Environmental impact of shipping in the BSR

Whereas adverse environmental impacts of shipping activities are widely acknowledged and the sources of vessels-based pollution were put under scientific scrutiny, in terms of actual numbers our knowledge about connections between global shipping and the environment is relatively scattered and partial (IMO, 2012). The situation is different in the Baltic Sea region,

where the pioneering efforts of the Helsinki Commission to organize collection and analysis of data allowed establishing a relatively robust picture regarding the shipping environmental and safety performance. In particular, HELCOM has focused on the following indicators:

illegal oil discharges (available from 1988), comprehensive air emissions inventories (2006 onwards), and safety reports (detailed statistics on accidents number, place, causes, types, and results available from 2002). Statistics on shipping environmental impact has been made available publicly via the Internet.

Despite rapidly growing density of shipping, a decreasing trend can be observed in regard to illegal oil discharges (HELCOM Response, 2013). Altogether 139 oil spills were recorded in 2012, which is an obvious decrease in comparison to the average of ca. 400 in the beginning of the 2000s (Table 2). Most spills recorded are of small scale, the majority of spills are smaller than one cubic meter and less than 100 liters. Breakdown for quantities into categories for each year can be found from the HELCOM Response fact sheets. This development is associated with increased frequency of the surveillance flights and improved usage of remote sensing equipment (HELCOM Response, 2013). Apart from surveillance, the decreasing trend can also be attributed to a complex Baltic Strategy to prevent illegal discharges of oil and waste into the sea, which included a ‘no-special-fee’ system for using port reception facilities, where adequate treatment of waste is provided (The Baltic Sea Portal, 2009). The significant renewal rates of the Baltic fleet could have also had an impact as newer vessels are equipped with systems capable of treating wasteful products on board or retaining them safely until they are discharged to PRFs.

Whereas until 2007 air emissions from shipping were increasing, starting from 2007 in all subsequent years emissions of major pollutants (SOx and PM) from Baltic shipping have gradually decreased (Table 3). This trend is associated with the entrance into force of the Baltic Sea SECA (SOx Emission Control Area) during 2006 and the reviewed EU directive 2005/33/EC (the so-called “sulphur directive”), which starting from year 2010 prescribed all ships to switch to less than 0.1 sulphur content fuel in ports if their hoteling period is longer than two hours (Jalkanen and Johansson, 2013). It is important to note, that during the whole time that the intensification of shipping was registered (Figure 1, Section 2.3.1), indicating both relative and absolute decrease of emissions due to the use of innovative technology (such as alternative marine fuels, shore-side electricity, fuel-saving measures, slow-steaming) and/or improvements in regulatory compliance.

Additionally, the situation in waste and sewage treatment has improved in the past ten years. In 2007 HELCOM decided to propose at IMO to create a special area under MARPOL Annex IV in the Baltic Sea and improve port reception facilities, submitting a joint proposal in December 2009 (HELCOM, 2010a). In July 2011 the IMO approved amendments to MARPOL Annex IV, which introduced the Baltic Sea as a special area under Annex IV and added new discharge requirements for passenger ships while in a special area. The special area status entered into force on 1.1.2013, and from that date onwards discharge of sewage into the sea from passenger ships is prohibited (unless an on board sewage treatment plant is used), and all untreated sewage is to be delivered to an onshore PRF. At the same time, starting from 2010 a HELCOM roadmap for upgrading the availability of port reception

facilities for sewage in major passenger port was put into action. The cooperation on PRF under HELCOM encouraged shipping companies and ports to undertake voluntary activities and to dispose sewage to PRF, with the largest passenger ports in Stockholm, St. Petersburg and Helsinki setting an example. In regard to ballast waters treatment, regulatory action has been undertaken, but due to “the lack of data on the presence and distribution of harmful species in Baltic Sea ports and their vicinity, i.e., where ballast water operations occur” the effectiveness of these regulation and measures undertaken remain difficult to assess (David et al., 2013, p. 207).

Table 2. Illegal oil discharges and aerial surveillance in the Baltic Sea

Year Total number of

Table 3. Air emissions from Baltic shipping, 2006-2012 (t)

year NOx SOx PM CO2

Source: Jalkanen and Johansson (2012) and HELCOM (http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/environment-fact-sheets/.) NOTE: Transport work of Vessels with an IMO number based on AIS position data, small vessels are not included. Estimates are based on the STEAM model (Jalkanen et al., 2009).

Whereas an improvement of some environmental indicators has been reported, shipping safety and the status of safety measures introduced in the Baltic Sea remained debatable (Table 4). The number of accidents, incidents, and close calls/near misses could be considered as most widely-used formal indicators of safety. The term “accident” is generally applied when a hazardous event occurs resulting in damage or injury; an “incident” is a situation where consequences are minor or negligible and a “near miss” refers to a situation where an accident would have happened if the sequence of events would not have been interrupted in time (Storgård et al., 2011). The accident pyramid model (Heinrich, 1959) suggests that for every serious accident there are 29 less serious accidents and 300 near miss cases. Incidents

and near misses generally share same underlying reasons as accidents (Storgårg et al, 2011;

Jones et al., 1999). According to statistics provided by HELCOM, there has been an average 75-120 accidents on the Baltic Sea in each of the past ten years despite the efforts to improve navigational safety. There is no coherent statistics on incidents and near misses available, since in the shipping industry incident and near miss reporting is largely underdeveloped and/or conducted internally without making results publicly available (Lappalainen, 2009, 2011; Oltedal & McArthur, 2011; Kongsvik et al., 2012).

Table 4. Number of reported accidents in the Baltic Sea, 2006-2012

Year Number of

Source: HELCOM Accidents (http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/maritime/accidents/) and Jalkanen and Johansson (2012). NOTE: Reporting for all tankers larger than 150 DWT and other vessels 400 DWT. The number of ships is reported in the basis of AIS data.

The most common types of accidents are grounding (almost 50% of all cases) and collision with another vessel or a fixed structure. Cargo vessels are the main group of ships involved in accidents, followed by passenger ships and tankers. It must be noted that this pattern is not unique to the Baltic Sea, as “an almost identical share of different ship types in accidents can be observed for EU waters” (HELCOM 2010b, p.18). Furthermore serious accidents have been avoided. “Both literary and data mining showed that neither major chemical spills nor oil spills, such as Erika or Prestige, have happened in the Baltic Sea” (Häkkinen and Posti, 2013, p.24). The last major passenger vessel accident happened in 1994 (theEstoniadisaster), and since 2003 Fu Shan Hai accident resulting in the release of 1,200 tons of fuel oil, no major shipping accident has occurred in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM 2010b, p.18). Human factor has been reported as the main cause of the accidents, followed by technical reasons (Harrald et al., 1998; Soares and Teixeira, 2001; Hetherington et al., 2006; Grabowski et al., 2007; Williamson et al., 2011). Concerning the environmental impacts of the accidents, in the recent years the number of accidents resulting in pollution has been stable (ca. 10 annually) and among the tanker accidents less than 5% led to crude oil or oil product spills (Table 4).

3The number of accidents in 2012 was the highest in the past decade. Reasons shall be investigated separately and are not treated in the present dissertation. Yet, a note shall be made in this respect. In relative terms in 2012 the tanker safety stayed at the same level: out of 148 vessels involved in accidents 16 were tankers and thereof 4 accidents resulted in pollution. Out of 10 accidents that resulted in pollution, 8 occurred due to human factor. This information may however be interpreted in the light of limited capacity of a governance system based upon technical and administrative measures to enhance shipping safety once a certain threshold in traffic density/volume has been reached. In a situation of an ‘overcrowded sea’, the

‘software’ of quality shipping, in particular, safety culture and responsible shipping operations, and its anchorage within the polycentric governance contexts requires attention (see also Section 3.3, 6 and 7.2). Source: HELCOM (2013) Draft Report on Shipping Accidents in the Baltic Sea Region, Maritime Group 13th Meeting Szczecin, Poland, 26-28 November 2013.

Available from: http://meeting.helcom.fi/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=18827&folderId=2477596&name=DLFE-55135.pdf

“Considering both chemical and oil tankers, only very small spills have happened and their environmental impact has been neglected” (Häkkinen and Posti, 2013, p.24).

It remains difficult to assess the risk of accidental pollution in the light of existing safety measures, as estimations of the effectiveness of the existing measures are made on the basis of relatively scattered and incomplete reporting. Yet, the extension of measurement and communication of shipping environmental and safety performance indicators has brought a numerical substance into the discussion on the quality of Baltic shipping, thereby assuring broader reception of this subject-matter among the regional actors.