/nginx/o/2021/03/29/13703240t1h0c90.jpg)
The Ministry of the Environment plans to drop efforts to end the transfer of large quantities of hazardous oil products at sea and to greenlight STS operations near Tallinn without gauging environmental impact.
Transfer of hazardous oil products moving to Tallinn Bay
30th March 2021, 14:43
“Environmental impact must be assessed,” said Veljo Volke, bird protection program manager for the Estonian Ornithological Society. “The STS area picked by officials (Tallinn’s anchorage G) lies about seven kilometers from the Paljassaare special conservation area and Natura 2000 bird site. Westerly winds could quickly cause spills to drift to the Paljassaare bird area and beach.” The Muraste ecological reserve is just four kilometers away.
The bill would allow STS (ship-to-ship) transfer of all hazardous and toxic substances in anchorage G. The plan would also greenlight transfers of liquid gas (LNG and LPG) in anchorages in Tallinn and Muuga and bunkering (transferring fuel to ships) in a total of six anchorages.
Volke said that Muuga anchorages would also benefit from a proper environmental impact assessment – because of potential pollution as a result of STS operations or bunkering – as ornithologists have spotted a lot of birds there, especially long-tailed ducks.
The Ministry of the Environment has removed from regulation No. 51 “Procedure for handling hazardous and harmful substances at sea, the Narva River and Lake Peipus” from June 25, 2020 planned changes that would have suspended handling of hazardous and harmful substances, with the exception of bunkering, in internal waters.
The suspension would have been necessary for carrying out environment impact assessments in anchorages coinciding with protected natural objects or where handling could result in significant environmental impact on natural features.
Controversial data on impact assessments
The explanatory memo of the draft regulation is controversial. The ministry initially notes that environmental impact assessments are mandatory when planning activities that could cause “significant unfavorable impact” for conversation goals in Natura 2000 areas. The ministry admits no such assessments have been carried out.
The ministry continues: “However, environmental impact has not been assessed in connection with other aspects of maritime transport. Firstly, because it is not standard practice and secondly because there are no Estonian or EU legal acts that require such assessments. Both Estonian and EU law leave it up to permit issuers whether potentially significant activities require impact assessments. It has not been deemed necessary to carry out such assessments so far.”
Decision made in cooperation
The ministry decided to rule out dangerous STS operations in the Pakri anchorage which ban was violated as demonstrated by Postimees.
Estonia would have been in hot water over failure to perform Natura 2000 conservation obligations in the case of a spill.
Maritime rights experts Consolato del Mare said that anchorages that coincide with natural objects could be specified and ruled out as STS sites quite easily.
Ruling out STS activities in anchorages where handling could result in significant environmental impact on natural features would be far more complicated, the law firm finds, as an environmental impact assessment would have to be carried out first. Consolato der Mare’s recommendation is to carry out the assessments.
The law firm finds that banning all STS operations in internal waters (even temporarily) would not be sensible as STS activities could prove necessary because of maritime accidents or other disasters. STS operations on the open sea should be ruled out as the risks are much greater.
The ministry decided to replace environmental impact assessments with Environment Board and Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) assessments of anchorages both in terms of maritime safety and pollution abatement capacity and environmental considerations. The agencies picked anchorages where various activities could be permitted, with these decisions in turn analyzed by marine scientists.
Both the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications and gas company Eesti Gaas sought an exception for LNG and LPG as Estonian ports lack relevant infrastructure, while ships still need to be refueled using gas. Gas leaks would also not cause sea pollution as the liquified gas would evaporate into the air.
Environmentalists not happy with the draft
“We cannot be satisfied with the current solution as we find that handling of hazardous and harmful substances outside ports should be banned. Every leak is dangerous when it comes to bird populations,” said Laura Uibopuu, coordinator for Estonian environmental organizations.
“I cannot understand why the ministry is hurrying to greenlight STS operations,” Arvo Veskimets, who first pointed to the problem, said. Veskimets has worked as the deputy head of the Estonian Maritime Administration, CEO of shipper Alfons Hakans OÜ and headed the ministry’s maritime department. “A regulation cannot be used to expand a law. The State Borders Act includes bunkering in its list of permitted activities, while it makes no mention of STS. We would need an amendment and a proper analysis of environmental effects and what would be the best places for STS operations. Have fees been considered; for example, larger maritime fees for STS operations?”
Fees to follow
The explanatory memorandum of the draft regulation reads that ministries will work together to review the system of maritime fees in Estonian waters. A working group curated by the environment ministry will present a proposal for “pollute and pay” fees that would be sufficient to compensate for environmental damage and necessary pollution abatement capacity.