WE ARE PARTNERS OF:

20th anniversary of BPO

The Baltic shipping sector is trying to foresee the consequences of the IMO’s 2008 decision to establish new regulations regarding sulphur content in marine fuels and prepare for them. Increased fuel expenses, logistics costs and the need for large investments into low-emission technology and infrastructure – this outcome is unquestionable. But is that all?

TIhe Emission Control Area (ECA), constituting only the Baltic Sea, North Sea and the English Channel, is an area covering about 0.3% of the world’s water surface. These regions are declared as SECAs, unlike the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and the East Atlantic. “The global sulphur and nitrogen dioxide regulations of the Marpol Annex VI was a success for the IMO, but the even more stringent regional sulphur rules of the Sulphur Emission Control Area was a decision taken in darkness since no impact assessment was conducted prior to the decision. The SECA regulation will lead to trade-off effects and enormous negative competiveness implications, which should make all politicians shiver” – begins an article entitled “Lower sulphur levels in shipping - not sustainable” by Karolina Boholm, advisor to the Industrial Policy Department of Swedish Forest Industries Federation. And it won’t be far off to state that almost the whole shipping industry which operates within the SECA nods its head to this statement, if not shivers in the face of what the future might bring.

The campaign for LNG-fuelled engines in many respects reminds of historical campaigns for other innovations in shipping – for nuclear ships, gas turbine, air cushion vehicles or mechanical sails. In all cases lots of words were used with minor practical effect. And the whole mass of words has common features – some facts are left unsaid and others are underlined without compatibility, probably for propaganda purposes.

In the article “Greener shipping in the Baltic – The best solution is LNG” (BTJ 4/2011) we find information that the BSR “constitutes over 11% of the global shipping trade volume.” Even if this figure were true it is not relevant to the subject of environmental issues and misleads outsiders, who might think that this number also represents the Baltic’s share in global shipping emissions. If we were to look for the adequate proportions in transport statistics, only one set of data seems to be proper – a transport work, because in order to cause emissions, the volume has to be moved. And the BSR generates only 0.9% (9 per mile) of the global shipping transport work! Consequently, the first question is born: why is the whole world so interested in such a small amount of emissions and enacts special laws for the Baltic Sea?

Interview with Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the European Commission
by Lena Lorenc

 Climate and environment challenges are among the crucial problems the transport sector is nowadays confronted with. What are the most crucial EU measures designed to improve the environmental condition of the European seas?

Preserving the environment is indeed a key pillar in the development of a sustainable maritime transport. The environmental protection of the sea is a broad concept, which covers both prevention of pollution and response to pollution. As regards pollution prevention, let me mention a few examples, such as reducing the content of sulphur in marine fuels – we have just proposed to amend Directive 1999/32/EC regarding this matter, to reduce the sulphur emitted from maritime transport in sensitive areas, such as the Baltic Sea. We have also in place legislation which enhances the availability and use of reception facilities in ports to handle ship-generated waste and cargo residues, and we are currently reviewing it. Moreover, the IMO decided that all oil tankers built from 1996 onwards should have a double hull. The EU negotiated a faster phase-out and secured international acceptance for its position at IMO. Regulation 417/2002/EC set a timetable for phasing out single-hull oil tankers worldwide and the introduction of double-hull tankers. These offer better protection for the environment in the event of an accident. As regards our initiatives in terms of response to pollution, together with the European Maritime Safety Agency we have developed the CleanSeaNet service, which provides near-real-time satellite information on oil spills. EMSA can also mobilise ships, at the request of Member States, to help clean the sea in case of an oil-spill.

There is a need for bold, high-level political leadership to address the many challenges the Baltic faces. Words and agreements, however, cannot save it without the delivery and follow-through of the promises made.

T he WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme (BEP), comprising of WWF and partner organizations in each of the nine coastal Baltic Sea countries, has been working for decades to protect the Baltic marine environment and ensure the sustainable use of its resources. In 2007 WWF began to evaluate the degree to which governments were delivering upon their stated commitments – in the form of ‘Scorecard’ reports. Unfortunately, one of the key conclusions from these reports was that there was a growing gap between the statements and commitments made by governments and the corresponding actions needed to actually deliver upon their promises. The latest WWF Baltic Sea Scorecard report, launched in August 2011, measured each of the nine coastal Baltic Sea countries’ performance in implementing some of the most important international, regional and European agreements and conventions designed to manage and protect the Baltic Sea. On the basis of the commitments made in these agreements, the 2011 scorecard assessed a limited number of key indicators within five focal areas of crucial importance to the Baltic and its health: eutrophication, hazardous substances, the protection of biodiversity, maritime activities, and integrated sea use management (a more integrated approach to planning and managing the use of the sea and its resources). These five areas are all interlinked and dependent on each other. Negative or positive trends within one area will have immediate effects on the other areas as well. Special consideration was to grade Russia on a similar scale, even though all agreements and policies did not apply, as Russia is not an EU Member.

The Baltic Sea is dying from suffocation. This process, called eutrophication, rapidly speeded up in the 1 50s when the use of fertilizers, most notably nitrogen and phosphorus, was oversized in agriculture.

Anthropogenic activities (apart from farming also human sewage, urban runoff, industrial effluent, fossil fuel combustion) have doubled the nitrogen and tripled the phosphorus flow in the environment, compared to natural values. A surplus of these chemicals has started to soak into rivers and then to the sea. This has led to a bursting increase in phytoplankton and zooplankton. The enormous overgrowth of both has resulted in a colossal amount of their remains putrefying at the bottom of the sea. Moreover, the Baltic Sea is a very calm area of water, so brackish water gathers undisturbed at the lowermost part of the sea, making it a splendid environment for bacteria using the available oxygen which then produce large quantities of toxic substances, such as hydrogen sulphide, methane and ammonia, deadly for most of the species living in the Baltic. Another feature of the Baltic calmness is that every drop of water getting into the sea stays there for about 40 years, so it’s very easy to pollute it, but hard to heal. What’s more, eutrophication also causes harmful algal blooms, which are destroying the aquatic offshore and onshore life as well as are dangerous for humans.