward by the Chairman ofthe CBSS Expert Group on Maritime Policy correspond with earlierrequests that have been raised by the BSPC.At this point, I would like to stress that I think we really made astep forward there in cooperation matters which – as you know –has always been a request from the BSPC.In earlier BSPC Resolutions as well as in the current one, wehave for a long time been asking the CBSS and other organisationsactive in the Baltic Sea Region for a closer cooperation.Now, we really have the chance and we should use it actively.To me, the current (German) CBSS Presidency, as well as alreadythe previous Norwegian Presidency, seems very interested andwilling to engage into further steps for deepening the dialogue andfinding out about possibilities for common initiatives and strate-gies for the benefit of the Baltic Sea Region.Both, the current German and also the precedent NorwegianCBSS Presidency, have been very engaged in bringing forward com-mon activities, Mr Lars Almklov and Mr Dietrich Seele havingrepeatedly participated in our Working Group sessions and in the118 Annex 4 Annex 4joint event at the European Maritime Day. Furthermore, the Ger-man CBSS Presidency has announced that maritime issues will con-tinue to play an important role on its agenda for the next year.In my view, a regular, more structured dialogue between ourand other organisations would strengthen our own possibilities todeal with the challenges of the region in an efficient way and forthe widest possible impact in the region.Ladies and Gentlemen,The next concrete possibility for further steps is imminent: TheSecond Annual Forum of the EU Strategy for the Baltic SeaRegion will take place in Gdansk between 24th and 26thOctober 2011 and would offer the possibility for another jointevent of our three organisations.This important event, organised by the European Commissionand the Baltic Development Forum will give all regional stakehold-ers a chance to give inputs for the revision of the Strategy.All stakeholders are invited to join this open exchange of viewson the status and future of the Strategy. I think it would by veryimportant for us to be present at this event, in particular for work-ing actively towards the inclusion of further maritime-related top-ics and projects in the revised Strategy.Ladies and GentlemenAnd we should think about the role we want to play in futureBaltic maritime policy issues and in building up structures forcooperation in a Baltic maritime framework.CBSS and BSSSC will have maritime working groups at least forthe following year (the BSSSC Working Group is a steady one, andthe German CBSS Presidency is open for a prolongation of theirMaritime Expert Group).For me, the particular advantages and the values of the formatof a parliamentary Working Group and of the parliamentary dia-logue – apart from being able to work together on an equal footingwith the two other maritime working groups and possibly otherorganisations – are that it allows to involve a large number of dif-ferent stakeholders and civil society into a broad dialogue. It canpromote publicity and awareness for maritime issues (possiblepublic expert hearings). At the same time, it gives the people in ourcommon Baltic Sea Region the chance to participate actively inshaping the future maritime policy for the Baltic Sea Region.In my opinion at this moment we have good changes for a realstep forward to achieve concrete results in maritime policy issuesfor the Baltic Sea Region.Annex 4 Annex 4 119CLOSING REMARKS:Ladies and Gentlemen,Concluding I’d like to thank you again forthe trust placed in the Working Group and in myself by the Stand-ing Committee and the entire BSPC.I would like to express my per-sonal thanks to my parliamentary colleagues in the Working Groupfor the friendly and constructive cooperation we enjoyed. Alto-gether it has been 22 members from very different regions, includ-ing myself 23. 23 personalities that have indeed found together for1 Working Group and that have demonstrated that the Baltic Sea isnot separating, but connecting us.Also, on behalf of all members of the Working Group, I’d like to usethe opportunity to thank the experts. Without their substantivecontributions, the work of this Group would not have been possi-ble.Furthermore, I would like to thank the parliaments of Estoniaand Sweden, who have been good hosts for us during two of ourthree meetings held in the past year.Finally, I wish to express my thanks to the Secretariat of theBSPC.Thank you for your attention. I wish us all every success in ourfuture common work.120 Annex 5 Annex 5Annex 5Reportby the Vice-Chairman of the BSPC Working Group on IntegratedMaritime Policy, Roger Jansson, MP, Regional Parliament of ÅlandIslands on the European Maritime Day in Gdansk on 20th May 2011Joint event of CBSS, BSPC and BSSSC Working Groups on MaritimePolicy: “Common vision – linking efforts – strengthening visibility”The common event of the three maritime working groups of CBSS,BSPC and BSSSC on the occasion of the European Maritime Day wasa promising premiere, as it was not only the first ever common pres-entation of the Maritime Policy Groups of our three organisations toa larger European public, but it also marks – as it had been agreedupon by all participants – the beginning of a closer, more regulardialogue between the three organisations on marine related issuesin the near future. The first very practical result of the joint event isour common discussion here in Schwerin today.I would like to give the working group a short report on the Gdanskevent, before we start our further discussion.The event was opened by a welcome address of Mr Grzegorz Grz-elak, Chairman of the Committee on Interregional and InternationalCooperation of the Sejmik of the Voivodeship Pomorskie, represent-ing the host country of this year’s European Maritime Day and – atthe same time – of the Southern Baltic Sea Parliamentary Forum. Hestressed that maritime topics formed a main focus of work of theForum and that the Forum was actively involved in the developmentof an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union as well asof the EU Baltic Sea Strategy by participating in the consultationprocess on the European level.The following panel discussion, moderated by Udo Biss (North Ger-man Broadcasting) began with introductory speeches by the chair-men / vice-chairman of the three groups. Mr. Almklov described therole of the CBSS as political forum for regional inter-governmentalcooperation, working through network and project-based activities.As priority areas for the CBSS he mentioned environment, economicdevelopment, energy, education and culture and civil security. Themain focus of the Norwegian presidency had been maritime policy.In particular, the Expert Group on Maritime Policy had dealt withthe potential of LNG as alternative energy solution for maritime traf-fic. For this purpose, the Norwegian presidency had organized aworkshop on “The Baltic Sea as pilot region for LNG in Europe” inMarch 2011.Annex 5 Annex 5 121Mr Musiolik pointed out that the BSSSC saw itself as an advocatefor the regions of the Baltic Sea, supporting promising projects.The BSSSC Working Group on Maritime Policy had been foundedin 2008 and pursued the vision of establishing a European mari-time best practice region by 2015. By suggesting a flagship project“Clean Baltic Shipping” that had been fully integrated into the EUBaltic Sea Strategy Action Plan the working group had successfullyparticipated in the process of developing the EU Baltic Sea Strat-egy. In order to strengthen political support for the implementa-tion of the different projects of the initiative, he invited otherorganisations, and in particular the BSPC, to become member inthe political committee of the Clean Baltic Shipping project. Per-sonally, I would support this suggestion and I think we should dis-cuss this together later on. Additionally, in Mr Musiolik’s view – andI think we could all agree to this -, it will be of major importancefor the successful implementation of the Strategy to increase thevisibility of the potentials of the region. In this regard, he suggestedto introduce a “Baltic Sea Clean Marine Award” that could beawarded in connection with the European Maritime Day 2012 inGothenburg.For the BSPC I spoke in favour of a more regular and structureddialogue between the different levels of political decision-makingin the region. We should all strive to build a Baltic Maritime Com-munity by developing and sharing maritime knowledge, exchang-ing information and experience on best-practice examples in orderto promote common objectives for the best of our region. I122 Annex 5 Annex 6informed that during our meetings so far maritime safety and cli-mate protection have been identified as principal maritime chal-lenges of the Baltic Sea Region and that the harmful effects of ship-generated emissions and the designation of the Baltic Sea as anEmission Control Area have been at the centre of discussion. FinallyI mentioned that a more regular dialogue between our groups andorganisations could strengthen the combined impact of our effortsto promote competitiveness and environmental sustainability inthe Baltic Sea Region.Mr Haitze Siemers, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the Euro-pean Commission, who also took part in the panel discussion,thanked the panel members for their valuable input. He stressedthat the European Commission would particularly welcomeapproaches for the development of integrated maritime gover-nance structures. In the economic field, the topics “innovation” and“clusters” would play an important role in the further developmentof the Baltic Sea Strategy. In particular, initiatives that combinedaspects of environmental protection and economic growth wouldreceive high priority by the European Commission. He fully agreedwith Mr Musiolik’s statement regarding the need for an improvedvisibility of the maritime aspects of the Baltic Sea Strategy and con-sidered suggestions for creating a Baltic Sea Award or for the devel-oping environmental standards and labels for shipping and ports asgood ideas.In my eyes, the common event in Gdansk was a success and weshould build up on it in the near future, starting with today’s dis-cussion!Annex 5 Annex 6 123Annex 6Conference ResolutionAdopted by the 20thBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC)The participants, elected representatives from the Baltic SeaStates*, assembling in Helsinki, Finland, 28 – 30 August 2011, dis-cussing Co-operation in the Baltic Sea Region, Integrated MaritimePolicy, Civil Safety and Security, and Green Growth and Energy Effi-ciency,A. reconfirming their commitment to act persistently for a posi-tive and pluralistic political, social and economic developmentof the Baltic Sea Region, rooted in environmental concerns andsustainability, by listening to and giving voice to the grassrootsof their constituencies, by driving political issues in their parlia-ments and relevant committees, and by exerting political pres-sure on governments to fulfill the commitments and obliga-tions they have undertaken for the benefit of the Region;B. restating the mutual usefulness of close collaboration betweenBSPC and CBSS, for instance by a growing and continuousexchange between the various working bodies of the organiza-tions, and by pursuing a closer synchronization of political pri-orities and target issues, thereby strengthening their individualas well as combined capacity to deal successfully with the chal-lenges of the Baltic Sea Region;C. commending the comprehensive Declaration of the 16th CBSSMinisterial Session in Oslo 7 June, which, i.a., welcomes theefforts under way in establishing cooperation between Iceland,Norway, Russia and the EU in areas where common objectivescould be identified under the EU Strategy for the Baltic SeaRegion, and which also expresses appreciation of the work ofBSPC within the CBSS priority areas maritime policy and coun-ter-trafficking in human beings;D. reiterating their strong support to the HELCOM Baltic SeaAction Plan, and expressing their collective expectation that allHELCOM Governments will implement and successfully fulfilltheir National Implementation Plans in order to achieve goodenvironmental status of the Baltic Sea by 2021;E. maintaining that the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region mustbe aligned with the Northern Dimension, which brings124 Annex 6 Annex 6together EU- and non-EU- countries of the Region on an equalfooting, because credible long-term solutions to the challengesof the Region require participation and commitment by all ofits central stakeholders;F. recognizing that the review of the EU Strategy for the BalticSea, which will take place under Polish Presidency of the EUCouncil, will give an opportunity to obtain better synergyeffects between the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea and the keyexisting cooperation structures within the Baltic Sea Region;G. welcoming the establishment of a parliamentary tier of theNorthern Dimension, as embodied in a recurrent NorthernDimension Parliamentary Forum, the latest of which was heldin Norway in 2011 and the next to be convened in Russia in2013;H. welcoming also the continuation and resource allocation toconcrete projects under the Northern Dimension Environmen-tal Partnership, the operation of the two new partnershipsunder the Northern Dimension, on Transport and Logistics andon Culture, and appreciating the mutually beneficial exchangebetween BSPC and the Northern Dimension Partnership inHealth and Social Well-being;I. acknowledging the work of organizations and activities at sub-regional level – such as the Committee of the Regions (CoR),Baltic Sea States Sub-Regional Cooperation (BSSSC), the Unionof Baltic Cities (UBC), and the Parliamentary Forum of theSouthern Baltic Sea (PFSBS) – and recognizing their experi-ences and capacities to identify problems in the Region andimplementing concrete measures against them;J. welcoming the joint event of the Working Group on IntegratedMaritime Policy of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferencewith the Expert Group on Maritime Policy of the Council ofthe Baltic Sea States (CBSS) and the Working Group on Mari-time Policy of the Baltic Sea States Subregional Co-operation(BSSSC) during the European Maritime Day in Gda€sk on May20th 2011, and supporting the further coordination and jointactivities between these and other institutions and organiza-tions;K. emphasizing that citizens should be kept informed andinvolved in the planning and implementation of strategies andprojects that influence the development of the Baltic SeaAnnex 6 Annex 6 125Region; NGOs play an invaluable role both as opinion-makersand independent experts, and their views, warnings and adviceshould be taken seriously;call on the governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS and theEU,Regarding Co-operation in the Region, to1. support the further development and activities of the CBSS byproviding long-term resources for its project-based and target-oriented approach in dealing with specific issues of centralimportance for the Baltic Sea Region, and encourage an ongo-ing collaboration and convergence of priorities with the BSPC;2. allocate sufficient resources and speed up the work to develop,monitor and implement the National Implementations Plansunder HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, aimed at achieving goodecological status of the Baltic Sea by 2021;3. work for a continued coordination of the priorities and con-crete activities of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region andthe Northern Dimension, thereby promoting that all stakehold-ers of the Baltic Sea Region can cooperate on an equal footing;4. fulfill existing and encourage new commitments to the BalticSea Action Summit;5. solicit an overview to bring sharper clarity over the availabilityof various funding channels and other resources for projectsand investments in the Baltic Sea Region, to ensure that theyare used efficiently and that access to funds is widened andfacilitated for all stakeholders of the Region;6. provide financial contributions to the BSAP Technical Assis-tance Fund, jointly managed by NiB and NEFCO with the pur-pose of granting assistance to projects that support the imple-mentation of the HELCOM BSAP;7. encourage and support initiatives, events and mechanisms tobring stakeholders of the Baltic Sea Region together toexchange information and coordinate priorities and activitiesfor the purpose of avoiding duplication and boosting their col-lective impact; the Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forumand the Forum on the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region arecommendable examples;126 Annex 6 Annex 68. promote the development of civil society and support NGOsby financial and administrative resources;9. promote cooperation on countering proliferation of threats ofWeapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in the Baltic Sea Region;Regarding Integrated Maritime Policy in the BalticSea Region, to10. revisit the political recommendations concerning IntegratedMaritime Policy contained in the 19th BSPC Resolution from2010;11. to intensify research and to promote the use of alternativemarine fuels such as – for example – Liquefied Natural Gas(LNG) in the Baltic Sea Region and others by supporting inno-vative emission reduction technologies and by creating incen-tives for investments in the development of the necessary portinfrastructure with a well developed distribution network anduniform industry- and usage standards;12. against the background of new studies on the implications ofthe intended reduction of the sulphur content of ship fuels to0.1 % from the year 2015 in the framework of the internationalMARPOL convention, take precautions and to start initiatives toprevent a modal backshift in traffic from sea to land;13. to support incentives for the modification of existing ships, andto work actively within the International Maritime Organiza-tion (IMO) for a speedy designation of further sea areas, such asthe Mediterranean Sea, as Sulphur Emission Control Areas(SECA), thereby abolishing competitive disadvantages for theBaltic Sea Region;14. to work for a reduction of administrative obstacles for cross-border maritime traffic;15. to develop maritime spatial planning as an important instru-ment for an optimized interaction between the actors in thevarious maritime sectors in the interest of a more efficient andsustainable usage of sea waters and coastal regions, and to cre-ate national, compatible spatial planning concepts, thereby pro-moting a stronger cross-border cooperation between the BalticSea countries;16. to support a sustainable port development by the developmentof environmental port services, for instance by building sewageAnnex 6 Annex 6 127recipient facilities in all important ports in the Baltic Sea by2015 at the latest, in order to reduce environmental pollutionfor port residents and simultaneously strengthen the competi-tiveness of the ports;17. to further implement an integrated maritime policy with regardto its economic and ecological significance for the entire BalticSea Area, particularly by– developing and promoting integrated maritime lead pro-jects for the entire Baltic Sea Area (e.g. Clean Baltic Ship-ping, Galileo Research Port Rostock, SUCBAS – Sea Surveil-lance Co-operation Baltic Sea) also in the areas of “green,safe transport and a clean environment” for the strengthen-ing of environmentally friendly goods traffic and the portcooperation in the whole Baltic Sea Area in order to furtherpromote the maritime policy in the consciousness on theEuropean level,– promoting and facilitating the cooperation on all levels ofmaritime governance and by– the development of national integrated maritime policies ofthe member states;18. to support integrated activities of the Baltic Sea Region in theareas of maritime research, technology and innovation, in orderto use the growth potential of new maritime sectors such asenergy generation in offshore installations and offshore tech-nologies, the security and surveillance technique as well asmaritime environmental technology and to enhance access tofuture markets; for this purpose, create necessary political andjudicial framework and disseminate best practices;19. to further develop environmentally sustainable cruise tourismas a maritime growth industry against the background of itsimportance for the whole Baltic Sea Region, for example byattractive inland tourist offers and concepts of common mar-keting in this field of tourism;20. to proceed with the development and implementation of meas-ures for safe operation of ships in severe and icy winter condi-tions;21. to support projects and activities focusing on safety of naviga-tion, such as a Baltic Sea- wide Ship Reporting System (SRS) andVessel Traffic Service (VTS), and promoting the development ofthe Baltic Sea Region as a pilot region for e-navigation;128 Annex 6 Annex 6Regarding Civil Safety and Security in the Baltic SeaRegion, to22. jointly develop trans-boundary scenarios and identify gaps forall natural and man-made hazards and threats of the Baltic SeaRegion, in order to identify potential disasters and disruption,to build a comprehensive regional risk register, and tostrengthen the combined regional capacity to prevent andmanage hazards, by capacity-building, training and exercises;23. to support the HELCOM ad hoc Expert Group “Munitions” inorder to compile all kinds of additional information on dump-ing activities after World War II and check whether the generalconclusions of the “CHEMU-report” are still valid;24. against lessons learned from the nuclear disaster in Fukushimastarted in March 2011, to step up regional cooperation for thepurpose of elaborating and adopting stringent conditions andregulations for construction, operation and decommissioningof nuclear power plants, as well as for the storage and process-ing of spent fuel, but also for grasping the opportunity to inten-sify efforts to promote the development of renewable energysources, energy efficiency and green technologies;Regarding Trafficking in Human Beings, to25. revisit the political recommendations concerning Traffickingcontained in the 19th BSPC Resolution from 2010;26. initiate and support extended analyses of the economic aspectsof trafficking in human beings, promote coordination betweenrelevant authorities and institutions to detect money flowsstemming from trafficking in human beings (THB), enhance thecapabilities and cooperation of police, tax authorities and otherrelevant institutions to track money emanating from THB andstrengthen the legal and administrative means to confiscateproceeds from, as well as imposing stern fines on, thoseengaged in THB;27. promote efforts to gain more extensive knowledge of thenature and scope of trafficking in human beings for forcedlabour, taking into account the gender dimension; initiate andsupport the development of joint strategies in cooperationwith trade unions and employer’s organizations and relevantauthorities; strengthen legislative and operational means ofidentifying and combating trafficking in human beings forAnnex 6 Annex 6 129forced labour; and conduct public information campaignsabout trafficking in human beings for forced labour;28. address the special problems of trafficked children in legisla-tion and in administrative guidelines, employing a multi-disci-plinary approach and multi-sectoral coordination with thechild’s best interest as an overarching priority; this includes e.g.that a child should not be detained as a matter of principle, aformal policy of non-punishment, and a guaranteed provisionof shelters with suitable facilities tailored to the needs of thechildren, including professional personnel trained in buildingtrust with children in order to prevent their disappearancesfrom the shelters;29. investigate, e.g. by requests to responsible authorities, the effi-ciency and relevance of existing legislation and legal measuresagainst trafficking in human beings, and develop and adapt,where appropriate, legislation to adequately respond to currentand developing forms of trafficking in human beings andstrengthen coordination between various sectors of the politi-cal and judicial system;30. make efforts to raise awareness of trafficking in human beings,e.g. by supporting and conducting public information cam-paigns and outreach activities, such as the “Safe Trip” campaignby CBSS (www.safetrip.se) as well as similar initiatives by e gprivate companies and NGOs, and also support measures tofacilitate the reporting to authorities of suspect cases of traf-ficking in human beings, e g by means of hotlines;31. initiate and support measures to enhance the joint perceptionand understanding of THB among all actors in the region,thereby advocating a closer cooperation and coordinationamong them, and furthermore expand exchange and coopera-tion with international organizations active in the fight againsttrafficking in human beings, such as UN, IPU, OSCE, Council ofEurope, ILO, IOM and others;32. present continuous evaluation and reporting of the progressand results in the fight against trafficking in human beings,based on jointly developed and agreed success criteria on fac-tors such as e.g. the number of convictions, safe returns of vic-tims, and the like; they should also monitor that programmesand strategies are continuously updated and adapted to newand changing forms of trafficking in human beings;130 Annex 6 Annex 633. promote the development of favourable working conditions forthose active in the fight against trafficking in human beings, forthe purpose of reducing the drainage of experienced person-nel and enabling continuity of work and accumulation of com-petencies;34. promote actions to strengthen the capacity to identify andincriminate the middlemen in trafficking in human beings,meaning persons indirectly profiting from trafficking in humanbeings by e g facilitating contacts between potential buyersand traffickers and/or trafficked persons, e g in the taxi, hotelor ferry industries;Regarding Health and Social Well-being in the BalticSea Region, to35. allocate sufficient and long-term resources for joint regionalactivities and endeavours to improve health and social well-being, recognizing the crucial role of The Northern DimensionPartnership in Public Health and Social Well-being (NDPHS) inregional work in this area and the necessity to maintain sup-port to its project facilitation and promotion activities, aimed athelping the Baltic Sea Region make progress towards theachievement of objectives of relevant global and Europeanstrategies and policies;36. take concerted action to complement national responses topublic health problems, taking into account the gender dimen-sion, caused by avoidable unhealthy lifestyles in general and theharmful use of alcohol and substance abuse in particular, lead-ing into non-communicable diseases, and threatening socialcohesion and socio-economic development;37. encourage consideration of health and social well-being issuesin other relevant policy areas, consistent with the health in allpolicies approach;Regarding Green Growth and Energy Efficiency in theBaltic Sea Region, to38. adopt policies and undertake measures to turn the Baltic SeaRegion into an Eco-Region, in which economic growth goeshand in hand with environmental integrity and social justice,by promoting eco-innovations, sustainable consumption andproduction and waste treatment, and sustainable urban andrural development strategies;Annex 6 Annex 6 13139. facilitate research, innovation and business development ingreen technologies and energy efficiency, including research ofthe potential to develop renewable energy sources in theRegion, for instance by providing legal and other incentives toSMEs in order to encourage capacity-building for sustainableproduction and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR);40. promote an integrated approach to improving energy effi-ciency in households, public authorities, industry and transport,for instance by putting in place legal conditions and physicalplanning requirements that encourage investments in and con-version to energy-saving devices and methods, as well as build-ing public-private partnerships to encourage more green-techinvestments in the future of the Region;41. provide incentives and conditions for green public procure-ment and practices among public authorities at all levels, forinstance by introducing sustainability as a criterion in tender-ing and purchasing procedures;42. take note of the work of the Baltic Sea Region Energy Co-opera-tion (BASREC) and the conclusions of its upcoming meeting ofMinisters of Energy in Berlin in spring 2012;43. launch information campaigns and activities to raise awarenessof green growth and energy efficiency and its individual as wellas collective economic and ecological benefits with a focus ondemonstrating available practical solutions for increasingenergy efficiency;44. provide continued support to the activities of Baltic 21, and toestablish a four-year project on “Green Growth for a Bluer Bal-tic Sea” in order to define common priority areas within e.g.energy, water, transport and tourism, to develop strategies forenhancing the development and use of renewable energies andincreasing energy efficiency, and to provide for an exchange ofbest practices among actors and stakeholders;Furthermore the Conference Decides to45. urge the BSPC members to establish networks of parliamentari-ans on the fight against trafficking in human beings, in order tosecure continuity of commitment and visibility of the issue, tocontinuously monitor progress of various activities in the fightagainst trafficking in human beings, and to develop the rela-132 Annex 6 Annex 6tions between the executive and legislative powers concerningthe fight against trafficking in human beings; in this endeavour,the networks should make use of handbooks and guidelinesproduced by e.g. UN, IPU, PACE, ILO, and others;46. grant Observer status to the Northern Dimension Partnershipin Public Health and Social Well-being;47. support the transformation and follow-up of the Baltic SeaLabour Network (BSLN), by establishing a permanent Forumfor Social Dialogue in the Baltic Sea Region in order to securepublic support in the field of labour rights;48. establish a Working Group on Green Growth and Energy Effi-ciency, to submit a report at the 21st BSPC;49. adopt the BSPC Work Programme for 2011-2012;50. adopt the revised BSPC Rules of Procedure, to take effect afterthe closure of the 20th BSPC;51. welcome with gratitude the kind offer of the Federal Assemblyof Russia to host the 21st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferencein the Mariinsky Palace, the Legislative Assembly of St Peters-burg, on 26 – 28 August 2012.* Parliaments of Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, Denmark, Finland, Federal Repub-lic of Germany, Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Republic of Karelia, Latvia,Leningrad, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Council ofFederation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, State Duma of theFederal Assembly of the Russian Federation, City of St. Petersburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Sweden, Åland Islands, Baltic Assembly, European Parliament, NordicCouncil, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceBSPC Working Group onIntegrated Maritime PolicyFinal ReportBaltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Secretariatwww.bspc.netc/o Nordic CouncilVed Stranden 18DK-1061 Copenhagen K.Phone (+45) 33 96 04 00www.norden.org.US 2011:417