In the Spotlight

 

Jorma Kämäräinen highlights the political will of the Baltic Sea States behind the success. “This commitment was also indicated in the Baltic Sea Action Plan”, he says.

Interview with Jorma Kämäräinen, Finnish Transport Safety Agency

Chairman of the HELCOM Working Group on amendments to MARPOL Annex IV

1.      Very recently, the International Maritime Organization finally designated the Baltic Sea as a Special Area under MARPOL Annex IV, whereby discharges of untreated sewage from passenger ships will banned. What was your role in the process of developing these new regulations?

The work started in 2006 at the HELCOM Maritime 5 Meeting. An initiative was taken for a joint proposal to the IMO to amend these sewage treatment regulations to also cover nutrient discharges, i.e. nitrogen and phosphorus. Thereafter, I acted as a leader of the Working Group on amendments to Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78. The work of the group was based on the study ‘Estimated nutrient loads from ship originated waste water in the Baltic Sea area’ carried out by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland in 2006, and on its updated version in 2009.  The groups worked out the joint proposal by the HELCOM countries at the 60th Meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in 2009, which was finally adopted after some refinements at the MEPC 62 Meeting in 2011.

2.      Eutrophication, caused by the excessive inputs of nutrients, is the main environmental problem of the Baltic Sea. How will the ban contribute to reducing the pollution of the sea?

According to our studies, if all the ferries and cruise liners operating in the Baltic Sea area collect their sewage waters onboard and utilize the port reception facilities, about 63% of the theoretical nutrient input from the sewage of ships would be eliminated from the Baltic Sea. The same result could also be achieved by using an effective onboard treatment system that removes nutrients from sewage water.

3.      What would you say were the decisive factors in introducing stricter requirements for passenger ships operating in the Baltic Sea? Why here, why now?

I think that the most important issue was the political will of the Baltic Sea States to demand stricter requirements for passenger ships. This commitment was also indicated in the Baltic Sea Action Plan.

Another important issue is the contribution of sewage treatment plant manufacturers. We were in contact with several and their contribution was critical when we had to assure IMO that although not yet available, it would be possible to design more advanced sewage treatment plants, which would also be able to reduce nutrient discharges from ships.

The third important issue is the availability of port reception facilities for sewage and the commitment of the Baltic Sea States to upgrade these facilities to meet the forthcoming urgent need for adequate services. 

4.      What was the reaction of the cruise shipping industry to this initiative?

I got the impression that the shipping industry would have preferred voluntary means and not regulations. In 2009, the European Cruise Council (ECC), the organization representing the major cruise companies operating in Europe, announced their commitment to discharge waste water ashore at Baltic ports with adequate port reception facilities which operate under a ‘no-special-fee’ agreement. However, we had many interesting discussions with the representatives of the cruise industry and many important issues, like the availability of these reception facilities in ports, were taken into account during the work at IMO.

5.      HELCOM has nine member governments and IMO has many more. How would you describe the process of adopting the new passenger ship regulations?  Did you, for instance, sense a variation in the reactions in the IMO sessions, any support from a particular region of the world?

We got support from MARPOL parties also from outside the Baltic Sea area. For instance, some Mediterranean countries actively supported our proposal at the MEPC meetings. Apparently, tourism is very important for them and it may be possible that some areas in the Mediterranean Sea area might also be designated a special area in MARPOL Annex IV in the future. I cannot recall that any party to MARPOL would have opposed our joint proposal; however, some parties and shipping organizations challenged our efforts at the negotiations and so we really had to defend our proposal(s). I am proud to say that all the nine HELCOM countries were active in backing up the joint stand in IMO!

6.      What is your next assignment in HELCOM?

The ‘sewage project’ is not quite yet finalized at IMO. The work for amendments to the guidelines on implementation of effluent standards and performance tests for sewage treatment plants are still under preparation by the Germany-led DE 56 Correspondence Group. I am closely following the work of this group.

Currently, I am leading another HELCOM Maritime group related to nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. The group aims to develop the necessary documents for IMO in order to designate the Baltic Sea area as a NOx Emission Control Area (NECA) in MARPOL Annex VI. The goal of this work is to reduce NOx emissions from the diesel engines of ships sailing in the Baltic Sea. As NOx emissions cause atmospheric nitrogen inputs to the sea in addition to harmful health effects, the aim of this proposal is also to reduce the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.