126
will continue to grow. In parallel with the increased transportation of oil, vessels
have on average become larger which has important implications in terms of worstcase scenarios of accidents.
The large amounts of oil being transported over the ecologically sensitive Baltic
Sea create substantial environmental hazards. These risks are of two quite different
and distinct types. On the one hand, there are accidental spills and on the other
intentional spills caused by, for example, not taking proper care of polluted spill
water. Accidents caused by collisions, fi re, groundings, technical malfunctions,
human error or other factors may result in large-scale oil spills. Depending on the
amount of oil being carried, geographical area, type of oil, water temperature, icy
conditions, wind and currents, damages to ecological systems, local tourism, recreation, real estate values and fi sheries vary but could in worst-case scenarios be
devastating. Fortunately, the safety of modern tankers in terms of its potential environmental costs has increased quite markedly during the last few decades due to
increased emphasis placed on vessel construction and on-board installations such as
advanced navigation equipment (Knudsen and Hassler 2011 ). In contrast, intentional
spills are typically small in size, but because of their large number, the cumulated
impact on the ecological integrity of the Baltic Sea is probably substantial, although
detailed assessments of such spills are not available. Despite the illegality of these
spills, they have been diffi cult to substantially curb. Due to ineffective monitoring in
certain areas of the Baltic Sea and the diffi culties to spot polluters and make them
pay fi nes means that the practice of, for example, cleaning oily tanks at sea continues. However, as shown in this chapter, other ways to reduce intentional oil spills
have been attempted with some success.
Contemporary marine governance in the area of shipping comprises a mix of
carefully crafted hierarchical structures and horizontal interactions among a multitude of stakeholders (Bennet 2000 ; Knudsen and Hassler 2011 ; Mason 2003 ;
Mitchell 1994 ). Compared with many other environmental risk areas, shipping is
governed by a relatively clearly defi ned chain of command in terms of governance
where all key global conventions have been placed under the umbrella of the UN
organisations’ IMO (International Maritime Organization) and ILO (International
Labour Organization), after having been agreed upon by the member states .
Ultimately, the implementation of adopted conventions, however, must be done at
the national level, primarily in the form of Flag and Port State Control . It has been
shown that although the Flag State according to UNCLOS has the formal responsibility for all ships fl ying its fl ag, Port State Control has become the most important
mechanism to improve safety in global shipping (DeSombre 2006 ; Knapp and
Frances 2008 ).
To understand actual governance outcomes, incentives as well as structures have
to be carefully considered. Management of oil spill risks in the Baltic Sea is clearly
affected not only by global conventions but often as importantly by the actions of
the EU, by intergovernmental organisations such as HELCOM ( Helsinki
Commission) and by individual governments with strong interests and high capacity to take action on particular issues. Much of the focus in recent governance literature has been placed on interaction between institutions and stakeholders at different
B. Hassler
will continue to grow. In parallel with the increased transportation of oil, vessels
have on average become larger which has important implications in terms of worstcase scenarios of accidents.
The large amounts of oil being transported over the ecologically sensitive Baltic
Sea create substantial environmental hazards. These risks are of two quite different
and distinct types. On the one hand, there are accidental spills and on the other
intentional spills caused by, for example, not taking proper care of polluted spill
water. Accidents caused by collisions, fi re, groundings, technical malfunctions,
human error or other factors may result in large-scale oil spills. Depending on the
amount of oil being carried, geographical area, type of oil, water temperature, icy
conditions, wind and currents, damages to ecological systems, local tourism, recreation, real estate values and fi sheries vary but could in worst-case scenarios be
devastating. Fortunately, the safety of modern tankers in terms of its potential environmental costs has increased quite markedly during the last few decades due to
increased emphasis placed on vessel construction and on-board installations such as
advanced navigation equipment (Knudsen and Hassler 2011 ). In contrast, intentional
spills are typically small in size, but because of their large number, the cumulated
impact on the ecological integrity of the Baltic Sea is probably substantial, although
detailed assessments of such spills are not available. Despite the illegality of these
spills, they have been diffi cult to substantially curb. Due to ineffective monitoring in
certain areas of the Baltic Sea and the diffi culties to spot polluters and make them
pay fi nes means that the practice of, for example, cleaning oily tanks at sea continues. However, as shown in this chapter, other ways to reduce intentional oil spills
have been attempted with some success.
Contemporary marine governance in the area of shipping comprises a mix of
carefully crafted hierarchical structures and horizontal interactions among a multitude of stakeholders (Bennet 2000 ; Knudsen and Hassler 2011 ; Mason 2003 ;
Mitchell 1994 ). Compared with many other environmental risk areas, shipping is
governed by a relatively clearly defi ned chain of command in terms of governance
where all key global conventions have been placed under the umbrella of the UN
organisations’ IMO (International Maritime Organization) and ILO (International
Labour Organization), after having been agreed upon by the member states .
Ultimately, the implementation of adopted conventions, however, must be done at
the national level, primarily in the form of Flag and Port State Control . It has been
shown that although the Flag State according to UNCLOS has the formal responsibility for all ships fl ying its fl ag, Port State Control has become the most important
mechanism to improve safety in global shipping (DeSombre 2006 ; Knapp and
Frances 2008 ).
To understand actual governance outcomes, incentives as well as structures have
to be carefully considered. Management of oil spill risks in the Baltic Sea is clearly
affected not only by global conventions but often as importantly by the actions of
the EU, by intergovernmental organisations such as HELCOM ( Helsinki
Commission) and by individual governments with strong interests and high capacity to take action on particular issues. Much of the focus in recent governance literature has been placed on interaction between institutions and stakeholders at different
B. Hassler