Esas ag 19. 8 19th Meeting of the bsc advisory Group on Environmental Safety Aspects of Shipping November 30th December 2nd, 2010, Istanbul, Turkey Draft Minutes

Download 254 Kb.
Hajmi254 Kb.
  1   2
ESAS AG 19.8

19th Meeting of the BSC Advisory Group on Environmental Safety Aspects of Shipping
November 30th - December 2nd, 2010, Istanbul, Turkey
Draft Minutes
The meeting was attended by Delegations of all Contracting Parties to the Bucharest Convention and by invited guests from the BS MOU on PSC Secretariat, REMPEC, OSPRI, SASEPOL Project, ITU and SCANEX.
Capt. Adrian Alexe (Romania) - Chairman of the AG ESAS, Mrs. Violeta Velikova, PMA Officer of the BSC, acted as Secretary of the Meeting.
Abbreviations used:

BG – Bulgaria; GE – Georgia; RO – Romania; RU – Russian Federation; TU – Turkey; UA – Ukraine

AK – Ahmet Kideys, VV – Violeta Velikova

BS – Black Sea

BSC – Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution

D – Decision

MONINFO – EC project of the BSC (Environmental Monitoring of the Black Sea Basin: Monitoring and Information Systems for Reducing Oil Pollution)

PS – Permanent Secretariat of the BSC

R – Reminder

RIP – Regional Information Platform (sensu MONINFO)
30th November 2010-11-30
A1. Opening and welcome, introduction of participants, approval of the Agenda and minutes of the previous meeting. Report on the AG decisions – actions completed and pending. Cooperation with other organizations and other general information from the BSC PS.
The meeting was opened by the Chairman Mr. Adrian Alexe, welcoming all participants. The participants introduced themselves. VV informed about an accident in Bulgarian waters – two ships collided on 29th Nov. 2010, one of them sunk, people went missing, no pollution was reported. Capt. Landin informed about a recently published report on Flag States Control Quality ( AK talked about the importance of the work of the ESAS AG and the efforts of the BSC PS to support them. The pollution accident in Hungary was reminded and possible increased impact of the Danube River on the Black Sea, calling for strengthened international cooperation (similar to that in cases of oil spill accidents), was mentioned.
The draft minutes of the18th meeting were discussed, Focal Points requested minor changes (e.g., no dispersants policy in BG and RO, the AIS MoU Annex 1/Table to be cancelled as requested by TU, the UA policy for BW to be correctly reflected) which were introduced immediately in the document. RU Focal Point stated that approval of the Minutes a year later after the meeting was not a good practice, asking for more time to check the 18th meeting minutes. On 1st of December no changes were requested by RU, the Minutes of the 18th ESAS AG meeting were approved.
The draft Agenda of the 19th ESAS AG meeting was discussed. Mr. Korcak/TU proposed a 10 minutes presentation on BW issues/why we need a BW Strategy to be introduced. AK proposed to change the sequence of items in the Agenda – first Cooperation with international organizations to be presented, including outcomes of the IMO/BSC workshop on BW (Odessa, July 2010), second - presentation from Turkey about a BW Regional Strategy and then to discuss the BW Guideline submitted by REMPEC and other BW issues in between.
The presentation of Mr. Korcak was welcomed, the importance of the Odessa workshop was recognized, however the BG and RU Focal Points reminded that the workshop was not an ESAS AG meeting and had no mandate to take decisions on behalf of the ESAS AG or create a BS task-force group to work on a regional BW Strategy. There was no such decision from previous meetings of the ESAS AG. VV stated that, in line with the BSC priorities (BS SAP 2009), the BW Convention signing/ratification by BS states should be first promoted, road map for ratification should be agreed, and then regional strategy/action plan for implementation of this Convention should be considered for development.
Mr. Korcak explained that the draft BW Regional Strategy has been developed in cooperation with the BSC PS. TU insisted on discussing this draft Strategy in detail and explaining why the region had needed it. TU stated that the important thing was not the name of the document, it could be called ‘a draft roadmap’ (according to the workplan of the BSC) or ‘a draft strategy’, the important thing was to make progress on BW by recognizing the outcomes of the Odessa activity (attended by most ESAS AG Members). The delegations agreed to accept the proposed changes in the Agenda and to discuss the idea of having a regional BS BW Strategy with the purpose to elaborate a relevant recommendation, if necessary, to be submitted to the attention of the BSC.
The Agenda of the meeting was approved with major changes of the sequence of items for the first two days (including the presentation of Mr. Ostergaard). The Alpha exercise was excluded - the GE Focal point communicated the problems which did not allow to prepare the exercise and proposed to postpone the Alpha for 2011 (next ESAS meeting), the latter was accepted by the ESAS AG members. The SCANEX presentation was included under A2. The Minutes further reflect the sequence of items in the changed and approved Agenda.
The decisions of the 18th ESAS AG meeting were overviewed by VV, gaps in performance were outlined, and additional information was communicated by Focal Points as follows:
Since Annex 1-3 in TU has not been changed in 2009/2010, the 2008 update is still valid. GE mentioned changes and was asked to send their update. Annex 4 has not been updated by any state, the states were invited to send their updates. The BRAVO exercises of GE and RO (planned for 2010) have not yet taken place. RO will organize its BRAVO in December (till 20th of December).
Collection of information on amendments of MARPOL 73/78 and other similar international instruments is a responsibility of the Focal Points of states in IMO, therefore the BSC PS is not requested by the ESAS AG to prepare and submit such information.
The document ‘BS as a Special Area under MARPOL Annex V’ is pending for approval by Georgia and Russia.1
In line with the Guidelines for Oil Spill Exercises under the Black Sea RCP, the next Delta will be named Black Sea DELTA-Georgia. The group discussed the possible involvement of EMSA vessel in the Black Sea Delta-Georgia, and which state should request it. During RODELTA, RO requested the EMSA vessel being the host-country. During the Varna (Bulgaria) exercise in March 2010 (see Annex I), BG applied and two EMSA vessels took part in the exercise. For the Black Sea DELTA-Georgia, BG already communicated with EMSA on the procedure of application when the hosting country was non-EU. During the planning phase of Black Sea DELTA-Georgia, when and who should apply for an EMSA vessel will be decided.
Sea-Alarm Guidelines – A Guide to Oiled Wildlife Response Planning is already available on:
The Sensitivity maps of TU have been prepared under a large scale TUBITAK project. Detailed information can be submitted upon request.
Information on non-compliant ships in UA with the national BW regulations is expected on a regular basis (during ESAS AG meetings).
IMO GISIS is filled in by: BG, RO, TU; update of the submitted information is needed for RU; UA will send additional data in 1 month; GE have passed a few weeks ago a special inspection (organized by SASEPOL), after the report on this inspection is received, GE will submit information on PRF to IMO and BSC PS.
A2. Pollution prevention and Operational/Illegal/Accidental Pollution from ships
The Focal points were invited to report on:

  1. ESAS annual report2 based on the agreed Format.

  2. New IMO Conventions implemented in BS states (national policy, responsible institutions, procedures for control in ports) or actions toward signing/ratification, e.g. Bunkers, BWM2004, AFS and other Conventions.

2.1. Ballast water management.

  1. Adequacy of PRF for oily waste, garbage and HNS, procedures for delivery of ship generated waste and control in ports (update if relevant).

  2. Status of implementation of Marpol73/78 Annex V.

  3. Fleet renovation.

  4. Regulations for emissions of ships.

  5. Monitoring of oil pollution – in situ and remote.

  6. CleanSeaNet services.

All presentations given will be attached to the documents of the meeting and uploaded on the web page of the BSC.

BG – Ms. Daria Pisheva presented information on all requested items (A2.1-A2.8, including the Bunker Convention implementation, BWM Convention – to be ratified end of 2011 and not later than 2012). For aerial surveillance in BG – the Maritime Administration is seeking for a contract with navy or with a private company to check the satellites alerts of CSN (EMSA). Ms. Pisheva also shared BG experience with certificates (Bunker Convention).
Capt. Landin questioned on the regulations for sulphur content in fuel presented (difficult for tankers to comply - vessels need 50% more power on board to comply with green gas emissions) and recommended the numbers given to be checked. Ms. Pisheva explained that the checks of the fuel quality go under a relevant EU Directive (the use of low sulphur fuel by ships is regulated by Directive 1999/32/EC amended by the Directive 2005/33/EC.) in Bulgaria and a few penalties had been already imposed. It is mandatory to use low sulphur fuel (with max sulphur content 0,1%) for ships at berth, allowing sufficient time for the crew to complete any necessary fuel-changeover operation as soon as possible after arrival at berth and as late as possible before departure.
Capt. Imnaishvili/GE informed that Norway, Denmark and Finland Owners of Ships Association applied to IMO being concerned about the regulations on CO2 (costs of shipping increase extremely). Capt. Landin mentioned that, generally, nobody looked at the total net effect of a Convention/regulation. For instance, in the case of BW management, the compliance with the BW Convention will lead to increase in green house gasses. Many regulations have been built politically but not basing on common sense, estimation of costs and net impacts on the environment.
GE – will send their national report in the frames of one week after the meeting.

RO – Mrs. Irina Casiade presented the Romanian data in line with the reporting format and communicated new IMO Conventions implementation in RO as well, or actions toward their ratification. CSN services were presented together with check of alerts. The visual verification capacity in RO was described. There was a question from UA on the amount of penalties calculation. The fines in RO are established through a Governmental Decision. The same fine for every type of ship is applied, conversion rate to Euro used is the average one for the year.
In relation to BW (clean, dirty) Marpol definitions are used, as RO has not yet ratified the BWM Convention. Mr. Ostergaard reminded that according to IMO…..clean or segregated ballast waters in accordance with Regulation 34 A.2 and B.4 of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 legally can be discharged outside and inside a Special Area (hence in the whole BS).
RU – Mrs. Natalia Kutaeva presented the Russian National report, in line with the proposed format, together with information on the renovation of the salvage and rescue fleet in the system of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation. Mr. Michail Flyaum communicated the BW issues.3 Monitoring related to BW – Rostov on Don Institute (Olga Yasakova) worked on invasive species – found no invasive species in the port of Novorossiysk based on a frequency of observations 4 times/per year, 20 stations in the port. Requirements – there is no need to declare areas of BW exchange in RU, the depths are more than 2000 m between Turkish straits and RU coast. There are problems for those vessels, which go to the northwest ports of the Black Sea only.
The Chairman expressed appreciation for the Fleet renovation in RU and posted questions for discussion: a). how to organize storage and recovery of wastes after accidents, including during exercises, since around the BS there are no existing storage facilities; b). how to involve private companies/ships in a real operation. Mr. Flyaum explained that during exercises in Novorossiysk two major issues are always tested.
1. Unloading of the oil cargo from the damaged tanker to another tanker, which is nominated by the tanker owner or operator.
2. Involvement of an empty bunker barge for the transportation of the collected oily water.
Capt. Imnaishvili intervened that in Georgia they also used port bunker barge in cases of accidents. No concrete ideas/proposals for the regional exercises were communicated by the delegations in response. The Chairman recommended the involvement of private companies to be widely considered in the scenario of the BS Delta in GE. The Chairman also recommended for the Delta exercise in Georgia, available tanker storage vessel to be included in the scenario, and to wider involve private companies in real operations as well. Mr. Taylor/OSPRI supported the Chairman, talking about important issues such as offshore recovery of oil, on-board storage facilities, training, mobilizing of resources, incorporation all parts in the chain in building preparedness to accidents. Recovery, storage, disposal of wastes should be addressed in exercises.
TU – Ms. Didem Ugur presented the TU data. 22 accidents for the BS proper have been reported, no oil pollution related (for 2009). The NCP has been finalized last week4. Six regional Contingency plans have been also prepared – TU has been divided into 6 regions. Criteria – based on TUBITAK conclusions on risk (sensitivity of area), time for deployment needed (to speed up deployments). Total – 19 storage areas including people, equipment and educational centers are foreseen. There will be one national response center in Tekirdag, and one regional center – in Antalya (not only equipment, but also staff). Private companies who have licensed for transportation of collected wastes have been listed in the plans. Samples of contracts are given for Tiers 1, 2, 3 in the NCP. Those companies which can collect, store, transport and recover oil of accidents are also listed in the plans. TU is ready to share experience in preparation of a modern CP.
The Chairman appreciated the presented contingency planning in TU and accepted the proposed offer for sharing experience on behalf of the ESAS AG members. One of the important questions, raised during the discussion, was on who should sign the contracts during accidents. In the case of TU, regional level and National level of contingency planning are related to different structures, different organizations have the responsibilities for contracts (Ministries, Governors of provinces)5. Tier 1 – regional authorities/governors are responsible - Governor is responsible for all coordination and signing of contracts (supported by different advisory groups). At the national level – Ministries. Support from abroad can be requested by the government only, not by regional bodies. In GE, the contract for deployment of oil recovery vessel should be directly signed with ship owners (customers with contractors), not with authorities6. As non-EU state GE cannot apply for an EMSA vessel, for GE it is easier to apply for a TU support, or to contact a tanker calling in a GE port and to ask for a support in a salvage operation (cheaper and faster).
Areas of response during accidents are not yet officially set in the Black Sea, as not all borders in between the EEZs of the BS states are officially agreed. The matter of responsibility in cases of accidents should be regulated by the Regional Contingency Plan (an issue for amendment of the existing plan). .If a spill happens in the middle of the Black Sea, who is going to take the responsibility and who will be in charge to ask for an international assistance is not clear. The issue is pending for clarification and further work in the region. Mr. Ostergaard proposed to share information from other regional seas as Baltic and North Seas, for instance.
R: Areas of response during accidents need to be included in the RCP.
UA – Mr. Eugene Patlatyuk presented UA data (cargo turnover, PRF, spills, dumping, BW, etc.) and IMO conventions under implementation in Ukraine.

R (eminder): Mr. P. Taylor (OSPRI) recommended UA to include in their list of Conventions under consideration the OPRC Convention.

SCANEX presentation: given by Mr. Alexey KUCHEJKO, SCANEX is a private company, 20 years old, supplier to EMERCOM,7, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Natural Resources, etc. on oil spill detection and other services (post reactive in cases of disasters (e.g. Kerch accident), floods, data acquisition & delivery). Satellite images from Envisat, Radarsat are used. SAR pollution monitoring along the RU coast was conducted for 2 months as a pilot project in 2008, by providing 2 images per week. In 2009, ”Ecological Monitoring of 5 seas around Russia” - Multi Party Project has been implemented. Black Sea web service: Web Geoportal interface“Kosmosnimki 2010” with Geomixer software based on Modis data, was mentioned.
Novorossiysk Maritime Port Administration (MPA) has developed practical methodological procedure for pursuing vessels identified as oil polluters based on satellite (SAR) information. They named it Novorossiysk methodological procedure (after the port where it was used for the 1st time officially). The vessel identification as a potential oil polluter is accomplished after joint processing of SAR images (mainly Category 1A, 1B and 2) and AIS data from shore-based stations. Then PSC officials execute detailed inspection of oil/water separator and other nature-protection equipment when the identified vessel visits the port. If equipment malfunction is detected during the PSC inspection, the vessel is detained for its repairing in accordance with the Paris MoU. Several days long detention leads to substantial financial losses of vessel owner8.
The Novorossiysk PSC officials have detained the first oil polluter vessel in Novorossiysk Port during the joint MPA – SCANEX R&DC pilot project in August 2008. In total 5 vessels has been detected based on satellite SAR information as oil polluters, detained and inspected in 2008. Thanks to the information campaign in media about satellite control, the level of detected oil pollution on the ways to Novorossiysk Port has decreased by 4 times. Four vessels were identified as oil polluters in 2009 with the same Novorossiysk methodological procedure. According to media, EMSA employed similar procedure on Feb. 2, 2010 when Italian PSC officers have detained a Libyan vessel, identified earlier by CSN service as an oil polluter (Libya has not joint the Paris MoU).
Mr. Sivas briefed the group about the progress on CSN services in the frames of the MONINFO project. He informed the group that CSN Service had been offered free of charge to all non-EU BS States as a pilot project. Since no response had been received from RU and UA, the pilot project started with the participation of GE and TU since August 2010. He also mentioned that in order to utilize/increase the capacity in the region and to enable more active involvement of all BS states in the MONINFO Project, SCANEX from Russia and ITU CSCRS (Istanbul Technical University) from Turkey have been invited to this meeting. Achievements and gaps of the MONINFO project were communicated during the MONINFO session on 2nd of December (see further).
Mr. Peter Taylor appreciated the SCANEX presentation and success reported in reducing the number of illegal discharges in RU waters, reminding that an integrated approach, combining satellite images and AIS, is needed to solve the pollution problems in the Black Sea, as a whole9. United efforts, not an isolated endeavor in national waters only are the key to tackle illegal discharges efficiently in a sustainable manner.
In TU check of CSN alerts by Coast guard took place since CSN service had been provided. 10 times boats have been sent for verification of alerts, but no oil spills have been found. The practice is the same as in Russia – ships are thoroughly inspected in port by the PSC, several ships have been checked, and when necessary detained through cooperation of GE and TU under the MONINFO project. In GE, under CSN, 2 pictures per month have been received, 3 vessels have been inspected in port, one ship was detained, GE found the service satisfactory, however, 2 images/month only were not enough for efficient control.
Mr. Flyaum concluded on the experience of GE, TU and RU in satellite surveillance. According to the information communicated by GE and TU, all captains of 5 vessels detained in Turkish and Georgian ports by PSC based on CleanSeaNet (CSN) satellite data in 2010 were charged because of water/oil separation malfunction or illegal bypass ways, i.e. de-facto Novorossiysk procedure was used. Obviously, the Novorossiysk methodological procedure is presently the only legal, effective and implemented in practice procedure to control illegal discharges in the Black Sea basin.
R: It was recommended all states to use the Novorossiysk methodological procedure to detain vessels identified by satellite service as potential oil polluters in addition to more comprehensive measures and other pollution control instruments to be developed and implemented in BSC member states.
The Chairman concluded on the availability and efficiency of satellite surveillance in the BS region, yet ineffective verification of alerts and cooperation on illegal discharges detection. The Kerch accident was reminded. Undoubtedly, wider cooperation in the region and use of all available modern tools should be encouraged10. Using the services of EMSA and SCANEX and other similar providers in combination will be beneficial for the region. The Chairman looked at the SCANEX services as a supplementary service to EMSA for BS waters, advocating for a common platform on satellite surveillance in the Black Sea region.
The option to convince national authorities to accept satellite images as an evidence in the court was discussed. The latter was not found possible. For the moment, the SAR images are with low confidence, they can be often a false alert. In TU photographs (from a helicopter) can be evidence11, but not SAR images. The time of reaction after an alert was mentioned as a very important issue. The MONINFO system should help with communication/alerts to reduce the reaction time in cases of any kind of pollution – illegal, operational or accidental.
R: To increase the efficiency of satellite based monitoring of oil spills in the BS region, it was recommended to use both EMSA CSN+SCANEX and other available systems in the BS region.
Rules for cooperation related to satellite-based identification of oil spills in the Black Sea. There is no regional cooperation in ship-borne illegal discharges detection in the BS and oil pollution is exported through national borders. Joint efforts are needed to develop rules and using the MONINFO system to apply them in practice. The item was postponed for discussion during the MONINFO session.
A3. Cooperation with other organizations and projects (IMO, PSC MoU, OSPRI, BSEC, SASEPOL, etc.).

  1. PSC MoU

Capt. Yuce, representative of the BS PSC MoU, highlighted major points of the Port State Control in the Black Sea in 2009. Hard copies of the PSC report were provided to the participants. Inspection and detention data is posted on-line:
He informed on ongoing discussion of the BS PSC MoU with IMO on data (GISIS) exchange during the past 4 years (still pending agreement) and on the discussions of the Helcom Commission Secretariat and the Paris MoU (data requested from the Paris MoU). BSIS is hosted by the Russian Federation, providing necessary tools, data and information to the PSCOs to carry out their inspections. Mr. Yuce expressed his concerns and mentioned the need for no extra burden on the BSIS without clear justification. Therefore, before taking future steps, the BS Commission should further elaborate on the issue of exchange of data/information with the BS PSC MoU.
R: In enhancing cooperation between the BSC and the BS PSC MOU, the BSC needs to clearly specify in a formal agreement which data/information would be exchanged and how they would be used. The agreement should be presented to the attention of the BS MoU Committee for discussion. The BS MOU Secretariat does not have the mandate to enter discussions, draft agreements without instruction given by the BS MoU Committee.
The next meeting of the BS MoU on PSC Committee will be held in Batumi, Georgia, from 29 to 31 March, the BSC should not forget about its observers status.
Mr. P. Taylor, representative of OSPRI, reminded the history of cooperation with the BSC: OSPRI members have been observers for more than 6-7 years in the ESAS AG and BSC activities. Mr. Taylor informed the group about the cooperation between IPIECA and IMO (under a Global initiative with IMO stretching back to 1996, - Capt. Landin has recently distributed the Statement signed between OSPRI and IMO to strengthen their cooperation) with the aim to develop oil spill prevention and response under relevant Conventions (OSPRI was born in 2003 under this agreement). Mr. Taylor also listed important coming events (Brussels, next Thursday – EMSA&ECHO with invited industry (a positive involvement in EU context); March 2011– conference on oil spill risk assessment in Malmo, Sweden; International Oil spill Conference in USA - May 2011, paper on success in the BS region has been submitted).
Mr. J. Ostergaard presented the SASEPOL project (EuropeAid) - Development of security management and maritime safety and ship pollution prevention for the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. Main activities and training modules provided by the project were communicated. Georgia and Ukraine are beneficiary and Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria and Russia are associated countries in this project.
The Chairman appreciated the long-term effort of Mr. J. Ostergaard in the Black Sea region and expressed the common expectations to continue the cooperation.
Mr. Yuce also appreciated the support (contribution) of SASEPOL in the situation of lacking of PSC donors support (Nippon Foundation), to conduct trainings in the Black Sea. Mr. Ostergaard mentioned a possibility the PSC MoU to be invited to a PSC training organized by SASEPOL.
4. IMO
Mr. Tayfun Sivas presented the agreement of BSC with IMO (signed in 2009) and workshops/courses planned under the BSC/IMO cooperation (a special MoU for technical cooperation has been signed as well in 2010). The first joint activity was dedicated to BW issues and took place in Odessa, July 2010. First 2 days of the activity a legal training course was conducted ( 5 modules) and the last day a workshop was organised which identified further steps in developing a regional BW strategy based on the existing Action Plan (created in the frames of the GLOBALLAST project in Ukraine in 2001) through a ‘correspondence group’. The report on the BW workshop/Odessa was submitted as an INF Paper to MEPC6112 by the BSC PS (authorization by the BSC was not needed, as the report informed other states/regions on the organized training/workshop envisaged in the BSC/IMO Agreement/MoU, which was approved by IMO and BSC prior).
The BW training took place to raise awareness on BW issues, according to the opinion of the RU and BG Focal Points, however, trainings usually do not have the objective to elaborate on recommendations or to take decisions. It was not clear for whom the Odessa BW training prepared recommendations, where they were submitted to, and how the staff of the ‘correspondence group’ to work on a BW Strategy was decided.
Mr. Sivas reminded, that the activity was not only a training but on the last day there was also a workshop, and the need to revise the existing BW Action Plan was discussed, relevant recommendations were elaborated with the participation of most ESAS AG Members. VV reminded, that following the BSC rules, the ESAS AG should decide and recommend to the BSC what kind of documents shall be developed, in this case for the BW Convention. The ESAS AG previously recommended a road map for the ratification of the BW Convention and a Guideline (exchange of BW), and these two documents have been approved by the BSC for development. Possible options at present: to cancel what was planned in 2009/2010, and recommend a Regional Strategy development instead. Or to keep the documents recommended in 2009/2010 and to add the Strategy. The Focal Points were invited to express opinions.
BG, GE – both documents should be developed in 2011 – road map for ratification and a Strategy for the BW implementation.
RO already started looking for ways to implement a BW Strategy, and to integrate such a Strategy in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive related legislation for Romania. The BW Convention is translated. The legal impact will be evaluated, but not decided exactly when, so it is not known when Romania will ratify the BW Convention. Yet, a Strategy is needed.
RU requested clarification on what exactly is meant under the name ‘Strategy’ and proposed the presentation of Mr. Murat Korcak to be first given. The differences between a road map and a strategy was not clear, in principle, they did not agree on the wording “Strategy”.
VV proposed to first listen to the REMPEC presentation on the Guidelines for a BW exchange and then to come back to the BS issues related to BW documents to be developed for the BS region.

A4 Presentation of the draft ‘General Guidance on BW Exchange between Mediterranean Sea and the North-East Atlantic/Baltic area’
The document was presented by Ms. Sophie Martin (SM). The idea behind the creation of the Guideline was to encourage captains of ships to exchange BW in certain areas (on a voluntary basis, temporary until the BW Convention is ratified). In separate a Strategy has been developed for the implementation of the BW Convention in the Med Sea. The ESAS AG members appreciated the work of REMPEC. However, the BS was not added to the Guideline as initially planned, and VV asked for clarification. SM explained that no BW strategy was available in the BS, REMPEC decided to wait for its development. The explanation was not found well justified, as there was no strategy in the Mediterranean Sea (approved) as well and in the Baltic Sea there was a road map toward ratification of the BW Convention only.

BG focal point questioned on the rules for ships from Indian Ocean and Red Sea. SM clarified that such arrangements were missing.
The ESAS focal points were invited to express opinions on the Guideline presented and recommend on a similar document to be developed for the BS.
BG - env. risk assessment is needed to build a similar document for the Black Sea, PMA and CBD AGs should be invited to join the work. Who will pay for the risk assessments and preceding scientific research should be clarified in advance.
GE – no specific opinion.
RO – a guideline is needed, addressing specific Black Sea problems. RO is ready to cooperate with BSC for any strategy/road map development on BW.
RU – a similar guideline should be developed for the Black and Mediterranean Seas and implemented there, as75% of BW in the BS come from the Med. There is no need to include the OSPAR area and Baltic Sea. The proposed REMPEC Guideline cannot be amended (simply adding the BS to it) as it was already adopted by OSPAR and considered by HELCOM.
TU – insisted their presentation to be given first and then the discussions to continue.
UA – in the REMPEC Guideline there is a para saying that all ships coming to the Med from the BS should exchange BW waters in the BS. The latter should have been agreed with the BS states.
Note: The REMPEC Guideline is not yet approved for implementation by the delegations of the Barcelona Convention Contracting Parties.
Capt. Landin mentioned that by 2012 the BW Convention will be widely implemented, equipment will be installed on ships and exchange of BW will not be an issue anymore. Of course, green houses gases will increase while complying with BW regulations. However, in developing regional documents it should be well remembered that legislation develops fast and legislation coming into force should be primarily considered.
Mr. Murat Korcak gave the proposed presentation on: ‘Why we need a regional BW management strategy document for the Black Sea”. The content of the draft Strategy developed, based on the decisions of the workshop in Odessa, was communicated. In relation to the Action 1 of the presented “Action Plan” (part of the Strategy) - “Ratify the BWC”, RU raised a question on which state had already calculated cost of implementation, cost of ships Ballast Treatment Plants and PRF for ballast. None of the BS states has calculated the mentioned costs.
The ESAS AG was reminded what decisions have been taken in 2009/2010: to develop a Guideline for exchange of BW and a road map toward signing/ratification of the BW Convention. There was no ESAS AG decision on a ‘BW implementation regional strategy’ development to be recommended to the BSC, hence such a document was not included in the Work Plan of the BSC for 201013. VV called for the ESAS AG to decide what will be recommended in relation to BW to the BSC, what documents should be included in the work plan of the BSC for 2011. Capt. Landin mentioned that the TU generous offer to share experience and to develop a Strategy should be appreciated. VV agreed that sharing of experience had been always considered a most valuable component of the cooperation in the BS region, however, the time and money of the BSC should be spent for development of documents which are needed as a priority and which would be used immediately but not in the distant future. The example of the BW Action Plan developed in Ukraine and never used was also reminded.
The delegations expressed the following opinions in relation to further actions needed in the field of BW at the regional level:
BG – road map for the BW Convention ratification to be developed. Guideline is difficult to be properly worked out, however, the decisions of the previous meeting should be kept and followed.
RO - common approach to BW management should be established, in any case. Small steps but something should be undertaken at the regional level.
RU – in the Med Sea all the work has been undertaken under the Globallast partnership. In the Black Sea the financial assistance for BW issues is under a serious question. Upon financial assistance, a Strategy can be developed. A general Guideline for exchange of BW would be a very practical document for the BS region; this document can be a part of a road map built as a simple working program.
UA - recommended Guidelines for economic assessment of implementation of a Convention to be considered. A feasibility study on economic assessment on the implementation of the BW Convention might be a good step. Then each country will decide to ratify/implement or not the BW Convention.
Mrs. Kutaeva/RU opposed mentioning that economic assessments should be a national responsibility.
The Chairman proposed the initiative of REMPEC and TU to be followed. As a Romanian he expressed the opinion that the ESAS AG should consider the document/Strategy prepared after the Odessa Workshop, but not a simple road map for the BW Convention ratification to be developed.
Mr. Korcak reminded previous initiatives of TU which were not well appreciated: the regional CP for hazardous substances, the ‘Special Area’ paper and now the BW strategy is also not accepted by the ESAS AG. His proposal was: to establish a correspondence group and work on the document (it can be called a roadmap or a strategy), to be presented to the attention of the ESAS AG for finalization and approval.
VV explained that the problem with the ‘Special Area’ paper appeared because the BSC has not received the document for a national level of consultations before official approval and submission to IMO. The Secretariat was criticized for this gap in the work. Besides, the development of any Strategy should be approved/requested by the BSC and included in the work plan of the Commission. VV proposed the discussion for the day to be closed and the group to come back to the BW issue when the work plan is discussed – the ESAS members were kindly asked to think and recommend on BW activities/documents to be incorporated in the work plan 2010/2011 and presented to the attention of the BSC for approval.
The Chairman concluded on the discussions, proposing the ESAS AG to follow the BSC rules, however, to find the way to attend the BW issues as soon as possible following IMO recommendations and prompting the BS states to ratify and implement the BW Convention.
December 2010-12-01
Russia submitted no comments on the minutes of the 18th ESAS AG meeting and the document was approved.
A5. Contingency response planning, exercises, response operations

  1. Status of adoption of BS RCP in RU and UA.

In RU the procedure will be finalized in 2011. However, official letter from the BSC and the RCP itself (hard copy) should be submitted to the National Focal Point.

UA: The National plan has been developed and it is under approval by the Parliament already for several years. The RCP will be considered after approval of the NCP.

  1. National CPs

BG – no update so far, the NCP (2001) should be revised.
GE – NCP developed, used for 2 years already, not formally approved/signed (some financial issues need further clarification). A copy will be sent to the ESAS members soon.
RO – after RODELTA, it became clear that the NCP needed update. Civil Protection should undertake the revision through change in legislation (the plan is under their responsibility in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Transport). Meetings have taken place on the issue, the reconstruction of the plan is still under consideration. Procedures should be changed in the plan (e.g., claims and compensation, financial, administration, etc.). In customs, problems to be solved are pending (e.g. the harmonized codification). In Annex 4 the available equipment is described, however, most of these units have been bought in RO during Phare programs, and such equipment is under contracts, which do not allow to rent the equipment to another country (for assistance in cases of requests). Recommend – all states/Focal Points to check which of their equipment (governmental) cannot cross the borders. For the RCP (if update is agreed), RO proposed ports of refuge around the Black Sea to be included.
BG – the same problem with the equipment exists (Phare contracts). Capt Landin informed that the states in the Caspian region have similar restrictions under EBRD funding. In GE the equipment was bought with the support of World Bank and there were no restrictions in the contracts.
Mr. John Ostergaard informed that all EU states should designate places of refuge (Erika package). Further, IMO resolutions for ports of refuge and how to render assistance were mentioned - A949(23): Guidelines on places of refuge for ships in need of assistance, adopted on 5 December 2003; A950(23): Maritime assistance services; A893(21): Guidelines for voyage planning; A983(24): Guidelines for facilitation of response to a pollution incident. In RO the issue (ports of refuge) is regulated by a national law (following the British example), but a common approach in the Black Sea is needed for cases of emergency when a ship is requesting assistance (apart from SAR).
Mr. Dorogan talked about the instruments in RO – options to change the NCP, not changing the legislation but modifying/updating the structure and responsibilities of the marine operative commandment for marine depolution through a faster procedure -approval of a Ministerial order by three Ministries involved is needed – Ministry of Administration and Interior (Civil Protection), Environment and Transport (not by another law).
In BG there is a good cooperation between the Maritime Administration and Civil Protection, especially in cases of emergency.
Fund conventions ratification has been discussed.
RU – three-tier approach was used in developing the CP. The Russian Federal Plan for Oil Spill Prevention and Response at Sea was adopted by the Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Natural Resources and by EMERCOM in July 2003. Now the plan t is under update, will be enforced in 2011. The Regional Plan for Oil Spill Prevention and Response at the Azov and Black Seas was adopted in 1999, updated in 2003 and passed almost all approval procedures, to be formally approved in 2011.
TU – the NCP plan was adopted last week (end of November 2010) with 6 regional CP. Details were given in the presentation under A2.
UA – no change.

3. Exercises – BRAVO in 2010 (BG, GE, RO) –
BG - Ms. Darya Pisheva gave a presentation on the Bravo exercise carried out in Varna, Bulgaria in March 2010. It was organized in the frames of a national Delta exercise, performed with the participation of EMSA. (Note: Request for EMSA vessel was sent 1 day in advance, it was impossible to have the vessel the same day BG needed it). Detailed report is presented in Annex I.
Chairman: Exercises have shown that at MRCC electronic maps are needed to coordinate activities (for MONINFO recommended task).
RU - Mrs. N. Kutaeva presented international bilateral and multilateral search and rescue&oil spill response exercises carried out by Russia in 2010 in other Russian marine basins – North, Caspian and North-West Pacific Ocean (presentation attached).
The frameworks for cooperation during regional exercises were discussed There are separate agreements for oil pollution response (the Emergency Protocol to the Bucharest Convention and the regional CP) and SAR (SAR Convention), but the oil spill preparedness regional exercises are complex, including both components – oil spill preparedness and SAR. The NOWPAP regional plan and the Caspian one deal with oil only, however, these regions have also SAR in the exercises. The SAR Agreement in the BS supports the regional DELTA exercises with having in them a SAR component.
4. Planning of DELTA in Georgia.
Preparations have started already in Georgia. Tentative date: 2011, September 1-10th. Place - Batumi.

Official invitations will be soon sent (in 2-3 weeks a new personal will be appointed in the Maritime Administration and they will send the invitations. No Visa problems exist in Georgia).

RU questioned on what participation of states is expected by GE, with equipment or just as observers. GE invited all states to join as they wished. If participation is with equipment (asking in January will be sent) -notification in advance will be requested and specified how much in advance it should be submitted. For vessels to come – 72 hours before arriving a note should be given. For equipment – as it is difficult to harmonize coding, problems with customs may arise. No booms and skimmers are specified in the harmonized coding, as well known. Therefore, 2-3 months before the exercise the list of equipment should be sent to customs to gain a special permission. For state owned ships – one month clearance. For Coast guard – special agreement is available for cases of accidents for faster operations. From January 2011 Ministry of Transport and Administration will be an independent body subordinated to Prime Minister in Georgia.
The Chairman congratulated Georgia for the initial preparations and mentioned that discussions on the scenario should start as soon as possible. Capt. Imnaishvili communicated that two scenarios were under consideration so far: open-sea operations, and a second idea: pipeline broken, or in oil terminal explosion happens (land operations), including claim and compensation mechanism. For Supsa terminal there is such a scenario. GE expects from the ESAS AG and BSC PS: Budget checklist example, comments on the scenario, coordination, and financial support will be appreciated. One meeting (at least) on preparations will be necessary to organize, in Batumi recommended.
Mr. Peter Taylor stated that OSPRI was willing to help, hoping that the change in the GE maritime administration would not affect the organization of the exercise.

In June 2011 TU organizes a national Delta exercise in Istanbul. The ESAS group was invited to join and to possibly have back to back a second planning meeting for Delta-Georgia.

Capt. Imnaishvili mentioned that in the eastern part of the BS, emergency center was needed, may be in Trabzon, as the traffic became very heavy in this part of the Sea (between Samsun and Poti).
D: Plan for further actions in the BS DELTA-Georgia preparation:

  • January 2011 – invitations will be sent.

  • End of February 2011– response from states about equipment (who will participate and what equipment is proposed).

  • First planning meeting – first week of March 2011.

  • Second planning meeting – June 2011.

The invitees for the planning meetings will be decided by GE.

5. Use of Dispersants:
Recommended: Guideline to be agreed, but not a Strategy developed. OSPRI mentioned that the IMO/UNEP International Guidelines were going to be up-dated soon, they can be suitable for the BS region.
In line with the decisions of the 18th ESAS AG meeting, a small project will be initiated (in the frames of MONINFO), where all available guidelines will be overviewed, new developments will be sought and one of the available guidelines or a compilation of several (including new knowledge) will be prepared for consideration in the region. RU proposed their high level experts (those who elaborated the RU RULES FOR THE USE OF DISPERSANTS FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE?) to be involved in the project. In TU relevant (dispersants) studies have been also conducted, close to finalize them for the national level. Ms. Didem expressed readiness to contact the relevant institutions and check their availability to participate in a project, coming back with information in 2 weeks time.
D: MONINFO staff will initiate the ‘dispersants project’ and contact experts in RU and TU (given the contacted details are provided by the TU and RU focal points) to elaborate jointly a regional ‘Guideline on the use of dispersants for oil spills response’.
6. Recent response operations and recovery of oil in BS states.

Two presentations were given on recent response operations: by Ms. Didem (TU) and Ms. Pisheva (BG). The presentations are attached to the meeting documents. The report on the case study for the accident in Turkey (Orcun C) is available also on the WEB page of the MARE company (

A6. Presentation on the revised Guideline for oil spill exercises under the Black Sea RCP.
Mr. John Ostergaard presented the updated BS Guideline. The Focal Points commented on the text (they will be reflected in the document, which will be sent to the ESAS members for further consideration) and submitted proposals for additions as follows:
GE proposed a Budget checklist (list of budgetary items) to be included as an Annex of the Guideline. Capt. Imnaishvili reminded that the guideline would be for the new people to come to Maritime Administrations, who would have to learn the business, for those without any experience. They would definitely need directions, incl. budgetary check-list.
RU expressed opinion that the budget was an internal matter, depending on the scenario of an exercise and participating authorities as well as on oils spill response equipment and forces used, being not in favour to have an example in the Guideline.
Mr. Peter Taylor reminded the guideline submitted by GE (a more detailed one) to also be used when appropriate.
Mr. John Ostergaard commented on the proposals of the focal points and issues related to renting of equipment14. He found total misunderstanding about the equipment, it was not appropriate the states to be not able to rent equipment, as it is an obligation under OPRC and RCP, should be justified and a solution found. Costs of exercises are national responsibility. Two years planning of an exercise is a period, which should allow including the money needed into the national budget. For communications: affirmative confirmation with the time of response specified is needed during exercises.
The Chairman communicated the problems met during the RODELTA organization: how difficult it was to convince the authorities to host RODELTA.
Mr. Peter Taylor mentioned that there was a Chevron list of budgetary items for exercises from an industry point of view, it could be distributed as an example, but without reference. Make a reference to technical support through the network of the ESAS group. No other reference to documents is needed.
BG stated that the example of budget could not be used to motivate high level officials and to convince them to host a DELTA. It can only help to plan the DELTA. Chairman expressed opinion that the costs for a regional exercise should be almost the same in all states, as this is not a national level, but regional under the umbrella of the BSC, however, the structure of the budget should be given, check-list of budgetary items can be of great help in planning, as mentioned by BG. RU proposed the budgetary check list to be submitted to the next ESAS AG meeting to be discussed before the Guideline is presented to the BSC. The latter was agreed.
For SAR and on-coast operations during exercises the group recommended the hosting country to decide based on financial possibilities. (Note: there was such a recommendation from the 18th meeting). TU insisted on cleaning operations on coast to be a part of exercises and reminded how important it was considering the real oil spill cases.
D: The BSC PS will summarize all ESAS AG comments and will forward them to Mr. Ostergaard, who will amend the proposed draft Guideline. When finalized and approved by the ESAS AG, the Guideline will be submitted to the BSC for adoption. The ESAS AG will propose to include the Guideline as Annex X to the RCP.
Mrs. Kutaeva mentioned that the first Black Sea Delta Exercise was held by RU in Novorossiysk in 2006. TU participated with equipments, RO - observers. Mrs. Kutaeva reminded that the BSC was also invited, the exercise was under the RCP and the Guideline for oil spill exercises. The final report was submitted to the relevant ESAS AG Meeting according to the above Guidelines. The ESAS group discussed whether the latter exercise could be considered as the first regional Delta or it was in the frames of a bilateral cooperation in between RU and TU. TU expressed opinion that it was not bilateral as it was organized like an international exercise. The Chairman strongly insisted that the first regional BS Delta was SULH – the exercise held by Turkey in 2007. There was no final opinion of the ESAS AG on which was the first regional Delta exercise in the BS.
A7. Customs harmonized codification system; custom and immigration procedures15.
RO proposed customs to be considered in the RCP (if updated) and suggested that the discussions should take into consideration IMO Resolution A.938(24) –Guidelines for the facilitation of response to a pollution incident, adopted by IMO Assembly on 1 December 2005.
OSPRI mentioned that all customs and immigration administrations were in need for a public awareness development. Customs is a national issue finally. However, a meeting to be organized might be helpful (would be supported by OSPRI) – communicating with customs the importance of simplifying their procedures in times of exercises and especially for real accidents. Mr. Dorogan communicated his experience in this aspect, trying several times to communicate with customs, however, they did not want to obey different IMO regulations. They comply with their own international standards and regulations.
The ESAS group agreed, that the UN codification system needs to include booms, skimmers…..update of this codification system is needed.
UN Harmonised Codification System, Web page will be checked.
OSPRI will contact OSR Ltd in Southampton as they have long-term experience with custom procedures. OSPRI will ask for information on their experience with customs and share these with the ESAS group prior to the next meeting (tentatively November 2011).
1 December 2010-12-02
MONINFO session: A8 and A9
Following the MONINFO project Phase 1- 3rd Progress Report and the Stakeholders Meeting held on 31 Oct 2010 in Trabzon, Turkey, the BSCPS carried out an evaluation of the overall project progress as well as a detailed inventory of the state of the deliverables under this project. The MONINFO session was organized to communicate the progress in the project implementation with the aim to collect ESAS AG members opinions and recommendations for further developments under MONINFO.
The Chairman gave the floor to Mr. Dorogan who lead the discussions under this session.
The 3rd Progress report on MONINFO I was distributed before the meeting. The outcomes of the Stakeholders meeting in Trabzon were communicated. Mr. Dorogan explained the letter prepared, asking for the support of the ESAS members in the MONINFO implementation. The letter specified what was still needed to fully collect the necessary data/information under a MONINFO contract. The major question was who would be able to provide services in data/information collection.
AK explained the usefulness of the info system to be created under MONINFO. Mr. Sivas showed the list of MONINFO Focal Points from 4 states, there was no clarity for UA and RU. Chairman stated that ESAS focal points should be also MONINFO Focal points.
RU mentioned the need for consultation with the Ministry of Transport for the Focal Point (two weeks). There are obviously different responsibilities under MONINFO – large scope, difficult to define only one person. Ministry of Natural Resources should be asked for some of the MONINFO issues, not Ministry of Transport. Only dispersants can be an easy task – a well known specialist in RU can elaborate the requested regional guideline (Mr. Semanov, from Central Scientific Research and Design Institute of Marine Fleet – S. Petersburg). In relation to oil spill prediction model, in the NOWPAP area each country uses its own model in question. .
AK explained the advantages of having a region scale model for oil spills simulations.
UA will communicate a name/MONINFO Focal Point in two weeks.
The Chairman summarized what is expected from the MONINFO Focal Points – all project tasks will be communicated with them and they will be expected to find the way for their implementation.
BG mentioned that there was a Focal Point nominated for MONINFO, however, if there are some problems with the project, the ESAS Focal Point should be informed.
In TU, GE and RO the ESAS and MONINFO Focal Points are the same people (in TU both ESAS members are involved as MONINFO Focal Points).
The official letter with MONINFO tasks will be sent to the ESAS AG members and MONINFO Focal Points, in the case of UA – to the Commissioner and in cc to UA ESAS members.
AK reminded about the satellite service provided by MONINFO. As communicated already by Mr. Sivas, the CSN Service had been offered to all non-EU BS States. Positive response was received from GE and TU. The CSN pilot project started on 1st of August 2010. Undoubtedly, RU and UA participation in satellite based monitoring of oil spills is important for maximum benefit from regional cooperation, which is the aim of the Bucharest Convention. Respectively, SCANEX and ITU were invited to join the meeting and discuss on possible enhancement of the regional cooperation in the field of monitoring based on SAR with the participation of RU and UA. RU commented on the sufficiency of documents submitted by the BS countries, cooperating with EMSA in CSN, about ships suspected in discharge violation, to PSC of the following ports of entry. It is impossible to present satellite images to Vessels’ Masters for justification of detailed inspection according to the PSC MoU. For detailed inspection other “clear grounds” are required, according to the rules of the PSC MoU. Based on satellite images only, the detailed inspection by PSC may be considered an outlaw and the owner of the ship can protest. When informing the Administration of a next port of call about possible violation, materials which can be brought to the court should be provided (see the Presentation of Mr. Flyaum attached to the meeting documents).  
RU reminded about their own national service, provided by SCANEX, which worked well. There was no reason to change this service. The option which should be considered, according to RU, is how EMSA and SCANEX services can be used under MONINFO jointly.
Mr. Kucheyko stated that SCANEX could prepare images for GE, RU, TU and UA sectors, organization of a regional service is possible also for SCANEX (similar to CSN).
AK stated that despite SCANEX and ITU images were more expensive than those provided by EMSA, the involvement of these two organizations was important to increase the pollution monitoring capacity in the region. In case RU recommends the services of SCANEX to be used, the BSC PS and MONINFO staff will be waiting for a proposal from SCANEX.
As SCANEX services are provided for civilian purposes only, they do not monitor EU regional seas with other intentions, RU fully supported SCANEX to be used under the MONINFO Project.
OSPRI inquired what will happen with satellite surveillance beyond the project. AK mentioned that MONINFO provides for a pilot project only. The purpose is the states to see the benefit. EMSA has previously sent information on different budget lines/programmes, which can be used after MONINFO to further support the regional system of oil spills monitoring.
OSPRI questioned whether there was an ongoing project of Russia implemented by SCANEX and a similar operational service (type CSN) functioning under the RU government, at present. Mr. Kucheyko explained that there were different services provided by SCANEX to different Ministries, e.g., in cases of floods or other disasters, deforestation, ice coverage, etc., however, there is no permanent contract with the Ministry of Transport or with Ministry of Natural Resources of RU for oil pollution. In the near past there was a pilot project for 2 months where satellite images for oil spill had been provided to the port of Novorossiysk (as mentioned above). Presently, observations are ongoing periodically, but not regularly.
BG stated that it was not important whether the BS states shall exchange satellite images in the region, but they need to exchange alerts obligatory.
The group discussed on how the states should exchange alerts (related to satellite images), hence, what relevant mechanism of cooperation should be developed. Ms. Pisheva reminded that the CSN system was in process of change and their modified mechanism of communication for alerts could be used as an example for the BS. Ms Casiade and Ms Pisheva will communicate with the ESAS AG the changes in the CSN alert system. Development of a similar mechanism for all BS states will be initiated and a procedure to inform and spread information received from satellite pictures and backtracking will be agreed. An annex to the RCP for alerts can be considered. Annexes 1-3 will be supplemented with relevant contact points, tel, fax, E-mails specified for communication. In BG for instance, MRCCs receive the alerts, and they contact PSC or MARPOL-inspectors for inspections.  In TU- after an alert received from EMSA, Murat Korcak (UMA) contacts PSC inspection, thereafter the PSC prepares a report sending back to UMA, however, such a mechanism takes time. Ms. Casiade (RO) mentioned that a direct contact with MRCCs could be the best solution. Normally MRCCs have the internal mechanism to provide cooperation/communication and spread information on alerts, with subsequent reporting
Mr. Dorogan resumed that the SCANEX vision for SAR (synthetic aperture radar) monitoring is waited. Dedicated workshop could be organized to enhance the cooperation in satellite surveillance: SCANEX&EMSA. Mr. Kucheyko responded that SCANEX could organize such a workshop/meeting promptly and was ready to cooperate in a pilot project.
ITU CSCRS (ITU) representative, Ms. Elif Sertel, described their capacities (similar to SCANEX) for satellite surveillance.
AK mentioned that a JRC type of work on oil pollution should be continued in the BS. SCANEX+ITU could cooperate to build a composite map of areas of concentrated oil pollution. (Note: needed also for the SoE report of the BSC in 2012). No objections arrived.
No objections arrived also for a supplementary tool to CSN as a BS regional initiative, combining, integrating, harmonizing CSN and SCANEX/ITU resources.
R: Proposal is expected from SCANEX&ITU to supplement the CSN services in the BS and to assure a full regional coverage.
R: Composite maps for oil pollution will be useful to produce, based on analyses of archive data for the period 2005-2010 and thus areas of maximal oil pollution will be identified (similar to JRC work in BS).
Presentation on the RIP was given by Mr. Fix. Thoorens, Consultant of the MONINFO Project.
The Chairman appreciated the work presented, and questioned how SCANEX services would be integrated. Mr. Thoorens explained some technical details of the RIP development. The system will include several layers such as: SeaTrack Web (stand alone), CSN 2nd generation, supplemented by SCANEX /ITU services. The system may not depend on the hosting, it will be flexible, utilizing available capacities in the region, connecting them, but not changing the existing systems.

AK posted a major question on whether the MONINFO project should use the EMSA Clean Sea Net system or shall develop a brand new BS system utilizing the capacity in the region in the long-term run. The Focal Points were invited to give their opinion on the presented concept for a RIP and possible options for its development.

BG found that communication model was missing in the presented RIP, e.g. alerts for spills, waste delivery. BG questioned on the possibilities to use the system for Bravo exercises and during real accidents. MONINFO staff clarified that if countries agree, these issues will be included in the RIP
GE explained their vision on what the info system should be about – one access point for the region and for all issues related to oil pollution.
RO – no comments were communicated.
RU - Mrs. Kutaeva mentioned that all documents to be considered during an ESAS AG meeting, should be submitted well in advance, therefore the expressed current opinion could be only preliminary. The proposal presented by Mr. Thoorens was too technical. The above proposal should be in a format of a written document, sent to the ESAS Focal Point, who will search for an expert opinion. Besides, RU is not an EU member state, it is having a national system for combating oil pollution, which Russia do not plan to change (in relation to the EMSA system mentioned by AK). MONINFO staff mentioned that the RIP Concept document had been distributed prior to the stakeholders meeting (Trabzon) to participants. The RIP Concept was discussed in Trabzon and later improved based on stakeholders opinions/comments. However, MONINFO staff agreed that the document should have been sent to ESAS Focal Points prior to the ESAS AG annual meeting as well for expert evaluation of the RIP concept.
TU characterized the RIP as an effective system and recommended PRF as a layer to be developed in future. ESAS reports, sensitive areas, GIS, PSC to be included. They found that the maintenance of the RIP was an issue. However, expectations were met, in general, TU fully supported the system
Mr. Thoorens explained that the MONINFO staff started with what they could develop in the frames of 1 year, the RIP will be open source for further developments.
UA – the same opinion as of Russia, for the moment not having technical expertise available to give comments. When the concept paper is sent to UA, expert opinion will be provided.
R: The simplified ToR (following the stakeholders meeting) of the RIP will be finalized and distributed to the ESAS AG for a national opinion. 1 month for a response was given after distribution.
The letter for MONINFO tasks will be sent officially (together with the RIP amended ToR). All Focal Points agreed to send a response in the frames of two weeks after receiving the MONINFO letter, specifying who will be responsible for the requested support.
R: All delegations agreed that instead of RIP, the name ‘MONINFO System’ can be adopted.
The Chairman raised a question what would be the alternatives for the project development in case the letter would not lead to contributions. No specific alternatives were specified, and the Chairman reminded that all BS member states had the obligations to deliver data/information to the Black Sea Commission under the Bucharest Convention. Some payment modalities were still considered needed to advance the MONINFO project development in return to the additional efforts of the contributors. However, in some cases contract + money could complicate the situation (for governmental officers).
R: Recommendation for the MONINFO staff was given: information about the project implementation to be regularly communicated with the ESAS AG.
A10. Priorities for future work based on the BS SAP 2009 targets. Work plan for 2010/2011.
The ESAS members discussed the priorities for 2011 and the BSC work plan in its ESAS component was elaborated as follow:

EcoQO 4: Ensure Good Water Quality for Human Health, Recreational Use and Aquatic Biota.

EcoQO 4b: Reduce pollutants originating from shipping activities and offshore installations









Area of work







Implementation of the BS Regional Contingency Plan (RCP)

Adoption of the BS RCP by RU and UA

ESAS AG, BS states

Black Sea countries

RCP operational

Until adoption

Black Sea ALPHA exercises


Report on Alpha exercise

Oct-Nov. 2011

BS DELTA – Georgia

Preparatory Meetings for the DELTA-Georgia

September 2011

June (back to back with TU exercise)

BS BRAVO Exercises

Black Sea countries (RU, TU, UA

Report on BRAVO exercises

3 per year

Maintenance and update of the operational information for the implementation of the Contingency Plan


 Updated Annexes


Guideline on Oil spill exercises


With budget check-list included

Until adoption in BSC annual meeting

ESI maps update (Annex II of the RCP)


Updated ESI maps



Implementation of MONINFO I and II

Establishment of a regional AIS Server

BSC PS, ESAS AG, relevant authorities 

 Project deliverables


Oil Spill Models

Satellite –based monitoring

Operational System Development (RIP)

Dispersant Guidelines

Revision of the RCP (tentative)

Oil Spill Alerts, development of mechanism for communication/cooperation


Enhancing cooperation with IMO, implementation of the BSC&IMO MoU & Agreement; with EMSA and other regional conventions.

BWC signing process, London Protocol,

Training activities, Annex 5 of MARPOL etc

BW IMO Guidelines promotion in the BS region
Workshop on the London (dumping) Protocol

Regional workshop on

preparedness and response to incidents involving hazardous and noxious

substances (HNS) (Astrakhan, Russian Federation)

Inter-Secretariat meeting (organized by REMPEC)

IMO, BSC PS, ESAS AG, SAR Authorities,


Meetings, reports, improved reporting on dumping, road map for BWC ratification and implementation in the BS region, adoption of harmonized BW procedures using IMO Guidelines – interim application of D1 BW exchange (determine areas of exchange BW waters)


Tentative (February-March 2011)

June 2011

March 2011


Enhancing cooperation with SASEPOL project

Maritime Security, Safety and protection of the marine Environment of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea


Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Ukraine direct beneficiary States.

Bulgaria, Romania, Russian Federation and Turkey are non-beneficiary States but can be included in activities when appropriate

SASEPOL Project Management

Training relevant to the Project title

Project life time: July 2009 to July 2011


BSIS, ESAS component

Collection of additional data



ESAS Annual report


Emissions from ships
Indicator-based reporting

Download 254 Kb.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
  1   2

Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan © 2020
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling

    Bosh sahifa
davlat universiteti
ta’lim vazirligi
O’zbekiston respublikasi
maxsus ta’lim
zbekiston respublikasi
o’rta maxsus
davlat pedagogika
axborot texnologiyalari
nomidagi toshkent
pedagogika instituti
texnologiyalari universiteti
navoiy nomidagi
samarqand davlat
guruh talabasi
ta’limi vazirligi
nomidagi samarqand
toshkent axborot
toshkent davlat
haqida tushuncha
Darsning maqsadi
xorazmiy nomidagi
Toshkent davlat
vazirligi toshkent
tashkil etish
Alisher navoiy
Ўзбекистон республикаси
rivojlantirish vazirligi
matematika fakulteti
pedagogika universiteti
таълим вазирлиги
sinflar uchun
Nizomiy nomidagi
tibbiyot akademiyasi
maxsus ta'lim
ta'lim vazirligi
махсус таълим
bilan ishlash
o’rta ta’lim
fanlar fakulteti
Referat mavzu
Navoiy davlat
umumiy o’rta
haqida umumiy
Buxoro davlat
fanining predmeti
fizika matematika
universiteti fizika
malakasini oshirish
kommunikatsiyalarini rivojlantirish
davlat sharqshunoslik
jizzax davlat