Russian Oil Exports and the Baltic Sea Environment

1
Russian Oil Exports and the Baltic Sea Environment

• A Case Study of
• Regimes in Practice
• Manchester, December 12, 2005

2
Research Theme

• Regimes and Practices - Freedom of the Seas and
  Environmental Protection

3
Background

• Main Russian oil export terminal pre-1998
• VENTSPILS (Latvia)
• Political Disputes w Latvia peaked 1998
• In 1998, Russia decided new oil terminals be
  built near St Petersburg
• Ventspils traffic declined/ceased post-98
• New oil terminals Gulf of Finland
• ICE-BOUND
• In operation since 2001

4
IMO declares Baltic PSSA

• In 2004 IMO designated the Baltic as a
• PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SEA AREA (PSSA)
• Russia opposed the decision
• Specific rules were left to be worked out
• Nov 2005 specific rules adopted
• Advisory only (non-binding)
• Russia still opposed, but accepts (not affected)

5
Project aim

• to examine the relationship between the
  regulation of seaborne traffic and maritime
  oil-spills in the Baltic Sea
• with emphasis on crisis prevention / avoidance

6
Project focus

• Competing policies for the Baltic, impacting on
• process of finding one jointly agreed Baltic
  regime
• (macro level decided by govts intl orgs)
• diversion to other export routes outside Baltic
• (macro level decided by Russian govt)
• vessel operation in the Baltic
• (micro level decided by shipowners markets)

7
Regime Concept

• Norms, rules and procedures
• for a given cross-jurisdictional activity (e.g.
  shipping)

8
Regimes and practices

• Commercial
• Carrying goods from A to B
• Fisheries and aquaculture
• Environmental
• Ecosystem services
• Nature preservation

9
Diverging Interests

• Environment best preserved by absence of human
  activity
• Transport best performed by unfettered movement
  A to B
• Fisheries best served by absence of other use of
  the oceans

10
Compromise needed

• In principle
• Law of the Sea Treaty
• A unified (seamless) regime
• In practice - ??

11
Russian Oil Export Routes

• Druzhba Pipeline to CE Europe (overland)
• Black Sea shipments (Novorossijsk)
• Baltic Sea shipments (Gulf of Finland Ventspils
  etc.)
• Barents Sea shipments (Murmansk)

12
Baltic Sea
13
Tanker movements Baltic Sea
14
Assumed to be in the interest of all

• AVOIDING
• Accidents at sea
• Oil spills at sea
• Inefficient transport links

15
Recorded Accidents
16
Russian interests (revealed/hyp)

• Primary interest
• MOVING OIL TO MARKETS
• Secondary interest
• PORT BENEFITS (INCOME, STRATEGIC CONTROL)
• Tertiary interests
• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
• EFFICIENT MARITIME TRADE IN THE BALTIC
• Unclear priority
• SAFETY OF LIFE

17
Latvian interests (hypothesized)

• Primary interest
• TRANSIT AND PORT BENEFITS
• Secondary interest
• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
• EFFICIENT MARITIME TRADE IN THE BALTIC
• Unclear priority
• SAFETY OF LIFE

18
Finnish interests (hypothesized)

• Primary interests
• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
• EFFICIENT MARITIME TRADE IN THE BALTIC
• Secondary interest
• PORT BENEFITS
• Unclear priority
• SAFETY OF LIFE

19
Swedish interests (hypothesized/revealed)

• Primary interest
• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
• Primary or Secondary interest (??)
• EFFICIENT MARITIME TRADE IN BALTIC
• Unclear priority
• SAFETY OF LIFE

20
Danish interests (hyp)

• Primary
• EFFICIENT SAFE MOVEMENT OF STRAITS TRAFFIC
• EFFICIENT MARITIME TRADE IN BALTIC
• Primary
• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
• Primary
• SAFETY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY (exposure)

21
No Pilot Duty in Danish Straits

• Denmark treaty bound not to impose mandatory
  pilotage
• Instead makes it look attractive
• Danish analysis presented in IMO 2005 showing
  that expenses and losses incurred by a grounding
  in the entrances to the Baltic Sea vastly surpass
  the cost of taking a pilot
• IMO Assembly Doc A 24/5(b)/2 30 Nov 2005 p. 9

22
In short Coping vs Prevention

• Conducting a daily business
• Gain, benefit, profit (short-term long-term)
• Risk of loss (unknown timing)
• Protecting environment
• Short-term cost, long-term gain
• Uniting the two

23
THE IMO ASSEMBLY,

• 1. ADOPTS the proposed traffic separation schemes
  in Bornholmsgat and North of Rügen and amendments
  to the traffic separation schemes Off Gotland
  Island and South of Gedser, set out in Annex 1 to
  the present resolution
• 2. ADOPTS ALSO the new recommended deep-water
  route in the eastern Baltic Sea and the new
  areas to be avoided at Hoburgs Bank and Norra
  Midsjöbanken, as set out in Annex 2 to the
  present resolution
• 3. DECIDES that the routeing systems so adopted
  will be implemented at 0000 hours UTC on 1 July
  2006
• IMO A 24/9/Add.1 p 5 Drafted Sept 5, 2005
  adopted Nov 30, 2005.

24
Russian position

• The delegation of the Russian Federation
  informed the Committee that their position on the
  Baltic Sea PSSA remained unchanged and the
  Russian Federation does not associate itself
  with the decision to designate the Baltic
  Sea as a PSSA and, therefore, does not consider
  the new ships routeing measures developed by NAV
  51 to be PSSA associated protective measures.
• However, the Russian Federation has actively
  participated in the elaboration of these new
  routeing measures in the Baltic Sea and supported
  them and will implement these measures.
• IMO Assembly Doc A 24/5(b)/2 - 30 Nov 2005 p. 8

25
IMO rejects Swedish demand

• The Sub-Committee noted that the proposed
  Protective Measures associated with the Baltic
  Sea Particularly Sensitive Sea Area included
  the establishment of two new mandatory
  Areas to be Avoided and, being of the opinion
  that the proposal did not justify the
  establishment of mandatory areas, agreed that the
  areas concerned could be established as
  non-mandatory ones. The delegation of Sweden
  stated that, while they were not satisfied with
  the decision made, they would accept it and make
  a more detailed submission to NAV 52.
• I\ASSEMBLY\24\9-Add-1.doc Pp 3-4

26
Competing regimes?

• Analyze process
• Norm system
• Russian policy
• Swedish policy
• Contribute to regime studies

27
Research in progress

• 4 researchers (part time)
• several MA students
• funded by Swedish Emergency Management Agency
• 2005-2007