Report of the
29th Conference on the Memorandum of Understanding
for the Transport of Dangerous Goods in Ro-Ro ships in the Baltic,
7-9 June 2005 in Szczecin
1. Welcoming address
Mr Mirosław Szajkowski, Director of Maritime Inspection, Maritime Office in Szczecin,
welcomed the participants to the Conference.
2. Opening of the Conference
The conference was then opened by Mr Mirosław Szajkowski.
3. Election of Chairman
Mr Mirosław Szajkowski, proposed Mr Dariusz Wojcieszek, Director of Navigation Aids and
Hydrography of Maritime Office in Szczecin as Chairman. The proposal was supported by
all the delegations. Subsequently Mr Wojcieszek thanked for the confidence and took the
4. Acceptance of the agenda
The proposed agenda was accepted.
5. Short presentation of the delegates
The delegates introduced themselves. The list of participants is attached as Annex 1.
6. DSC Circular 33 of IMO (4 May 2005)
The Swedish delegation presented DSC/Circular 33 - Exemptions granted from the
provisions of the international maritime dangerous goods (DSC 10/3/…) and relating to
that, the amendments to the IMDG Code and supplements, including harmonization of the
IMDG Code with the UN Recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods.
The proposal given by Sweden was to include the term Low Wave Height Area (LWHA) for
ro-ro traffic with dangerous goods in sheltered sea area in Memorandum of
Understanding. The proposal was not found in favour of other delegations. Therefore the
Swedish delegation proposed to come back to this issue in the future conferences.
7. Report from the working group
The working group consisting of delegations of Denmark, Germany and Sweden
presented a draft of Guidelines for common controls in the Baltic MoU area. Having
discussed the issue, the delegations have reached the consensus on the text of the
Guidelines. The text of the Guidelines for joint checks according to section 9 (6) in the
Memorandum of Understanding for the transport of dangerous goods in ro-ro ships in the
Baltic Sea (MoU) has become Appendix of Memorandum of Understanding.
8. A proposal of amending Section 7 of MoU
Germany proposed (GER-…) amending the text of MoU in Section 7 by adding point 2.
The text of point two should read as follows: If liquid dangerous goods to be transported
having a flashpoint of 61°C or below (in °C closed – cup (c.c.)), the flashpoint range in
accordance with the relevant packing group may be indicated.
The proposal was accepted by the delegations.
9. Editorial amendments to the existing MoU
Swedish delegation proposed editorial amendments (SWE 01) concerning Section 6(2),
Section 5(3), Section 5(1) and added Section 5(4).
After discussing about these amendments, the Swedish delegation decided that the first
proposal for amending Section 6(2) will be brought up again during next conferences.
Proposal concerning Section 5(3) has been changed and the agreed text has been added
to the MoU, approved by the Conference.
Proposal for amending Section 5(1) was denied, however, the Conference agreed to put
Section 5(4) in MoU in a revised version.
10. Container Packing Certificate, CPC
The Swedish delegation reminded (in document SWE 02) that the IMDG Code and Solas
stipulate that a signed Container Packing Certificate (CPC) shall be provided for each
container or vehicle. They proposed an alternative solution for railway wagons which have
problems to deliver a CPC. However, the delegates decided that this proposal should be
brought up next year.
11. Checklist for joint checks and common controls
The Swedish delegates presented an updated checklist (SWE 03) for joint checks and
common controls. After discussion among the delegates, amendments have been
proposed and accepted by the Conference. The Swedish delegation has committed
themselves to send a revised copy of the list to the organizers of the Conference.
12. Definition of “Close transport unit” and Summary of the national checks
on the Southwest coast of Finland CTUs in 2004
The Finnish delegation presented information concerning the definition of “Close transport
unit” (FIN Inf-01) and including it to the UN Model Regulations. Finland also summarised
the number and effects of inspections of CTUs in Finland (FIN Inf-03).
The information of Finland was accepted as a fact by the Conference.
13. Interpretation of Section 9 (1) of the MoU
Finland requested the Conference to give clear guidelines for the interpretation of Section
9 (1) of MoU (FIN Inf-02). The delegations have confirmed the Finnish understanding of
14. Interpretation of MoU
Germany presented their interpretation of the MoU (GER inf 1), in which they proposed
adding point 4 in Section 3, saying: “Bulk containers shall comply with chapter 7.3 ADR, as
amended or 4.3 of the IMDG Code, as amended.”
The Conference agreed to that proposal.
Germany also proposed changing in Section 10 the text “Riga version” to “this version”.
This amendment was also approved by the Conference.
15. Other amendments
The delegates proposed also changing the word in the heading of Section 4 from
“labelling” to “plackarding”. This amendment was approved.
16. Other issues
The Conference approved the Terms of Reference for the Intersessional Working Group.
The document is attached as Annex 2 to this report.
The Conference appointed Germany as the Administration responsible for submitting the
annual report of the joint checks to the MoU Conference and IMO (according to Appendix
to the MoU Guidelines for joint checks according to Section 9(6) in the Memorandum of
Understanding for the transport of dangerous goods in ro-ro ships in the Baltic Sea
17. Time and place for the 30th Conference
The delegates of Germany proposed to organise the next Conference. The suggestion
was approved by the delegates. The proposed time for the next Conference is 12 – 18
18. Report of the 29th Conference
The report was prepared after the meeting and sent to the Delegates.
19. End of Conference
The Chairman declared the Conference closed.
List of participants
1. Anne Lene Ries – Danish Maritime Authority
2. Sven Lefeldt – Scandlines
3. Sven Leerskov Mathiesen – Marstal Navigationsskole
1. Per Nordström – Swedish Maritime Administration
2. Caroline Petrini – Swedish Maritime Administration
3. Frederika Lindholm – Swedish Rescue Services Agency
4. Göran Berg – Swedish International Freight Forwarder’s Association
5. Lennart Persson – Swedish Shipowner Association
6. Anders Melander – Swedish Coast Guard HQ
1. Jaak Arro – Estonian Maritime Administration
2. Susanna Ilves – Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications
3. Eha Urbas – Estonian Maritime Administration
1. Karl – Heinz Bell – Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing
2. Ingo Berger – Innenministerium des Landes Schleswig - Holstein
3. Ingo Döring – Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung
4. Dietrich Dabels – German Shipowners’ Association
5. Friedo Holtermann – Germanischer Lloyd
6. Volker Utzenrath – German Shipowners’ Association
1. Edgars Andersons – Maritime Administration of Latvia
1. Alvydas Nikolajus – Lithuanian Maritime Safety Administration
2. Remigijus Andriulionis – Klaipeda State Seaport Authority
3. Alvydas Macius – Lisco Baltic Service
4. Sergej Teriochin – Lisco Baltic Service
1. Claus - Dieter Helmke – DHL Freight GmbH
1. Liisa Virtanen – Ministry of Transport and Communications
2. Jan-Eric Dahlberg – Finnlines
3. Vesa Viitanen – Finnlines
4. Håkan Fagerström – Silja Oy Ab, Finish Shipowner Association
5. Jyrki Vähätalo – Finnish Maritime Administration
1. Wojciech Durczak – Maritime Office in Szczecin
2. Adam Białowąs – Maritime Office in Szczecin
3. Piotr Ambroziak – Maritime Office in Szczecin
4. Zygfryd Zelman – Authority of Szczecin and Świnoujście Sea Ports
5. Marek Szymoński – Polish Baltic Shipping
6. Paweł Łaput – Polish Baltic Shipping
7. Wiesław Milenko – Ferry Terminal Świnoujście
Technical assistance to the 29th Conference
1. Dariusz Wojcieszek (Chairman) – Maritime Office in Szczecin
2. Dorota Korczyńska (Secretariat) – Maritime Office in Szczecin
Terms of reference for the intersessional Working Group
1. Describe other definitions of areas similar to LWHA that could have potential to be accepted
by the IMO.
2. Consider and motivate the number of passengers on board ro-ro passenger ships under
different storage situation.
3. consider the differences between the MoU and the IMDG Code regarding storage and
segregation and motivate the differences.
4. Consider mixed loading and motivate the differences in areas with limited wave heights on a
complete change of the Code.
5. Consider other additional requirements that can motivate differences between the MoU and
the IMDG Code.
6. In general terms describe experience of transport of Dangerous Goods in the Baltic under