Minutes Meeting 3 13 5 2002 En

Attachment 1Working Group on Copenhagen, 13th May 2002“Maritime Safety”of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceMINUTESof the 3rd Session of the Committee on“Maritime Safety” at the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conferenceon 13th May 2002, 10:00 a.m.,Copenhagen, European Environment AgencyProgrammeWelcome AddressDr. Henning Klostermann, Chairman of COMSPresentation of EEAMr Ove Caspersen, Staff Member of HELCOMPart IInternational Labour OfficeMr Dani Appave, Senior Maritime Specialist (ILO)Head of Latvian DelegationMr Guntis Drunka, Expert (HELCOM SEA)Danish Maritime AuthorityMr Jørgen Hammer Hansen, (Director General)DiscussionPart IIMaritime Office SzczecinMr Marcin Ochrymiuk, Deputy InspectorSwedish Maritime AdministrationMr Johan Franson, Director of Maritime SafetyRussian Ministry of TransportMr Alexsej Klyavin, RepresentativeDiscussionPart IIILatvian Maritime AdministrationMr Arturs Brokovskis-Vaivods, Deputy DirectorNorwegian Maritime DirectorateMr Reidar Norheim, Senior Maritime AdvisorDiscussionClosing wordsDr. Henning Klostermann, Chairman of COMSWelcome address by Dr. Henning Klostermann (Chairman of COMS, MP Mecklenburg-Vorpommern):Distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to welcome you on the occasion of today's international hearing of the Working Group for Maritime Safety of the Baltic Sea Parliamentarian Conference at the headquarters of the European Environmental Agency. I would like to extend special thanks at this point to Mr Caspersen of the EEA, for making this meeting possible.To begin with, let me briefly explain our reasons for being here today.The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference has been established since 1991 as a partner with equal rights in international institutions and forums in Europe.The Baltic Sea, having recovered from the decades of political differences between "East and West", is gradually regaining its importance as a common inland sea and economic region. It is becoming the greatest and most dynamic growth region in Europe.Our common sea is notable for its particular natural characteristics. Oil spills can therefore have disastrous effects on the ecological system and the economy of local resident States. The chief danger lies in the increasing volume of oil transportation by ever larger ships at increasingly high speeds, the globalisation of shipping, increasing pressure of competition on both ship owners and cargo owners, the superannuation of ships and the operation of substandard ships, the insufficient initial and further training of crew members and various other deficits. The general increase in maritime traffic and the attendant threat to the basic existence of all the neighbouring Baltic Sea States call therefore for a mandatory strengthening of international action on the prevention of shipping disasters and broader international agreements on general, overlapping State action.Against this background the Baltic Sea Parliamentarian Conference has devoted itself in special measure over the last few years to the topic of "Maritime Safety in the Baltic Sea". On the basis of resolutions made in the 9th and 10th meetings, recommendations on political action and demands, which were discussed both in national as well as regional parliaments and in international committees, were made for the Baltic Sea region. The results of the last meeting have in the meantime borne fruit in the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration of 2001 and have been adapted in part in existing international law. The COMS Working Group is at present on the formulation of further suggestions for measures which should be raised in the discussion planned for the end of September and the beginning of October in St. Petersburg this year.It has become evident that the intensive technical discussions at parliamentary level have increased the political pressure on committees, governments and international organisations to expedite the necessary measures for the prevention, management and combating of accidents etc. We are acknowledged as the third pillar of political power alongside government action and environmental organisations. The granting of observer status to us in HELCOM in April 2002 signifies for us the appreciation and respect for our work in BSPC and COMS. Further initiatives can be introduced only in close co-operation with the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the European Union (EU). It is of particular importance to further develop a collective safety consciousness in the politics and societies of the neighbouring Baltic Sea States. We are speaking of a safety culture for shipping. Marine environmental protection concerns should therefore not be neglected.Efforts should also be made from the technical viewpoint to make the available technical options obligatory on an international scale and to implement them as quickly as possible. These steps have been successful so far in such important measures as the introduction of automatic ship identification systems (AIS), the intensified use of electronic navigation information systems (ECDIS) and the Resolution on the use of double hulled ships for the transportation of oil and dangerous substances.Important progress is also being made in the areas of navigation and routing in waters which are difficult to negotiate, such as the Kadetrinne. All the neighbouring Baltic Sea States are now finally obligated to maintain not only adequate accident response and management facilities on shore and at sea but also the necessary corresponding technology.Of particular importance from the German point of view is the unification of competences for the supervision of maritime traffic, prevention of shipping accidents and a fast and adequate reaction in the event of such accidents. In the medium term, a centralised coastguard or marine detail is regarded as essential. With regard to the entire Baltic Sea region the formation of a common international coastguard detail should also be carried out as a longer term perspective.I am pleased to note that this hearing today has succeeded in attracting the attendance of renowned experts on such an international scale and that representatives from our eastern neighbour States and also EU candidates are present. I would like to point out too, that the Russian Federation has also given our sitting special attention by sending a representative here today; I should like to express gratitude to the Parliament in Moscow, our respect for this wise decision and our anticipation of future work together in COMS.It is however quite clear to us that many problems can only be solved internationally at government level but we regard it as equally necessary nevertheless to increase the pressure on a broader plane in order to come as fast as possible to practicable and effective solutions.We anticipate the most differential and firm basis possible from today's hearing, in order to work out and put forward further specific recommendations. With this in mind, we request that you help us in this plan with your most concrete suggestions possible and examine them in detail, controversially if needs be, so that we too can gauge the necessity, effectiveness and feasibility of your corresponding suggestions as thoroughly as possible.Today’s expert hearing has its basis in the 1st. International Hearing in April 2001 in Schwerin (documented in the publication) and is a continuation of that inquiry. I deeply regret that no representative from the EG has made an appearance; we have unfortunately received a cancellation at short notice from the General Directorate for Energy and Transport and I accordingly requested a written statement from them on 07.05.2002.Ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to add a few unavoidable notes on organisation before we begin the hearing proper:Regarding the schedule, it has been planned that every expert should have a speaking time of up to 15 minutes. It entails two to three addresses from experts, one after the other, followed by a 15 minute discussion on these contributions. Fortunately, some of the experts have, despite the little time available to them and the complexity of the issue, already forwarded a written statement. I would be grateful if you would keep your addresses brief and concentrated on issues additional to your written statements, those which you may regard as of particular importance to you, and your further fundamental opinions and suggestions on possible and necessary action. Every expert can cover the complete list of questions from the aspect of his particular field.In view of a projected broad discussion, I regard it as important today that the experts air their divergent opinions, particularly in the framework of the respective discussions. It is our aim to allow our guests as much talk time as possible and to initiate a dialogue between them so that a great deal of information can be gleaned from the proceedings. I am sure that this method is also in the interests of both you and the representatives.As you may already be aware, our proceedings will be simultaneously interpreted into German, English, Russian and "Scandinavian".A protocol of today's hearing will be prepared, the draft of which will be forwarded to you when it is completed so that you will have ample opportunity to correct any errors or omissions in the record. This will not entail any amendments to the expert content. Should you not convey any request to us for corrections within 14 days of posting, we shall take it that you agree with the account of your contributions as documented and we will then go on to publish the protocol. I also assume that you will submit your agreement that we can include your written statements for today's hearing in the subsequent publication of the hearing.We are cordially invited to assemble for lunch here in this building at 12.30 p.m.It is intended that the hearing should end at the latest around 3.00 p.m. This assumes a disciplined observance of our time schedule, so I politely request that you adhere to the predefined time budgets.In conclusion I would like to inform you that Mr Hendrik Hagemann has offered to escort us later on a special tour through the Danish Folketing, which I am already looking forward to, as there is a plenary session today which we can visit.I now call Mr Ove Caspersen of the European Environmental Agency to tell us a little about the work of this important European institution.Thank you for your attention.Presentation of EEA by Mr. Ove Caspersen:He describes the EEA, the aims of the organisation and its work within the European context.International Labour OfficeFrom the speaking notes of Mr. Dani Appave (Senior Maritime Specialist, ILO):Thank you Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to be here today. I also thank you on behalf of Director General Mr. Somavia for the invitation and the opportunity for me to speak for the ILO. In brief, the ILO is a tripartite organisation – a UN specialised agency – and was founded in 1919. Workers, employers and governments all comprise the substance of the ILO - the roles of ship owners and seafarers naturally represent the heartland of the maritime ILO. We advocate the adoption of Conventions on many issues, such as the 40 hour week, child labour and workers’ rights and principles. Membership of the ILO involves a real commitment to its “core conventions” of basic labour rights (Declaration) and strategy for decent employment.The Baltic States have a genuine interest in maritime safety; many of them are traditional maritime nations. The Baltic Sea is a sensitive area due to its traffic congested waters; winter navigation there is especially hazardous. Shipping and maritime Conventions are applied through ratification and social dialogue between the national-traditional maritime peoples; they have applied these minimum standards through their national legislations but they trade in other parts of the world too. The internationalisation of shipping has effectively weakened this mechanism. The basic, theoretical PSC principle of keeping sub-standard ships out may not be so effective in practice. Some large flags are unable to enforce standards and the enforcement of minimum standards is as a result being increasingly left to PSC. However, this primary responsibility should remain with the Flag State and therefore the ratification and adoption of relevant legislation must remain crucial to the enforcement of international labour standards as well.C.147 is the most important of the ILO maritime labour standards: it was adopted to combat the problem of sub-standard shipping - for the ILO, sub-standard living conditions tend to mean sub-standard vessels. C.147 incorporates in its appendix a number of other ILO Conventions which cover a variety of issues. Most Baltic States have ratified C.147; however, a protocol to C.147 was adopted in 1996 and most Baltic States still need to ratify this. In addition, they should consider ratifying not only a number of older ILO instruments but also some of the newer ones, e.g. C.180 on hours of work of seafarers, C.166 on repatriation, and C.179 on the recruitment and placement of seafarers.Improving the quality of inspection through training and uniformity of inspection practices is all important. The ILO has developed a course on the inspection of social and working conditions, which is available in English and on CD-ROM. It is expected that this course will soon have to be improved as the protocol becomes more important. The Government of France has assured us of its co-operation in this regard.As a stop press report, the Paris Memorandum decided last week at their meeting in Halifax, Canada to include the Protocol to C.147 as a relevant instrument in the Memorandum. This means that C.180 (hours of work) and C.166 (repatriation) which are listed in the Appendix will also become subject to inspection under the port state control arrangements.Concerning the preparation of a consolidated maritime labour instrument, the new convention should:1. contain provisions which ensure reasonable standards for conditions of work and life in the industry;2. be enforceable and enforced, and therefore have the same status as STCW, SOLAS and MARPOL;3. therefore be subject to verification procedures which are as good or better than these instruments;4. be ratified by a very high number of maritime countries;5. lend itself to an easy and fast process of updating when required.There is a very strong consensus of opinion in the industry that this new Convention is needed.The ILO is holding a series of meetings of a high level Tripartite Working Group to draft the text of the new Convention which should be examined by a technical conference in 2004 and a maritime session of the International Labour Conference in 2005. Participation will be from the States who want improved working conditions for seafarers and an even playing field in shipping. (Same rules to apply to all). It should the responsibility of these States not only to prevent sub-standard shipping from entering their region but also to fight against sub-standard shipping worldwide. This should be the lowest common denominator in this question, not as is sometimes the case, “no rules at all”.Port state control should be made more effective worldwide but above all, Flag State control must be given back its former prominence. Flag States should have the necessary laws in place and apply them through inspections, including more thorough inspections of social and working conditions. This means that there should be proof on every ship that Flag States have done their work and lived up to their responsibilities for the seafarers who work on their ships.The ILO has also decided to adopt a new Convention on conditions of work in the fishing industry which will be considered at the International Labour Conference in 2004 and 2005.EMERGENCY REVISION OF SEAFARERS IDENTITY CONVENTION (No. 108)The following requests have been made to the IMO and passed on to the ILO. C.108 will be updated by a Protocol to improve the security of seafarers’ identification. The Protocol will be adopted in June 2003.Questions:1. What is the ILO doing with regard to flag state implementation? The ILO is following the work of the IMO but is considering this issue as proposals are made with regard to the new Convention. Flag State control will continue to be the mainstay of enforcement through measures which remain to be determined by the high level Tripartite Working Group.Common international rules are needed - what can be done in the Baltic Sea? Shipping is international – it needs international rules, but national implementation is also required. Parliaments should therefore implement international rules through ratification of the relevant Conventions.Mr. Guntis Drunka – Expert, HELCOM SEA (Head of the Latvian Delegation):Ladies and gentlemen,Nine Baltic Sea States ratifying the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea area 1992, or the so called Helsinki Convention, have agreed on several fundamental principles and obligations to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area from all sources of pollution and to promote the restoration and preservation of its ecological balance.Also, in close connection with this is the issue of maritime safety which, taking into account recent shipping accidents occurring in the Baltic Sea area, signals a considerable risk to the marine environment.For example, the collision between the oil tanker "Baltic Carrier" and the bulk sugar carrier "Tern" on the 28th of March, 2001, resulted in the biggest oil spill in the Baltic Sea in the last 20 years; 2,700 tonnes of heavy fuel oil were spilled. That is 45 times more than that from the "Pallas" in the North Sea in October 1998 where 60 tonnes of oil were spilled and 16,000 sea birds perished. Within the first three days after the accident 2,000 of around 10,000 sea birds present in the area perished.This accident prompted the Sea Based Pollution Group within the Helsinki Commission to discuss the need for further safety measures aimed at protecting the marine environment and human lives at sea; meanwhile, the volume of traffic in the Baltic Sea continues to rise.A quote in the Helsinki Commission's press release on the "Baltic Carrier" accident reads: “While the effects of shipping are often local, the legislation must be international. Ships from all parts of the world travel through the international waters of the Baltic Sea”.To consider further safety measures by HELCOM and identify the main locations of ship accidents, the types of ships involved in accidents and the consequences for the marine environment, the “Compilation on ship accidents in the Baltic Sea Area from 1989 to 1999” was prepared within the framework of the Sea-based Pollution Group. This Compilation showed that over this ten year period 251 ship accidents occurred in the Baltic Sea Area and that marine environmental pollution caused by accidents involving single hull tankers is more frequent than that of double hull tankers (12 to 2 respectively).Having established that the compilation of information on ship accidents in the Baltic Sea is useful, the lead country - Latvia – will be continuing this work in future.The data and maps on shipping accidents which occurred in the Baltic Sea area in 2000-2001 have been submitted to the 5th. meeting of HELCOM SEA held in Turku on the 13th.-17th. May, 2002. These data show that the number of shipping accidents (groundings and collisions) in the Baltic Sea area is continuing to increase.Presentation with illustrations (maps & graphs):Thus, according to the information submitted by the Contracting Parties of the Helsinki Convention to Latvia, the number of shipping accidents which occurred in the Baltic Sea Area in 2000 and 2001 amounts to 89 (this figure has not yet been endorsed by the Contracting Parties at the HELCOM SEA meeting, there could therefore be possible small variations). Furthermore, it should be noted that the compilation includes only data on so called conventional ships, i.e. oil tankers of 150 GRT and above and dry cargo vessels of 400 GRT and above.As a result, the contracting parties of the Helsinki Convention are now convinced of the need for additional measures. These include ensuring the safety of navigation, improving the emergency response and combating capacities in the Baltic Sea area and - taking into account the forthcoming directive of the European Parliament and the Council on establishing a Community vessels traffic monitoring and information system for maritime traffic and the action program of the European Community - setting up a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental or deliberate pollution.At the Helsinki Commission's Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting in Copenhagen on the 10th of September 2001 the contracting parties adopted the “Declaration on the Safety of Navigation and Emergency Capacity in the Baltic Sea Area (HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration)”. This Declaration includes several maritime safety and emergency capacity measures which have also been recognised as priorities in the future work of the HELCOM Sea Based Pollution Group (HELCOM SEA).These priorities, which have been proposed by the HELCOM Secretariat for acceptance to a meeting of HELCOM Heads of Delegation on 28 - 29 June 2002, are:• response to spillages of orimulsion (depending on increases in the import/export of orimulsion in the region);• emergency capacity (fire-fighting, emergency lightering and emergency towing capacities);• extension of the co-operation in response actions to include shoreline clean-up operations.Latvia takes up chairmanship of HELCOM on 1st. July 2002 and pledges to continue the successful work of the German chairmanship and has identified some additional priority areas of HELCOM SEA requiring attention during its chairmanship, namely:• safety and sustainability of sea transport (this includes implementation of the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration) and• improvement of port reception facilities through implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy.All contracting parties, including Latvia, are giving their best efforts to implementing the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration and a great deal is already being done.In the HELCOM 23/2002 meeting a status report was endorsed on the implementation of the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration by the Contracting Parties; it concluded:The implementation of the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration and HELCOM Recommendation 22E/5 on "Amendments to Annex IV, Prevention of pollution from ships" to the Helsinki Convention is well under way and those activities with a set target date for implementation will be met on time.However, there is a need to stress the importance of a continued commitment on a broad national scale. Thus, within some fields, such as development of emergency capacity, a full implementation can only be achieved through a joint commitment from those responsible organisations and environmental organisations (agencies and ministries).Thus, considering the aim of our meeting I find it quite fitting to finish my statement with the phrase "a joint commitment". Let's follow it up. Thank you.Danish Maritime Authority, Mr Jørgen Hammer Hansen (Director General):Mr. Chairman distinguished MPs, ladies and gentlemenThank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss with you this morning how maritime safety and pollution prevention may be enhanced.We are all very well aware of the regrettable background to this hearing, i.e. the collision between the BALTIC CARRIER and the TERN last year. This accident affected us all deeply and will remain a constant reminder to us of the immense importance of safety of navigation in the Baltic Sea.In all modesty, I can say we have come quite a long way in improving the safety of shipping in that area. On the initiative of the then Danish minister for trade and industry, Mr. Ole Stavad, the HELCOM countries had already in September last year agreed on a number of initiatives to enhance safety and pollution prevention. The initiatives and their state of implementation have been described in the “Joint Danish-Swedish Statement” which has been made available to you as part of the background material for today.I offer no guarantees when it comes to maritime safety. But I assure you that what can be done, either has been done, is being done or will be done.The present government in Denmark is continuing to give a high priority to maritime safety in the Baltic Sea area. Now, looking ahead in a wider context, where is the spotlight?With your permission, I would like to share a few thoughts with you on “The role of the Flag State”. One particular paragraph in the Greifswald Declaration caught my attention while preparing for today's hearing. It is the paragraph emphasising the importance of international, legally binding rules in the framework of the IMO. I could not agree more. Denmark strongly supports the role of the IMO as the primary body for maritime regulation. But the Achilles' heel of the IMO system is that it is left to the Flag States to implement and enforce IMO legislation.The role and responsibility of Flag States is central when it comes to the overall promotion of maritime safety, prevention of pollution and a level playing field for all Flag States - because there is always a limit to how much we can do to protect ourselves as coastal States. We can improve routing systems; we can establish monitoring systems etc. etc. as we have already done in the Baltic; but there is more to real safety.Too many Flag States are not consistent when it comes to the implementation of the international rules handed down from the IMO. This allows substandard shipping to continue to trade and the ultimate responsibility for this lies with the Flag States. As long as substandard ships are trading, we will face unnecessary risks to the safety and lives of crews and passengers and to the marine environment. We cannot allow loss of lives and pollution to occur simply because the international standards already existing are simply not adhered to. Furthermore, the playing field is not level. Some ship owners can cut their expenses because their Flag States do not ensure that their ships and crews comply with internationally agreed standards. Competition in sea transport is all to the good, but it must be on equal terms.What I have just mentioned is - in essence - why the role and responsibilities of Flag States must be strengthened. Maritime trade is of a global character, so the aim is to ensure a consistent global implementation of IMO instruments.Before turning to the initiatives that Denmark is currently undertaking and supporting, let me clarify one important point. Roughly speaking, two very different reasons can be identified as to why Flag States do not meet their international obligations:Many Flag States are in good faith but may not be capable of adherence to procedure. This is the case for many developing countries. An important part of how this can be solved is technical co-operation and assistance. A programme for this already exists in the IMO.The real problem lies with those Flag States that are not in good faith. Such states might be capable of fulfilling their role and responsibilities but choose not to do so, because it conflicts with their interests - interests which may very well be financial.How can the problems I have highlighted be solved? How can the roles and responsibilities of the Flag States be further clarified and strengthened? Well, Denmark - together with a number of like-minded Flag States - has recently presented a proposal to the IMO on the development of a so called Flag State Code. The code will define the role and responsibilities of a Flag State. The code should initially be voluntarily observed but should at a later stage become a mandatory instrument, most likely in the form of a new Convention.This proposal was discussed at a meeting of the IMO Subcommittee on Flag State Implementation - FSI - in April this year. The proposal received overwhelming support from more than 30 countries. It goes without saying that Denmark has gladly accepted the task of developing a draft code to be discussed at the next FSI meeting in the spring of 2003.Critics could say that this new code will only be another piece of paper that some Flag States could ignore but I only partly agree with this. I believe that its mere existence would help narrow the operating parameters for those Flag States who are not in good faith.But the critics are right in the sense that an instrument should be developed and introduced to control the Flag States. One could say to “control the controllers”. That is why Denmark also firmly supports a forthcoming proposal by the UK to introduce an IMO Flag State audit system. This proposal will be discussed by the Council of the IMO in June this year. At this time, it seems that this proposal will receive broad support too.The aim of the audit system will be to ensure that flag States have implemented - and are giving full effect to - the IMO instruments to which they are parties. The system will be anchored at the IMO Secretariat but the auditors will most likely be supplied by the administrations of the member states. To this end, a standard needs to be developed from which the auditors can determine whether the Flag States being audited fulfil their obligations. This standard will lean upon the new Flag State Code to ensure consistency.The Danish Maritime Authority, being a firm supporter of the idea of an IMO audit scheme, has chosen to take its own medicine!Therefore my organisation is currently developing a Flag State audit system for next month and an internal audit will be conducted to test the draft system, including a report on the performance of the Danish Maritime Authority as a Flag State administration. The findings will be shared with a number of like-minded countries and serve as a basis for further decisions.Before concluding, I would like to draw your attention to another interesting initiative: on the 10th -11th July this year the Danish Maritime Authority will host an international conference in Copenhagen on the subject of "Quality Shipping". The Conference will focus on three aspects of quality shipping that we consider being of the utmost importance, i.e. the role of the Flag State, the human element and decent living and working conditions on board.Mr. Chairman, I have outlined some new elements in the maritime safety discussion. I hope I have thereby provided some food for thought as to why and how the role of the Flag State should be strengthened. And I hope that you share some of the views I have presented.Thank you very much.Points made in discussionMr Jørgen Hammer Hansen (Director General, Danish Maritime Authority)• Clean-upThe clean-up following the oil spill in "Grønsund" was not the responsibility of the Danish Maritime Authority. However, as far as we have been informed, the clean-up has been completed satisfactorily.• Routing MeasuresDenmark and Germany have extended the buoyage system in the Traffic Separation System (TSS) South of Gedser and in the deep-water route north-east of Gedser in order to extend the deep-water route 5 nautical miles into the TSS. It is expected that the new routing system will be approved by the IMO in May this year.• Flag State and Port State ControlThe port state control carried out under the Paris MOU results in very precise and useful statistical material. Statistics are published each year showing which flags belong to the "white" part of the list, the "grey" part of the list and the "black" part of the list. This information is used in the detailed targeting system directing port states to decide which ships to focus on when planning inspections.The PSC System is good but it is basically the responsibility of the Flag State to ensure that ships flying its flag are up to standard. The new initiatives regarding the Flag State (the Flag State Code and the Flag State audit scheme) add a new dimension to port state control. In due course - and that does not mean in the immediate future - for example, it could be decided that ships flying the Flag of a State which has notoriously failed to meet its obligations will not be allowed to enter ports in certain regions. Thus, a tool is being created which may eventually allow port States not to acknowledge ships' certificates issued by certain Flag States.• Global versus Regional RegulationAs already explained, Denmark strongly supports the IMO as the prime regulator of maritime safety and pollution prevention. This does not mean, however, that there is no role for regional organisations like HELCOM to play. Certain initiatives are indeed regional in their very nature, such as measures designed to improve the safety of navigation. In fact, the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration is an excellent example of how a number of relevant measures have been described in detail and decided upon regionally without compromising the role of the IMO.• AISThe Installation of AIS on board ships, combined with a land based monitoring function, facilitates the detection of deliberate oil offenders, i.e. ships that discharge oil and other harmful wastes in violation of international regulations. The AIS provides authorities with precise information on the ship's identity, speed, position, cargo etc. thus making it much easier to prove that a certain ship was at a certain position (where an oil spill has later been detected) at a certain time.Maritime Office, Szeczin, PolandFrom the speaking notes of Mr. Marcin Ochrymiuk (Deputy Inspector):Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Taking into account that the main goal of this meeting is to obtain an overview of the respective national status of maritime safety measures, especially with regard to implementation of the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration by the Contracting Parties, our position is as follows:Poland applied for membership in the EU in 1994 and the accession negotiations and preparations facilitating this process were begun in 1998. The entry of our country into the European Community is expected to take place in 2004. Poland has stated that it will be prepared to implement the EU acquis by the end of 2002 and the EU Resolutions and decisions, including those relating to the safety of shipping and the combating and control of pollution will be directly incorporated into Polish law simultaneously with our accession.Poland is also a contracting party of the Helsinki Commission and plays an integral part in HELCOM activities in matters of maritime safety and environmental protection.In order to facilitate the implementation of the EU acquis in issues of maritime safety into the Polish law, the Twinning Covenant between Poland and the United Kingdom was signed in December 2001. It sets out a number of base objectives that include: (1) strengthening the capacity of the administration in order to implement acquis communautaire in the transport sector, especially in maritime safety, environmental protection, traffic safety, civil legislation and technology; (2) bringing the Polish legal instruments for maritime safety in line with the EU standards.And more specifically:• Implementation of the EU standards and legislation in the field of maritime safety, their integration into the Polish legal system and the creation of the conditions for their practical application in law;• Reinforcement of the maritime administration responsible for the control of maritime safety in terms of monitoring compliance with rules and regulations governing maritime safety issues:• Strengthening of Flag State Control (FSC) and Port State Control (PSC) including improvement of data exchange within the scope of their activities:• Enforcement of procedures for the necessary reporting system for the transport of dangerous goods by sea:• Development of a passenger registration system for passenger ships.Dependent on the level experience and bilateral co-operation with neighbouring countries, we intend to develop a Polish AIS network and incorporate it into the Baltic monitoring system. We envisage the completion of this project before the end of 2005.As a contracting party of the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration, Poland fully supports its recommendations on pilotage obligations.We have not yet considered the matter of initial and further training of navigators.Concerning accident management, the new act of law on maritime safety came into force as of the first of January, 2002 and the Polish SAR and oil-combating organisation has been changed in accordance with this act. The Polish Council of Ministers has embarked on a long-term investment programme, including inter alia building of the resources and a base for these activities. Assistance from the Danish DANCEE programme for the restructuring of the Polish National Contingency Plan is also being considered. Operational agreements between the Republic of Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany on co-operation and response activities in the event of maritime accidents and for combating spills of oil and other harmful substances at a responsible services level were signed on the 20th of November, 2001.Action on the discharge of residues from shipping operation and the national capability in shoreline clean-up operations will be subsequently outlined after a review of the National Contingency Plan. Poland has implemented all relevant HELCOM recommendations in principle but there is still a shortage of response vessels for combating oil and chemical spills in the western section of the Polish coast.We have developed the national web page: http://www.ums.gov.pl/osc where information on the HELCOM Combating Manual, marine environmental pollution and SAR services and contacts can be found.The issue of costs for shipping safety and environmental protection has not yet come under consideration.Swedish Maritime AdministrationMr. Johan Franson (Director of Maritime Security, Sweden):Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: I would like to begin by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with what Mr. Hammer-Hansen has said about Flag States and the need to make Flag States live up to their obligations. Sweden has actively participated in the work on the submission of a proposed Code for Flag States and the proposed IMO Model Audit Scheme submitted to the Council of the IMO and supports them fully.Shipping is, as has already been said by some previous speakers, truly international. We can take action in many respects to enhance maritime safety in the Baltic Sea area but in some areas we are dependent on international rulemaking. We cannot as a region take action in fundamental shipping matters like Flag State issues; ships coming into our waters may also sail in many other regions. We are dependent on them for our commerce and we have to support actions in the IMO to strengthen Flag State compliance with existing rules and thereby gain benefits for our region. .Ships carry certificates issued by the Flag State or by a classification society on its behalf. The certificates are issued according to the provisions of various Conventions such as SOLAS, MARPOL etc. These certificates have to be honoured and accepted by other parties to these Conventions. The Conventions do, however, also provide that Flag States have obligations under the Conventions. They should, through surveys and enforcement, make sure that ships flying their flag adhere to the requirements of the Conventions. Ultimately, if the ships do not adhere to the requirements, certificates issued by non-compliant Flag States should not be recognised; these Flag States are not living up to their obligations. However, to achieve this on a worldwide scale will take a long time.May I continue, Mr. Chairman, by saying that the HELCOM Ministerial Declaration of September last year is a very valuable document? It is not my place as a civil servant to pronounce judgement on what has been said by the Ministers but the document is nevertheless valuable. It is very precise and to the point. The actions taken so far by our two countries have been listed in the joint response to the questionnaire from Denmark and Sweden. Let me highlight one matter: the Declaration states that we shall arrange for the exchange of data from AIS transponders between the Baltic countries. We shall arrange for the monitoring of AIS on ships through land based stations and exchange the data we collect. This will give us for the first time an opportunity to really see the flow of traffic and enable us to take action if we find something that should be corrected. AIS is, in my opinion, a technological leap comparable to the introduction of radar. It will enhance safety of navigation because ships will have a very precise ship-to-ship communication of relevant data. In the aftermath of September 11th we will also see a more rapid introduction of AIS in ships.Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me mention one particular issue. We are afraid of catastrophes like the collision between Baltic Carrier and Tern and we do all we can to avoid them. But we must not forget the day-to-day pollution of the Baltic. The greater part of the pollution comes from sources on land, mainly from fertilisers leaking into the sea. We also have operational discharges of oily water and other harmful substances from ships. The number of such discharges is, according to statistics from the Swedish Coast Guard, decreasing but they should not be happening at all.The HELCOM Strategy and the European Directive on Ships' Waste should, if properly implemented, prevent operational discharges since there would be nothing left to discharge into the sea; the substances should have been left in port. The strategy and directives are not being properly implemented in all the Baltic States. In Sweden we have made it an obligation for ports to receive ship generated waste since 1980. Today Swedish ports are complaining, and rightfully so, that their colleagues in other countries around the Baltic Sea do not accept waste substances from ships; the ships consequently leave excessive volumes of waste in Swedish ports. I think Parliamentarians should try to exert political pressure in their countries to try to achieve compliance with the strategy and the directive. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Aleksey Klyavin (Representative, Russian Ministry of Transport):Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemenThe environmental protection of the Baltic Sea is of great importance as it is aimed at providing proper, balanced ecological conditions for the future generations.I believe that all the Baltic States have been conducting very intensive and successful work towards preserving the Baltic Sea but there is still much to be done.We regard the results of the Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration as a great success for the Baltic States; they have enabled us to find the suitable professional solutions to quite a number of complicated questions. All the countries concerned demonstrated their goodwill and preparedness to cooperate to the common good.Since the representatives of the Russian Federation are taking part in this working group for the first time I would like to make some comments on terms and definitions. First of all, maritime safety has a broad meaning and incorporates not only safety of navigation but also addresses other problems related to human activity at sea, including shipping itself, illegal discharges at sea, fishing, waste water, fertilisers, recreation etc.There is one more definition under maritime security (terrorism, stowaways, illegal drug trafficking), which is in now under consideration in London by the IMO MSC. It is also directly linked to the issues of maritime safety which we here are to discuss at present. For example, according to American proposals to the IMO, the introduction of AIS is be completed by the end of 2004; that is considerably sooner than provided for by international Conventions. The experts for the international maritime community are now considering the matter to find the best cost/efficiency solution and to work out a respective international tool to implement the above mentioned and other initiatives. In my opinion al these questions must be taken into consideration by the working group to define the scope of problems to be discussed.Shipping is actually the only industry that has practically no borders and is thoroughly regulated at international level. Therefore it is impossible to have different requirements, e.g. for AIS or Electronic charts in the Baltic or Mediterranean Seas. The worldwide character of shipping and the priority of the international legislation in this sphere must therefore always be taken into account. Meanwhile, this does not mean that it is impossible to cooperate on a regional level. On the contrary, we have a lot of very good examples of such co-operation and best practices. For instance, the Baltic States have made a joint submission to the IMO to extend shipping regulations in the entrances to the Baltic Sea. Russia, Finland and Estonia are working together in establishing a common VTMIS in the Gulf of Finland. Just in April this year Russia, in co-operation with Denmark and Finland, finished the formation of a special maritime unit to combat oil spills, which is now, in our opinion, one of the most capable in the Southern part of the Baltic Sea. Russia has very intense and productive co-operation with Sweden in the ecological sphere. This list of joint initiatives may be continued. We support further joint activities of the Baltic Sea States aimed at the protection of the marine environment and conservation of the Baltic Sea and are open to continued fruitful co-operation. Thank you very much for your attention.Mr. Arturs Brokovskis-Vaivods (Deputy Director, Latvian Maritime Administration):Thank you very much Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemanIt’s a pleasure for me to be here at such an important seminar and I am very happy to have this opportunity to represent the Maritime Administration of Latvia, which is the governmental body for the issues we are considering here today.I would like to add some words on the ways we feel we can improve maritime safety matters in the Belt. The latest developments in science and technology may bring a new capability for improvements in maritime safety and we can use them now.As far as Latvia is concerned, I’m pleased to report that our hydrographical office now boasts a new hydrographical survey vessel with modern sounding equipment, enabling hydrographical surveys to be carried out in full compliance with the IHO Standard S-44.We have already carried out a resurvey in the Irbe Strait to complete the survey of sea lanes leading to our major ports of Riga, Ventspils and Leipaja this year. Some new underwater obstacles (not much of an obstruction to existing sea lanes) have been found and the exact positions of old ones have been defined.We are also ready to carry out a thorough survey of other sea lanes in Latvian waters in the coming years for the purpose of connecting our ports of Ventspils and Leipaja to the sea routing network recently accepted by the HELCOM.Concerning electronic navigational charts, I can inform you that the Latvian waters are fully covered by electronic charts. Comprehensive collection of electronic navigational charts for Latvian waters, made in compliance with IHO Standard 57 3.40, is in place. This also includes seven port areas.Regarding national legislation, the mechanism is not yet in place to accept electronic navigational charts as an equivalent to paper based charts. We are however planning to implement the provisions laid down in Chapter 5. of the SOLAS 74 convention.We support the decisions of the Copenhagen Declaration to establish a land based automatic identification system as an effective instrument for improving maritime safety in the Baltic Sea region. We intend to implement AIS based on the existing Latvian GMDSS network. We feel it is realistic to establish AIS before 1st. July 2005. But we must appreciate that the effective use of an automatic identification system is entirely dependent on the number of ships equipped with automatic identification transponders. The original intentions of the Automatic Identification System were to improve navigational safety and help prevent collisions at sea. However, for the purposes of surveillance, ships without AIS transponders might not show up as solid objects in certain areas. This may be a danger factor in the effective application of AIS, insofar as various small craft, such as yawls, fishing vessels, small auxiliary vessels and naval ships are an important part of shipping traffic and should not be overlooked. In any case, under the current rules Automatic Identification System would be transmitted by ships on VHF-FM frequencies but this only gives it a range of up to 30 miles ship-to-shore. If our objective is to utilise the Automatic Identification System as a security and information data tool for the Baltic Sea Region maybe it is not to late to make use of experts from the expert working groups to consider giving AIS a long range option by linking it to satellites and also the possibilities of implementing it on existing global maritime safety assistant terminals. It could be a plan with a long term perspective but investment now could pay off in the future.The Automatic Identification System is of course a very good and useful tool for operators of vessel traffic services, even if it does not cover movements of small craft. It is therefore necessary to develop a feasible system of financing to cover the installation maintenance expenses for a shore based Automatic Identification System. These attendant extra costs to ship owners, port authorities and coast guards should be covered.The introduction of port dues may be acceptable to attract the interest of ship owners in equipping ships with AIS transponders by the time the relevant SOLAS Convention regulations come into force. Careful consideration of other favourable economic steps may be called for in the future.Latvia is in the process of joining the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control. Statistics on Latvian ship detention on PSC are improving considerably. Our capability in performing port state control in Latvian ports is also improving. Our port state control officers have passed various learning sessions in neighbouring countries. The last sessions took place in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark and we feel we are now ready to assume the responsibility for carrying out port control inspections. I now echo the thanks of the previous speakers for your attention. Thank you.Dr. Henning Klostermann: Many thanks for that contribution. We now continue straight away and call on Mr. Reidar Nordheim of the Norwegian Maritime Directorate to speak.Mr. Reidar Norheim (Senior Maritime Advisor, Norwegian Maritime Directorate):Thank you Mr Chairman. Honoured Members of Parliament, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemenMay I first of – all on behalf of the Norwegian Maritime Directorate – express appreciation for being given the opportunity to be with you here today during this international hearing of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference Committee on Maritime Safety.Having responded briefly and in few words to the issues covered by the questionnaire, all of which I may add are central elements relating to maritime safety, I have been requested to go a little more in depth on the subjects of training, continuing education and how improvements in the qualifications of seafaring personnel may be achieved in order to guarantee a minimum standard.The answer to that is – simply – compliance with the revised STCW Convention through the international accepted minimum standard requirements and to ensure that these standards are met. In order to have this instrument as it is intended to be, it is imperative that all parties take note of Article 1. of the Convention and to take all steps which may be necessary to give the Convention full and complete effect, so as to ensure that from the aspect of safety of life and property at sea and the protection of the marine environment, seafarers on board ships are qualified and fit to perform their duties.Looking back to the previous convention, there was one sentence that stood out. I quote: “To the satisfaction of the administration”. The old days of STCW 78 of the past. Today there is a revised international standard to be met by all the countries who are party to the Convention.I should also like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention the situation within the Norwegian fleet. We have a total of 64,000 seamen serving on board our vessels, 19,000 of whom are Norwegians, divided into two groups; 15,000 serve on board the Norwegian Ordinary Register and 4,000 serving on board Norwegian International Register. Approximately 80 % of the seamen serving on board NIS vessels are foreigners and we have another 24,000 seamen serving on board Norwegian controlled vessels, i.e. vessels registered outside Norway. With a situation like this we have found it necessary to pay particular attention to Regulation 110 of the Convention, in other words, recognition of foreign certificates.We have a certain number of major labour source countries, the Philippines, China, India, Croatia, the Baltic States, Poland and Russia. Ever since the establishment of the Norwegian International Register we have paid particular attention to maritime training and education and more specifically to the former Chapter 6. of the Convention relating to emergency, safety and other issues. In addition, another very important safety aspect is, of course, the ability to communicate on board - to find a common language through which seafarers from these various nations can communicate with his or her fellow ship mates on board the same vessel. In other words, English, which is spoken for key maritime reasons.Having submitted our individual reports to IMO describing our education, training, certification and quality standard systems, and although together another 118 flag states having been included on the IMO White List, does not mean that the job is done. On the contrary, it is far from done; this is just the beginning and now is the time to prove our willingness and ability to live up to our commitments and obligations. We strongly believe, as the Danish Member of Parliament stated before lunch, that working through the international instruments is the key to success. But equally important is to work together regionally, linking ourselves up to the international instruments to which we are all a party.If, on behalf of the NMD, I could be granted a wish for the future, I should like to see a regime take shape by which we could agree that education completed within one region should be accepted by other countries within that same region. We had this in a similar setting some years ago. Type approval of navigational aids was subject to national regimes back in the 1980s. Then we suddenly “saw the light”, and found that navigational aids such as radars, being type approved for example in Germany could automatically be accepted for use on board vessels flying the flag of other states, for example Denmark, Sweden and Norway. We have a situation today where, although Norwegian seafarers may live in Denmark and may complete safety training at Danish accredited and approved training institutions, they will not be accepted for service on board Norwegian flag vessels unless they have completed the same programme in Norway; this does not make sense.I believe I have a few minutes more to conclude; another thing that concerns us is the simple fact that seafarers from the European Union, mostly holding a European national certificate of competency, are according to current EU directives, entitled to serve on board any flag vessel within the EU/EEA region. However, in order for them to be allowed to serve on board any other vessels they have to present a national document or certificate of competence. The States of Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Germany, whoever it may be, will then have to issue a certificate of recognition or an endorsement certificate. In other words, one seafarer may hold a whole deck of cards of endorsement certificates.Will it be possible in the future to agree on a certification system by which the seafarer can present his certificates and be given the opportunity to serve on board any vessel within the region? Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for attention.DiscussionDr. Henning Klostermann: Mr. Norheim, thank you very much. With that we have aired the two last contributions from the expert perspective and can enter into the discussion round. I would ask you in particular at this point of the discussion to use this opportunity to address again the contributions made this morning, the ideas and outlines of problems and here once more also to throw into the debate the problem I have already mentioned of those contributions which were not recorded. I think there will be a number of answers pending just to the last contribution from Mr Nordheim, possibly to the other expert addresses too.We agree of course, that the situation, having grown to such epic proportions, really is intolerable at the present time and I have heard an opinion today too; we have talked for many years about the same problems in different committees and the question is - when will there be real progress towards a solution?With that in mind I would like to mention here just once again, the concerns of education and of course I expect a corresponding comment from Mr Appave. Otherwise, the floor is of course free now for whoever wishes to have a say. Are we agreed? Would you like to react to the contributions straight away?Dani Appave: Yes, before the STCW Convention was adopted, the ILO was the organisation looking after the training of seafarers. Then came the STCW instrument in which both the IMO and the ILO are associated. This means that the ILO is consulted on any amendments to the STCW, so the ILO is still interested in the training of seafarers and, as you know, the STCW relates up to the present time mainly to seafarers who have watch keeping duties on board ship; ordinary seafarers on non watch keeping duties, for example, are at present not adequately covered under the STCW, so the ILO is still interested in them.Recently, during a visit to the Philippines, we discussed training at length with the Philippine authorities and later on I had discussions with the Indonesian authorities, also on training. Both countries mentioned many difficulties they were having, especially since the ILO still has a vocational training recommendation for the shipping industry. And this is just an added thought for you, as maritime regions; at the present time the STCW issues a lot of details about the contents of the training of seafarers of different ranks. Then come more details; the so called model courses of the IMO issue lots of further details and those model courses, almost without exception, stop at that; they give a list of topics that should be covered by the training and a vague idea of the duration of that training.I believe that consideration should perhaps be given to providing cover to the seafarers who are not yet covered under the STCW and also to going a step further. If we want to achieve a high, uniform standard of training, we should perhaps produce detailed courses using some of the up to date methods we already have - visual aids and computer aided methods - to produce courses which trainers can use now with little need for further research. It was pointed out to me that most of the trainers in the Philippines and elsewhere are mariners who have just returned from sea and to my mind they come back from sea only with as much information as they can carry in their heads. What they need is more elaborate comprehensive training material which they can put to use immediately together with the experience they already have. And that would provide the basis for more uniform high quality training worldwide.We in the ILO have some experience in producing such materials. I have an especially good example in the unit where I work, where we have produced training materials for port workers and especially those who work in ... terminals. Some of you may know of the port worker development programme; the details in the material are of a high quality and they can be very easily used by trainers who can then teach with a much greater proficiency than if they themselves have to prepare those courses.I believe that this should be considered. I know for example that Norway has funded the production of many IMO model courses. I believe we can go one step further at this time and realistically provide high quality training to seafarers around the world with a very, very small investment. I can tell you that to produce 30 units representing 800 hours of teaching costs in the region of less than half a million dollars which puts the cost of training at less than ten dollars per training session, less than the cost of a book. We strongly believe that this kind of training material would be very useful and I think it would be a very good investment. It would be within the capability of countries in the Baltic region and even for a single country in that region to promote such a programme. And should any country want to go ahead with this programme, I am of course at your disposal to help. The ILO would of course prefer in the first instance that we run this kind of programme as a kind of trial for those seafarers not covered under the STCW, after which we could discuss the result with the IMO with a view to making this system available to all seafarers. Thank you.Dr. Henning Klostermann: Thank you very much for that contribution. Mr. Stavad, please.Ole Stavad (MP, Denmark): This is the first time I have had the pleasure of being here on the side of the Parliamentarians and one can of course judge here what is already clear, what role we can play in relation to governments and maritime safety; I have in my opinion heard some really interesting contributions, including those made after lunch.It underlines a decisive role for us as Parliamentarians. I like to personally take care of seeing our ILO Conventions through, whether it be our Convention today or others, to ascertain if anything is lacking, if anything is outstanding and not yet ratified, what duties can be assigned to our governments and ministers or what questions we can put to them and whether there are any questions or problems that we have not yet satisfactorily addressed. It is true what several speakers have said here today; it is not of much use if we conclude the international agreements correctly and there is no adequate aftercare or one does not take the lead. Furthermore, concerning the Baltic Sea, the neighbouring Baltic Sea States could play a pioneer role here - even if we are only a group of countries, namely neighbouring Baltic States, if we ask ourselves this question: which countries are concerned here?If we, sitting at this table with the full support of our governments, are ready to take the lead, then I am convinced that we can be a driving force. This entire development concerns maritime safety and safe shipping and addresses the questions of safety for workers, training possibilities and the chance to achieve a breakthrough, so that we can make certificates and training mutually acceptable.As you have already emphasised, we still have a number of such questions to address. Norway and Denmark experienced a horrendous example of what can happen a couple of years ago, when the passenger ship “Scandinavian Star” caught fire. Many human lives were lamentably lost and the language barrier was a definite hindrance there; we have therefore a very important role to play in what concerns the Parliamentarians and to that end I have been attending the HELCOM meetings in recent years.The Parliamentarians have suggested initiatives for what concerns them, initiatives which have also contributed to carrying these issues right through to government level and I am therefore of the opinion that proper coordination between Parliamentarians and government is crucial and that we as Parliamentarians must fill the role and make sure that the incumbent governments meet their obligations in our countries. Ministers always have a great deal to do; if they are not reminded that tasks are valid are outstanding and that these are the tasks assigned to the Parliamentarians, then it can take so long to do as they deem fitting.With that much said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity, as the end of the meeting is now near, to express my thanks to everyone who has come to Copenhagen. It has been a pleasure for us to play host. I believe we have heard some very interesting lectures, which really underline that we can become a driving force in the Baltic Sea and that we can come to an agreement on many more issues than merely those that divide us; I think too that it will be a good starting point for further work.I am very sorry about the technical hitch here earlier today because I wholeheartedly agree with the Chairman that so many interesting contributions were also made this morning. It really would be very useful if we could have a summary of these on paper. So, for my part, many thanks, I think there are some interesting tasks still ahead of us.Dr. Henning Klostermann: Thank you very much, that was spoken straight from the heart and I would like to address that point again towards the end of the proceedings. But first, if I hear correctly, there is another comment still to come.Grethe Fossli (MP, Norway): I thank you all for so many interesting contributions. Now I am wondering: how should we continue our work? How should it progress? The new meeting is scheduled for the beginning of July and if we are to take an optimum result home with us now, then we need the documentation as soon as possible, because our parliaments are always hard pressed for time before the summer break. I know the situation in Norway at least; the Parliamentarians are completely overtaxed.It would be a great help to us if we could present the suggestions on schedule. And a question: we have a resolution from Greifswald on the issue of "Maritime Safety" in September 2001; could we check on this to see how far changes or improvements are still feasible so that we can see some progress in practice too?Dr. Henning Klostermann: Yes, thank you. I should perhaps try to answer off the cuff to what Ms. Fossli has just said. In the second sitting of the Maritime Safety Working Group at our meeting in Helsinki, we agreed that the Parliamentarians should recognise a supervisory function in the very sea lane mentioned by Mr. Stavad and to petition our governments, as far as is possible with the instruments of the Parliament, to inform us of progress in the transposition of the Greifswald and Copenhagen resolutions, i.e. both Declarations from September 2001. And I should very much like to enquire how far on the other neighbouring Baltic Sea States are with their initiatives concerning this. We have described this procedure as status reports and as far as is possible we want to call in these status reports.I can tell you that from the German side there is an initiative in the Bundestag in Berlin by the two delegates, Ms. Deichmann and Mr Hiller, who are also present here. It aims at providing an overlapping, cross party statement on this topic through all parties to the Federal Government, namely translating into action the iterations of the Greifswald and Copenhagen resolutions. This statement will be to hand on May 31st; we will of course prepare a translation promptly and also include this paper in our work. At this point I would like to offer my warm thanks for the initiative, particularly since it was a unanimous motion to vote throughout the parties.If you recall the suggestion which we submitted in Helsinki as a Paper, a short summary of this information is necessary in order to compare the different measures in different Baltic States. In my country we have done this by way of an enquiry to the Regional State Government and this enquiry will also be answered in full at the end of May. Furthermore, the Federal State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has called for the completion of the expert legal report for the Baltic Sea and its regions and this report too will be on presented on schedule. That means there will be an interim report to this at our meeting in Rostock-Warnemünde on July 7th.and 8th.and a final report in August. We will try to translate this too. Then of course there is the material, with which we are experiencing certain difficulties today due to the recording of the statements and the requested addenda, but I am nevertheless optimistic that they will reach us.This too is a part of the whole product and we should try at the meeting on July 8th, as you have just said, to strike a determined balance of the clarifications, namely, what must be corrected, what the law is or is not, what in the two elucidations must be expanded on. This could be undertaken. It could be quite a difficult task, I admit, put together with all these contributions which I have just mentioned, in a paper for the information of the next Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in St. Petersburg on the 30th November and 1st October this year. It is our intention that this entire paper be documented and presented and we certainly have the task of raising a report for this working group.This means that there is some work still ahead of us to be done. It may mean that we should perhaps meet again briefly in August to coordinate the points of view, even if it is a holiday for most parliaments but in the interest of the matter in hand it would perhaps be for the best. Therefore, I think we must come to an agreement amongst ourselves; it is very important not to appear there with different opinions and remarks but rather with one mind.I would like to pick up once again on what was said here by my neighbour, Mr Stavad. We really do have to play a pioneer role here. We could also say that we wish to regard the Baltic Sea as a sort of model region and if we are in earnest about that then we can a) thoroughly control the instruments of the Parliaments and b) bring pressure to bear on our own governments and international committees; and there I am thinking not only of the close co-operation with HELCOM, which I have already mentioned today but also of the European Union. I am thinking too of the IMO and the ILO, new in our association and I welcome them for their part.We need this connection, this network and if we look at the Baltic Sea, this little region, what is this on a global scale, just a small fingernail on the globe? But we have a chance here and I think we should use it. If we lay the results of our meetings on the table in St. Petersburg, then we can be one step further on and we also know - and I therefore take a very optimistic view here – that, triggered by the collision of the Baltic Carriers and the Tern, expedited by September 11th, the frame of mind and thinking behaviour of the governments and the Parliamentarians has been changed a great deal by external influences. A dynamic has entered into these processes which could have very positive effects and we should use all the available possibilities for communication and co-operation.We can now say that one thing has been built up over the years in the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference; thanks to the initiatives of the Nordic Council and all the neighbouring and member States who have joined, we have effectively overcome the political problems. Why shouldn't we also overcome the economic and safety problems still standing in the way? Therefore, I already see that as a process that can be solved in the medium-term. But we must not expect to solve all the safety problems between today and tomorrow or from this year to the next. We need some little time for that too.I think, to pick up on that once again, that if we take the next step and consolidate now what we have discussed today - and I have noted down a number of initiatives today - and also a range of agreements, then can we also improve the quality of the Greifswald Paper and be up to date. To this end we have asked the experts to attend, so we can report on the current status of the discussion here and if we have taken this step in Rostock to the next meeting, then something else remains for us from the Declaration for St. Petersburg too. I am sure some suggestions have already been made today, if I consider the ratification of the ILO Conventions. That is something we should call for from our governments. The 147 has, as far as I know, already been ratified by the United Kingdom and Sweden; our other Baltic Sea neighbours are not yet on board. That would also set an example.However, I would like to stop at this point and ask you for your contributions and in addition for your comments on the part of the Parliamentarians on how prepared you are for the next meeting. There is now a request to speak from Mr Appave.Dani Appave: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just to give you some clarification, convention 147 has been ratified by most of the countries represented here; I think just one country in the Baltic has not yet ratified 147, but the protocol to 147 has yet not been ratified. Mr Chairman, if I can add just one more piece of information; you have just mentioned the 11th September and as you know the United States has made a proposal, firstly to the IMO and then to the ILO to review the situation concerning seafarers’ identity documents. This is an important issue since seafarers under Convention 180 of the ILO used to have the benefit of free movement without a visa when joining ship, leaving ship or going on shore leave in the countries that have ratified that Convention.There has now been discussion in the ILO to pursue Convention 180. The governing body of the ILO believed that it should be a protocol to that Convention but it looks more and more as if we will require more than just a small addition to the Convention but rather a broad revision of that Convention. There was a consultation meeting in Geneva last week and as you know, many countries had the opportunity to represent their views; it now appears there may be some kind of consensus but also that some changes will have to be brought in through a new instrument to be adopted by the ILO in June next year.In this process I think too that the participation of the Baltic States would be very important because we need to ensure that States can welcome foreign seafarers with all the security that those States require. However, at the same time, the mobility of seafarers should not be affected and we need for seafarers to go ashore in order for them to be safe, to ensure the safe manning of ships, because you cannot hold seafarers captive on board ship for the duration of their work detail. They need to be able to go ashore, they need to be able to move, to join ships and then go home; the necessity to have visas for every movement, for every time they go ashore would be a disaster for the shipping industry and the States of this region. I think I have a responsibility to ensure that their voice is heard in this matter.This means that in June next year a strong representation from the maritime authorities at the International Labour Conference will be important and there ought to be some discussion, not only between the maritime authorities and the labour administration in the different countries but also with the Association of Ship Owners and the organisations of seafarers at national level.Thank you very much.Dr. Henning Klostermann. Thank you. I believe Mr. Hansen would like a word. Please, Mr. HansenMr Jørgen Hammer Hansen: Thank you Mr Chairman, just a short word from me. The Danish Parliament has passed the legislation so that we can in the very near future ratify the Convention and the protocol to Convention 147 and Convention 180 on rest hours and work hours for seafarers. Thank you.Dr. Henning Klostermann: Good news at this time and of course for this sitting in Copenhagen. Thank you. Are there any other comments? Mr. Stavad please.Ole Stavad: Just one comment in conclusion; I am a little confused here as to whether the summary of the chairman has been included in the conclusion now. If we derive a balance from Greifswald for HELCOM, do we also try to derive a balance of what concerns the ILO, i.e. the issues that concern the central ILO Conventions and how things stand with ratification so that we include this part too, because I think that is an important component. Just a request therefore, that we include this in the balance as a natural starting point for our further work.Dr. Henning Klostermann: Quite correct, thank you for the suggestion. The opportunity still has to be discussed. I repeat the question I asked just now. Are there still initiatives in other parliaments, besides the two I mentioned, to call for some kind of a status report from the governments? Or is this not the case? Can I assume then that something similar is not happening in other parliaments? We have already actually heard portions of closing remarks.Dr. Klostermann - Closing words:Honourable parliamentary colleagues and worthy experts.If I may address you in the plural, I would rather not begin to with a new closing statement but instead conclude that the good spirit and the good conditions we have found here in Copenhagen are good, firm basis for further co-operation. It is also an encouragement and an enlivenment for us Parliamentarians that we can not only raise our voices here without having to lower our eyes but also take action on equal terms with the governments and become conscious of our responsibility; and our responsibility entails securing safe maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea, a protected Baltic Sea and improvements to the ecological conditions in the Baltic Sea.We have also heard today of the problems of eutrophication and other things; I think that perhaps on a global scale we are only a minor marginal sea but I repeat, I really believe that we have a great opportunity here to look forward and also to accomplish something where other regions in the world will perhaps say, “Look there, the Baltic Sea region has come to the fore, is progressive in these things”; and we can set an example worth following.This model has only come to us in the course of time and we also have also determined that international committees such as HELCOM have become aware of us: that is good feedback for us. I would like to see this spirit we have cultivated here today in Copenhagen commuted to safety cultures for the Baltic Sea and I ask you earnestly again, Parliamentarians above all, to give this a lot of thought in the coming weeks. Should you have any further suggestions, please send these on to us as soon as possible.We will soon be sending out the invitations for July 8th. together with the agenda for the conference. As advance information, there is also a trip to Rostock where we will have another opportunity to hear two prominent representatives speak. We think at this point that one will be Mr. Ehlers, the former chairman of HELCOM and the other a Mr. Grobecker, former head of a German Federal Government commission. We will try to get these two gentlemen there; we can visit the maritime traffic regional headquarters in Warnemünde, a tug which is stationed there and also the simulation facilities for maritime traffic and shipping movements at a technical college. That is the suggestion, so please remember that you will need the whole day there from early till fairly late. It is located a little more to the south but it is still the Baltic coast, which is important.If there is nothing more to add, may I express heartfelt thanks from our side to the experts; I thank my fellow and lady representatives too for their collaboration here and I wish you all a safe journey home, be it all the way to Norway or right to the heart of Russia. Tell them there what you have learned here today, that the Parliamentarians care about a good cause. We are pleased to have had such a comprehensive attendance here today and it only remains for me to extend special thanks to the ladies and gentlemen in the translation cabins who have all worked so hard for us, behind the scenes but all important to us.Thank you, I now declare today's third meeting of the Working Group closed and once again I extend a warm thank-you to our hosts, especially Hendrik and his colleagues. Many thanks, until the next time in Rostock.List of QuestionsI. The Current Status and Future of Maritime Safety1. How do you assess the current situation as well as the development prospects for maritime safety in the Baltic region based on the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration of September 10, 2001 and the decisions of the European Union?2. In its white paper on European transportation policy through the year 2010 regarding "A New Dimension of Safety at Sea", the European Commission presented fundamental considerations on further measures to improve maritime safety [KOM (2001) 370, final version]. How do you view these proposals with regard to further improvement of maritime safety in the Baltic region?3. What is required to implement effective national coast guard organizations in the Baltic region, which maintain a presence at sea as well as in the harbours?4. What opportunities do you see for co-operation, networking and possible combination of national coast guards as well as organizations for accident management and pollution control?II. Port State Control1. How can tightening of port state control including sanctioning capabilities (seizure, repair, fines, etc.) be achieved in all Baltic region countries?2. What improvements in port state control are expected or have already been achieved in practice through the enactment of the Directive of the European Parliament and the European Council on the Amendment of the Directive 95/21/EG of the Council dated June 19, 1995 on the Implementation of International Standards for Ship Safety, the Prevention of Pollution and the Living and Working Conditions On Board Ships Which Call At Common Harbours and Travel in Territorial Waters of Member States [Port State Control, KOM (2000) 142, final version]?3. What time frame is realistic to implement a uniform system of port state control in the Baltic Sea, based on the current legal framework?III. Increased Use of Automatic Ship Identification Systems (AIS)1. For what specific purposes should AIS be implemented in the Baltic Sea states - for statistical recording of traffic, traffic monitoring, or possibly for intervention in potentially dangerous situations?2. How can a rapid, uniform introduction of AIS be achieved in the Baltic region?3. Do you consider it possible to achieve comprehensive monitoring of maritime territory A1 in the Baltic Sea using AIS before July 1, 2005?4. To what degree could weaknesses of the AIS system (temporal delays in realisation of the obligation to install such equipment, the obligation to install such equipment only for ships over 300 gross tons, system dependencies) be offset by a different, independent system (long-range radar)?IV. Pilotage Obligations1. What is the current state of knowledge with respect to the use of pilotage and the safety benefits derived from such use, i.e.:How many ships in what locations in the Baltic Sea use a pilot, and how many navigate without one? What flags are represented in these figures and in what proportions? Why do ships navigate without a pilot? Are the ships without pilots those who frequently sail in this region? Would the accidents in the Baltic Sea involving pilotless ships have been avoidable through the use of pilots? What safety benefits are achieved if a pilot is aboard a tanker, but no pilot is present on a ship with which the tanker might collide?2. What additional safety benefits would you expect from the introduction of compulsory pilotage? What additional arguments are there for and against the introduction of compulsory pilotage?V. Training and Continuing Education of Navigators1. What is your evaluation of the level of training on cargo vessels with respect to preventing accidents (fire, rudder failure, mechanical breakdown) and how can an improvement in the qualification of seafaring personnel be achieved in order to guarantee a minimum standard?2. What options do you see for improving quality management for shipping companies and harbours?VI. Accident Management1. Are the emergency resources currently maintained by the countries bordering the Baltic Sea (fire safety, emergency response resources and towing capacity for emergencies) considered sufficient for effective accident management at sea and on land?2. What measures are considered necessary for regional co-operation as well as for mutual and immediate reporting and support in order to ensure the highest possible readiness for deployment in those maritime territories in which fast intervention is of the utmost necessity, such as the southeastern parts of the Baltic Sea, the central Baltic Sea territory and in the Gulf of Finland?3. Are there any data available regarding the degree to which the countries bordering the Baltic Sea have reinforced their capabilities for emergency deployment so that they are able to offer support and co-operation in deployments also along the coast to other contracting parties? Are there at least any plans thus far?4. What measures beyond the current international resolutions are regarded as necessary to improve accident management?VII. Discharge of Residues from Shipping Operation1. Are the current legal provisions for effective prevention of dumping oil and other pollutants into the Baltic Sea regarded as sufficient? If not, what additional regulations are considered necessary?2. Is it known to what degree existing regulations are enforced and how can present implementation deficits be minimized? What are the sources of existing environmental shortcomings and how can they be minimized?3. What measures can be taken to promote the implementation of economic incentives to support environmental protection in shipping? In which countries do such economic incentives already exist, and how are these designed?4. What is your opinion of a "memorandum of understanding for environmentally sound shipping traffic in the Baltic Sea" in which the Baltic States agree on the creation of harbour regulations compatible with international law, which include mandatory standards for environmentally acceptable ship operation? What form should such a memorandum assume?VIII. Costs for Shipping Safety and Environmental Protection1. Shipping safety and environmental protection incur significant costs for preventive measures, damage control and cleanup and correction of resultant problems. What is the extent of these costs if they include the necessary precautions and measures for the protection of the sea environment and if they lead to the establishment of relationships which reduce the likelihood of human error, which is a frequent cause of shipping accidents?2. How high would you estimate the additional investment required for seagoing vessels to implement existing technical options for accident prevention, damage control and reduction of the consequences of an accident? What additional freight costs would you expect to result to operate vessels which make full use of existing options for shipping safety and for environmental protection?3. Can you suggest means of inducing those responsible for maritime financing to assume the additional expense required to implement existing options for shipping safety and environmental protection on vessels?4. What economic possibilities exist for ensuring that the full costs for environmental cleanup resulting from shipping accidents are borne by those responsible for the incidents?5. How can the cost of infrastructure investment incurred by public agencies in preparation for dealing with marine pollution be transferred to polluters?6. How high is the cost saving of the maritime industry not investing to the full extent necessary to improve vessel safety to minimize environmental consequences or binding others to carry the cost burden?Responses to the QuestionnaireIMO, LondonW. A. O’Neil, Secretary General,I. Current Status and future of Maritime SafetyI.1 Relating to Assessment of current situation based on HELCOM declaration and EU decisions:IMO is unable to make an assessment based on the HELCOM declaration and EU decisions.I.2 Relating to EC White Paper on European transportation policyThis is not an IMO document and in the time frame, we have been unable to read it.I.3 Relating to Requirements for effective implementationIMO does not deal with implementation arrangements — this is up to the national maritime administrations.I.4 Relating to opportunities for co-operationThis does not come under the remit of IMO - it is up to the countries concerned to assess the opportunities for co-operation.II. Port State ControlII.l Relating to achieving tightening up of PSC in Baltic countriesPort State control is up to the port State and may be regulated through regional agreements. There are no relevant IMO regulations, although States may wish to refer to IMO Assembly Resolution A.882 (21), adopted on 25 November 1999, on Amendments to the procedures for port State control (Resolution A.7S7 (19)II.2 Relating to achievements through the European Directive etcCannot comment, IMO adopts global regulations and recommendations, IMO does not have a monitoring role with respect to implementation of its regulations.II.3 Relating to a realistic time frame for implementing uniform system of PSCA uniform system already exists under the Pans Memorandum of Understanding on port State control. Almost all Baltic Slates are members of the Paris MoU.III. Increased use of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS)III.1 Relating to purposes of AIS implementation in BalticSOLAS chapter V (the new chapter entering into force on 1 July 2002) Regulation 19 Carriage requirements for ship borne navigational systems and equipment paragraph 2.4.5 states that:AIS shall:1. provide automatically to appropriately equipped shore stations, other ships and aircraft; information, including the ship's identity, type, position, course, speed, navigational status and other safety-related information;2. receive automatically such information from similarly fitted ships;3. monitor and track ships; and4. exchange data with shore-based facilities;5. the requirements of paragraph 2.4.5 shall not be applied to cases where international agreements, rules or standards provide for the protection of navigational information,6. AIS shall be operated taking into account the guidelines adopted by the organisation.*III.2 Relating to rapid introduction of AIS in BalticThis is in the remit of the States concerned.III.3 Relating to monitoring of AI territory by 2005This is in the remit of the States concerned.III.4 Relating to weaknesses of system being offset by a different systemIMO's Member States adopted the regulation on carriage requirements for AIS. Any proposals for different systems should be presented to IMO for discussion.It is up to the countries concerned to assess this. Refer to IMO Assembly resolution A.159 (ES.IV) Recommendation on Pilotage. The resolution recommends Governments organise pilotage services where they would be likely to prove more effective than other measures and to define the ships and classes of ships for which employment of a pilot would be mandatory._____________________________* Refer to the Guidelines on the operation of AIS on ships - Resolution A.917 (22)Adopted on 29 November 2001 GUIDELINES FOR THE ONBOARD OPERATIONAL USE OF SHIPBORNE AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS (AIS)IV. Pilotage obligationsIV.1 Relating to current state of knowledge on pilotage in the BalticIMO does not have any data on pilotage in the Baltic.IV.2 Relating to safety benefits from introduction of compulsory pilotageV. Training and Continuing Education of NavigatorsV.1 Relating to evaluation of level of training on cargo shipsIt is up to the States to evaluate the level of training.V.2 Relating to options for improving quality management for shipping companies and harbours, Companies should refer to the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (ISM Code), which provides an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention, IMO has not adopted a similar Code for harbours,VI. Accident managementIMO has no information relevant to the questions in this section - IMO has no data availableVII. Discharge of residues from shipping operationVII.1 Relating to current legal provisionsThe Baltic Sea is recognised as a special area under MARPOL 73/78 in Annex I (oil); Annex II (liquid chemicals); and Annex V (garbage). Ii is up to the States concerned to determine if these measures are sufficient.VII.2 Relating to degree of enforcement of existing regulationsIt is up to Parties to the relevant conventions e.g. MARPOL 73/78 to enforce the regulations. IMO does not have a monitoring role, although Parties are expected to submit annual reports on penalties imposed for infringement of the regulations.VII.3 and VII.4 Relating to measures for implementation and a MoU for BalticIn both cases, it is up to the individual States to decide on the way forward.VIII. Costs for shipping safety and environmental protectionIMO does not have data on costs - IMO does not deal with economic criteria.The hearing may wish to consult with BIMCO, which is a Non-governmental Organisation in consultative status with IMO:The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)Bagsvaerdvej 161DK-28SO BagsvaerdDenmarkTel: 4544 36 68 00Fax: 45443668 68E-mail: mailbox@bimco.dkWebsite: www.bimco.dkEuropean CommissionI. The current status and future of maritime safetyClearly, the States surrounding the Baltic Sea, like the rest of Europe, are and will continue to be dependent on maritime transport. Maritime transport is an environment friendly mode of transport and the Commission has promoted and will continue to promote a modal shift in favor of shipping.An increase in the transport of hazardous cargoes will further accentuate the need for maritime transport to be of high quality and to respect applicable international and regional standards. Instruments recently adopted or to be adopted within the UE (primarily the two Erika “packages”) and the HELCOM activities are clearly important and complementary in this respect.As for the EU measures, it is believed that all of the proposed Erika measures represent an important contribution to the maritime safety regime applicable in Europe and beyond. Of particular importance with respect to the future is the establishment of a Maritime Safety and Environmental Protection Agency, which will provide a considerable boost for the possibilities to implement and assess the effectiveness of EU-legislation adopted to date.II. Port State controlThe proposal referred to in question 2 was agreed by the EU institutions and adopted on 19 December 2001. It will have to be implemented in all EU Member States by 22 July 2003. In addition, the Commission is seeking to ensure that the effects of these important amendments will have effects beyond the EU ports, through co-operation with accession countries and the Paris MOU on port State control.III. Automatic Ship Identification Systems (AIS)The regulation on AIS has undergone considerable changes over the last couple of years and is still subject to change. Requirements for all ships entering UE ports to be equipped with AIS according to a certain time-table was part of the Commission’s proposal for a ship reporting and monitoring directive. In the Common Position, adopted by the Council on 19 December 2001 this has been confirmed.In the meantime, the discussions have re-started as a part of the maritime security discussions. The IMO MSC intersessional working group is currently discussing plans to introduce mandatory carriage of AIS already in 2004. If this were accepted, this date would also apply through the relevant reference in the ship reporting and monitoring directive referred to above.V. Training and continuing Education of NavigatorsQualifications of seafarers have been a concern for the European Commission for a long time as proved by the Directive on minimum level of training for seafarers, which was adopted already in 1994. It represented one of the first measures proposed by the Commission in the field of maritime safety and since then the Commission has invested a lot of energies to monitor its proper implementations, including a number of visits to the nautical institutes of the main labor-supplying countries outside the Community. This Directive has been recently amended and it now carries the reference Directive 2001/25/EC.In 2001 the Commission adopted a Communication on the training and recruitment of seafarers (COM(2001)188 final). With that Communication, the European Commission wished to provide an update on the decline in the number of EU seafarers and an analysis of the reasons behind it, the possible implications for the EU shipping community and the measures necessary to reverse it. The European Parliament and the EU maritime industry have already issued their opinion on the Commission Communication, while the Council of Ministers will have to scrutinize it in the future.As regards Quality management for companies, the ISM Code is of key importance and the EU implemented it ahead of the international time-table for certain vessels though Regulation 3051/95. The “second phase” of the ISM Code, making it applicable for all types of ships, will become applicable as from 1 July 2002 and the Commission is determined to monitor this vigorously for all ships entering EU ports.VI. Accident ManagementThe role of the European Community in the field of response to marine pollution finds its legal basis in the Decision No. 2850 of 20/12/2000 of the European Parliament and the Council setting up a Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution. This framework has been established for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2006, and its aim is to:a. support and supplement Member States’ efforts;b. contribute to improving the capabilities of the Member States for response in case of accidents;c. strengthen the conditions for and facilitate efficient mutual assistance and co-operation;d. promote co-operation among Member States in order to provide for compensation for damage in accordance with the polluter-pays principle.The European Commission – Environment Directorate General/Civil Protection and Environmental Accidents Unite – with the help of a Management Committee on Marine Pollution implements the framework for co-operation via:A. Three-year rolling plan which includes actions such as training, exchange of experts, exercises, pilot projects, surveys of environmental impact after an accident, etc.B. Community Information System with the purpose of exchanging data on the preparedness and response to marine pollution.C. Contingency Organization which includes a 24h Urgent Pollution Alert System, the possibility to send a European task force on scene, the acquisition of satellite images and the coordination of mission of observers.The European Community plays also a central role between Member States as contracting party to all major regional conventions and agreements covering regional seas around Europe, including the Helsinki Convention 1992 for the protection of the Baltic Sea.Other information relating to marine pollution can also be found on the Civil Protection and Environmental Accidents website at the following address:http://europa.eu.int/environment/civil/index/htmVII. Discharge of Residues from Shipping OperationThe Commission believes that measures, in addition to the international ones, are needed in order to stop the discharges of oil and other substances at sea. For this reason, it made in 1998 a proposal for a Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. The Directive, which was adopted by the Parliament and the Council in November 2000[1], shall be implemented by the Member States by 28 December 2002 at the latest.In essence, the Directive aims to ensure the availability of adequate waste reception facilities in all Union ports and introduces an obligation on ships to deliver their waste ashore. The Directive also introduces an obligation on ships to notify the port of on-board quantities of wastes prior to arrival. This, coupled with port-based checks and appropriate sanctions, will greatly improve the possibilities to control compliance with the international rules. However, at this early stage the Commission does not dispose of the concrete figures, since the Directive has not yet been transposed into national law by the Member States.As regards action against ships involved in or suspected of illegal discharges, the proposed Directive establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system, referred to above, requires Member States to exchange information on ships in respect of which there is proof or presumptive evidence of deliberate discharges of oil and to carry out any appropriate inspection on board such ships when they enter a Community port.The Commission in the aforementioned Directive on traffic monitoring, h as also included an obligation for ships to provide information on spotted oil slicks and for authorities to take appropriate action[2]. It is expected that this Directive will be formally adopted by the Parliament and the Council in the coming months.The Commission is currently also exploring other ways to set up a system for monitoring and surveillance of oil spills.As regards, economic incentives, the Commission favours such measures to increase the protection of the marine environment. A list of existing measures, which is not necessarily complete, has recently been compiled by the Japanese Institute for Transport Policy Studies. A copy of that Brochure is attached.VIII. Costs for Shipping Safety and Environmental ProtectionThe Commission is of the firm view that the costs of accidents shall be fully recovered by the industry involved. For this reason, it proposed the creation of the COPE fund (also in the Erika 2 package), which was to ‘top up’ any expenses which had been incurred by the victims of oil pollution, but not recovered because of limited funds under the international CLC/IOPC Fund regime.In the port reception facilities Directive, mentioned above, the underlying idea is also that the cost of reception of ships’ waste shall be covered by the (potential) polluters, i.e. the ships, rather than society at large. Article 8 of the Directive sets out the key principles in this regard.In addition, the Commission has recently put forward a proposal on the restoration and costs for environmental damage (COM (2002)17 final).Response from the ILOThis reply is to the questionnaire is written from the point of view of the ILO and its maritime activities, particularly as regards the living and working conditions of seafarers. Some extra information is also provided on the current developments in the ILO in the maritime sector. Replies have not been given to questions which are not within the ILO mandate for the maritime industries.The current status and future of maritime safetyDecent working and living conditions for seafarers aboard all ships are essential for ensuring safety at sea; ILO Conventions relating to the maritime industry should be ratified by countries in the region. The provisions of these Conventions should be implemented in legislation and practice. Application should be verified through systematic control by flag and port state control.The most important of the maritime instalments of the ILO is the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No.147). It covers a wide range of issues relating to conditions of work in merchant shipping and is a relevant instrument in the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control. The Protocol to Convention No.147, adopted in 1996, is also important. Almost all the countries in the Baltic region have ratified Convention No.147 and the remaining one should also ratify this Convention. The Protocol remains to be ratified by all the countries of the region. A number of other Conventions to be found to the Annexes to Convention No. 147 and its Protocol should also be considered for ratification. Among these are the following:Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No.138),Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention 1936 (No.55),Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Convention, 1969 (No.130);Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No.73);Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970;Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 (No.92);Food and Catering (Ships’ Crews) Convention, 1946 (No.68)Seamen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No.22);Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.87);Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1.949 (No, 98), Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1970 (No. 133}Seafarers’ Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No, 180) Seafarers’ Identity Documents Convention, 1958 (No, 108)Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No, 135)Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) Convention, 1987 (No, 164)Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166)The possibilities for co-operation and networking exist particularly in the area of exchange of information (already existing with the Paris MOU, EQUASIS, etc.) but also in the training of ship inspectors. The ILO has prepared training materials which can be made available for use in the region.Port State ControlThe ILO would urge the Baltic countries, not only to ratify the Protocol to Convention No.147 and certain other important relevant instalments but also to move towards a uniform and systematic enforcement of these instruments, so as to improve port state control in the region. Uniform training of inspectors would also contribute to the effectiveness of inspections. A clear understanding of verification criteria would give inspectors more assurance in the application of sanctions.Additional remarks on current developments in. the ILOConvention No.180 and the Protocol of 1996 to Convention No.147 receive sufficient ratifications to enter into force. The Protocol of 1996 to Convention No.147 will enter into force on 10th. January 2003. As of1st. April 2002, the Protocol has been ratified by Ireland, Malta, Romania, Sweden and theUnited Kingdom. The Seafarers' Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No.180), which is included in Part A of the Supplementary Appendix to the Protocol, willenter into force on 8th. August 2003. As of 1st April 2002 it has been ratified by Ireland, Morocco, Romania, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Sweden and. the United Kingdom.Ratification of the Protocol will extend the port state control provisions contained in Article 4 of Convention No.147 to the provisions of Convention No.180.ILO training manual finalised and available in CD-ROM formatThe ILO has finalised its Training Manual for the Inspection of Seafarers’ Living and Working Conditions on Board Ship. The views expressed by a small informal group of experts from Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the International Shipping Federation (B.F), the International Transport Workers' Federation (I.T.F.) and the ILO Secretariat, were taken into account when preparing the final version. Due to its size, the Training Manual is being distributed in English in CD-ROM format only, it is stand-alone, using MSWORD and Powerpoint files, and contains extensive resource material, lesson plans, convention texts and other information which may be used in the training of both State and port state control officers. It will be made available to maritime authorities on request (See ILO contact information at the end of this paper).Release of ILO film "The Vital Link"As part of its “Decent Work in the Maritime Industry” programme, the ILO has prepared a video entitled “The Vital Link”. This film discusses working conditions at sea and demonstrates the advantages offered by the ratification and implementation of the ILO maritime labour standards. The video is available in both videocassette and CD-ROM format (though, for cost reasons, we prefer to provide it in CD-ROM format). It may be of particular value when used with the Training Manual mentioned above. Excerpts of the video may be viewed atwww.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/sectors/dwmi/products/viallink,htm.The CD-ROM will be made available to maritime authorities on request.(See ILO contact information at the end of this paper).Progress on the development of a consolidated maritime labour ConventionThe ILO has embarked on the consolidation of its fifty or more maritime labour Conventions and Recommendations into a single consolidated framework instrument.In the most recent major development, the first session of a High-Level Tripartite Working Group on Maritime Labour Standards met in Geneva from 17th.to 21st. December 2001. In accordance with a proposal made by the Joint Maritime Commission at its 29th Session (January 2001) and a decision taken by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office at its 280th. Session (March 2001), the Working Group considered the development of a new instrument which would incorporate as far as possible the substance of all the various international maritime labour standards that are sufficiently up to date. The Working Group endorsed the proposals by the Joint Maritime Commission concerning the consolidation of maritime labour standards. It expressed its preliminary thoughts on various point to be taken into account in elaborating the new instrument and made further proposals as to the contents of the draft instrument. It also established a tripartite subgroup and made proposals for its composition and terms of reference. At its 283rd Session (March 2002) the Governing Body endorsed the recommendations of the Working Group, It agreed that the first meeting of the suit group will take place from 24th to 28th June 2002 and that the second session of the Working Group will be held from. 14th to 15th October 2002.Decision to prepare a Protocol to Convention No. 108At its 283rd Session, the Governing Body of the ILO decided to place on the agenda of the 91st. (2003) Session of the International Labour Conference an item on improved security for seafarers’ identification with a view to the adoption of a Protocol to the Seafarers’ Identity Documents Convention, 1958 (No.108). It is possible that the Protocol may contain its own port state control provisions,Decision to prepare a new instrument on conditions of work in the fishing sectorAt its 283rd Session, the Governing Body decided to place on the agenda of the 92nd (2004) Session of the International Labour Conference an item concerning a comprehensive standard of work in the fishing sector. The development of this standard will involve a meeting of experts, probably in late 2002 or in 2003 and a second discussion at the 93rd (2005) Session of the International Labour Conference.Contact informationMaritime Industries TeamSectoral Activities DepartmentInternational Labour Office4, route des MorillonsCH 1211 Geneva 22SwitzerlandJoint Danish-Swedish ResponseThe environmental risk to the Baltic Sea was manifested again on 29th March 2001 with the collision between the BALTIC CARRIER and the TERN. A number of initiatives were taken in its wake by various interests, all aiming at enhancing maritime safety and pollution prevention in the Baltic Sea region which is well-known for its narrow straits, shallow waters and archipelagic areas.The efforts made in this respect by the 10th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference assembled in Greifswald in September 2001 have been particularly noted. In addition, the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) reacted promptly by holding an extraordinary meeting at the request of the Danish government on 10th September 2001 in Copenhagen. The meeting was attended by those ministers representing all HELCOM1 countries and responsible for maritime transport and the environment, The Ministers issued a declaration which was more than an expression of political opinions; it contained very precise and concrete commitments.It is noteworthy - and highly satisfactory - that the above two initiatives have many things in common. This confirms the dedication to the marine environment of the Baltic Sea and the spirit of consensus that surround the issue and makes progress much more likely.In the following statement the status of the follow-up to the HELCOM Conference is outlined. For reasons of presentation the various initiatives have been grouped under a number of broad headings.Improvement of routing measures in the Baltic Sea AreaDeep-water route North East of Gedser,Denmark and Germany have amended the buoyage system in the Traffic Separation System (TSS) south of Gedser and the Deepwater route north-east of Gedser in order to extend the deepwater route 5 nautical miles into the TSS. It is expected that the new routing will be approved by MO in May 2002.It has further been agreed that the Vessel. Traffic Service (VTS) centre in Warnemünde, based on AIS signals, will monitor and supervise shipping in the TSS south of Gedser. Germany will station a guard ship in the area for the purpose of monitoring until a sufficient number of ships have been equipped with AIS. It is expected that in due course the VTS-Centre in Travemünde will perform a similar task, also based on AIS signals, in the Fehmarn Belt.The eastern part of the Gulf of FinlandA proposal to amend the TSS near Gotland Island and Sommers Island and the establishment of a deep water route inside these two TSS is expected to be finally adopted by the IMO in May 2002.______________________________1 Denmark, Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden.Near SwedenSweden will present a proposal to the IMO in July 2002 to amend the TSS off the island of Gotland and a recommended route for south bound laden oil tankers with a draught of more than 13 metres.Denmark and Sweden have agreed to introduce a recommended sailing direction on each side of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) between the island of Bornholm and the Swedish mainland. This recommendation has already been incorporated into national and international navigational charts.The Gulf of FinlandIt is understood that Estonia, Finland and Russia will shortly present a joint proposal to the IMO to extend the existing routing system and to introduce new mandatory reporting systems in the Gulf of Finland,Pilotage in Route T and the SoundDenmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Poland, Russia and Sweden have submitted a joint proposal to the IMO to amend the current Resolution to the effect that ships with a draught of more than 11 meters (at present 13 m) are recommended to use a pilot during the passage of Route - T. In addition, ships will be encouraged to use the new and improved navigation equipment introduced in the SOLAS Convention, including Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) when navigating in these narrow waters. The Baltic States have agreed to establish a system whereby ships departing from a port in the Baltic Sea area and heading for the Danish Straits are reminded of the IMO recommendations. The port State will then submit an early warning to the Danish authorities which will enable enhanced monitoring and/or prompt reaction. The procedures are expected to be adopted at the next HELCOM meeting in May 2002,Improved hydrographic services and use of Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC)Resurveying of major shipping routes and portsDenmark, Germany and Sweden are preparing a scheme for resurveying the main lanes in the western Baltic including Route T and Hammer Gat. The scheme is expected to be completed by April 2002 and aims at implementation from January 2003. It should also be noted that Sweden has started a resurvey of the waters south of the islands of Öland and Gotland in the area of a new fairway leading to the Gulf of Finland. During the survey a new shoal was found which could be a potential danger to deep laden ships -.Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC)In Denmark the major and secondary shipping routes are already covered by ENC. The major ports are already covered by ENC and the remaining secondary ports will also be covered by ENC before the end of 2004. Sweden will have its waters covered by ENC before the end of 2004.Electronic Chart display and Information Systems (ECDIS)In order to encourage the use of ECDIS, Denmark has already informed the IMO that ECDIS on Danish flagged ships are, under certain conditions, accepted as equivalent to paper based charts. In connection with the implementation in Swedish law of the revised Chapter V of SOLAS, Sweden will inform the IMO that ECDIS will, under certain conditions, be regarded as equivalent to paper charts in Swedish flagged ships.In order to further encourage the use of ECDIS, Denmark has prepared a joint HELCOM submission for the next meeting of the Port State Control Committee under the Paris MOU, aimed at intensifying port state control on paper based charts.Enhanced use of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS)All the Baltic States have expressed their willingness to establish land based AIS monitoring systems before 1st. July 2005. Denmark expects to be able to comply with the agreed deadline. Concerning recent discussions in the IMO to expedite the AIS implementation process on SOLAS ships, Denmark is considering earlier implementation of the Danish land based AIS monitoring system.Sweden has an AIS monitoring system in operation around its coast. This has now been operational for a couple of years. Detailed preparation (under the leadership of Sweden) regarding the installation of national AIS systems, the mutual exchange and delivery of AIS data and the compilation of statistical material on ships navigating in the Baltic Sea area is well under way.Action by the European CommissionThe Baltic States have decided that, with respect to the commitments in the Copenhagen Declaration, further efforts are still outstanding on:• the establishment of the European Maritime Safety Agency and a corresponding agreement• with HELCOM on technical co-operation• the finalisation of the European MoU for Maritime Data Exchange• actions by the European Commission, the applicant countries and Russia to promote participation in the European MoU for Maritime Data ExchangePhasing out of single hull oil tankersThe Baltic states have agreed that - in line with the revised MARPOL regulation 13 G - they will not allow single hull oil tankers currently entitled to fly their flags to operate beyond 2015. In addition, as of 2015, they will implement the MARPOL regulation for the purpose of denying entry into port of single hull tankers flying the flag of other countries. Denmark intends to implement these provisions before September 2002. Sweden, like Denmark, will honour the agreement between the Baltic States regarding the prohibition of single hull tankers and the denial of entry into port.Port State ControlDenmark and Sweden carry out port state control on the basis of Council Directive95/2 I/EC and participate actively in the further development of the 1982 Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control.Industry self-regulationAccording to the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration, Contracting Parties have committed themselves to seek agreement (on a voluntary basis) with relevant industry interests on four points:• the use of ECDIS• carriage of orimulsion in double hull tankers• the use of pilots in Route T and the Sound• application of the Maritime Industry Charter on QualityParties representing industry have been consulted and presented with a draft agreement in Denmark. Only a few details now remain to be ironed out. Sweden has not yet been in contact with the industrial parties but aims to finalise discussions with them before the end of the year.Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSA)Denmark and Sweden are currently assessing the benefits of designating parts of the Baltic as PSSAs within the framework of HELCOM SEA. An inventory of existing maritime safety measures (global, regional and national) have been established and will form the basis for further deliberations to assess the need for additional measures and the possibility of promoting these through a designation of PSSAs.Systematic and updated guidance and information related to safe navigationDenmark has been distributing a folder since 1987 to inform the shipping industry of relevant issues concerning navigation through Danish waters. Following major amendments to the folder in 2000, an updated electronic version was made available free of charge on the internet. It has been decided that in the future only the electronic version will be updated and. available. At the moment the electronic information folder on navigation through the entrances to the Baltic Sea is being amended in accordance with the Copenhagen Declaration and electronic links are being established. Pending the link to the HELCOM website the amendment is expected to be in place before summer of 2002.Promotion of a safety and environmental culture through the establishment of a common procedure for the investigation into marine casualtiesIn Denmark, amendments to the Ministerial Order on Investigation of Maritime Accidents clarifying this commitment have been prepared and will be completed as soon as possible. Sweden has already passed a law on the investigation of accidents, including marine accidents. This law covers the application of all relevant IMO and EU procedures.Places of refugeThe Baltic States actively support the activities in the IMO to establish criteria and guidelines for the designation of places of refuge. A common position (on the draft directive on vessel traffic monitoring) has been reached In the EU, obliging Member States to draw up plans to accommodate ships in distress,Emergency capacityDiscussions are under among the responsible authorities way in Denmark with a view to assessing adequate emergency capacity (fire fighting, lightering and towing). Denmark is also preparing a national website for the EU Community Information System within the framework of co-operation on the subjects of accidental or deliberate marine pollution,Shoreline clean-up operationsIn March 2002, the HELCOM Commission instructed HELCOM SEA to further investigate this issue on the basis of information submitted by the Contracting Parties on:• their organisation for dealing with spillages on the shoreline• regulations and matters which have a direct bearing on preparedness and response• the competent responsible authorityContinuing co-operationDenmark and Sweden give priority to co-operation between Baltic Sea States in order to enhance maritime safety and pollution prevention. The offer from Germany to host a workshop on "Environmental impacts due to the increased density of shipping in the Baltic Sea", scheduled to take place in March 2003, is much appreciated.Maritime Office, Szeczin, PolandMr. Marcin Ochrymiuk (Deputy Inspector)Taking into account that the main goal of the meeting is to obtain an overview of the respective national status of maritime safety measures, especially with regard to the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration implementation by the Contracting Parties, it can be stated as follows:I. The current status and future of maritime safetyPoland applied for membership in the EU in 1994 and the accession negotiations and preparations facilitating this process were started in 1998. The incorporation of our country into the European Community is expected to take place in 2004. Poland has stated that it will be prepared to implement the EU acquis by the end of 2002 and the EU resolutions and decisions, including those relating to the safety of shipping and the combating and control of pollution will be directly incorporated into Polish law at the moment of accession.Poland is also a Contracting Party of the Helsinki Commission and plays an integral part in HELCOM activities in the areas of maritime safety and environment protection.In order to facilitate the implementation of the EU acquis in areas of maritime safety into the Polish law, the Twinning Covenant between Poland and the United Kingdom was signed in December 2001. It sets a number of base objectives that include:• strengthening the capacity of the Administration in order to implement acquis communautaire in the transport sector, especially in maritime safety, environmental protection, traffic safety, social legislation and technology;• Matching the Polish legal instruments in maritime safety to the EU standards.• And more specifically:• Implementation of the EU standards and legislation in the field of maritime safety into the Polish legal system and to create conditions for practical application into law;• Reinforcement of the maritime administration responsible for the control of maritime safety in terms of monitoring the compliance of rules and regulations governing the maritime safety issues:• Strengthening of Flag State Control (FSC) and Port State Control (PSC) including improvement of data interchange in the scope of their activities:• Enforcement of procedures for the reporting system of the maritime transport of dangerous goods:• Development of a passenger registration system for passenger ships.II. Port State ControlAs aboveIII. Increased use of Automatic Ship Identification Systems (AIS)Dependent on experience and bilateral co-operation with neighbouring countries, a Polish AIS network will be developed and incorporated into the Baltic monitoring system with completion envisaged prior to the end of 2005.IV. Pilotage obligationsPoland is a Contracting Party of the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration and fully supports its recommendations in this regard.V. Training and continuing education of navigatorsNot consideredVI. Accident managementAs of 1st. January 2002, the new act of law on maritime safety came into force. According to this act, the Polish SAR and oil-combating organisation has been changed. The Polish Council of Ministers has adopted a long-term investment programme including inter alia building of the stockpile and base for these activities. Assistance from the Danish DANCEE programme for the restructuring of the Polish National Contingency Plan is also being considered.Operational agreement on co-operation and response activities between the republic of Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany in the event of marine accidents and combating oil and other harmful substances at a responsible services level were signed on 20th. November 2001.VII. Discharge of residues from shipping operation.National capability on shoreline clean-up operations will be outlined after a review of the National Contingency Plan.Poland has implemented all relevant HELCOM recommendations in principle but there is a lack of response vessels for oil and chemical spills in the western part of the Polish coast.Poland has developed the national web page: http://www.ums.gov.pl/osc where information on the HELCOM Combating Manual, environmental marine pollution, SAR service and contacts can be found.VIII. Costs for shipping safety and environmental protectionNot considered.Latvian Maritime AdministrationMr Arturs Brokovskis-Vaivods (Deputy Director):I. The current status and future of maritime safety1. We consider the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration of September 2001 to be an effective instrument for the improvement of maritime safety and pollution prevention matters in Baltic Sea area. While traffic organisation maters, pilotage requirements through the Baltic Straits, ship reporting, electronic charting and ECDIS matters may be implemented fairly easily and we see no serious obstacles to achieving these objectives; at the same time the development of common AIS system and assurance of adequate emergency capacities in fire-fighting, emergency lightering, towing and oil combating could be difficult due to of lack of finance and we are pessimistic about achieving these objectives in the near future because they call for considerable investment.2. We are not aware of these EC documents and are therefore unable to comment.3. The capacity of and effectiveness of the Coast Guard service should be improved and close co-operation from other Baltic States Coast Guard would be most welcome.4. In Latvia the Latvian Coast Guard is responsible for MRCC and SAR service and the Maritime Administration of Latvia is responsible for tackling current ship accidents and accident investigation. Therefore, it would be necessary to gain more experience from neighbouring Baltic Sea countries.II. Port State Control1. PSC, based on the Paris MoU and existing EC directives matters are well established. No new sanctions are necessary.2. We are not aware of the new EC regulations drafted and are therefore unable to comment.3. We consider existing PSC organisation in Baltic Sea ports sufficiently uniform, while further improvements to it are always possible.III. AIS1. The purposes mentioned may be relevant but we consider as most important the possibility that ships equipped with AIS may be better able to assess the situation, so enabling them to manoeuvre faster and more effectively to avoid dangerous situations and the possibility of the accidents. AIS may also be effective for the improvement of safe ship traffic in VTS areas and would serve as an additional tool for VTS operators and traffic in these areas.2. This matter is under consideration by a group of experts formed under the HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration umbrella. Numerous technical and legal difficulties have been detected and differences of opinions expressed in this group. We hope these can be resolved.3. An AIS Baltic Sea system may be in place by this date but the configuration for it is not yet clear.4. We envisage that the GALILEO system, as has been initiated by the EC, may serve as a new technical perspective to replace or duplicate the AIS. Coverage of small ships (under 300GRT and pleasure craft) may also be better served under these new technical developments.IV. Pilotage1. We support pilotage initiatives in Baltic Straits although we are reluctant to introduce it in open sea areas. We advise our ships to use pilots there but we are not making this a compulsory requirement.2. Using a pilot is not a clear-cut solution to avoiding accidents. Very serious accidents may happen because of technical reasons where pilots would not be able to resolve the situation as was the case with m/t "Baltic Carrier" - m/v "Tern" case on 28th March 2001.V. Training and Continuing Education of Navigators1. This matter is important, and not only for cargo vessels. A new version of the STCW Convention is a suitable tool to improve this situation. This is a word-wide matter as ships calling at Baltic Sea ports are international insofar as flag and nationality of crews are concerned.2. Ship management matters are covered by ISM Code. Port management matters are not sufficiently covered by international instruments and national ones differ somewhat. Therefore, a common approach in Baltic Sea ports to these matters may be achieved by the development and introduction of a Port Safety Code to be elaborated on following the pattern of UK Port Safety Code.VI. Accident Management1. This issue has been considered in Part I., Point 1. of this questionnaire. The emergency resources are inadequate in Latvia and in neighbouring countries. We are not sure whether the concept of a very specific salvage-icebreaker ship as envisaged is a relevant solution.2. The first thing to do is to sign multi-lateral Operational Agreements on SAR and Salvage co-operation.3. We have no specific information to hand on these matters.4. Organisation of common training operations.VII. Discharge of residues from shipping operation1. No additional international regulations are necessary, while national ones in Latvia have been developed to comply the requirements and recommendations of HELCOM, EC and IMO instruments (some of them are still in the development stage, e.g. on TBT, ballast water management).2. Better personnel training is one possibility and we are focusing on that issue. New technology also needs to be developed for surveys and monitoring. It is very hard to prove who the offending polluters are in the open sea; new technologies may solve this problem.3. The Swedish pattern seems to be useful, others may be too.4. We are not aware of such a MOU and are therefore unable to commentVIII. Costs for shipping safety and environmental protection1. Costs for preventive measures relating to safe shipping traffic have been high, however partly covered by EC funding. Cleanup equipment has also been acquired with assistance from neighbouring countries but our capacities still need to be built up as they are at present insufficient.2. Investment plans to meet the costs of maintaining ships and equipping to meet the new requirements are making considerable progress. Therefore, the IMO principles should be applied: are these new requirements really so urgent, are they cost effective and are they solving the problem, are they actually improving safety? The shipping industry has already been heavily regulated. The rulemaking process is growing fast; perhaps we should take care, lest we ultimately have so many rules that we can no longer enforce them properly.3. Latvia has been applying the EC directive on port dues for segregated ballast tankers since 24th. March, 1998. The Swedish model may also be used.4. The solution is not so much economical, as legal. The existing system of CLC and FUND Conventions and also the new (but not in force) HNS Convention are well established mechanisms when the level of damages is above the insurance cover. Smaller ships, which are not covered by this system, should be the issue to consider.5. The matter of transfer of costs to polluters may be solved by the development of new technology for monitoring and enforcement (see also our comments in part VII. point 2.6. We are not yet ready to answer this complicated question. A comprehensive economic study may be necessary to assess this issue.Norwegian Maritime DirectorateI. The Current Status and Future of Maritime Safety1. Document not made available to NMD (Norwegian Maritime Directorate)2. Document not made available to NMD3. Outside scope of NMD responsibilities (requires political considerations)4. Based on experience with our national Coast Guard (Kystvakten), NMD is of the opinion that co-operation with all relevant authorities will greatly serve the purpose related to accident management and pollution control. Presumably, joint operations in this respect require a co-ordinating body.II. Port State Control1. By seeking membership in the Paris MOU, and thereby becoming party to an internationally accepted instrument.2. Directive 95/21/EG has resulted in harmonized approaches within areas referred to in said document.3. Impossible to indicate. Members of the Paris MOU are constantly struggling with how to come to a common understanding/interpretation of the international instruments (SOLAS, MARPOL, and STCW).III. Increased Use of Automatic Ship Identification Systems (AIS)1. As AIS will become compulsory in accordance with the revised SOLAS Chapter V requirements, it is to be assumed that implementation of AIS in the Baltic Sea States will be beneficial for all purposes referred to under this chapter.2. Subject to consideration by States of the Baltic region.3. Subject to consideration by competent telecom authorities within the Baltic region.4. UnknownIV. Pilotage ObligationsNot consideredV. Training and Continuing Education of Navigators1. Level of training with respect to preventing accidents (fire, rudder failure, and mechanical breakdown) not related exclusively neither to navigators nor to cargo vessels. Improvement in the qualification of seafaring personnel may be achieved through the internationally accepted minimum standard requirements of the STCW '95 Convention.2. Through Quality Standards; for ships and shipping companies through the ISM (International Safety Management Code). For harbours through similar applicable standard(s).VI. Accident Management1. To be considered by countries bordering the Baltic States.2. As above3. As above4. Expanded regional co-operation within all areas/aspects related to accident management.VII. Discharges of Residues from Shipping Operation1. Yes, the legal provisions are sufficient. EU member States will have to implement the EU Directive on Port Reception Facilities by 28. Dec. 2002. In general the challenges on this topic are within enforcement of the existing legal regime.2. Some States (e.g. those within the Bonn agreement) co-operate on enforcement. States benefit from that co-operation. Experience and results from surveillance are shared within the Bonn agreement area. The North Sea States have agreed to establish a network of prosecutors regarding violation of MARPOL 73/78. Such co-operation benefits states in all regions.3. Norway has implemented environmentally differentiation of the tonnage tax, and we are investigating other areas to use that concept. The North Sea States has agreed to co-operate on this issue. Such co-operation could be introduced in the Baltic region as well.4. Such a MOU could be an idea if it is a supplement to IMO regulations, the co-operation within Paris MOU, and the EU regulatory regime. Norway is positive to initiatives which aim at improved environmental protection, but since we do not know the content of such a MOU} it is difficult to have a strong opinion on itVIII. Cost for Shipping Safety and Environmental ProtectionNot considered-----------------------[1] Directive 2000/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ L 332 of 28.12.2000)[2] Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community monitoring, control, and information system for maritime traffic, OJ C 120E of 24.4.2001.