Joint Declaration

21st Meeting of Maritime Administrations of the Baltic States 7- 9 September 2016, Vihterpalu, ESTONIA Minutes of the meeting PURPOSE Held on 7-9 September 2016 in Vihterpalu manor, Harjumaa, hosted by the Estonian Maritime Administration marks the 21 time since the plenary meetings have taken place. Each year representatives from Baltic administrations come together for information and knowledge sharing. The meeting addressed a package of tasks of day-to day activities in the areas of joint concern which include maritime safety, aids to navigation, administrative scenarios and maritime spatial planning. PARTICIPATION. The meeting included representatives from three maritime administrations of the Baltic States with a total number of 32 (11 participants from Latvia, 9 participants from Lithuania and 10 participants from Estonia) List of participants, their positions and contact data is provided in Annex 2. OPENING REMARKS. Director General Rene Arikas thanked all participants on behalf of Estonian Maritime Administration for their attendance, defined the meeting purpose and introduced the items providing background of the event to the participants. There were no objections and agenda was adopted unanimously by the participants. At the opening session were presented the latest developments in maritime sector of their respective countries by Mr. Tarasevičius, J. Krastinš and R. Arikas. All three head of delegations introduced their daily work and best practices of their administrations on the basis of 2015 statistics. WORKING GROUPS. In order to facilitate more detailed discussions six specific working groups were established: WG1 on maritime security WG2 on FSC&PSC WG3 on STCW matters WG4 on lighthouse matters and maritime spatial planning It was decided to discuss the project TOOP (development of electronic ship and crew certification) both in WG 2 and WG3. All working groups met during morning session. Summary of the topics discussed is published in Annex 1. SUMMARISING. All participants at the final session expressed their view/agreed that the current format of the meeting has very positive impact with regard to information sharing and consolidating, exchange of thoughts and experience as well as building/establishing more stringent links between administrations of three countries. The Joint Declaration was signed by head of delegations. FUTURE OF MEETINGS. The meeting came to an uniform decision /agreed/ to continue organizing similar gatherings in the future with due regard for the principle of equal rotation. The next Meeting will be organized in Latvia in autumn 2017. Optimal dates, time and location will be agreed and made known by the Latvian Maritime Administration at a later date. 1 ANNEX 1 Overview of discussions in working groups Working group 1 on maritime security Working group 1 Maritime security  Current and outstanding issues of maritime security.  The review and update of port and port facility security assessments with regard to the current threat environment and EC interpretations. Working group 2 FSC & PSC  PSC and Flag State implementation: exchange of information.  SOLAS VI/R. 2 amendments – VGM of the containers – implementation and enforcement.  Directive 2014/90/EC on marine equipment. Market surveillance.  Small domestic passenger ships in distress – communication. Procedure.  Medical kit and equipment service on board the vessel in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. National legislation.  Experience or lessons learned from any EMSA visit during last year.  A new EU legislation “passenger ship safety package”.  TOOP project (development of electronic ship and crew certifications).  Working group 3 STCW  Distance learning (e-courses) for crew members and electronic certificates.  IMO electronic seafarers register- outstanding issues before official date of entering into force.  Chapter V of STCW (passenger ship safety, onboard training on ships using fuel with low flash point, a new Polar Code).  Certification of seafarers working on fishing vessels, calculation of seagoing practice during working on cadet training ships and navy vessels.  Estonian experience with implementation of the Marine school programs (4 year studies after primary school) in accordance with requirements of the standards A-II/1 or A-III/1 of STCW convention.  Ability of the MET institutions to ensure the required period of the seagoing service during the study process.  Recognition of seafarers certificate issued by or under authority of another Member State (taking into consideration provisions of Directive 2005/45/EU on the mutual recognition of seafarers’ certificate).  TOOP project (development of electronic ship and crew certifications). Working group 4 maritime spatial planning and opening lighthouses to public visits  Optimisation of the Maritime spatial planning in relation to shipping near borders of Estonia – Latvia and Latvia – Lithuania.  Opening lighthouses to public visits 2 ANNEX 2 List of Participants Lithuanian Maritime Safety Administration 1. Robertinas Tarasevičius Director 2. Mindaugas Česnauskis Deputy Director 3. Linas Kasparavičius Deputy Director 4. Rimvydas Jakštas Head of Maritime Safety division 5. Artūras Abromaitis Chief specialist of Maritime Safety division 6. Vytautas Braslauskas Head of Training and Certification division 7. Tomas Žemaitis Deputy head of Training and Certification division Head of Hydrography and Aids to Navigation 8. Viktoras Liulys division 9. Paulius Juozapavičius, Head of Shipping Standards division Adviser of Planning and Information management division 10. Remigijus Budginas Maritime Administration of Latvia Chairman of the Board-Director, Maritime 1. Janis Krastiņš Administration of Latvia 2. Raitis Mūrnieks Director of Maritime Safety Department 3. Arturs Ošs Head of Maritime Safety Inspectorate 4. Ģirts Sarja Ship Inspection Coordinator 5. Imants Dambergs Inspector of Ship and Port Security Inspectorate 6. Jāzeps Spridzāns Head of the Registry of Seamen 7. Pēteris Rabša Deputy Head of Registry of Seamen 8. Kalvis Innuss Head of Conventional Supervision Division 9. Aigars Gailis Head of Hydrographic Service 10. Bruno Špēls Head of Hydrographic Division 11. Sarma Kočāne Public relations 3 Estonian Maritime Administration 1. Rene Arikas Director General 2. Marek Rauk Deputy Director 3. Taivo Kivimäe Deputy Director 4. Tarmo Ots Head, External Affairs 5. Eero Naaber Head, Development and Innovation 6. Kaidi Katus Head, Waterways Department 7. Helin Tamm Head, Ships’ Supervision Department Head, Seafarers’ Certification and 8. Raul Tell Maritime Educational Institutions Supervision Department Head, Seafarers’ Certification and 9. Eino Ots Register Burea 10. Priit Lööper Adviser ANNEX 3 Summary of discussions WG1/Maritime Security Members: Helin Tamm; Erik Noor (Estonia) Imants Dambergs (Latvia); Rimvydas Jakštas (Lithuania)  Current and outstanding issues of maritime security. LT: What kind of practical waterside security measures are employed in EE and LV? There was an incident at a Lithuanian oil terminal, where an out of control recreational vessel crashed into an empty tanker. EE, LV: It is a difficult topic. A degree of protection can be provided with radar surveillance and rapid response capability. Estonian Internal Security Service is also concerned about recreational craft, as they can be easily used to transport prohibited items and persons with criminal intent. LT: Are there any special regulations for the use of armed guards on board ships? EE, LV: No special regulations have been put into place, standard gun control legislation and requirements for security operators apply. Also, any use of weapons on board ships must be reflected in ship security plans. 4   The review and update of port and port facility security assessments with regard to the current threat environment and EC interpretations. EE, LV: Recent so-called “lone wolf” attacks in the EU (most notably in Nice) have prompted new concerns. This issue is especially connected with public areas in ports and the consideration of adjacent areas in port security assessments. EE: We have drawn up a new list of threat scenarios for port security assessments together with the Estonian Internal Security Service. Both internal and external security threats in all relevant port areas have been considered including crowd disturbances and cyberattacks. The Estonian Information System Authority is advising us and port authorities on the latter subject. LV: This is similar in Latvia, although cyber security is not addressed separately in port security assessments and we do not have a universal list of threat scenarios. Security assessments for the ports of Ventspils and Liepaja were completed in 2015, Riga has been planned for 2016. EE: There was an EC maritime security inspection in Estonia in April 2016 and sadly the EC’s interpretations in certain questions continue to be very restrictive with apparent disregard towards the competence of Member States. Some issues that had been previously discussed in great detail and had already reached a conclusion were re-visited and re-opened. We have contested this in our response to the EC. LV: We have had similar experiences in the past. Sometimes it is more pragmatic to avoid arguing with the EC if their demands can be met without much difficulty, even if they are unfounded. WG 2/ FSC & PSC Participants: Estonia: Marek Rauk, Priit Lööper Latvia: Raitis Murnieks, Arturs Ošs, Ģirts Sarja Lithuania: Linas Kasparavičius, Paulius Juozapavičius Delegates noted the importance of the meeting as an effective tool to exchange experience.  PSC and Flag State implementation: exchange of information. Information about Port State Control and Flag State implementation was exchanged among delegates responsible for inspection of seagoing ships within Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Maritime Administrations. Aspects, such as lack of reporting of ships with deficiencies by pilots, amounts of state fees levied for the inspections after detention, implementation of the new THETIS modules, implementation of BWM convention which came into force internationally, and preparation for the 3rd meeting of transport ministers of the Paris MOU and Tokyo MOU were discussed. Concerning Flag State implementation experience with manning principles of electro-technical officers and ratings as able seafarer deck, experience with prevention of drug and alcohol abuse on board ships and experience with technical supervision of non-conventional ships was shared among participants. 5 The arrangement of ship supervision databases in three states were also discussed. At the moment these supervision databases in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are not accessible for ship-owners nor public, but there are plans to change this approach.  SOLAS VI/R. 2 amendments – VGM– implementation of the regulation and enforcement. Concerning the implementation and enforcement of SOLAS Chapter VI, Part A, Regulation 2, which requires that the shipper of a container shall ensure that the verified gross mass is stated in the shipping document and submitted to the master or his representative and to the terminal representative sufficiently in advance, it was noted that all three administrations have issued circulars to inform shippers of containers about the new requirement which came into force on 1 July 2016. Delegates shared their national practices in determining the accuracy standards and requirements of weighing equipment used to determine the VGM of a packed container. Delegates also discussed the idea to determine the acceptable accuracy standards at the IMO level.  Directive 2014/90/EC on marine equipment. Market surveillance. Delegations provided information about the level of progress on transposition of the directive 2014/90/EC on marine equipment, as the deadline for transposition of the directive is 18 September 2016. The scope and application of the directive 2014/90/EC was also discussed. It was acknowledged, that market surveillance on marine equipment is basically conducted during FSC through the placement to ships flying national flags in all three states and no visits to resellers of equipment are conducted, as there are non-conventional ships and pleasure crafts which does not have to comply with the directive and can use non-standard equipment.  Small domestic passenger ships in distress – communication. Procedure. Delegations exchanged information about national radio equipment requirements for ships sailing in inland waterways and in sea areas adjacent to the coast.  Onboard medical kit and equipment service of vessels of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. National legislation. Delegations provided information about the national requirements for onboard medical kit and regular supervision, based on the Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels.  Experience or lessons learned from any EMSA visit during the previous year. The results of recent EMSA visits were discussed and experience gained from these visits was shared. In Latvia and Lithuania the EMSA visits on the Directive 2009/18/EC establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector were conducted. In Estonia the Commission inspection on ship and port security was conducted in April 2016.  A new EU legislation “Passenger ship safety package”. Delegates discussed amendments proposed by the Commission to four directives related to passenger ships safety (2009/45/EC, 98/41/EC, 2009/16/EC and 1999/35/EC). 6   TOOP project (development of electronic ship and crew certifications). The TOOP project was introduced to delegations.  Recreational craft cross-border cooperation between the States of the Baltic Sea. Delegations provided information about national requirements for random and regular inspections of recreational crafts which are different in every state. In Lithuania the system of annual inspections of recreational crafts is in place for crafts older than 5 years. The first inspection is made 3 years after the anniversary date of the craft and the second inspection is made after 2 years. In Latvia regular inspections are conducted every 2 years only to recreational crafts engaged in trade and carrying up to 12 passengers. In Estonia regular inspections are also conducted only to recreational crafts engaged in trade and carrying up to 12 passengers. If the craft is newer than 10 years, the inspection is conducted every 3 years, and if the craft is older than 10 years, the inspection is conducted every 2 years. WG 3/STCW Participants: Lithuania: V. Brauslauskas, T. Žemaitis, Latvia: J. Sprindzans, P. Rabša, K. Innuss, Estonia: E. Ots, R. Tell. WG discussed all the questions on the agenda. Questions initiated lively discussion among WG members.  Distance learning and e-learning WG members discussed the problems (identification and fraud) related to e-learning and distance learning. It was unanimously agreed that the approval of e-learning is a matter of the particular MA. WG members agreed that on-line environment is possible to use in the process of assessment as per Recommendations of STCW B-I/6.  2Electronical Register of Seamen (electronic database) Members of WG exchanged information on the implementation of the electronic database, access to on-line verification of certificates and the state of play. Lithuania is first - footing, they are using it for some time already, in Estonia it is in the testing phase, the on-line verification should be ready and available for users within November 2016. Latvian colleagues expressed their deep concern over the matter of implementation of the on-line verification system and were doubtful meeting the requirements of STCW Convention by January 1, 2017.  On board emergency familiarization training for crew members in compliance with the Reg, V/2 p 5 (in force July 1, 2018). The providing of the familiarization is the responsibility of company. The training shall be recorded in log book.  Ships using low flashpoint fuels (A-V/3) 7 In Estonia the draft concerning the training of the ships´ crew members on ships using low flashpoint fuels has already been submitted to the Ministry of Communications and Economic Affairs for approval. Development of procedures for the above mentioned training are in progress in Latvia and Lithuania.  STCW-F Since Lithuania and Latvia are the Members States of STCW-F Convention they see no problem with calculation of seagoing practice and certification of seafarers of the fishing vessels. Estonia has not yet ratified the STCW-F. Today the Ministry of Communications and Economical Affairs is conducting a survey among stakeholders about the feasibility grounds of joining with STCW-F Convention. This will be bases for relevant decisions.  Nautical education after basic school Estonia shared its experience on nautical education based on Estonian Nautical School. IMO model course foresees entering standard which means that a cadets obtain secondary education when leaving school and this meets the requirements of A-II/1 and A-III/1 of the STCW Convention.  TOOP project The members of the WG listened to the information regarding TOOP project. Further details about the progress of the TOOP project shall be delivered by the Estonian Party. WG4/ Lighthouses and maritime spatial planning Participants: Estonia: Taivo Kivimäe, Andry Rütkinen, Kaidi Katus, Kert Süsmalainen. Lithuania: Mindaugas Česnauskis Attendees to Pakri Lighthouse were: Viktoras Liulys – Lithuania, Aigars Gailis – Latvia, Bruno Špēls – Latvia  Status of present day situation concerning lease of a lighthouse for public access. Lighthouses in Estonia are administered and managed by state authority where 41 out of total 45 are in charge of the Maritime Administration. The project where lighthouses apart from their fundamental function what they stand for can be viewed as marketable objects pursuing casual public interest has been supported by the communication with service customers after we have already opened 7 lighthouses to public view - Pakri, Saxby, Tahkuna, Kõpu, Ristna, Kihnu, Ruhnu lighthouses. Taivo Kivimäe gave a thorough overview of the terms and conditions of a lease (with a lessee) enabling reasonable public access to lighthouses while ensuring the policy of the state. He continued with insights into visit volumes and fiscal formula. At present similar negotiations, lighthouses for public view are in progress with 9 lighthouses which are Keri, Naissaare, Tallinn ldg front and rear, Suurupi ldg front and rear, Virtsu, Sõrve, Viirelaid. Another four - Naissaare, Suurupi front and rear, Tallinn front are expected to be opened in 2017. 8  1. Kõpu lighthouse, the first for public access was opened for visitors in 2002. 2. Income raised from public visits (Kõpu, Tahkuna, Ristna) amounts to 310 000 euro, and directed for administrative procedures and maintenance (refurbishment) of lighthouses. 3. Public interest is on the rise and numbers are steadily growing making almost 50 000 people for the period from April to August. The Administration has installed efficient visitor- counters to provide independent counting of people who have visited our lighthouses. 4. Granting an approval for the operator(s) from the local municipality is an essential prerequisite when the lighthouse structure for public visits is being put up for lease. There is an agreement approved by and between every operator that the remaining funds apart from visit organisation will be directed for the amenity and minor refurbishment of the lighthouse. WG5 members visited Pakri lighthouse in order to see the scope of additional work necessary for conducting lighthouse visits. Lithuania is planning to open 2 lighthouses to public view.  Status of present day situation regarding the optimisation of the maritime spatial planning in relation to shipping near borders of Estonia-Latvia and Latvia- Lithuania Activities of maritime spatial planning by countries: The spatial planning process in Latvia and Lithuania is completed and approved. Estonia has so far carried out pilot projects of maritime spatial plan in the area of Hiiumaa and in the bay of Pärnu. Maritime spatial planning of the whole territory will start in 2017. Concerning the cooperation between Estonia and Latvia the main topic is the linkage of planned areas of shipping traffic in the border area of Estonia and Latvia. It was decided that Latvia will send to Estonia centerline coordinates of water traffic areas and Estonia will correct its planning, respectfully as it is easier for Estonia to integrate those changes since they are half way with their project. 9