186
or fl ushing machine compartments en voyage without taking proper care of the disposal of oily residuals. Although the governance structures and measures for oil
spill control, as well as associated science-policy interactions, differ in many
respects with regard to these issue areas, it is clear that marine transportation is
generally governed by a relatively straight chain of command via global conventions under the UN agency IMO (Hassler 2016 ). However, implementation of these
global conventions is primarily the responsibility of individual countries through
fl ag and port state control . Hence, in the Baltic Sea, the management of oil spill
risks is determined not only by global conventions but also to a large extent by the
individual coastal states, as well as intergovernmental organisations such as
HELCOM and the EU. Such management measures at the Baltic Sea level include
port state control of ship safety and an incentive -based ‘no-special-fee’ system to
promote safe waste delivery and tank cleaning at port,
5 as well as aerial surveillance
of oil spills (Hassler 2016 ).
The case of oil discharges involves a comparably clear separation of assessment
and management activities, where assessment primarily takes the form of monitoring and surveillance of vessel functionality, tanker traffi c and illegal discharges.
While these regional, subregional and unilateral monitoring activities
6 appear to be
more developed than e.g. in the case of IAS, coordination still constitutes a signifi -
cant challenge. This is, for example, seen in the uneven number of fl ight hours
reported by different countries in aerial surveillance of oil discharges (Hassler
2016 ). The assessment and monitoring linked to tanker traffi c and oil discharges do
not, however, appear to be very infl uential in management discussions and decisions
linked to technical safety requirements such as double hulls , separate ballast tanks,
better navigation equipment, etc. These discussions are instead mostly carried out in
IMO , the EU, member countries and international shipping organisations such as
INTERTANKO (Hassler et al. 2010 ).
Therefore, stakeholder involvement in shipping is considerable at the international level, where sector organisations both provide important knowledge and try
to infl uence regime outcomes in the directions they prefer. Classifi cation societies
and insurance companies also play important roles in the modernisation of oil tanker
fl eets. However, stakeholder infl uence and participation , as well as other forms of
civil society involvement, are considerably less intensive at lower governance levels
in the Baltic Sea region.
5 This is ‘a charging system where the cost of reception, handling and disposal of ship-generated
wastes, originating from the normal operation of the ship… is included in the harbour fee or otherwise charged to the ship irrespective of whether wastes are delivered or not’ (HELCOM recommendation 28E/10, paragraph 1.1).
6 Examples of monitoring activities linked to oil discharges and tanker safety in the Baltic Sea
include the HELCOM AIS (real-time automatic tracking of all larger vessels), air surveillance and
hydrographical surveys (Hassler et al. 2010 ).
S. Linke et al.
or fl ushing machine compartments en voyage without taking proper care of the disposal of oily residuals. Although the governance structures and measures for oil
spill control, as well as associated science-policy interactions, differ in many
respects with regard to these issue areas, it is clear that marine transportation is
generally governed by a relatively straight chain of command via global conventions under the UN agency IMO (Hassler 2016 ). However, implementation of these
global conventions is primarily the responsibility of individual countries through
fl ag and port state control . Hence, in the Baltic Sea, the management of oil spill
risks is determined not only by global conventions but also to a large extent by the
individual coastal states, as well as intergovernmental organisations such as
HELCOM and the EU. Such management measures at the Baltic Sea level include
port state control of ship safety and an incentive -based ‘no-special-fee’ system to
promote safe waste delivery and tank cleaning at port,
5 as well as aerial surveillance
of oil spills (Hassler 2016 ).
The case of oil discharges involves a comparably clear separation of assessment
and management activities, where assessment primarily takes the form of monitoring and surveillance of vessel functionality, tanker traffi c and illegal discharges.
While these regional, subregional and unilateral monitoring activities
6 appear to be
more developed than e.g. in the case of IAS, coordination still constitutes a signifi -
cant challenge. This is, for example, seen in the uneven number of fl ight hours
reported by different countries in aerial surveillance of oil discharges (Hassler
2016 ). The assessment and monitoring linked to tanker traffi c and oil discharges do
not, however, appear to be very infl uential in management discussions and decisions
linked to technical safety requirements such as double hulls , separate ballast tanks,
better navigation equipment, etc. These discussions are instead mostly carried out in
IMO , the EU, member countries and international shipping organisations such as
INTERTANKO (Hassler et al. 2010 ).
Therefore, stakeholder involvement in shipping is considerable at the international level, where sector organisations both provide important knowledge and try
to infl uence regime outcomes in the directions they prefer. Classifi cation societies
and insurance companies also play important roles in the modernisation of oil tanker
fl eets. However, stakeholder infl uence and participation , as well as other forms of
civil society involvement, are considerably less intensive at lower governance levels
in the Baltic Sea region.
5 This is ‘a charging system where the cost of reception, handling and disposal of ship-generated
wastes, originating from the normal operation of the ship… is included in the harbour fee or otherwise charged to the ship irrespective of whether wastes are delivered or not’ (HELCOM recommendation 28E/10, paragraph 1.1).
6 Examples of monitoring activities linked to oil discharges and tanker safety in the Baltic Sea
include the HELCOM AIS (real-time automatic tracking of all larger vessels), air surveillance and
hydrographical surveys (Hassler et al. 2010 ).
S. Linke et al.