2015:23. ZVT. Anita Mäkinen, the Finnish Transport Safety Agency. GotMoS.

Listen to the interview with Anita Mäkinen, the Finnish Transport Safety Agency or read the transcript below. . – Anita Mäkinen, thank you for participating at this Motorways of the Sea conference. Can you please introduce yourself? . – I’m Anita Mäkinen, coming from the Finnish Transport Safety Agency where I’m acting as a chief advisor to the Director General of the maritime sector. I’m dealing with shipping, attending IMO meetings, EU meetings and HELCOM maritime meetings in the field of shipping. . – Thank you. Please give a short resume from your held presentation. . – In my presentation, I was telling about the need to establish this new form of, this new collaboration platform called Green Technology and Alternative Fuels. First, what was the need to establish that, then what other at present and what will be the future of this initiative. And so I described what was the need; it was all those new and future regulations we have on ship air emissions, for example Marpol Annex VI, and regionally the Sulphur Directive, we have EDI, we have SEMP, we have NECA discussions here in the region if we should submit a Baltic NECA application to the IMO, and we are also at global level we are discussing about the new climate change convention. And, additionally we have also this EU infrastructure or the new EU directive on infrastructure for alternative fuels. So that was the need. And in shipments we have established this new platform already in 2014, and also developed a road map for its activities and now at this point, we are well, actually already last year HELCOM Maritime Group established a new subgroup to work on this issue, so now this platform is formalized. And for the future, now in the next maritime meeting that will take place in a couple of weeks in Klaipėda, the Maritime 15 meeting is invited to first of all to make a decision what the next steps will be and if there’s a need for face to face meetings, and also to nominate members to this new subgroup, both from public and private sectors. . – Thank you. What is the most important issue to solve in the Baltic Sea perspective? . – You mean concerning shipping? . – Yes. . – At the moment, I think it is to harmonize the implementation of different regulations, either coming from global level, from EU or HELCOM level; either global or regional levels. What I can see in those discussions I have been involved with, the problem is that in some, well, the implementation is not harmonized, and this makes it difficult for example for ship owners to know what is allowed in country A in the Baltic Sea area, what’s allowed in member states B and so on. And for example, I can give you an example, for example the use of scrubbers; if that is allowed in all Baltic Sea countries. Some, to my understanding, some Member States they have denied the use of scrubbers in their territorial waters, and I can understand that this can be very harmful for and difficult to understand for ship owners at this point when we are enforcing the MARPOL Annex VI and also the Sulphur Directive. . – Yes, of course. To learn from other transport modes, what do you think is the primary issue, if any, that shipping as a transport mode should look further into? . – I have been dealing with aviation for the region, aviation and shipping, they are related at a global level, but I have also partly been working with the road traffic and it’s difficult to compare all the modes of traffic, for the reason that road traffic is the mostly regulated at EU level, without any global interactions, or how to put it. So, I think shipping should look more closely what is happening, – well it depends which level we are now talking about – if we are talking about global level then shipping and IMO should look carefully at what’s happening at ECA, because next year when ECA will have an assembly, they should be ready to have binding regulations for aviation and how to cut CO2 emissions, and we are only on the way to get there. But then if we compare shipping to road traffic, I think – or I’m afraid – that shipping is much, it’s not that, it is much behind, the progress in road traffic if you consider for example air emissions, especially sulphur. You know that, if you are a car owner, you know that it has been long, the gasoline has been almost sulphur free for very many years, and this is not the case with shipping. And that concerns also nitrogen emissions. So, we have much to learn I mean in the field of sustainable shipping, we have much to learn from road traffic, and the progress they have made in the history, in the past. But I think we should also look carefully at what is happening in aviation, and if I say some words from the Finnish perspective, I think we should especially have a look at the alternative fuels, bio kerosene and its availability in the area, because just now, OK, we have LNG and I’m a big lover of LNG and its implementation, but I think we should also perhaps consider other alternatives like methanol that you have been focusing here in Sweden but also on bio fuels. . – Interesting! . – Yeah, but that is what’s going on and what I’m seeing, and that’s why it’s quite, how to put it, challenging for example to discuss these sulphur issues and nitrogen issues back at home with those people who are dealing with road traffic, because they are so much more progressed than we are in the shipping field. We know that this is causing us, in normal costs, but anyhow we have done that for other modes of traffic. One colleague of mine, he keeps telling me a story that when the first discussions started if we should have a catalysator on your car people said that they will be so expensive that any of us will not have the money to buy a new car, but nowadays who’s asking if the car has a catalysator or not. . – That’s true. . – Yeah. But so, this is how, well, things are developing but it takes time and it takes, it’s different how much time is needed for different modes, it seems to be different. . – Mm, and investments. . – Exactly, investments as well. But if you consider that all ordinary people they have accepted finally well, I mean accepted well, all the costs they need to use sulphur free gasoline and their car is equipped with a catalysator. . – Yes, it’s in their everyday life. . – Exactly, so perhaps in the future that will be the case also with shipping. . – Let’s hope so. . – Yes. . – A year from now, what do you think will be the main topic that will be discussed within the shipping industry with roots inside ECA? . – Well, in the Baltic Sea area, under the HELCOM umbrella, we have been discussing for years now if we should submit an ECA application to IMO, and during these discussions, very many countries, HELCOM member states, they have said or emphasized the need that the North Sea countries should submit the North Sea NECA application at the same time to the IMO, so that they can be discussed and negotiated at the same time, especially for the reason that if we here in the Baltic Sea area will submit the application and the North Sea will not, so due to prevailing directions of winds we will get a lot of NOx emissions from the North Sea side. At this point where we have come now is that all the North Sea countries, they are ready to submit the NECA application to IMO. And in the next HELCOM Maritime Meeting in the end of November this year, we will discuss the road map to do or submit these NECA applications from these two areas parallely to IMO. This road map has been compiled by the North Sea countries, and Denmark on behalf of the North Sea countries has submitted, they’re in. So, I think because now we have started discussions in, we will start again the discussions in the Baltic Sea area, but the final, or well it depends how the outcome of these discussions will be, if we will submit the Baltic Sea NECA application to IMO already next year, not in the spring session but to the autumn session. And I think we will, submit it or not, this will be, how to put it, the main topic that will be discussed in the area. . – Thank you!