RISKS OF

OIL AND CHEMICAL

POLLUTION
IN THE BALTIC SEA
Results and recommendations
from HELCOM's BRISK and
BRISK-RU projects

Nordic Council of Ministers

 Nordic Council of Ministers

RISKS OF
OIL AND CHEMICAL
POLLUTION
IN THE BALTIC SEA
Results and recommendations
from HELCOM's BRISK and
BRISK-RU projects
 SUMMARY
Despite the high level of regional preparedness, the trend of more traf-
fic — and more oil transported at sea — leads to higher risks of spills
of oil and hazardous substances, thus posing the risk of environmental
damage. An increase in oil spills always means higher costs for the coun-
tries involved in the response actions both during and after a spill.

This is why all the Baltic Sea countries, on an initiative by the HELCOM
Response Group, have during 2009–2012 conducted a comprehensive
joint risk assessment through the project “Sub-regional risk of spill of oil
and hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea” (BRISK).

Based on the best available knowledge the project has defined new mea-
sures to strengthen the preparedness and response both for the whole
Baltic region and in specific sub-areas. The overall aim of the project was
to increase the preparedness of all Baltic Sea countries to respond to
major spills of oil and hazardous substances from shipping.

Based on the existing data on maritime traffic for the entire Baltic Sea
and estimated risks of different accident and spill scenarios, the proj-
ect calculated risks for different types of accidents and spill sizes. The
project translated these scenarios into maps that define high risk areas in
the region.

Key outcomes and recommendations include:

• For the first time the entire Baltic Sea has been mapped with
common methodology for risks of spills of oil and hazardous sub-
stances.
• Likely volumes of spilled oil, amount of oil on coast and the
resulting environmental damage have been estimated for the Baltic
Sea and its sub-regions.
• The efficiency of potential measures to reduce these risks has
been estimated through scenarios.
• Sub-regionally differentiated response measures have been iden-
tified as essential to increase preparedness in the Baltic Sea.
• Sub-regional response agreements are thus recommended to
further develop overall preparedness in the Baltic Sea region.
• Two sub-regional agreements on joint response operations have

4
been developed and signed between Russia (Kaliningrad) and Po-
land, and between Russia (Kaliningrad) and Lithuania as a result of
the project.
• Three more sub-regional agreements have been modified or
prepared based on project recommendations and are close to being
concluded.
• Some investments are recommended to further enhance pre-
paredness in the Baltic Sea, including:
— A Vessel Traffic System (VTS) for the entire tanker route be-
tween Skaw and Primorsk/Ust Luga, building on the existing
systems in the Great Belt and the Gulf of Finland;
— Night vision equipment development and deployment as
a highly efficient measure in all areas;
— Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS) as a cost-efficient means to
enhance safety of navigation;
— Double-hulls in small tankers and bunker tanks in new vessels
to decrease spills outside the main tanker route, including the
Gulf of Bothnia and the South-Eastern Baltic Proper;
— Increasing recovery capacity in ice
conditions, especially in the Gulf
of Bothnia;
— Shallow water response
capacity as an efficient
measure in all areas.

5
>FACT BOX< BRISK AND BRISKRU PROJECTS
BRISK was initiated and implemented by the national authori-
ties responsible for oil spill preparedness around the Baltic
Sea as well as the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA),
meeting regularly within the HELCOM Group on oil spills pre-
paredness and response — HELCOM Response. The activities
to follow up and implement the project findings will also be
discussed and decided within the same group.

Three-year time span 2009—2012

The countries and partners involved in the projects covered
all nine coastal countries of the Baltic Sea:
Denmark (Admiral Danish Fleet Headquarters, Lead Partner)
Sweden (Swedish Coast Guard Headquarters)
Finland (Finnish Environment Institute)
Estonia (Estonian Board of Border Guard)
Lithuania (Coastal Research and Planning Institute)
Latvia (Marine and Inland Waters Administration of the Minis-
try of the Environment)
Poland (Maritime Institute in Gdansk & Maritime Office in
Gdynia)
Germany (Central Command for Maritime Emergencies)
Russia was involved through a consortium of partners in
a specific BRISK-RU project where the Central Marine Re-
search & Design Institute Ltd acted as a Lead Partner.
In addition to these national authorities, the consultancy
COWI A/S participated in the initiative by developing and
implementing risk analyses, and by carrying out the financial
management of the project.

The BRISK project was partly financed by EU´s Baltic Sea

Regional Programme 2007–2013 with 3.3 million EUR for
the period 2009–2012. The co-financing varies between 15
per cent and 25 per cent, depending on the home country of
the Project Partner. The BRISK-RU project was financed by
the Nordic Council of Ministers Aquatic Ecosystems working
group with 200,000 EUR. The Information office of the Nordic
Council of Ministers in Kaliningrad served as a facilitator in
the preliminary discussions of the project and as a contact
point for Russian partners.

6
>FACT BOX< KEY TOPICS OF THE
BRISK/BRISKRU PROJECTS
Baltic-wide risk assessment: Carrying out the first Baltic-
wide risk assessment on oil and chemical pollution, and its
impacts, using a common methodology. Estimating through
scenarios the efficiency of new measures.

Sub-regional measures and agreements: Development of

proposals for sub-regional agreements and measures for
administrators to ensure more efficient response.

Investment plans: Preparation of integral and comparable

investment plans for response resources based on the risk
assessment and scenarios.

7
 INCREASING
TRAFFIC  BETTER
PREPAREDNESS
The maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea is constantly growing despite the
global economic downturn during 2009. This trend can be illustrated
by the ship passage statistics from key areas like the Skaw in Denmark,
where an increase of over 20% has been observed between 2005 and
2011.

70000
Number of annual AIS pas-
sageline crossings (all ship
types) in passageline Skaw
60000

50000

40000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Especially oil transportation is expected to increase due to the construc-

tion and expansion of oil terminals in Russia. In the largest oil terminals,
the annual turnover has risen from 140 million tonnes of oil to 250 mil-
lion tonnes in ten years.

500 Cargo volume in 15 large

450
Baltic seaports
400
Milli on tonnes

350
300 Oil
250
200 Other
150
100
50
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

8
Through regional work carried out since 1980 under the Helsinki Com-
mission (HELCOM), the nine coastal countries of the Baltic have managed
to foster mutual trust and have created a highly operational regional
system of preparedness and response to spills of oil and hazardous
substances. The system, documented in the HELCOM Response Manuals,
ensures that information on accidents and response capacity is shared
with minimum delay. Cooperation is also tested annually in regional
HELCOM Balex Delta oil response exercises.

As a result of this long term work the level of preparedness to pollution

incidents at sea is at a high level in the Baltic Sea region. Nevertheless,
the increasing traffic volumes and larger ships make it necessary to
identify further measures to increase the safety of navigation as well as
to limit harm in case of a major oil accident.

9
10
HIGH RISK AREAS
According to the assessment results, most pollution risks are concen-
trated along the main route that crosses the Baltic Sea from the Danish
straits to St. Petersburg.

Areas north and south of Gotland stand out as areas with particularly
high risks. In these areas large vessels, due to their deeper draught, devi-
ate to the Baltic deep-water route while smaller vessels continue on the
shortest route.

Ship traffic patterns in

the Baltic Sea with the
Baltic deep-water route
indicated with dashed
line and arrows to mark
some of the high risk
areas due to deviating/
merging traffic streams.

11
 LIKELY VOLUME OF SPILLS
The likelihood of spilled oil on the water surface was estimated based on
where the accidents are likely to happen and where the oil is transported
(see figures). The likely accident areas include traffic crossings, main ship-
ping lanes, as well as high risk areas for groundings.

This information was combined with estimations of the size of spills

(from statistics on ship sizes and accident types); the type of oil expected
to be spilled (bunker, crude, vegetable); likely movement patterns (drift-
ing by wind and current, spreading, dispersion and fate); and the antici-
pated effectiveness of the recovery and response action.

The probability of each process was taken into account and summarised
for all events. The result is an estimation of the expected amount of ac-
cidentally released oil per area of sea surface.

The risk of collisions

and groundings.
The size of the bubbles
corresponds to the
accident risk, i.e. the
expected number of
accidents per year.

En-route collision
Crossing collision
Grounding

12
The risk of oil spills. Groundings
(tonnes/year) Collisions at intersections
Overtaking and head-on collisions
Collisions with fixed objects and spills
frome offshore platforms, terminals,
25 10 2,5 1 0,25
bunkering and STS operations
Illegal spills

13
 MAPPING SENSITIVE AREAS
In addition to risks of oil accidents, the BRISK project mapped the areas
most vulnerable to environmental damage in the entire Baltic Sea. Even
if this kind of mapping has been made on a national scale, the novelty
is in using the same mutually agreed classification system for the whole
Baltic Sea area — from Skagen to Haparanda.

The environmental sensitivity was determined for each of the four sea-
sons. The maps illustrate that the sensitivity is highest on the coast, in
archipelagos and in shallow water areas.

Environmental
sensitivity in
summer.
Low
Medium low
Medium high
High
Very High

14
RISK OF DAMAGE
TO ENVIRONMENT
Combining information on oil impacts with seasonal environmental
sensitivity gives the distribution of environmental damage from oil spills.
A spill in a high sensitivity area causes more damage than the same spill
in a low sensitivity area.

The Northern Baltic Sea has areas of high sensitivity to oil damage but
low level of ship traffic. When accidents occur they have a great impact
because of the ice coverage, making oil recovery more challenging.

The Danish coasts are generally vulnerable because of the narrow straits,
due to both traffic density and the approximity of the shoreline.
The risk of damage is high around the Danish islands and the Finnish
archipelago.

Environmental damage
as a result of combining
the modelling of spilled
oil and environmental
sensitivity.
> 1,000 to
300 to 1,000
100 to 300
30 to 100
10 to 30
3 to 10
1 to 3
0.1 to 1
0.01 to 0.1
0 to 0.01

15
 RECOMMENDATIONS  KEY
ROLE OF SURVEILLANCE
The general recommendation from the BRISK/BRISK-RU projects is that
the most cost-efficient risk reduction investment in high-traffic areas is
increased surveillance. This is simply because vessels make fewer errors
if they know that they are observed and if they communicate with others.

To this end, both the Vessel Traffic System (VTS) and Traffic Separation
Schemes (TSS) provide the central risk reduction measures regarding oil
spills and environmental damage. Increased surveillance is recommend-
ed especially for the entire tanker route between the Skaw and Primorsk/
Ust Luga, building on the existing systems in the Great Belt and the Gulf
of Finland.

In areas with little traffic the Electronic Chart Display and Information
System (ECDIS) and double-hull tankers have major influence. Both the
mandatory use of ECDIS and carrying oil by double-hull tankers are regu-
lated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

In general, the most cost-effective approach is to prevent an accident

from happening. However, if a major accident does occur, response
capacities need to be in place. The projects investigated the needed ad-
ditional response capacities for each sub-region.

Night vision equipment is the most cost-efficient investment, exceeding

the effect of acquiring more booms and skimmers.

Investment in shallow water response capacities will have an effect on

the ability to recover the oil from the sea and on the coast, especially in
the Danish area.

16
SUBREGIONAL
DIFFERENCES
AND SOLUTIONS
The results of risk scenarios showed that different parts of the Baltic
Sea need different measures due to sub-regional differences in traffic
patterns, risks and environmental sensitivity, for example. This is why
the Baltic Sea was divided into six sub-regions in the BRISK/BRISK-RU
projects; more thorough regional conclusions and recommendations
were made for each sub-region.

Within each sub-region, the countries carried out bilateral and multilat-
eral discussions to share experiences and challenges on sub-regional risk
reduction and response measures. This dialogue was built on earlier co-
operation in HELCOM and resulted, for example, in a number of bilateral
agreements on joint response operations to cover the risks of accidents
and oil spills, including the agreements between Russia (Kaliningrad)
and Poland, and Russia (Kaliningrad) and Lithuania.

In addition, the agreed response sce-

narios — based on risk analysis — form
the foundation for the preparation
of sub-regional investment plans
comprising the identification of
the proposed response level;
potential resources; costs of
the resources, cost benefit
calculations; the selection of
preferred resources; and the
timetable for procurement.
For more detailed summa-
ries on each sub-region visit
www.brisk.helcom.fi

17
>FACT BOX< SUBREGION DIVISIONS
1: The Gulf of Bothnia (Sweden, Finland)
Lead country: Sweden
2: The Gulf of Finland (Finland, Estonia, Russia)
Lead country: Estonia
3: The Northern part of the Baltic Proper (Sweden, Estonia,
Latvia)
Lead country: Sweden
4: The South-Eastern part of the Baltic Proper (Lithuania,
Russia, Poland)
Lead country: Poland
5: The South-Western part of the Baltic Proper (Sweden,
Denmark, Germany, Poland)
Lead country: Germany
6: The Sound and Kattegat (Sweden, Denmark)
Lead country: Denmark

18
19
 BRISK IMPLEMENTS
HELCOM’S COMMITMENTS
Denmark, Estonia, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithu-
ania, Poland, Russia and Sweden cooperate within the Helsinki Commis-
sion, or HELCOM, to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea
from all sources of pollution.

HELCOM cooperation in response to pollution accidents started in 1980

and has been a highly successful field of regional work.

The Baltic Sea countries follow the legal requirements of the Helsinki
Convention as well as the HELCOM Response Manual which both contain
principles, rules and operational procedures for joint, international
response operations.

Monika Stankiewicz, Executive Secretary of the Helsinki Commission,

explains why the BRISK project is unique:

“The project has remarkably improved our knowledge of the pollu-

tion risks associated with shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea. For the
first time ever the risk analysis has systematically covered the whole
maritime area of the Baltic Sea, thus allowing us to identify hot spots
with the highest threat of spills. This creates a sound basis for relevant
authorities to undertake further specific measures to improve capabili-
ties for emergency response and navigation safety.”

What does BRISK mean to HELCOM?

“The sensitivity of the Baltic marine environment to pollution

makes it necessary to continuously improve our understanding of
risks, to find new technical solutions for detecting and combat-
ting oil at sea, and to work out new ways of building response
capacities. BRISK is exactly about these three crucial points. Its
philosophy comes from the Baltic Sea Action Plan, adopted by
HELCOM Ministers in 2007, whereby the resources of the neighbour-
ing countries are assessed and polled together for a given sub-region,
such as the Gulf of Finland, instead of looking at risks from a national
perspective.”

20
What does the participation of Russia mean to the project and the end
results?

“The involvement of all coastal countries, including Russia, has made it

possible to cover the whole Baltic Sea area by the risk assessment and
recommendations for improvements. In addition, Russian colleagues
have brought their expertise, data and information to the project. As
major oil tanker routes in the Baltic Sea have their port of origin in the
eastern Gulf of Finland, a project like BRISK would simply not fully serve
its purpose without having Russia on board. This was possible only
thanks to the financing by the Nordic Council of Ministers.”

In what way does BRISK promote the future cooperation between the Baltic
Sea countries?

“We are now wiser about how to increase our preparedness for major
spills of oil or hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea. Based on the
BRISK recommendations, plans for investments in response equipment
have been prepared. Additionally, a BRISK follow-up project has been
developed to implement some of these investments and we hope it will
be granted the necessary financing. And as single response ship can cost
as much as several million euros, we have to work in parallel to ensure
navigation safety.”

21
 RUSSIAN PARTICIPATION 
CRUCIAL BOTH FOR BRISK
AND RUSSIA
It has been of high importance for Russia to participate in the BRISK
project according to Mrs. Natalia Kutaeva from the State Marine Pollu-
tion Control, Salvage and Rescue Administration of the Russian Federa-
tion.

“It is crucial for Russia to be involved in BRISK via the BRISK-RU project
since the complex risk assessment of oil spills of the entire Baltic Sea —
not just its separate areas and based only on national interests — was
made for the first time ever.”

During the project, the agreements on international response operations

between the countries have been concluded and Kutaeva finds that the
agreements strengthen the preparedness to accidents in the Baltic Sea.

“The Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation and the Russian

Marine and River Fleet pay great attention towards preparedness and
response operations to accidents causing seawater pollution, and to the
implementation of a consistent and comprehensive policy on strength-
ening response capacity to accidents. HELCOM member countries carry
out the same policy on national levels. The International Convention
on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990
(OPRC 90) appealed to the Contracting Parties to sign bilateral
agreements on response operations. It would be right to say that
BRISK contributed to and facilitated the preparation and sign-
ing of these agreements, which will allow discussions on acute
questions related to response preparedness to oil spills during
the annual meetings of national competent authorities, as well
as practising skills and joint response operations during training
exercises on an annual basis,” says Kutaeva.

22
Initially the project involved only the EU countries, but facilitated by the
Information office of the Nordic Council of Ministers in Kaliningrad, Rus-
sia had the opportunity to join the project via BRISK-RU, financed by the
Nordic Council of Ministers Aquatic Ecosystems working group.

Russia’s participation has been significant to the project in order to be

able to collect comprehensive information on traffic, environmental
sensitivity and environmental damage covering the entire maritime area
of the Baltic Sea.

“Without information from all the coastal countries around the Baltic
Sea, we could not have made this unique database which describes
the environmental sensitivity in the entire sea area,” says Arne Grove,
Director of the Information office of the Nordic Council of Ministers in
Kaliningrad.

“Like all the other partners, Russia is able to influence the outcome of
the work being done. If there are specific areas Russia wants to particu-
larly focus on, it is now possible to have an impact they would not have
had without participating in the project,” underlines Grove.

23
 MANAGING A CHALLENGE
The Admiral Danish Fleet HQ (ADF) has been the Lead Partner in the
BRISK Project.

Because of the Danish Fleet’s experience in management from a similar

risk analysis project for the Danish Waters in 2008, the HELCOM Re-
sponse Group asked them to take the lead in the BRISK Project.

Mr. Peter Søberg Poulsen was appointed overall Project Manager of the
BRISK project. His main role was to carry out the administrative pro-
cesses of a major project and thereby facilitate its progress. Furthermore,
all participating parties had to agree on the same methodology for the
assessment of risk and environmental damage.

“Apart from being a technically innovative project, the diplomatic aspects

of so many countries working so closely together was a great challenge,”
he says.

According to Mr. Poulsen, all the countries around the Baltic Sea get
a common picture of the risk and hence common ground for mutual dia-
logue about the risk of spills and what can be done about it.

“All countries can now see how the risk is distributed in their sub-region
compared to other sub-regions,” he explains and continues:

“Important results are the ranking of a long list of options for improve-
ment with respect to how much the options help reduce the risk and
what they cost. For this reason, BRISK provides a qualified and highly
necessary basis for decision making when the future preparedness in
each sub-region and each country has to be developed.”

In what way does BRISK promote the future cooperation between the
Baltic Sea countries?

“It highlights the paramount necessity for cooperation within prepared-

ness and response to medium and major events.”

“The Russian experts have influenced the method and the analysis to
a high degree. After having agreed on a common developed approach
and consequent results, Russia — as the largest stakeholder — has given
much substance and international acceptability to the project and its
results,” states Poulsen.

24
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
For the time being, coordinated investment plans are under consider-
ation by the sub-regions aimed at the improvement of response capaci-
ties. These activities include tests for using new technology for reducing
the risks of accidents as well as improving the capacity for recovering oil
in the event of a spill.

In addition to optimizing oil spill response preparedness, the BRISK and

BRISK-RU projects have investigated a number of navigation aid scenari-
os. This additional analysis serves to open up a more general perspective
on how the risk of a spill could be reduced.

It should be emphasized that the expected effect of the respective

navigational aids is based on a number of assumptions in order to make
direct comparison between the different optional scenarios possible. Any
decision on specific measures should, however, be based on specific and
more detailed analyses.

The Baltic-wide and sub-regional conclusions and recommendations will

be further discussed and considered by the competent authorities in all
Baltic Sea countries within the HELCOM Response Group. The aim is to
form a basis for future work on investment plans for the needed im-
provements in response capacities in the Baltic Sea region, according to
the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan.

The programmes will prepare the ground for

investments in emergency and response
resources in order to ensure timely and well
organized emergency response and, if
needed, respond to pollution incidents
to minimize the environmental damage
they cause.

25
Risks of oil and chemical pollution in the Baltic Sea.
Results and recommendations from the HELCOM's
BRISK and BRISK-RU projects

© Information office of the Nordic Council of Ministers

in Kaliningrad, 2013

ISBN: 978-5-903496-04-4

Editors: Julie Ring-Hansen Holt, Christina Parkhomenko,

Hermanni Backer, Johanna Laurila, Laura Meski
Design: Pictorica, www.pictorica.ru
Cover photo: Kris Krüg
Photos: Silje Bergum Kinsten, Johannes Jansson, Karin
Beate Nøsterud (norden.org); Artem Zaytsev

Brochure is prepared for publishing by

Christina Parkhomenko, Alexander Korzhonok
Brochure is financed by the Information office of the
Nordic Council of Ministers in Kaliningrad

This publication can be downloaded from

www.norden39.ru, www.helcom.fi, www.brisk.helcom.fi

Information office of the Nordic Council

of Ministers in Kaliningrad
Chernyakhovskogo Str., 6, office 116
236040 Kaliningrad, Russia
Tel.: +7 (4012) 616972
Fax: +7 (4012) 616973
www.norden39.ru
ISBN 978-5-903920-13-6