Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission
Procedures for granting
Photo: Henry Söderman/SYKE
Permits for monitoring and
research activities
in the Baltic
Full Title: Report compiled by: Funded by: For bibliographic purposes this document should be cited as: Report on Procedures for Granting Permits for Monitoring and Research Activities in the Baltic Baltic Sea Pilot Project (BALSAM), Work Package 5 European Commission DG Environment and project partners HELCOM (2015), BALSAM Project 2013‐2015: Report on Procedures for Granting Permits for Monitoring and Research Activities in the Baltic. Authors: Aiste Kubiliute, Urmas Lips Editors: Johanna Karhu Cover photo: Henry Söderman, SYKE Layout: Johanna Laurila, HELCOM This report does not necessarily represent the views of HELCOM. HELCOM does not assume responsibility for the content of the report. Information included in this publication or extracts thereof are free for citation on the condition that the complete reference of the publication is given as stated above. Report on procedures for granting permits for monitoring and research activities in the Baltic “MSR activities legal regulation in the Baltic Sea, analysis of received replies of the questionnaire on regulation of MSR activities, permit application practices” by: Aiste Kubiliute, Urmas Lips A Questionnaire for the review of HELCOM Recommendation 12/1 Concerning procedures for granting permits for monitoring and research activities in the territorial waters and exclusive economic zones, fishing zones or continental shelves (Annex 5) was sent on 24 March 2014 to HELCOM MONAS and BALSAM contacts with the request to fill in or forward the questionnaire to the competent national authorities (e.g. Ministry of the Environment or Foreign Affairs), who could provide the necessary information. This information was being collected within the framework of the HELCOM BALSAM project work package 5, which aims to optimize the international use of research vessels in the Baltic Sea and update the scheme for enhanced cooperation streamlining the administrative issues related to international monitoring cruises or research activities. The answers were received from 5 countries: Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden, Poland, and Finland. Answers are provided in Annex 6 of this report. Uniqueness of the Baltic Sea in the international maritime law The Baltic Sea according to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS) IX part is attributed to "enclosed or semi‐enclosed seas" concept. This term means a sea surrounded by States and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrow outlet or consisting entirely or primarily of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of coastal States. Maritime boundaries among Baltic coastal states are settled to the degree, which is not easy to find in another region of the world. Effective conduct of marine scientific research (MSR) in a narrow and semi‐enclosed sea such as the Baltic Sea depends vitally on clarity as to the jurisdictional zone where MSR activities are to be carried out. The key issue is whether MSR is to be executed in the territorial sea, in the EEZ, in the fishery zone or on the continental shelf of a particular Baltic Sea State as the special legal and administrative regime for MSR depends on the particular maritime zone. MSR within the 12 nm territorial sea is totally at the discretion of the coastal State (LOS Art. 245) as an expression of its full sovereignity. The coastal State is free to authorize, to prohibit or to impose conditions on any MSR activity, whether by its own nationals or by other states. In 1 the Baltic Sea the combined territorial seas of all states represent an estimated 15‐20% of the total sea space which illustrates dramatically the scientific interest in this part of the Baltic Sea. Here, it depends on the coastal state whether a request for consent for MSR will be granted1. The EEZs is extending beyond the territorial sea up to the median line or to a bilaterally agreed boundary as the case may be. The basic consent rule is contained in LOS Art. 246 (1) and (2) as "the right to regulate, authorize and conduct MSR" which shall be "conducted with the consent of the coastal State". Since the Baltic Sea is fairly small and enclosed sea, especially in terms of the width of the Baltic Sea coastal States do not have the maximum allowed (200 nm) width of the EEZ as well as the width of the continental shelf. It should be mentioned that no High Seas are present in the Baltic Sea, where States can enjoy freedom of MSR (Annex 1). This means that in each case the coastal State or an international organization which intends to carry out research in jurisdiction zone of another country needs consent of the coastal State. LOS promotes and facilitates States, especially of "enclosed or semi‐enclosed seas" and competent international organizations in creating favourable conditions for the conduct of MSR development and cooperating through bilateral and multilateral agreements or regional authority (in this case HELCOM) to study the essence of phenomena and processes occurring in the marine environment and the interrelations between them2. Baltic Sea States are interested to cooperate and exchage information within international programmes or projects. It was realised that efforts to harmonize and simplify procedures are needed to get permission to carry out MSR activities in jurisdiction zones of other States, so that implementation of projects and programmes would be more effective3. Helsinki Commission, Baltic Sea Environmental Monitoring Programme and relevant recommendations Marine environmental monitoring is very important and has long traditions in the Baltic Sea. It is long‐term regional program involving all Baltic countries and motivating co‐operation, exchange of data and assessment of the status. Marine environmental programme (list of indicators/parameters, sampling sites, sampling methods, ensurance of data quality) as a whole environmental strategy has been coordinated within marine regions. For the Baltic Sea Region HELCOM ensures coordinated Baltic Sea Environmental Monitoring implementation. Open sea monitoring is conducted since 1979, based on which, HELCOM develops recommendations and guidelines in order to promote the Baltic Sea countries to better ensure the protection of the marine environment. Baltic Sea countries were invited to participate in these programs. For this purpose HELCOM adopted a Recommendation 9/7 „Recommandation Concerning the 1
Jenisch, U. Jurisdictional aspects of marine scientific research in the Baltic Sea. 10 Int'l J. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 106. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995, p. 107‐108. <http://home.heinonline.org/>. 2
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf 3
HELCOM, Progress of BALSAM Project. Helsinki: HELCOM GEAR 6/2014, doc. 3/3, p. 3. 2 Guidelines for the Baltic Monitoring Programme“ in 1988, which encouraged countries to implement monitoring program according to HELCOM Guidelines and invited to submit their data. In 1992 the monitoring program was complemented with coastal monitoring and in 1998 a new HELCOM Recommendation 19/3 concerning „The Manual for the Marine Monitoring in the COMBINE Programme of HELCOM“ according to which the Baltic countries reviewed their national programs and annually provided hydrographic, chemical, biological and hazardous substances data. In 2005, new additional Recommendation 26/3 „Monitoring of Radioactive Substances“ was adopted, which encouraged States to carry out the monitoring of radioactive substances. Since 1989 Recommendation 10/1 „Abnormal Situations in the Marine Environment“ is valid, by which the States were recommended to use early warning systems for unusual situations to intensify research to improve knowledge on algal blooms and report on their national action taken in accordance with this Recommendation to the meetings of the Committees. The main form of implementation of environmental monitoring is the measurements and sampling at monitoring sites by research vessels with appropriate sampling/measurement equipment and laboratories. Often during conduct of the monitoring and other kind of research it is necessary to enter the waters under the other country's jurisdiction. These activities are mainly related to: 1. monitoring activities according to the monitoring programs in the Baltic Sea. E.g. Finnish Environment Institute a state‐of‐the‐art research vessel "Aranda" performs various kinds of thematic cruises across the Baltic Sea or its sub‐region4; 2. monitoring and scientific research within international research projects; 3. monitoring or other research conducting international economic activities (transboundary environmental impact assessment) (e.g., The Nord Stream gas pipeline); 4. international comparative studies to compare the sampling methods and laboratory analyses (intercalibration); 5. cross‐border pollution accident emergency / rescue, etc. All Baltic Sea countries developed their own national rules and regulations for the administration of MSR projects in the years after the end of the LOS negotiations in 1982. HELCOM tried to harmonize and simplify procedures among countries. Firstly, in the Guidelines for the Third Stage of the Baltic Monitoring Programme (1988) the conditions that were required for carrying out scientific research in the fishing/economic zone (for programmes adopted by HELCOM) and a notification template for proposed 4
The Baltic Sea Portal. Aranda cruises. Finland: SYKE Marine Research Center [watched: 2014‐02‐07]. <http://www.itameriportaali.fi/en/aranda/aranda_matkat/en_GB/2013/>. 3 research cruises were provided. In 1991 HELCOM adopted Recommendation 12/1 " Procedures for Granting Permits for Monitoring and Research Activities in the Territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones, Fishing zones or Cntinental Shelves“. By this Recommendation the Contracting Parties were urged to grant one year permits for planned research activities in EEZs, fishing zones or continental shelves, in the framework of the BMP, during which period the coastal State is only to be notified in advance for each individual cruise. It also urged the Contracting Parties to ensure that without unnecessary delay the permits for research activities in connection with the BMP and for joint scientific studies of common interest are granted, and urged to submit information on their efforts made in this respect. This recommendation was aimed, in particular, to improve the conditions for the implementation of the HELCOM monitoring programs. According to HELCOM „Draft Report on Implementation of HELCOM Recommendation in the Field of HELCOM MONAS in 1999‐2001“ (2003) very seldom applications for one‐year permit were received. It was stated in the report that one‐year permits would facilitate the administration and therefore it was encouraged for wider use of this possibility. Also it was assessed that only in a few cases applications to carry out research/monitoring in the territorial sea or in EEZ/Fishery Zone were not granted. Estonia in 2001 refused to grant a permit because of late submission of the application. Finland had some difficulties with applications (to Russian Federation) for research despite bilaterial discussions. The planned cruises by FIMR/Aranda to carry out the HELCOM benthic monitoring had to be cancelled due to the fact that no permission to take bottom samples was issued. Also the planned two research cruises in 2000 aiming to study the role of internal nutrient loading in the Gulf of Finland using the Finnish R/V Muikku have been performed only partly due to partial acceptance of the applications for the cruises by the Russian Federation5. In 2003 countries agreed on Report format for submitting information on how the Recommendation 12/1 is implemented6, but information was submitted very scarsely. Since then, supervision of the Recommendation has been limited to submission of information to the MONAS group in case of abnormalities by Contracting Parties. Mainly such information about difficulties in getting the permits was shared by Finland. In 2013 the HELCOM MONAS meeting took note of an abnormality reported by Finland. During 2011‐2012 after applying for annual permits for R/V Aranda for COMBINE and research cruises, Finland received only permits for restricted time periods from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Denmark. This created some difficulties due to the lack of flexibility in planning and implementing the cruise programme. Often because of adverse weather conditions or other important reasons it was necessary to cancel or postpone the monitoring activities 7. 5
HELCOM, Implementation of HELCOM Recommendations in the field of HELCOM MONAS. Helsinki: HELCOM MONAS 5/2003, doc. 4/1, p. 9‐10. 6
HELCOM, Matters connected with HELCOM Recommendation under HELCOM MONAS. Helsinki: HELCOM MONAS 6/2003, doc. 4/1, p. 1‐3. 7
HELCOM, Minutes of HELCOM MONAS, doc. 19/2013, p. 22. 4 In 2010, the Environment Ministers of the Baltic Sea countries in Moscow signed the Declaration, where it was agreed that HELCOM will function as a coordinating platform for the implementation of strategic documents, HELCOM policy and EU Directives. It was considered that "joint monitoring program“ is essential and decided to review HELCOM Monitoring program to meet the new challenges arising from the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, the EU Directives (EU WFD, Nitrates Directive, the Habitats Directive, the Hazardous Substances Directive, MSFD, etc.) to achieve good environmental status by 2020. This leads to the need of new data (e.g., underwater noise, debris impacts on the marine environment, hazardous substances, invasive species surveys, seabed and habitat integrity surveys, etc.) and use of new research technologies (remote sensing methods, remotely/automatically controlled equipment, new ships opportunities) and cooperation among countries. For testing of more sophisticated and new research technologies, it is important to follow the principle of cost‐efficiency, to carry out the research and assessments and also meet the growing demand for data in the most economic and efficient way. It is aimed to enhance and provide recommendations for cost‐effective and coordinated use of research vessels in the Baltic Sea8. In 2013 it was agreed to ensure better implementation by reviewing and updating of the Recommendation 12/1 taking into account information of Baltic Sea countries and looking for ways how to enhance easier access to foreign research ships (facilitate access to foreign countries). Countries were encouraged to inform HELCOM on difficulties in getting permits to carry out research activities in jurisdiction zone of other Baltic Sea countries9. Marine Scientific Research regulation in Baltic States The implementation of MSR consists of separate phases (Fig. 1), each of which is described in detail below with specific examples from the Baltic experience. Analysis is mainly based on information provided by Baltic countries in questionnaires: 1) HELCOM BALSAM questionnaire „The practices of Baltic coastal States in the field of Marine Scientific Research in waters under suvereignty or jurisdiction of a State“ (2014) (Annex 5); and 2) IOC questionnaire „Practice of States in the Fields of Marine Scientific Research and Transfer of MarineTechnology (Q3) (2003). The questionnaire (2014, Annex 5) asked for information on the MSR national legislation or administrative procedures in the Baltic Sea countries, their requirements to foreign countries, which intend to carry out monitoring, and procedures after research activities. 8
HELCOM, Baltic Sea Pilot Project: Testing new concepts for integrated environmental monitoring of the Baltic Sea (BALSAM). Progress report of BALSAM Project. Helsinki: HELCOM GEAR, doc. 6/2014 Document 1‐2 Annotated Agenda, Agenda Item 3 Paragraph 2. http://helcom.fi/helcom‐at‐work/projects/balsam 9
HELCOM. Implementation of the MONAS work programme 2012‐2014. HELCOM MONAS 19/2013, doc.2/3, p. 5. 5 Fig 1. MSR implementation scheme Source: developed according to „A revised guide to the implementation of the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea“, United Nations, 2010 The MSR planning phase. At this stage, it is helpful to establish collaboration with coastal States and consult with their scientists who might be involved in the reseach project in particular informing them on the MSR aims and involving them in research. An advantage is when researching State more or less is familiar with exact requirements of coastal State well in advance10. Information provided in questionnaires showed that all Baltic Sea countries regulate international MSR implementation. Number of regulating acts exist in the Baltic countries (e.g. Finland, Sweden, Annex 6). Some countries have legislation exclusively for MSR regulation. Poland, since 1991, uses wide scope Act on Marine Zones of the Republic of Poland and Marine Administration, which determines MSR legal regime. Requirements for research related to the sea bottom are determined in the Geological and Mining Law Act. In Latvia, Law on the Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Latvia (1998), describes rights of foreign institutions, natural and 10
Marine Scientific Research. A revised guide to the implementation of the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. United Nations, 2010, p. 38 [watched 2013‐11‐25]. https://www.un.org/depts/los/doalos_publications/publicationstexts/msr_guide%202010_final.pdf 6 legal persons to carry out MSR in EEZ and the continental shelf in Latvia and determines conditions that need to be followed. Also since 2012, separate Cabinet Regulation on Special Permit granting for performance of MSR in the territorial Sea, the Continental Shelf and the EEZ of the Republic of Latvia for a Ship of Scientific Research of a Foreign State has been in force. In Estonia legal regime of EEZ, including the MSR, is determined in 1993 Economic Zones Act. In Lithuania one of the main pieces of legislation governing the issuance of permits to carry out research work in the sea area is the Regulation for providing licences (permits) for foreign legal and natural persons and other organisations to carry out scientific research in Lithuanian sea region approved by Minister of Environment and Minister of Foreign Affairs (2000). MSR regulation varies in different maritime zones, as well as the additional legislation in countries dedicated to sea floor activities (continental shelf research). Coastal States use their discretion (according to LOS Art.246(5)) to withheld consents submitted by researching States, which intend to conduct MSR project in EEZ or on the continental shelf of the coastal State. Therefore, before the start of the MSR activities it is particularly important to assess the specificity (type) of the planned research, since permit issuing procedures depend on that. Baltic Sea countries‘ experience shows that research related to the sea bottom can be interpreted quite differently. E.g. Estonia in 2007 refused to give consent to Nord Stream AG for conducting seabed surveys (geophysical and geotechnical research, visual surveys, sediment sampling in the economic zone) prior construction of the pipeline in the Gulf of Finland11. Afterwards discussions arosed if decision made by Estonian authorities followed LOS Convention (Art. 246(3)), which determines that coastal States shall, in normal circumstances, grant their consent for MSR projects by other States or competent international organizations in their EEZ or on their continental shelf and ensuring that such consent will not be delayed or denied unreasonably. Considering what is included in the normal circumstances, it should be noted that research activities must not be related to seismic and other explorations, should be carried out exclusively for peaceful purposes and in order to increase scientific knowledge of the marine environment for the benefit of all mankind, be conducted with appropriate scientific methods, take into account the protection of the marine environment and its conservation, do not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea12. 11
Refusal to give consent for conducting marine research. 2007 September 21 nr. 60, Unofficial translation. Tallinn [watched 2014‐02‐16]. <http://www.vm.ee/?q=en/node/4037>. 12
Lott, A. Marine Environmental Protection and Transboundary Pipeline Projects: A Case Study of the Nord Stream Pipeline. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law. Merkourios, vol. 27/Issue 73. 2011. P. 55‐67 [watched 2013‐02‐16]. <http://www.google.lt/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.u
trechtjournal.org%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2Fujiel.aq%2F17&ei=OexQU9iBFOrNygOYh4DADA&usg=AFQjCNEMPUcdi9
BZbhFUhm9amOsFNqNxbw&bvm=bv.65058239,d.bGQ>. 7 Firstly, determining the nature of the MSR it is necessary to follow the information in the application. An application submitted by Nord Stream AG to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Estonia on 31 May 2007 was related to geophysical and geotechnical research conduct in the EEZ of the Republic of Estonia. In the list of the research activities, there was mentioned cone penetration (penetration depth up to 5 m) and taking samples by using vibro and gravity cores. It was decided that such research encompasses drilling of continental shelf (LOS Art. 246 (5(b)) and „the research works will give information on the volume of the natural resources of the Republic of Estonia and on the possibilities of the use thereof“ therefore it was refused to give consent for the research13. Although the applicant in the letter of 4 September 2007 stated that the using of a vibro and gravity cores is not drilling and that the research works will not cover the collection of information on the volume of natural resources and on the possibilities of the use thereof. Therefore, according to the applicant, the research work related to the construction of the pipeline can be considered as the MSR, which would apply in relation to Article 246(3) that consent should be granted in normal circumstances and should not be delayed or denied unreasonably. However, it should be noted that a coastal State has the right to decide on the nature of the research (Estonia investigations as to have a direct interest in natural resource exploration and exploitation), but first of all decision should be based on facts stated in the aplication (Art. 248‐251). Thus, solutions in such or similar cases are the object for disputes. This example shows that it is important to define clearly criteria and guidelines to enable a correct and objective assessment of the research nature. During the early planning stages of MSR it is necessary to ensure, that no outstanding obligations exist from previous research projects conducted in the waters of the coastal State. Analyzing information of the answered questionnaires and documents of HELCOM related to implementation of the Recommendation 12/1, there were no cases when coastal State has rejected the request because of outstanding obligations. It is essential to know that the application procedure has to start in advance following the requirements of the coastal State, including deadline for application, its format and official submitting channels. A wide variety of advance notification and permission procedures among the Baltic Sea countries exists; it varies between 6 months as stated in LOS (Art. 248.) to one month, and in Lithuania such deadline is not defined at all (see. Table 1). If the application for research is submitted after the requested date (very late), the coastal State has right to refuse to grant a permit14. 13
supra note 11, p. HELCOM, Implementation of HELCOM Recommendations in the field of HELCOM MONAS. Helsinki: HELCOM MONAS 5/2003, doc. 4/1, p. 9‐10. 14
8 Table 1. Statistics of received requests by Baltic countries within the specified period Coastal Time limit for the Notification/request for No. of requests per No. of requests per State application1 a permission to be year in 1998‐2002 year in 2008‐2013 2
addressed to Received Confirmed, Received Confirmed, %
% Lithuania Non‐regulated Ministry of Foreign Affairs 7‐17 100 3 100 Estonia 6 months Ministry of Foreign Affairs 60‐70 98 Latvia 3 months Ministry of Foreign Affairs Poland 3 months Ministry of Foreign Affairs n.d.
n.d.
40
100 Sweden 6 weeks Swedish Coast Guard
300
98
120‐130 98 Finland 6 months Ministry of Employment and the Economy 20 100 2‐5 100 Denmark 30 days Ministry of Foreign Affairs 200 95 Germany 8 weeks Federal Maritime and Hydrograhic Agency 36
100
Russia 6 months Federal Agency for Science and Innovations
106
83
1
Time limit for the application: The date when the actual research operation begins in waters under national jurisdiction. 2
Notification/request for a permission to be addressed to: 2 – application submitted through official channel (e.g., through embassy). n.d. – no data Source: based on answers submitted in the questionnaires (2004, 2014) In practice, there are many situations when coastal States, getting applications in due time, provide the answers too late, because of the prolonged procedures, and as a result the researching States are not able to conduct research activities, including monitoring works. Finland in 2006, intending to conduct 9 monitoring in the Baltic Sea by R/V"Aranda“, applied for a permit to the Russian Federation. The application with a request to arrive Russian waters on 10 January 2007 and stay there for 3 days was sent via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Russian Authorities well in advance (6.5 months). However, in December 2006 answer was received and no permission for R/V Aranda was granted and after repeated application of Finland it was agreed to give permission, but too late (after monitoring cruise). Finland invited to speed up the handling procedures of the permits in order to implement the joint monitoring programmes15. This shows that the administrative procedures upon the applicant's request require longer time, because various national institutions can be involved in decision making, depending on the object and nature of research Project16. Submitting the request for consent to carry out research. In order to get consent to perform research activities in a coastal State‘s jurisdiction zone, submission of application in standard form by the researching State through official channels to the coastal State authority by a certain deadline is required. Researching States (or competent international organisations) must submit the requests to coastal State through official channels (embassies) to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Lithuania, Latvia, Poland) or other authorities by defined period in advance (Table 1, Annex 6). In 2012 Sweden informed that due to shortages in research vessel availability, they had to organize monitoring cruises at short notice. As a result, Sweden had challenges in getting permission from some other Contracting Parties to make measurements in their waters. Some countries require three months to process a request, meaning that Sweden would not be able to sample in their waters. Sweden encouraged States to do their utmost to expedite the requests of Sweden to operate in their waters in order to maximize data delivery to COMBINE17. Whenever possible, requests should be submitted even before the requested deadline of coastal States, especially in cases where there is a high risk that the coastal State will request additional information or will need for longer administrative procedures. Therefore, the contact between the coastal State and researching State/scientists should be established in advance to ensure easier permit issue process. Coastal States, before their decision, request the competent national authorities for their position on the planned MSR. E.g., in Russia before permits to foreign applicants to conduct MSR are granted, endorsement of applications from Federal Agency for Science and Innovation, RF Ministry of Defense (General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation), Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB), Federal Agency for Subsoil Usage (Rosnedra), Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring 15
HELCOM, Information by Finland on conducting monitoring cruises. Helsinki: HELCOM 28/2007. doc. 8/1, p. 2. supra note 12, p. 107. 17
HELCOM, Minutes of HELCOM MONAS, doc. 16/2012, p. 17. 16
10 (Roshydromet), Federal Service for Technology and Export Control of Russia (FSTEC), State Fisheries Committee of Russia and Federal Customs Service of Russia (FCS) are needed. The plan of MSR shall be also agreed with the mentioned Federal Executive Authorities18. Several decision‐making institutions in coastal States may be involved, depending on the research object and nature. Requests related to living resources are treated by ministries supervising fish or other living resources, requests related to seabed surveys involve the Ministry of the Environment or its authorized institution, and other types of claims the ministry responsible for foreign affairs. The majority of applications each year are received by Sweden, Denmark, Russia and Estonia (Table 1). According to the latter countries, as well as Finland, Germany, Poland and Lithuania, most requests were related to fish resources, oceanographic and geological research. Environmental monitoring activities are intensively carried out in the Baltic Sea and a number of studies are a part of environmental or fish stocks monitoring. It seems that most research is of fundamental nature for which the consent should be given in normal circumstances (LOS Art. 246(3)(4)) and to ensure that such consent will not be subject to unreasonable delay or denial (LOS Art. 246(6)). Also, according to HELCOM Recommendation 12/1, the Baltic Sea countries are invited to submit applications to carry out monitoring work once a year. Submitting the request to coastal State to carry out MSR it is necessary to submit information about MSR. Information (LOS Art. 248) should be submitted in special uniform format „Format for Notification of Proposed Monitoring and Research Cruises“, which was accepted by HELCOM (Annex 4). Form consists of two parts A and B (20 questions). „A“ part relates to general information about particulars of ship, crew, owner, scientific personnel, geographical area in which ship will operate, dates of cruise, purpose of cruise etc., and „B“ part includes geographical research area, chart showing, sampling equipment, information about explosives, previous and future cruises, published research data related to the proposed cruise, names of scientists with whom previous contact has been made in coastal State. As researching State must ensure the fulfillment of obligations to the coastal State, in the application there are questions related to the coastal State possibilities to take part in research, to act as an observer or access the data. Moreover, there is the possibility of „tacit consent“ under Art. 252 that the MSR project may proceed six months after the application was made unless the coastal State has informed the researching State within four months that it does not grant consent. If the coastal state does not respond at all, consent may be presumed. Practice of researching States shows, however, that very little use has been made to date of this provision – probably for fear of the risks involved. However, from the Baltic countries only Estonia and Russia 18
Priamikov, S. Report on access issues in operating in the Arctic region – tariffs and supporting infrastructure requirements. European Research Icebreaker Consortium‐AURORA BOREALIS. Grant agreement no. 211796, Project report Deliverable 3.3. P. 4‐5. 11 are envisaged this in their national legislation. But there was no information submitted regarding this in the questionnaires. Response of the coastal State. It is "standardized" response of coastal State to the request of researching State to perform MSR within coastal State‘s jurisdiction zone, after examining provided information about the MSR project. The researching State is informed also about conditions that are necessary to follow during conduct of MSR, any other relevant information or requests for additional information on the investigation, or it is informed that coastal State is not willing to give consent for MSR. Coastal State after getting a request provide official (express) consent (Art. 246(2), and some countries practise implicit (implied) consent (Art. 252) opportunity. Based on information provided by Contracting Parties in the questionnaires, almost all applications were approved by coastal States (Table 1). Also, experience shows that the decisions are submitted on time, even before the start of the research, except in cases where there is bureaucracy and administrative procedures. Some countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Poland) in their national law defined period for providing answer (within 30 days). Based on the responses in questionnaire of Estonia (2014), the response to the researching State is provided from 2 weeks to 1.5 months depending on the nature and scope of the investigation. Swedish representative in the 2014 questionnaire suggested that, besides HELCOM Recommendation 12/1, the HELCOM partners could take action to ensure that the application assessment procedure within the HELCOM area under no circumstance would exceed 8 weeks, beginning from the reception of a complete application. The current situation puts any MSR actor in difficult planning conditions regarding especially differently applied application assessment terms. As an illustration, some assessment terms may comprehend as long time as 6 months before granting permission, compared with another, regarding the very same MSR, as this may be limited to only 6 days. Suggestion is that there seems to be good possibilities to achieve a welcomed shortening of the application assessment term. Eight weeks could enhance, improve and facilitate undertaking of MSR, for the benefit of science and humanity. Nowadays, coastal States decide if their consent should be granted for MSR projects in normal circumstances19. In five situations the coastal State was entitled to withhold its consent (Art. 246(5)). The decisions refer to projects which are directly resource‐oriented, involve drilling or construction of artificial islands or to cases where applicant states present inaccurate information or has outstanding obligations from prior projects. It is recommended to specify all arguments based on which coastal State refused to grant the permit so that reseaching States could „learn“ and avoid similar situations in the future20. Baltic Sea countries 19
20
supra note 10, p. 41. supra note 10, p. 29‐30. 12 in their national laws use the same criteria as set out in the Convention (including the late delivery of the request), when it has the right to refuse to issue a permit. Conduct of MSR. MSR conduct is research activities after getting an official consent (express or implied) from the coastal State following conditions and obligations determined by the coastal State and ensuring implementation of the obligations of the coastal State. MSR start and end date are usually referred in the permit of the coastal State. Foreign States or an international organization engaged in MSR in jurisdiction zone of the coastal State must ensure the rights of a coastal State, if it so desires, to participate or to be represented by MSR project (249(1(a)). Researching State usually has to take care of the right of coastal State to participate in research project ensuring compensation of accommodation costs. However, in some cases the costs can be very large, especially if the research vessel is likely to carry out the research work away from the shore of a coastal State or port, which greatly complicates the acceptance of the country's representative to be onboard, or if the coastal State notifies about the attendance of a representative too late, when there is no possibility for allocating additional funds21. Based on information provided in questionnaires (2003, 2014) by 6 States half of them (Russia, Denmark, Poland) sent observers to foreign research vessels in order to ensure that investigations are conducted in accordance with the information specified in the permit (Russia), to provide a report on the research activities carried out (Russia, Denmark), to communicate between the research vessel and its national governments (Russia, Denmark), to improve qualifications or practice in certain fields of study (Denmark) (Table 2). In Denmark, if MSR is carried out within the limits of three nm (~ 5,6 km), participation of a Danish observer shall be ordered as obligatory. An applying institution should state the name, the occupation and the contact details of the observer in paragraph nine of part “B” of the notification22. Russia and Denmark also sent observers to represent their country's government. Poland is also sending observers to the research vessels. Finland and Denmark accept the representatives of foreign countries in their research vessels. 21
22
supra note 10, p. 30. supra note 10, p. 6. 13 Table 2. Coastal state representative (or observer) participation in MSR carried out by foreign States (249 1 (a), Art.) Coastal State Do the observer(s) What are the Has your country Has/have the foreign states represent your functions/assignments already sent delegates took government on of the observers on scientists as part in your board foreign board? 1 observers on‐board in research vessel(s) research vessel? foreign research of your country? vessels conducted in the waters under your national jurisdiction? Lithuania No No
No
2 Rusia Yes No Yes 1;2;3; Finland No Yes Sweden No No
Denmark Yes Yes Yes 2;3;4 Poland Yes n.d.
No
n.d. 1
What kind of duties of observer in research vessel?: 1‐ To ensure that research is carried out according to conditions in the permit; 2‐to submit report about reserach activities; 3‐mediate between the research ship and his Government; 4‐improve qualification; n.d. – no data. Source: based on answers of Baltic Sea countries in the questionnaires (2003, 2014). States and competent international organizations when undertaking MSR in the EEZ or on the continental shelf of a coastal State shall inform the coastal State immediately of any major change in the research programme (LOS Art. 249 (1(f)) otherwise coastal State has a right to suspend or cessate the project. There was no such case in Baltic countries (Table 3). But still there are cases where vessels operate under the jurisdiction of another country without the permission of the coastal State. For example., in 2005, allegedly illegal research (without Estonia’s prior authorisation) in Estonia’s EEZ was carried out by Russian ship „Pjotr Kotsov“. It was found by the Estonian Coast Guard. Russian officials argued that as the research was conducted outside the territorial waters of Estonia it did not call for any authorisation as, the general right to conduct MSR is provided in LOS (Art. 238). This right is further confirmed in Art. 242 which calls for international co‐operation for peaceful purposes in this field, additionally, provides that States shall offer to other States a reasonable opportunity to obtain information which is necessary to prevent and control damage to the health and safety of persons and marine environment. However, Coastal States, in the exercise 14 of their jurisdiction, have the right to regulate MSR in their EEZ and on their continental shelf and is conducted with the consent of the coastal State (Art. 246). The Russian authorities’ contention that the research activities in the Estonian EEZ were lawful as the vessels were situated outside the territorial sea of Estonia is in that regard not grounded23. Research activities were suspended. Table 3. Implementation status of coastal State‘s right, related to access to the research data and samples, and right for suspension or cessation of the MSR Project State Does your country Does your country If your country performs Has your country ever require that required require that research, does it publish researchers researchers provide and disseminate at the suspension/cessation of provide the MSR project conducted and or assist the national, relevant in relevant subregional/regional and authorities with waters under your authorities with an international levels the copies assessment of research results and / or national jurisdiction for of data and non‐compliance with research results conclusions samples (Article (Article 249 (1d)? Article 248 and 249 of the research project 249 (1c)? (Articles 249 (le)? of UNCLOS? Lithuani
a Estonia Russia Finland No Yes n.d. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes n.d. No changes in cruise route due to military trainings
No No Sweden Yes Yes Yes Denmar
Yes No Yes k German
CSR1 CSR1
No comon rule2
No y Poland Yes Yes Yes n.d. 1
CSR ‐ States use cruise reports available in SeaDataNet (Cruise Summary Report Inventory (CSR); No common rule2 – up to researchning state decision. n.d. – no data Source: Questionnaires (2003, 2014). End of MSR. End of MSR is linked to the obligation of coastal State to collect and store received results properly. Coastal states ussualy exercise their right to request data, samples, reports (Table 3). 23
supra note 12, p. 59. 15 Deadlines for submission of such results to coastal States are provided in consents given to researching States. MSR and their regulation importance in European Union European Research Area has become an important characteristic of European research policy24. EU Member States allocate about 1.85 billion Euro for MSR. About half of this cost is for the improvement of the monitoring infrastructure. This includes ships, underwater observatories, buoys, drifting devices, remote control or autonomous underwater vehicles equipped with a variety of sensors and provide analytical capabilities. The annual EU contribution to the activities related to the marine and maritime research and carried out under the 7th Framework Programme amounted to 350 million Euro. Of this amount 25‐30 million per year were used on marine research infrastructure and maritime surveillance technology research (maritime surveillance sensors and systems25. MSR is also included in the 8th EU Research Framework Programme (Horizon 2020). MSR is promoted by integrated and education supporting maritime policy: The Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Biodiversity Strategy, Water Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive, the Common Fisheries Policy. These programs, initiatives and legislation demonstrate the willingness of the EU to promote knowledge about the marine environment for the knowledge collection about environment26. In addition, Member States communicate concerning the environmental indicators with the regional seas conventions (North Atlantic Marine Environment Protection Convention (OSPAR), the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Convention (Helsinki Convention), Barcelona and Bucharest environmental conventions). According to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Member States are legally obliged to the Commission and the European Environment Agency to submit data, which are based on the original estimates and are obtained from the monitoring programs27. There is a need for simplified procedures, especially the consent‐procedures in EC (since 1989) as well28. EU needs to streamline current procedures governing ship‐based MSR. Unifying and simplifying 24
European Commission, Green paper „The European Research Area. New Perspectives“, 2007 // http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/era‐greenpaper_en.pdf 25
European Commission, Green paper „Marine Knowledge 2020, from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting“, COM(2012) 473 final // http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/publications/documents/marine‐
knowledge‐2020‐green‐paper_en.pdf , p. 15. [watched 2014‐10‐06]. 26
Gragl, P. Marine Scientific Research. IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law, Vol.1. The Law of the Sea. Oxford University Press, 2014, p. 37 <https://www.academia.edu/6290024/Marine_Scientific_Research> 27
supra note 26, p. 15. 28
Jenisch, U., supra note 1, p. 106–113. 16 administrative MSR procedures would be beneficial for the EU to shorten the planning MSR research vessels. This is particularly useful for institutions that have tight deadlines and work under adverse environmental conditions29. EU‐level discussion about what steps should be taken: 1) how and when scientists are required to submit a research cruise application, the information to be provided by the applicant to the coastal State, as well as the information to be provided to neighbouring land‐locked States. There also appears to be a strong case for standardising the designated channels for the submission of such applications. On this particular issue, it is questionable whether it is really necessary to work through the designated diplomatic channels, as is currently the procedure in the majority of Member States, as this normally entails communication by means of the diplomatic mission of the researching State to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the coastal State. Surely consideration ought to be given to allowing the researching institutions to communicate directly with a designated authority in the coastal Member State such as an “MSR Clearance Office”, which is officially established and resourced for this purpose. This in itself would expedite the application process from the excessive limit of 6 months which is set down by LOS to perhaps a more realistic period of 1 month for the processing an application if it is received electronically. Obviously this process could be speeded up further if there is agreement to use a standard EU form modelled on the ICES Standard Form or the UN Draft Standard Form A. As a minimum, the onus should be on the applicant to provide information, which fulfils the requirements set down in LOS Art. 248 and address matters such as: the objectives of the project; the name and details of the vessel and the scientific equipment embarked; the geographical coordinates of the project and the estimated times of arrival and departure of the vessel from sea areas under coastal State jurisdiction etc. The request for consent should be submitted in the working language of the coastal Member State where the project is going to take place. As a matter of EU law, the “standard EU application form” will have to be made available in all 23 official languages of the Member States. 2) standardised procedure to issue permits for MSR of the coastal Member State designating central MSR Office as a “one‐stop shop” in the coastal Member State for the processing of applications and to ensure coordination at a national level. This office could be responsible for circulating the proposed application to national bodies such as the coastguard, government agencies and the appropriate ministries. Clearly, a Member State is required to grant consent for research projects in its EEZ or continental shelf unless the project comes within the four specified cases set out in LOS. It would appear logical if the designated 29
Long, R. Regulating Marine Scientific Research in the European Union: It Takes More Than Two Tango. The Law of the Sea Convention: US Accession and Globalization. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012, p. 469‐471. <http://www.liv.ac.uk/media/livacuk/odemm/docs/ODEMM,Deliverable,14A.pdf>. 17 clearance Office in the Member State monitors compliance by both governmental and nongovernmental research institutes with the obligations set down by LOS as subsequently implemented into EU law. The EU harmonisation measure should also prescribe an exhaustive list of conditions which may be imposed by the coastal State when granting consent similar to the list enumerated in Article 249 of the 1982 Convention. 3) needs to address the rights of research institutes (LOS Art. 254) in land‐locked Member States to participate in MSR projects could also be addressed in the harmonisation measures. 4) Although not specifically provided for in LOS, EU research vessels could be required to install and operate a vessel monitoring system with a view to facilitate monitoring compliance with the scheme of regulation set down by the EU harmonisation measure. Why do Member States need to harmonise national procedures? 1. Implementing international law. The simplification of current procedures and practices of the Member States in relation to MSR would accord with international legal obligations that arise for the EU and the Member States under the scheme set down in LOS, Part XIII and would promote and facilitate the work of international bodies such as the IOC and ICES, which are mandated to undertake scientific research at global, regional and sub‐regional levels. 2. Implementing the ecosystem approach included in the MSFD regionally during assessment of environmental status and planning measures for improving environmental quality. The successful implementation of the approach is utterly contingent upon having good quality scientific data regarding the functioning of marine ecosystems. Thus, the Directive requires a lot of data on marine environment. A unified authorization procedure for this process would improve significantly. 3. Implementing maritime spatial planning and and integrated coastal zone management (ICZM), which are heavily dependent on good quality scientific evidence and data. The evaluation of the practice in European level in the last 30 years has shown that there are long lasting and complex procedures to obtain permits for MSR execution of another country's waters. Although permits usually are issue, the national authorities and procedures do not facilitate national and EU obligations referred to in LOS30. 30
Long, R., supra note 29, p. 472‐488. 18 Conclusions It must be concluded that lack of harmonization in MSR legal regulation among Baltic Sea countries determines ineffective implementation of HELCOM Recommendation 12/1 and LOS Convention, and prevents the execution of such research to some extent in practice. 1. There are some drawbacks in MSR regulation. First of all, the fact that there is no clear fundamental and applied research distinction because of absence of common agreed criteria and guidelines to assist States in ascertaining the nature and implications of MSR. This leads to practical difficulties in regulating MSR whether the coastal State has to grant, in normal circumstances, its consent for MSR projects or coastal States may exercise its discretion to withheld consent regarding the nature and objectives of the research Project if they see direct significance for the exploration of natural resources. 2. LOS is the main international law in all the Baltic Sea countries, as a basis for MSR regulation. Recent changes in environmental protection in European Community and separate regional convention areas have determined higher demand on new data collection concerning marine environmental status. Additional shortcomings in MSR regulation have arose. One of them relates to the permits licensing procedure. LOS requires that applications with full description of the research project should be submitted at least six months in advance of the expected starting date of the research activities to the coastal state. It does not meet nowadays needs and expectations of the Baltic Sea countries, especially those actively involved in the collection of data in the frames of joint programmes (e.g. monitoring activities). Baltic countries’ experience shows that the requirements for the submission of applications varies from 6 months to 1 month. Too long process of granting permits significantly complicates the planning of research projects. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the possibility of shortening and unifying the terms for submitting the request. 3. The EEZ regime is the most challenging area, as it needs efforts to keep balance between the right of a coastal State to protect its interest in the EEZ and the needs of researching States to preserve conditions conducive to MSR. Coastal States have the right to regulate, authorize and conduct MSR, but this right is limited as they shall, in normal circumstances, grant their consent for MSR projects by other States or competent international organizations in their EEZ or on their continental shelf to be carried out exclusively for peaceful purposes, ensure that such consent will not be delayed or denied unreasonably. Disputes between coastal State and researching State concerning decision on MSR activities are actual because of lack of definitions and criteria to help distinguish between fundamental and environmental research for peaceful purposes and research of direct significance for the exploration and exploitation of natural resources. 19 4. The authorization procedure is the most important stage in the implementation of MSR. However this procedure due to bureaucracy and prolonged permit procedures, involving a number of institutions, lacks operativeness. Because of late permits, a number of planned research was not able to be implemented. EU considers the possibility about functioning of MSR Clearance Office in each EU State to work with applications to conduct MSR and authorization procedure and to shorten time period for application procedure from 6 months to 1 month. It is recommended to consider such possibility in the Baltic Sea countries. 5. Helsinki Commission was looking for possible ways to harmonize and simplify licensing procedures. As defined in HELCOM Recommendation 12/1, the Baltic Sea countries were urged to issue permits to carry out the monitoring work for one year, but failed to achieve good results. Baltic Sea countries, which issue permits following this Recommendation, refer to the strict dates for conduct of MSR activities/monitoring. Due to frequent adverse natural conditions and other unforeseen circumstances, it is recommended to follow the principle of flexibility and not limit the conduct of MSR activities on strict terms. LITERATURE 1.
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf. 2.
European Commission, Green paper „The European Research Area. New Perspectives“, 2007 // http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/era‐greenpaper_en.pdf 3.
European Commission, Green paper „Marine Knowledge 2020, from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting“, COM(2012) 473 final // http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/publications/documents/marine‐knowledge‐2020‐
green‐paper_en.pdf 4.
HELCOM, Implementation of HELCOM Recommendations in the field of HELCOM MONAS. Helsinki: HELCOM MONAS 5/2003, doc. 4/1. 5.
HELCOM, Matters connected with HELCOM Recommendation under HELCOM MONAS. Helsinki: HELCOM MONAS 6/2003, Doc. 4/1. 6.
HELCOM, Minutes of HELCOM MONAS, doc. 16/2012. 7.
HELCOM, Minutes of HELCOM MONAS, doc. 19/2013. 8.
HELCOM, Progress of BALSAM Project. Helsinki: HELCOM GEAR 6/2014, doc. 3/3. 9.
HELCOM, Baltic Sea Pilot Project: Testing new concepts for integrated environmental monitoring of the Baltic Sea (BALSAM). Progress report of BALSAM Project. Helsinki: HELCOM GEAR, doc. 6/2014 Document 1‐2 Annotated Agenda, Agenda Item 3 Paragraph 2. http://helcom.fi/helcom‐at‐work/projects/balsam 10.
HELCOM, UNCLOS overview. Helsinki: HELCOM Spatial WS 1/2009, doc. 2/8. 20 11.
HELCOM. Implementation of the MONAS work programme 2012‐2014. HELCOM MONAS 19/2013, doc. 2/3. 12.
HELCOM. Information by Finland on conducting monitoring cruises. Helsinki: HELCOM 28/2007. doc. 8/1. 13.
Gragl, P. Marine Scientific Research. IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law, Vol.1. The Law of the Sea. Oxford University Press, 2014. <https://www.academia.edu/6290024/Marine_Scientific_Research>. 14.
Jarmache E. Marine scientific research and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Troubled Waters. Ocean Science and Governance / ed. Holland G., Pugh D., Cambridge University Press, 2010. 15.
Jenisch, U. Jurisdictional aspects of marine scientific research in the Baltic Sea. 10 Int'l J. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 106. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995. <http://home.heinonline.org/>. 16.
Long, R. Regulating Marine Scientific Research in the European Union: It Takes More Than Two Tango. The Law of the Sea Convention: US Accession and Globalization. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012. <http://www.liv.ac.uk/media/livacuk/odemm/docs/ODEMM,Deliverable,14A.pdf>. 17.
Lott, A. Marine Environmental Protection and Transboundary Pipeline Projects: A Case Study of the Nord Stream Pipeline. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law. Merkourios, vol. 27/Issue 73. 2011. 18.
Marine Scientific Research. A revised guide to the implementation of the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. United Nations, 2010. <https://www.un.org/depts/los/doalos_publications/publicationstexts/msr_guide%202010_final.pdf >. 19.
Priamikov, S. Report on access issues in operating in the Arctic region – tariffs and supporting infrastructure requirements. European Research Icebreaker Consortium‐AURORA BOREALIS. Grant agreement no. 211796, Project report Deliverable 3.3. 20.
Refusal to give consent for conducting marine research. 2007 September 21 nr. 60, Unofficial translation. Tallinn. <http://www.vm.ee/?q=en/node/4037>. 21.
The Baltic Sea Portal. Aranda cruises. Finland: SYKE <http://www.itameriportaali.fi/en/aranda/aranda_matkat/en_GB/2013/>. 21 Marine Research Center. ANNEXES Annex 1. Maritime boundaries in international law31 and the Baltic Sea (HELCOM) 32 Territorial sea (line close to coast) and EEZ delineations in the Baltic Sea
Annex 2. Regulatory Authority33 Activity Territorial Sea EEZ/Continental Shelf MSR Coastal State Coastal State
Hydrographic survey Military survey Operational oceanography High Seas The Area
Straits/ASL Flag State Flag Strait State/ISBA State/Archipelagic State
Coastal State Flag State
Flag State Flag State Strait State/archipelagic State
Coastal State EEZ: Flag State; Flag State Flag State Flag State Shelf: coastal State Flag Flag State
State/Coastal State Flag State Flag State Flag State 31
Wikipedia, The free Encyclopedia // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters. Helsinki Commission, UNCLOS overview. Doc. 2/8, HELCOM SPATIAL WS 1/2009. p. 3 33
Captain J. Ashley Roach. Defining Scientific Research: Marine Data Collection. Law, Science & Ocean Management / ed. Myron H. N., Long R., Heidar T. H. and Moore J. N. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007. P. 566 32
22 Flag State ISBA
Explore/exploit natural Coastal State Coastal State
resources Explore/exploit UCH Strait State/Archipelagic State Flag State Flag State Strait State/Archipelagic State Coastal State Flag State
ISBA – International Seabed Authority Annex 3. Baltic Sea States claims to maritime jurisdiction34 State LOS ratification, accession date Denmark 2004.11.16 Maritime zones
Territorial Contiguous EEZ
Sea zone 121 24
1
Estonia 2005.08.26 12 Finland 1996.06.21 121 Germany 1994.10.14 12 Latvia 2004.12.23 12 Lithuania 2003.11.12 12 Poland 1998.11.13 12 Russia 1997.03.12 12 Sweden 1996.06.25 12 1
200/DLM
Fisheries zone
Continental Shelf
200 ?
200/EXP COORD
14
200/DLM
COORD COORD
200/EXP COORD
200/EXPL 12
DLM
CM/200 24
DLM
DLM DLM
DLM 200
CM/200 DLM
200m/EXPL 24
– the maximum 12 nm with some exceptions; COORD – defined by coordinates, EXPL – exploitation 34
Table of claims to maritime jurisdiction (as at 15 July 2011) // http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/table_summary_of_claims.pdf 23 Annex 4. Proposed cruise notification35 35
Manual for Marine Monitoring in the COMBINE Programme of HELCOM // http://helcom.fi/Documents/Action%20areas/Monitoring%20and%20assessment/Manuals%20and%20Guidelines/Ma
nual%20for%20Marine%20Monitoring%20in%20the%20COMBINE%20Programme%20of%20HELCOM.pdf [žiūrėta: 2014 04 04] 24 25 Annex 5. Questionnaire „THE PRACTICES OF BALTIC COASTAL STATES IN THE FIELD OF MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN WATERS UNDER SOVEREIGNTY OR JURISDICTION OF A STATE“ (2014) This questionnaire attached below responds to the attempts raised within the HELCOM framework, primarily the Baltic Sea Pilot Project: Testing new concepts for integrated environmental monitoring of the Baltic Sea (BALSAM), to enhance integrated environmental monitoring in the Baltic region by sorting out possibilities in the Baltic countries to facilitate or ensure more smooth and harmonised functioning procedures for applying for access to monitoring cruises or research activities in the Baltic Sea territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, fishing zones or continental shelves. Until now implementation of the HELCOM Recommendation 12/1 „Concerning procedures for granting permits for monitoring and research activities in the territorial waters and exclusive economic zones, fishing zones or continental shelves“ has not been actively reviewed, however, it has been regularly referred to in cases provided by HELCOM Contracting Parties (CPs), where there have been difficulties to receive permits to conduct monitoring cruises in the territorial waters and exclusive economic zones waters of other Baltic countries. The purpose of this questionnaire is to compile updated information on the existing national regulations in marine scientific research, since recent changes in these procedures have been initiated in separate CPs. From national perspectives some advisory information from CPs would be valuable in the revision process of HELCOM Recommendation 12/1. All collected information will be assessed by the BALSAM work package WP5, which aims to optimize the international use of research vessels in the Baltic Sea and based on information provided by the CPs, will provide an updated scheme for enhanced cooperation streamlining the administrative issues related to international monitoring cruises or research activities that will be proposed for consideration of the HELCOM working groups. It would be most helpful if the entire questionnaire could be completed and returned by 4 April 2014 by email to: urmas.lips@msi.ttu.ee with a copy to a.kubiliute@aaa.am.lt and HELCOM Secretariat Johanna.Karhu@helcom.fi Sincerely yours, Urmas Lips, Baltic Sea Pilot Project (BALSAM) http://helcom.fi/helcom‐at‐work/projects/balsam/ 26 QUESTIONNAIRE
THE PRACTICES OF BALTIC COASTAL STATES IN THE FIELD OF
MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN WATERS UNDER SOVEREIGNTY
OR JURISDICTION OF A STATE
GENERAL 1. Name of State 2. Name of contact person responsible for completing this form 3. Organization 4. Address 5. Telephone number 6. Fax number 7. E‐mail address 1. NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
1.1. Provide list of the main existing national legislation or administrative procedure (if available with a copy of these documents in english) that implements international instruments (UNCLOS36, etc.) related to marine scientific research (further MSR)? Provide information on recent or nearest changes in procedures. 1.2. Does your country implements HELCOM Recommendation 12/1 concerning procedures for granting permits for monitoring and research activities in the territorial waters and exclusive economic zones, fishing zones or continental shelves37 (granting one year permits for planned research and monitoring)?  YES  partly YES  NO 
If yes or partly yes, please provide the main aspects or a copy of your existing national legislation or administrative procedure (in english). 
If no, would your country be interested (1) to grant one year permits for planned research activities in the exclusive economic zones, fishing zones or continental shelves in the framework of the Baltic Monitoring Programme (BMP) or (2) be interested in requesting technical assistance to draft/update/revise its specific national legislation on MSR? 36
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (LOS Convention), 1982. 37
available in HELCOM website http://helcom.fi/Recommendations/Rec%2012‐1.pdf 27 2. CONSENT 2.1. What are official channels established to handle requests for MSR projects in waters under your country’s sovereignty or jurisdiction? Please provide names of responsible institutions and contact information. 2.2. What is the approximate number of requests for authorisation your country has received annually over the last five years (2008‐2013)? 2.2.1.
Approximately how many of these requests were approved? 2.2.2.
Approximately how many of these requests were rejected? What the main reasons? 2.3. Which model of application form for requesting consent does your country use? 2.3.1 HELCOM form (Notification of Proposed Research Cruise, A, B parts)  YES 2.3.2. Any other specialised application form(s) model?  YES  NO  NO Please provide a copy of this/these specific form(s). 2.4. How much in advance States or competent organizations which intend to undertake MSR in waters under your State’s jurisdiction should provide application/notification? Would you consider to shorten that period at least for monitoring activities? 2.5. How long it takes to provide answer (approval or rejection to carry out MSR) after you get notification by researching State or international organization? 2.6. Is there distinction between procedures (notification, other specifications) for getting permits (1) exclusively for peaceful purposes to increase scientific knowledge of the marine environment for the benefit of mankind; (2) for applied research or of direct significance for resources exploration or exploitation; (3) monitoring activities; (4) MSR installations (buoys, drifters etc.); (5) international research projects (e.g. HELCOM, BONUS etc.). 2.7. Is there distinction between procedures (notification, other specifications) for getting permits to carry out research activities in territorial sea and the EEZ; in the pelagic zone or the sea floor? 2.8. What are the permit regulations in case States or competent organizations would like to conduct measurements with autonomous devices (e.g. floating drifters, gliders etc.). This is regulated for some cases globally (for ARGO floats for instance) but not for the Baltic Sea. 2.9. Please provide any relevant information from national perspectives towards developing more coordinated and harmonized procedures in getting permits for research activities within Baltic Sea region and revision process of HELCOM Recommendation 12/1. 3. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES INTENDING TO CONDUCT MSR PROJECTS IN THE WATERS UNDER SOVEREIGNTY OR JURISDICTION OF YOUR COUNTRY 3.1. Does your country conduct MSR in areas that are not under your sovereignty or jurisdiction? 28  YES 
 NO IF YES, AS A RESEARCHING STATE, HAS YOUR COUNTRY BENEFITED FROM THE PROCEDURE OF IMPLIED CONSENT AS STATED IN ARTICLE 25238 OF UNCLOS TO CONDUCT RESEARCH IN THE WATERS OF ANOTHER COASTAL STATE? 3.2. How many of requests provided by your State were rejected? What are the main reasons for rejection? What are the main interferences during procedures for getting permit from other Coastal State. 3.3. Have you utilised implied consent to allow research to be conducted in waters under your jurisdiction by another country?  YES If yes, why? If no, why not?  NO 4. PROCEDURES AFTER CONSENT FOR MSR PROJECT IS GRANTED BY THE COASTAL STATE 4.1. What constitutes the expected starting date of the MSR project in your country? 4.1.1. The specified starting date of the research plan?....................................... 4.1.2. The date the research plan is approved?  4.1.3. The date the research vessel departs?.................................................................  4.1.4. The date the actual research operation begins in waters under your national jurisdiction? .................................................................................  4.1.5. Others …………………………………………………………………… If others, please specify. 4.2. Status of observers (Article 249 1a of LOS Convention) 38
LOS Convention: Article 252 Implied consent. States or competent international organizations may proceed with a marine scientific research project six months after the date upon which the information required pursuant to article 248 was provided to the coastal State unless within four months of the receipt of the communication containing such information the coastal State has informed the State or organization conducting the research that: (a) it has withheld its consent under the provisions of article 246; or (b) the information given by that State or competent international organization regarding the nature or objectives of the project does not conform to the manifestly evident facts; or (c) it requires supplementary information relevant to conditions and the information provided for under articles 248 and 249; or (d) outstanding obligations exist with respect to a previous marine scientific research project carried out by that State or organization, with regard to conditions established in article 249. 29 4.2.1. Has your country already sent scientists as observers on‐board foreign research vessels in the framework of a MSR project conducted in the waters under your national jurisdiction?  YES  NO 4.2.2. Has/have the research vessel(s) of your country hosted foreign observers?  YES  NO 4.2.3. Do the observer(s) represent your government on board foreign research vessel?  YES  NO  NO 4.2.4. What are the functions/assignments of the observers on board: a)
To report on research activities carried out?  YES b)
To ensure that the type of research undertaken and the area where the research is conducted conforms to the official notification document?  YES  NO c)
To act as an official channel for possible communications between the vessel and your government?  YES d)
 NO To take the opportunity to be trained in the field of work defined in the MSR project?  YES  NO e) Others? Please specify. 4.2.5. Does your country require that researchers provide the relevant authorities with copies of data and samples (Article 249 (1c)39? 39 LOS Convention: Article 249 Duty to comply with certain conditions 1. States and competent international organizations when undertaking marine scientific research in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf of a coastal
State shall comply with the following conditions:
(a) ensure the right of the coastal State, if it so desires, to participate or be represented in the marine scientific research project, especially on board research vessels and other craft or scientific research installations, when practicable, without payment of any remuneration to the scientists of the coastal State and without obligation to contribute towards the costs of the project; (b) provide the coastal State, at its request, with preliminary reports, as soon as practicable, and with the final results and conclusions after the completion of the research; (c) undertake to provide access for the coastal State, at its request, to all data and samples derived from the marine scientific research project and likewise to furnish it with data which may be copied and samples which may be divided without detriment to their scientific value; (d) if requested, provide the coastal State with an assessment of such data, samples and research results or provide assistance in their assessment or interpretation; (e) ensure, subject to paragraph 2, that the research results are made internationally available through appropriate national or international channels, as soon as practicable; (f) inform the coastal State immediately of any major change in the research programme; 30  YES  NO 4.2.6. Does your country require that researchers provide and or assist the relevant authorities with an assessment of research results (Article 249 (1d)?  YES  NO 4.2.7. During the last five years, how many foreign vessels have undertaken MSR in the waters under your national jurisdiction for the following types of research? (i) Fishery (ii) Pollution (iii)
Geology (iv)
Oceanography (v)Hydrology (vi)Environmental monitoring (vi) Other 4.2.8. Has your country ever required suspension/cessation of MSR project conducted in waters under your national jurisdiction for non‐compliance with Article 248 and 249 of UNCLOS?  YES  NO 4.2.9. What regulatory provisions, such as customs or tax requirements, apply to foreign research vessels while in your ports? (g) unless otherwise agreed, remove the scientific research installations or equipment once the research is completed. 2. This article is without prejudice to the conditions established by the laws and regulations of the coastal State for the exercise of its discretion to grant or withhold consent pursuant to article 246, paragraph 5, including requiring prior agreement for making internationally available the research results of a project of direct significance for the exploration and exploitation of natural resources. 31 Annex 6. SUMMARY OF RECEIVED ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE (2014)
THE PRACTICES OF BALTIC COASTAL STATES IN THE FIELD OF MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
IN WATERS UNDER SOVEREIGNTY OR JURISDICTION OF A STATE
Name of Name of contact State person responsible for completing this questionnaire Estonia Silver Vahtra Organization
Address
Telephone number Fax number Ministry of the Environment NARVA mnt 7A
Lithuania Povilas Paukštė Ministry of the Environment A. Jakšto g. 4/9, (00370 5) 01105 Vilnius 266 36 62 Finland Kirsi Kentta Ministry of the Environment P.O. Box 35, FI‐ +35850362205
2 00023 Government Poland Malgorzata Marciniewicz‐
Mykieta Chief Inspectorate Wawelska 52/52 0048 22 57 92 0048 22 825 m.marciniewicz@
478 41 29 gios.gov.pl for Environmental Str, 00‐922 Warsaw Protection Sweden Sten‐Olov Södergård Swedish Coast Guard (SCG) +372 6262 987
E‐mail address
Silver.vahtra@env
ir.ee (00370 5) 266 36 63 info@am.lt
Kirsi.Kentta@ymp
aristo.fi Box 536 371 23 Phone: 0046 0046 (0)455 Sten‐
Karlskrona olov.sodergard@k
(0)455 35 36 70 105 21 ustbevakningen.s
Cell: 0046 e (0)768 55 82 82
Board: 0046 (0)455 35 34 00
Bertil Håkansson Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) Gullbergs
0046 (0) 10 698 strandgata 15, 60 14 411 04 Göteborg
32 Bertil.hakansson
@havochvatten.s
e 1. NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
1.1. Provide list of the main existing national legislation or administrative procedure (if available with a copy of these
documents in english) that implements international instruments (UNCLOS , etc.) related to marine scientific research
(further MSR)? Provide information on recent or nearest changes in procedures.
No.
1.
Baltic State
Lithuania
Legislation
Regulation for providing licences (permits) for foreign legal and natural persons and other organisations to carry out scientific research in Lithuanian sea region. Permits now are being provided by the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania, it is planned to apply new amendments to the Regulation 2.
Estonia
UNCLOS, EE has ratified: 31.05.2005
Act on EEZ of Estonia. 28.01.1993 3.
Sweden
Swedish Environmental code (1998:808)
Ordinance concerning area protection in accordance with the Swedish Environmental code (1998:808) etc. The Swedish Exclusive Economic Zone Act (1992:1140) The Swedish Exclusive Economic Zone Ordinance (1992:1226) Act on the Continental Shelf (1966:314) Proclamation concerning the Application of the Act (1966:314) on the Continental Shelf (1966:315) Act concerning the Territorial Waters of Sweden (1966:374) Proclamation on the Measuring of the Territorial Waters of Sweden (1966:375) Ordinance concerning the Admission to Swedish Territory of Foreign State Vessels and State Aircraft (Admission Ordinance) (1992:118) 4.
Finland
The Act (1058/2004) Decree (1073/2004) on the Finnish EEZ UNCLOS SopS 45‐50/1996 SopS n: 02/2000 HELCOM convention The Territorial Surveillance Act (18.8.2000/755) 33 5.
Poland
Act of March 21st, 1991 on Marine Zones of the Republic of Poland and Marine
Administration
The Geological and Mining Law Act of 9 June, 2011
1.2. Does your country implements HELCOM Recommendation 12/1 concerning procedures for granting permits for monitoring and research activities in the territorial waters and exclusive economic zones, fishing zones or continental shelves40 (granting one year permits for planned research and monitoring)? If yes, please provide names, address and contact information.
No.
Baltic State
YES, partly
YES/No
1.
Lithuania
Yes For research activities which are carried out under HELCOM Baltic sea
Monitoring Programme the permit is not required.
2.
Estonia
No EE does not have established system for granting permits as recommended in mentioned recommendation. EE for time being does not have justified position on the issue. We acknowledge these positive sides of implementing proposed policy, yet conditions for this agreement are to be negotiated, because we see this among others also related to security issues. 3.
Sweden
Partly Yes Answer SCG:
The Swedish Coast Guard is the competent authority granting permission for
undertaking the MSR as such in the territorial waters and the exclusive
economic zone. In these cases the above regulations (see 1-6) are applied.
If the MSR is undertaken in the territorial waters and conducted from a vessel
that belongs to a foreign State and therefore considered as a state vessel,
permission to enter the territorial waters, a separate permission is requested.
Such permission is granted by the Swedish Armed Forces, applying the
mentioned regulations above (see 6-9).
4.
Finland
Yes 5.
Poland
No
Permits only for a single research trip
2.1. What are official channels established to handle requests for MSR projects in waters under your country’s sovereignty or jurisdiction? Please provide names of responsible institutions and contact information. No.
1.
Answer
Baltic State
Lithuania
Requests are being sent to The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (State and Diplomatic Protocol Department, tel. 8 706 52461, e‐mail: protocol@urm.lt). Then they are forwarded it to The Ministry of Environment (Nature Protection Division, tel. 8 706 61864, e‐mail: p.paukste@am.lt), which is responsible for obtaining an approval for granting a permit (approval is obtained from other institutions: Ministry of National Defence, Ministry of 40
available in HELCOM website http://helcom.fi/Recommendations/Rec%2012‐1.pdf 34 Transport and Communications, State Border Guard Service and Fisheries Service) and for creating the permit document and sending it back to The Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2.
Estonia
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) is tasked to receive and implement the providing permit to the requesting body. MoFA, while preparing permit, contacts several EE institutions of responsibility for opinion and agreement if such permit is to be released and if any further condition is to be established. These institutions are as follows: Estonian Ministry of the Environment; Maritime Administration; Tallinn University of Technology, Marine Systems Institute; Tartu University, Estonian Marine Institute; Estonian Police and Border Guard. 3.
Sweden
Answer SCG: For MSR applications: Swedish Coast Guard. Contact info: Swedish Coast Guard, Box 536, S‐ 371 23 Karlskrona; registrator@kustbevakningen.se For entering permit to the Swedish Territorial waters= Swedish Coast Guard. Contact info: Swedish Coast Guard, Box 536, S‐ 371 23 Karlskrona; registrator@kustbevakningen.se (transferring the application to the:Swedish Armed Forces) 4.
Finland
The EEZ: Ministry of Employment and the Economy, P.O. Box 32 (Aleksanterinkatu 4), FI‐
00023 Government, Tel. +358 29 506 0000, Fax =358 9 1606 2160, www.tem.fi, Government Counsellor Kari Makinen. Karimakinen(a)tem.fi (or Senior Officer Johanna Ylitepsa, johanna.ylitepsa(a)tem.fi) 5.
Poland
Requests from foreign countries are send to Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland and depending on the scope of research dealt with by: 1) scientific research (in spite of research specified below) Department for Maritime Transport and Shipping Safety Ministry of Infrastructure and Development (MIiR) tel. +48 22 630 16 39 e‐mail: sekretariatDTM@mir.gov.pl 2) scientific research of marine living resources: Fisheries Department tel. +48 22 623 14 71 fax +48 22 623 22 04 e‐mail sekretariatryb@minrol.gov.plMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Development 00‐930 Warszawa, Wspólna Street No. 30, POLAND 35 3) scientific research of sea floor ‐ geological or mining Ministry of Environment Department of Geology and Geological Concessions Secretariat: phone: (+48 22) 57‐92‐449, 447 fax: (+48 22) 57‐92‐460 e‐mail: Departament.Geologii.i.Koncesji.Geologicznych@mos.gov.pl 2.2. What is the approximate number of requests for authorisation your country has received annually over the last five
years (2008-2013)?
No
Baltic
State
Number of requests
Approximately how
many of these requests
were approved?
Approximately how many of these requests
were rejected? What the main reasons?
1.
Lithuania
Up to 7 (3 on an average). All
2.
Estonia
60-70
Most of these.
Two applications for the marine scientific
research were rejected – Nord Stream – for
Marine environment safety reasons.
3.
Sweden
120-130
98%
2 %. The main reason lies on consideration of national security interest, and concerns exclusively the nature of the vessel; state vessel, within the geographical context of where the MSR measures are to be undertaken (Swedish Armed Forces) 4.
Finland
2-5
All
5.
Poland
About 40
All
2.3. Which model of application form for requesting consent does your country use?
No.
Baltic State
HELCOM form (Notification of Proposed Research Any other specialised application form(s) model? Cruise, A, B parts)
1.
Lithuania
YES 2.
Estonia
YES 3.
Sweden
YES
36 4.
Finland
YES 5.
Poland
YES
YES (ICES)
2.4. How much in advance States or competent organizations which intend to undertake MSR in waters under your State’s
jurisdiction should provide application/notification? Would you consider to shorten that period at least for monitoring
activities?
2.5. How long it takes to provide answer (approval or rejection to carry out MSR) after you get notification by researching
State or international organization?
No.
Baltic State
Time limit for the application submission
1.
Lithuania
Such time limit is not legally determined, however, under 3 weeks on an average.
Regulation, competent authority in Lithuania must provide a permit in 30 working days or give an explanation for the rejection of request. In cases when time period between receiving application/notification and the start date of MSR is shorter than 30 days, the procedure is performed faster, to ensure that the permit is provided before the date of MSR. 30 days is the shortest comfortable time limit for competent authority to complete permit providing procedure. 2.
Estonia
Common procedure in EE is under UNCLOS provided it depends on the difficulty of the guidance, that application/notification should be provided 6 permit. From 2 weeks till 1,5 months prior to expedition. However occasionally few month. applications EE have received 2‐4 months. EE is rather satisfied with a current situation, however we are open for discussions and terms to shorten the specific framework or single application provison if feasible for other EE authorities. 3.
Sweden
a)
6 weeks, minimum.
b)
As the majority of the MSR undertaken are
conducted from state vessels, the consideration concerning
permission duration is not within the mandate of the SCG.
4.
Finland
The EEZ: in case of MSR a notification should be sent to the In case of MSR approximately Ministry of Employment and the Economy six months prior one month, sometimes to the cruise. If then the Ministry would conclude that the exceptionally 2 weeks research is not scientific in nature but economic it has 4 months to react. Because of the newish legislation on the Finnish EEZ and its time limit for notifications we have tried to assist the prompt handling of the notifications that have come too late. 37 Time limit for submitting answer
5.
Poland
3 months
Approximately 1 month
2.6. Is there distinction between procedures (notification, other specifications) for getting permits (1) exclusively for peaceful purposes to increase scientific knowledge of the marine environment for the benefit of mankind; (2) for applied research or of direct significance for resources exploration or exploitation; (3) monitoring activities; (4) MSR installations (buoys, drifters etc.); (5) international research projects (e.g. HELCOM, BONUS etc.). No.
Baltic State
Answer
1.
Lithuania
There is no distinction in procedures, except that for researches under HELCOM Baltic sea Monitoring Programme a permit is not required. 2.
Estonia
There is NONE in EE currently
3.
Sweden
Answer SCG: No difference is made in administrating applications concerning MSR. Conclusively, the bullets 1‐5 are treated equally, without any specific legislation or procedures. Concerning entry permit, see answer above, b). 4.
Finland
The EEZ: MSR: notification six months prior to the MEE/research aimed at the exploitation of natural resources of the seabed and its subsoil: application for the governments consent six months prior to the MEE 5.
Poland
Yes. If the scientific research concerns marine living organisms the permit is issued by the minister responsible for fisheries (Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development). Minister responsible for maritime affairs (Minister of Infrastructure and Development) issues permits for other research studies. 2.7. Is there distinction between procedures (notification, other specifications) for getting permits to carry out research activities in territorial sea and the EEZ; in the pelagic zone or the sea floor? No.
Baltic State
Answer
1.
Lithuania
No 2.
Estonia
There is none currently.
3.
Sweden
Answer SCG: The only difference is made between MSR to be undertaken in the territorial waters and economic zone. See further info under answer above, 1.2. 4.
Finland
Yes 5.
Poland
There is the same procedure for research of marine living resources in exclusive economic
zone (EEZ), territorial sea and internal sea waters. Additional permission is needed for
researches, which include: drilling of the sea floor, using explosives, using any substances
38 harmful for environment, building or using unnatural islands, constructions and
installations.
2.8. What are the permit regulations in case States or competent organizations would like to conduct measurements with autonomous devices (e.g. floating drifters, gliders etc.). This is regulated for some cases globally (for ARGO floats for instance) but not for the Baltic Sea. No.
Baltic State
Answer
1.
Lithuania
There are no specific permit regulation provisions regarding this issue. 2.
Estonia
There are NONE currently.
3.
Sweden
Answer SCG: See answer above, a). 4.
Finland
This is regulated for some cases globally (for ARGO floats for instance) but not for the Baltic Sea 5.
Poland
Act of March 21st, 1991 on Marine Zones of the Republic of Poland and Marine Administration 2.9. Please provide any relevant information from national perspectives towards developing more coordinated and harmonized procedures in getting permits for research activities within Baltic Sea region and revision process of HELCOM Recommendation 12/1. No.
Baltic State
Answer
1.
Lithuania
‐ 2.
Estonia
Schedule of proposed joint researches to be coordinated in one year time span (for instance: in 2014 planning for 2016 (2015), in order to coordinate it with MS authorities. Notification of reference sent by head of expedition to the MS relevant authority – one month prior to expedition. 3.
Sweden
Proposition: We would like to suggest that, besides HELCOM Recommendation 12/1, the HELCOM partners would take action to ensure that the application assessment procedure within the HELCOM area under no circumstance would exceed 8 weeks, beginning from the reception of a complete application. The current situation puts any MSR actor in difficult planning conditions regarding especially differently applied application assessment terms. As an illustration, some assessment terms may comprehend as long time as 6 months before granting permission, compared with another, regarding the very same MSR measures, as this may be limited to only 6 days!!! Our suggestion is that there seems to be good 39 possibilities to achieve a welcomed shortening of the application assessment term. 8 weeks could enhance, improve and facilitate undertaking of MSR, for the benefit of science and humanity. 4.
Finland
‐ 5.
Poland
‐ 3.1. Does your country conduct MSR in areas that are not under your sovereignty or jurisdiction? If yes, as a researching State, has your country benefited from the procedure of implied consent as stated in Article 252 of UNCLOS to conduct research in the waters of another coastal State? 3.2. How many of requests provided by your State were rejected? What are the main reasons for rejection? What are the main interferences during procedures for getting permit from other Coastal State. No.
Baltic State
Does your country conduct MSR in areas
that are not under your sovereignty or
jurisdiction?
How many of requests provided by your
State were rejected?
1.
Lithuania
‐ 2.
Estonia
NO, EE does not conduct any MSR provided above. 3.
Sweden
Answer SCG: Answer SCG:
Yes. Implied consent has never been used. Clarification= The SCG administrates application concerning MSR‐projects conducted from SCG vessels (state owned vessels). Other MSR‐projects may be carried out utilizing platforms belonging to other entities. Only a few requests have been rejected, the majority on the ground that the request was not logged in within the set out application time frame. Further, see above answer. 4.
Finland
Yes
5.
Poland
Yes
‐
Norway rejected 5 request regarding research in waters of Svalbard (under Norwegian jurisdiction). The main reason of rejections was that the status of stocks is well assessed by national researches. 3.3. Have you utilised implied consent to allow research to be conducted in waters under your jurisdiction by another country? 40 No.
Baltic State
Answer
1.
Lithuania
‐ 2.
Estonia
N/A 3.
Sweden
Answer SCG: The routine chosen is case‐by‐case assessment. 4.
Finland
‐ 5.
Poland
No data 4.1. What constitutes the expected starting date of the MSR project in your country? No.
Baltic State
Answer
1.
Lithuania
The specified starting date of the research plan?
2.
Estonia
The date the actual research operation begins in waters under your national jurisdiction? 3.
Sweden
The date the actual research operation begins in waters under your national jurisdiction? 4.
Finland
‐ 5.
Poland
The date the actual research operation begins in waters under your national jurisdiction? 4.2. Status of observers (Article 249 1a of LOS Convention) Question
Lithuania
Estonia
Sweden
Absent knowledge Answer SMHI: No ‐
Answer SMHI: No 4.2.1. Has your country already sent scientists as observers on‐board foreign research vessels in the framework of a MSR project conducted in the waters under your national jurisdiction? -
4.2.2. Has/have the research vessel(s) of your country hosted foreign observers? 41 Finland
Poland
No
Yes Yes
No data available. 4.2.3. Do the observer(s) represent your government on board foreign research vessel? -
‐
‐
4.2.4. What are the functions/assignments of the observers on board -
‐
‐
No
No does not apply 4.2.5. Does your country require that researchers provide the relevant authorities with copies of data and samples (Article 249 (1c)41? No.
Baltic State
Answer
1.
Lithuania
No 2.
Estonia
This right is stated in the permit.
3.
Sweden
Answer SwAM: It depends on the research foundation which requirements they specify for their research projects. In general metadata on resaech data should be reported to the Portal Environment climate data Sweden – ecds. 4.
Finland
Yes (only data) 5.
Poland
Yes 41 LOS Convention: Article 249 Duty to comply with certain conditions 1. States and competent international organizations when undertaking marine scientific research in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf of a coastal
State shall comply with the following conditions:
(a) ensure the right of the coastal State, if it so desires, to participate or be represented in the marine scientific research project, especially on board research vessels and other craft or scientific research installations, when practicable, without payment of any remuneration to the scientists of the coastal State and without obligation to contribute towards the costs of the project; (b) provide the coastal State, at its request, with preliminary reports, as soon as practicable, and with the final results and conclusions after the completion of the research; (c) undertake to provide access for the coastal State, at its request, to all data and samples derived from the marine scientific research project and likewise to furnish it with data which may be copied and samples which may be divided without detriment to their scientific value; (d) if requested, provide the coastal State with an assessment of such data, samples and research results or provide assistance in their assessment or interpretation; (e) ensure, subject to paragraph 2, that the research results are made internationally available through appropriate national or international channels, as soon as practicable; (f) inform the coastal State immediately of any major change in the research programme; (g) unless otherwise agreed, remove the scientific research installations or equipment once the research is completed. 2. This article is without prejudice to the conditions established by the laws and regulations of the coastal State for the exercise of its discretion to grant or withhold consent pursuant to article 246, paragraph 5, including requiring prior agreement for making internationally available the research results of a project of direct significance for the exploration and exploitation of natural resources. 42 4.2.6. Does your country require that researchers provide and or assist the relevant authorities with an assessment of research results (Article 249 (1d)? No.
Baltic State
Answer
1.
Lithuania
Yes 2.
Estonia
This right is reserved in the permit, occasionally enforced.
3.
Sweden
Yes Answer SCG: Providing results and or assisting authorities may occur as a requirement depending on the content and relevant scientific interests of the actual MSR‐project and done on a case‐by‐case basis. Answer SwAM: For marine research this happens only on request from SwAM and is based on case by case basis. 4.
Finland
No 5.
Poland
Yes 4.2.7. During the last five years, how many foreign vessels have undertaken MSR in the waters under your national jurisdiction for the following types of research? No.
Baltic State Fishery
Pollution
Geology
Oceanography
1.
Lithuania
1 1 2.
Estonia
3.
Sweden
4.
Finland
5.
Poland
24 4
5
Yes
Other
Hydrogeology and marine living resources 43 Hydrology Environmental
monitoring
4.2.8. Has your country ever required suspension/cessation of MSR project conducted in waters under your national jurisdiction for non‐compliance with Article 248 and 249 of UNCLOS? No.
Baltic State
Answer
1.
Lithuania
No 2.
Estonia
Absent knowledge
3.
Sweden
No 4.
Finland
‐ 5.
Poland
No data 4.2.9. What regulatory provisions, such as customs or tax requirements, apply to foreign research vessels while in your ports? No.
Baltic State
1.
Lithuania
‐ 2.
Estonia
Regular port visiting regulations, common for all foreign vessels. 3.
Sweden
Answer SCG: No specific provisions aiming at MSR vessels apart from regular legislation in place on a variety of domains; customs, ship safety, security and so forth. 4.
Finland
‐ 5.
Poland
For the foreign research vessels, as well as for other ships and vessels in Polish ports the Act on Seaports and Harbours applies. Based on art. 8 of this regulation, if the research vessel is under the State service it is exempt from the port dues. 44 www.helcom.fi