Russian Oil Exports and the Baltic Sea Environment
A Case Study of Regimes in Practice
Manchester, December 12, 2005
Research Theme:
Regimes and Practices - Freedom of the Seas and Environmental Protection
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
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
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
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)
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Project aim
to examine the relationship between the regulation of seaborne traffic and maritime oilspills in the Baltic Sea with emphasis on crisis prevention / avoidance
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Project focus
Competing policies for the Baltic, impacting on process of finding one jointly agreed Baltic regime
(macro level: decided by govts & int’l org’s)
diversion to other export routes outside Baltic
(macro level: decided by Russian govt)
vessel operation in the Baltic
(micro level: decided by shipowners & markets)
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Regime Concept
Norms, rules and procedures for a given cross-jurisdictional activity (e.g. shipping)
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Regimes and practices
Commercial:
Carrying goods from A to B Fisheries and aquaculture
Environmental:
Ecosystem services Nature preservation
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
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
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Compromise needed
In principle:
Law of the Sea Treaty
A unified (”seamless”) regime
In practice: - ??
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
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)
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Baltic Sea
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Tanker movements – Baltic Sea
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Assumed to be in the interest of all AVOIDING Accidents at sea Oil spills at sea Inefficient transport links
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Recorded Accidents
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Russian interests (revealed/hyp)
Primary interest:
MOVING OIL TO MARKETS PORT BENEFITS (INCOME, STRATEGIC CONTROL)
Secondary interest:
Tertiary interests:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EFFICIENT MARITIME TRADE IN THE BALTIC
SAFETY OF LIFE
Unclear priority:
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Latvian interests (hypothesized)
Primary interest:
TRANSIT AND PORT BENEFITS
Secondary interest
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EFFICIENT MARITIME TRADE IN THE BALTIC
Unclear priority:
SAFETY OF LIFE
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Finnish interests (hypothesized)
Primary interests:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EFFICIENT MARITIME TRADE IN THE BALTIC
Secondary interest:
PORT BENEFITS
Unclear priority:
SAFETY OF LIFE
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Swedish interests (hypothesized/revealed)
Primary interest:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
EFFICIENT MARITIME TRADE IN BALTIC
Primary or Secondary interest (??):
Unclear priority:
SAFETY OF LIFE
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
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)
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
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
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
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 …
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
“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.
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
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
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
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
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Competing regimes?
Analyze process
Norm system Russian policy Swedish policy
Contribute to regime studies
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic
Research in progress
4 researchers (part time) several MA students funded by Swedish Emergency Management Agency 2005-2007
Knudsen: Russian Oil Transports in the Baltic