You are on page 1of 36

Special issue: Maritime Traffic Safety and Environmental Protection


Presentation of the main results and products of the Mediterranean Electronic Marine Highway (AEM-MED) project



MEDITERRANEAN SOS Network (MEDSOS), was established in 1990, in Athens, Greece, as an environmental and social non-profit NGO, focused on the protection of the coastal and marine environment, and the promotion of sustainable development in the Mediterranean. MEDSOS’ aim is the promotion of integrated coastal zone management in the Mediterranean region with an emphasis on the local level through the active engagement of citizens in the sustainable development process. MEDSOS has realised various awareness campaigns, youth exchanges, conferences on various issues that affect sustainable development, i.e. efficient water and energy consumption, green job development, creation of marine protected areas, sustainable management of NATURA 2000 sites, etc Key milestones include the realisation of the following EU projects: • INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC «LES AUTOROUTES ELECTRONIQUES MARITIMES DE LA MEDITERRANE» (AEMMED) • INTERREG IIIB CADSES “EFFICIENT WATER RESOURCE USE IN PROTECTED AREAS” (WAREMA) 5D158 • INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC,”MED-ECOQUARTIERS” 2005-05-2.1-F-057 • INTERREG IIIC, COASTAL PRACTICE NETWORK (COPRANET) 2W0050N • LIFE-Environment “Sun and Wind” LIFE04 ENV/IT/000594 • LIFE-Environment “Collaborative environmental regeneration of city ports: Elefsina Bay 2020” LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242 Other key milestones include: • The coordination in Greece of the Mediterranean Beach Clean Up campaign, for the past 13 years • The implementation of the “Sustainable Management of the Sifnos NATURA 2000 site” project, funded by the Hellenic Ministry of the Environment. • The implementation of the DAC project “Sustainable Management of the Lebanese Coast Line”

4-5 Mediterranean Electronic Marine Highway:
The AEM-MED Project

6-7 Facts about shipping and the marine environment 8-11 Reasons for choosing the implementation area 12-17 Socio-Economic assessment and cost benefit analysis
of the AEM-MED system

18-21 Packaging the AEM-MED system as an investment proposal
and evaluation of its full-scale implementation

22-27 Financial assessment of the AEM-MED system 28-31 Policy context of the AEM-MED system 32-35 European best practices in the field
of maritime safety technology

Shipping has always been a vital economic activity worldwide, with significant contribution in trade, commerce, exchange of products and services, population movement and intercultural exchange. Nowadays huge vessels cross the world’s seas carrying dangerous cargoes in such a high frequency and volume that pose unavoidable threats for the marine environment and the coastal communities that depend on its resources and wellbeing. Following the ERIKA and PRESTIGE marine disasters the European Union and littoral states decided that a more efficient policy framework was needed in order to tackle maritime safety and environmental protection issues. As such particular focus was given on port state control, environmental management of ports, pollution prevention through the phasing-out of single hull vessels and the introduction of sanctions for pollution offences, as well as on the establishment of a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system. Towards the achievement of the latter, information and communication technology has played a tremendous role and as a result various AIS networks such as the one described in the following pages, emerged worldwide. The Mediterranean Marine Electronic Highway- AEMMED, hereby described, is an effort to combine maritime safety information technologies and environment management tools in order to create an integrated regional vessel traffic and information system for the Mediterranean. In the pages that follow one can find a summary of the main findings of the studies produced by the AEMMED project: Socio-economic assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis of the AEMMED system (WP 1.4); Evaluation of the Technical Functionalities of the AEMMED system for enhanced maritime safety and environmental protection (WP 4.1); Financial assessment of the AEMMED system (WP 4.4) and; Packaging of the AEMMED system as an investment proposal and evaluation of its full-scale implementation (WP 4.5).

This publication can be cited as “Presentation of the main results and products of the Mediterranean Marine Electronic Highway (AEMMED) project”, MEDITERRANEAN SOS Network (2008), Athens, INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC AEMMED. All AEMMED project partners provided input for the studies presented in this publication. The editors Michalis Theodoropoulos and Anna Kondoleon (MEDITERRANEAN SOS Network) would like to acknowledge the special contribution of Nikos Chrysoyelos (MEDSOS), Yannis Garyfalos and Athanasios Chaldeakis (EC BIC of Attica) during the drafting phases. This publication was co- funded by the INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC initiative


THE AEMMED PROJECT PARTNERS • Lead Partner: Hellenic Republic - Ministry of Mercantile Marine, Aegean and island Policy • Municipal Port Authority of Hersonisos • EC Business and Innovation Centre of Attika • Instituto Portuario De Estudios Y Cooperacion De La Comunidad Valenciana (FEPORTS) • Mediteranean Sos Network (MEDSOS) • Regione Liguria (REGLIG) - Dipartimento Infrastrutture, Trasporti, Porti, Lavori Pubblici ed Edilizia • Chambre De Commerce & D’industrie Marseille-Provence (CCIMP) • Port Authority of Elefsis


Mediterranean Electronic Marine Highway: The AEM-MED Project




he INTERREG III-B/ MEDOCC initiative “Mediterranean Electronic Marine Highway AEM-MED” was a collaborative effort with partners from Greece, Italy, France and Spain aiming to combine maritime safety and environment management technological tools in order to create, network and maintain a marine information infrastructure.

The Mediterranean Electronic Marine Highway (MEMH) developed is a marine information infrastructure that integrates environmental management tools with marine safety technologies (AIS, VTIS) for enhanced maritime services. The MEMH system would improve navigational safety and provide a tool for integrated marine environment protection and sustainable development of coastal and marine resources. The backbone of the MEMH system is precision navigation and will utilize a network of electronic navigational charts (ENCs) in conjunction with Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS), and other maritime technologies (i.e. GPS). Through the MEH, each State should have the same suite of standardized hardware and software to ensure conformal production procedures and uniform standard of products that will meet the requirements for precision navigation.

The Automatic Identification System (AIS) applied is a user-friendly vessel monitoring technology that uses the marine VHF frequencies with the purpose to secure maritime traffic safety by transmitting real time information among vessels and the shore. The AIS has been identified as the initial method for delivering some external information to ECDIS. Apart from the management of marine traffic, when used in conjunction with ECDIS, the AIS provides the mariner with additional dynamic tactical information from the marine environment external to the ship. The Mediterranean Marine Electronic Highway developed by the AEMMED project installed 3 pilot AIS base stations that receive vessel and cargo information and store them in an online database. The AEM-MED AIS system will be able to record, save and analyze different parameters (spatial, meteorological, environmental, risk, traffic lanes, etc) and present them in alphanumerical and graphic way through internet maps. The purpose of building such an AEM-MED AIS Network is to improve traffic safety and protect the Mediterranean marine environment from potential pollution threat. The AEM-MED project general objectives were to identify the scope of the Marine Electronic Highway (MEH) system in the MEDOCC area, to plan and implement a pilot action in order to assess the technical, financial, economic, social, institutional, political and legal aspects of the identified actions. The project’s global environmental objective is to improve maritime safety and reduce environmental damage to the globally-significant shared natural resources of the Mediterranean Sea Region. As such, the project’s specific objective is to reduce User Costs & Environmental Damage of Marine Navigation in the Mediterranean sea region, and in particular: • Reduce the frequency of Ship Collisions • Make marine navigation feasible more often in poor weather • Allow ships in transit to optimize their loads for passage • Facilitate more effective monitoring of vessels operations (illegal bilge water releases, deterring environmental damaging behavior) • Generate more resources & increase capacity for environmental protection of the region and its surrounding coasts

The outputs of the AEM-MED project will be used to refine the activities aimed at developing an extended scale MEH system in the Mediterranean together with the necessary mechanisms to operate, manage and administer the system on a sustainable basis. The partnership is expected to continue the implementation of potential transitional and network activities after the end of the project in order to further develop the MEMH system. The partners have indicated their willingness to further continue the establishment of the MEH system to other areas of the Mediterranean and link them on an expanded AEMMED AIS NETWORK. The partners responsible for the development of the AEM-MED system are: the Hellenic Ministry of Mercantile Marine and Island Policy (General Secretariat of Ports and Port Policy) as Lead Partner, the Elefsina Port Authority, the Municipal Port Authority of Hersonisos, the EC Business and Innovation Centre of Attica, and MEDITERRANEAN SOS Network from Greece, the Institute FEPORTS from Valencia Spain, the Region of Liguria from Italy, and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry from Marseille Province France.



Facts about shipping and the marine environment


urope’s leadership in shipping is beyond any doubt with 40 % of the world fleet. There are over 9,000 merchant ships (of 500gt and over) under EU flags, totalling some 240 million deadweight tons, nearly a quarter of world tonnage. The European shipping industry controls a further 4,000 vessels flying foreign flags. Between 3 and 5 % of Europe’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is estimated to be generated from sea-related industries and services, without including the value of raw materials, such as oil, fish or gas. 3.5 billion tonnes of cargo per year and 350 million passengers pass through the 1 200 European seaports. Shipping moves 90 % of Europe’s trade and 40 % of all intra-EU trade in tonne-kilometres. Seaborne trade has grown fourfold in the past 40 years. Container shipping has grown considerably since 2000 and is expected to triple by 2020.



Shipping consumes only a tenth of the fuel per tonnemile that road transport requires. Short-sea shipping has the potential to create alternative clean routes along “motorways of the sea” between EU ports. Higher traffic volumes and larger vessels are creating bottlenecks at Europe’s ports, which can be eased only by enhanced access and increased capacity. The solutions depend also on policies and regulations related to environment, planning and investment, as well as to new developments in logistics, navigation, and vessel monitoring. A full 40% of the global volume of goods and 30% of oil traffic take the Mediterranean basin sea routes, ranked as the world’s number three maritime zone after Asia and Northern Europe. A total of 13,000 seagoing vessels annually make 250,000 traffic stops in 500 trading ports and 10,000 vessels travel through the Mediterranean without stopping. Moreover, 250 million tonnes of hazardous products transported by sea are handled every year by the port industries while a further 200 million tonnes are transported along the coasts. Each year about 1 billion tonnes of oil are transported through EU ports or pass from its maritime domain The most destructive marine accidents of the last 10 years include two oil tankers, i.e. ERIKA in 1999 and PRESTIGE in 2002, which spilled 22.000 and 20.000 tonnes of oil respectively and caused severe damage to the ecosystems, to fisheries and tourism. In particular, the PRESTIGE accident polluted 3000 km of Spanish coast, more than 300.000 seabirds died, and the survival of 30.000 people was jeopardised. The total economic damage caused by PRESTIGE is estimated at about 8 billion Euros, including clean up costs, remunerations, and loss of income.



Reasons for choosing the implementation area

The Mediterraneas is an important trade route linking the Atlantic Ocean to the Black Sea. It is also rich in resources and supports a range of activities that benefit the economies of the littoral states (Spain, France, Italy, Greece, etc.). This important shipping route is a very congested waterway and the authorities are keen to improve navigation facilities to promote ship safety and reduce the risk of groundings, collisions and accidents. This will also help to protect the marine environment from the effects of pollution and hence reduce its damaging impact on activities related to the coastlines, e.g. fisheries and tourism.



The Mediterranean is more than one million square kilometers in extent, but is significantly shallower than most oceanic regions, reducing its effective absorptive capacity for land and sea-based pollutants. The seafloor consists of a complex system of ridges, troughs and deep basins with narrow continental shelf areas incised by canyon systems. As an almost totally landlocked basin, joined to the rest of the world ocean only by the Strait of Gibraltar on the western side, the pattern of circulation and the overall water budget are somewhat unique. The Mediterranean loses by evaporation almost three times as much as it receives through rainfall and runoff with the imbalance compensated by inflow from the Atlantic and to a lesser extent from the Black Sea. This makes it very susceptible to any harmful occurrences in the sea itself or in its supply and drainage waters. Furthermore because of the nature of the sea, it is most at risk to long term effects from any marine disaster that would discharge deleterious substances into the marine environment. The Mediterranean Sea is an area of great economic and cultural heritage. It covers an area of approximately 2.5 million km2, stretching some 3,800km from east to west and as much as 900km from north to south. The great physical diversity of the Mediterranean is partly reflected in the great number of smaller seas that it contains, including the Adriatic Sea, Aegean Sea, the Balearic Sea, the Ionian Sea, the Ligurian Sea, and the Tyrrhenian Sea. In all, the Mediterranean is surrounded by 21 countries and territories in 3 geographic regions.

the Mediterranean each year, of which a significant proportion consists of oil tankers. Twenty-eight percent of the world’s total oil and 30% of the world’s maritime trade pass through the Mediterranean each year. Mediterranean shipping volumes are projected to increase by 74% over year 2000 volumes by 2010. The Mediterranean is also host to several key maritime “chokepoints” or narrow channels: the Suez Canal and the Sumed Pipeline connecting the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea, and the Bosporus and Çanakkale linking to the Black Sea to transport oil coming from the Caspian Sea region as well as other marine transportation commodities from Black Sea ports. These “chokepoints” are critically important to world oil trade because so much oil passes through them, yet due to their restrictive nature and high volumes, they are particularly at risk for shipping accidents. Furthermore, during the next few years, the Suez Canal will be widened, with a subsequent increase in shipping and an increased risk of marine pollution. There are three major passage ways to and from the Mediterranean Sea: the Strait of Çanakkale/Sea of Marmara/ Istanbul Straits, the Strait of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal. The major axis (90 % of the total oil traffic) is from east to west (Egypt-Gibraltar), passing between Sicily and Malta and following closely the coasts of Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. On average, there are about 60 maritime accidents in the Mediterranean annually, of which about 15 involve ships causing oil and chemical spills. The most accident-prone areas, because of the intense maritime traffic, are: the Strait of Gibraltar and Messina, the Sicilian Channel and the approaches to the Straits of Chanakkale, as well as several ports and their approaches, particularly Genoa, Livorno, Civitavecchia, Venice, Trieste, Piraeus, Limassol/ Larnaka, Beirut and Alexandria. The geographical distribution of pollution ‘hot spots’ is related also to the density of shipping traffic on the various Mediterranean routes.

Maritime traffic & trade
In the case of the Mediterranean, the requirement for environmental protection is considerably accented by the volume and type of ship traffic in conjunction with the unique nature of the sea. Two-hundred thousand vessels of more than 100 GRT transit



Oil pollution in the Mediterranean
Oil spills float and drift. Up to now, accidental oil spills have caused localised damage to the Mediterranean marine and coastal environment. Out of 569 accidents listed by REMPEC for the 1977-2007 period (REMPEC 2008), more than three-quarters involved oil. Between 1977 and the end of 2007 an estimated 321.300 tonnes of oil entered the Mediterranean Sea as the result of 463 shipping incidents. It should be stressed that a major oil spill could occur at any time in any part of the Mediterranean, particularly along the major sea routes and in or around the more important oil loading and unloading terminals, particularly as several ageing tankers are operating in the Mediterranean waters. At European level oil spill accidents of over 10,000 tonnes have contributed to a total of over 1 million tonnes of oil being spilled into EU waters in the last three decades, and the global total is much larger. Even so, it is estimated that some 80 per cent of the total pollution from ships originates from operational discharges (such as discharges of waste oils or tank cleaning operations), and that much of this is deliberate and in violation of international rules. Generally, marine life at basin scale has not been affected by oil pollution. Of course localised incidents have sometimes had adverse effects on the benthic communities. In addition cleanup procedures such as the use of chemical dispersants can also damage the marine environment. In the open sea, the response of the authorities to an oil spill has to be very rapid to prevent the oil from reaching the coastline. It is practically difficult to avoid oil pollution of the coast. The time taken for oil-damaged populations of marine life to recover is highly variable and the extent to which the biological recovery of a habitat can be accelerated is severely limited.

Reasons for choosing the implementation area

tries include Egypt with its Suez Canal and Sumed pipeline, Italy with its Transalpine Pipeline to Austria and Germany, and Turkey with its pipeline network from the East to the Black Sea. Other countries which were once used for transit and/or may become transit centres again include Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Albania, and Greece. In most cases, crude oil flows from east to west and south to north across the Mediterranean. In terms of trade volumes, in excess of 2 million bbl/d is transported into the Mediterranean region by both the Suez Canal/pipeline and the Bosphorus. A review of the causes attributed to all large tanker spills (>700 tonnes) in the Mediterranean since 1960 sheds light onto the most important risks involved in oil tanker operations in this region. Nearly two-thirds of past incidents were the result of collisions (27%) or groundings (38%). Equipment or hull failure (18%) and fire (12%) account for most of the remaining cases. Key risk areas for collisions in the Mediterranean are the constricted waters of the Dardanelles, the Strait of Messina between Sicily and mainland Italy, and the deep though narrow waters of the Strait of Gibraltar. Each of these locations has a large vessel traffic volume and has experienced tanker incidents in the past. Measures taken to reduce the risk of collisions in these areas include prohibiting anchoring and fishing as well as the control of vessel traffic in dedicated shipping lanes in the case of the Bosphorus and the Strait of Gibraltar. As dangerous as these particularly constricted waters may be, the greatest frequency of tanker incidents in the past has been in and around major ports. Many of the shipping centres with dense maritime traffic that have seen relatively frequent spills are located in southern Greece, northern Italy and southern France. Cross traffic from smaller vessels, particularly fishing boats and ferries is a serious problem in many areas. Oil spills to marine areas have a significant impact on environmental quality affecting all aspects of marine ecosystems. The consistency of oil can cause surface contamination and smothering of marine biota. In addition, its chemical components can cause acute toxic effects and long-term accumulative impacts. Marine life may also be affected in clean-up operations, either directly or through physical damage to marine and coastal habitats. Natural recovery is possible, but the time required depends on the size of spill or discharge. In the case of large accidental spills, expensive clean up operation and programmes to save marine sea birds and sea life are required. The impacts of accidental spills can be catastrophic on coastal zones that are often sites designated for their high ecological quality. Spills can also have severe repercussions for tourism, mariculture and fisheries in affected areas. Table 1: Selected major accidental oil tanker spills (> 20 000 tonnes), EU Ship name Amoco Cadiz Haven Torrey Canyon Urquiola Jakob Maersk Braer Aegean Sea Nassia Sea Empress The largest exporters of crude oil in the Mediterranean are Libya (1.29 million bbl/d), Algeria (1.15 million bbl/d), Egypt (352,000 bbl/ d), and Syria (276,000 bbl/d). The region’s major importers of crude oil are France (1.9 million bbl/d), Italy (1.8 million bbl/d), Spain (1.46 million bbl/d), and Turkey (601,000 bbl/d). Important transit counErika Prestige Year 1978 1991 1967 1976 1975 1993 1992 1994 1996 1999 2002 Location Off Brittany, France Genoa, Italy Scilly Isles, UK La Coruna, Spain Oporto, Portugal Shetland Islands, UK La Coruña, Spain Black sea Turkey Milford Haven, UK Off Brittany, France Off Cap Finistere, Spain Oil lost (tonnes) 223,000 144,000 119,000 100,000 88,000 85,000 74,000 33,000 72,000 20,000 77,000

The risk of oil spills in the Mediterranean
With its long history of intensive use, the Mediterranean is subject to degradation from increasing coastal zone development, chronic pollution from agricultural and industrial run-off and illegal discharges at-sea. Examples of some of the general problems include eutrophication, red tides, introduction of foreign species, urbanisation, loss of water clarity, and the failure of traditional fisheries and reduction of marine biodiversity. Given its location, natural resources, and high population density, all the activities that are generally associated with oil pollution risk can found in the Mediterranean. These include the exploration and production of oil and gas, the movement of oil from offshore wells to shore (by ships or sub-sea pipelines), the transportation within and through the region of crude oils, the regional shipment of refined products and residual oils, as well as large-scale commercial and passenger shipping. Offshore oil and gas reserves are located along Italy’s Adriatic coast and in the Greek Aegean Sea, though the most important areas are the Gulf of Gabes off Tunisia and the adjacent Mediterranean shelf off Libya. Oil and gas exploration is also planned or underway off the coasts of Morocco, Turkey and Israel. In terms of spill risk from crude oil tankers, the exportation of onshore production, transit trade, and importation of crude oil in the area must also be taken into consideration.

Source: ITOPF 2003



Socio-Economic assessment and cost benefit analysis of the AEM-MED system



The work of this activity examined the costs of providing such a Mediterranean Electronic Marine Highway and considers some of the benefits which could accrue from its implementation. The analysis, conducted in the form of a cost–benefit study, clearly shows the economic viability of the scheme.


ost–benefit analysis attempts to put a value on all costs and benefits arising from a project over its life. In developing a Cost Benefit Analysis it is relatively easy to identify and estimate the costs of project’s implementation. Identifying the benefits is not always such an easy case either due to lack of market prices or the social and ethical parameters that exist. This kind of analysis involving navigational aids and improved safety is often centered on reduced risks of accidents. Hence the potential benefits involve something not happening, e.g. a collision not taking place, a fatality not occurring, and the benefit is rightly included since, despite being theoretical, the expectation is that reductions in bad effects will occur. This study did not attempt to quantify all of these benefits though but based its conclusions on the inclusion of some of the direct and quantifiable environmental benefits and a comparison of the present value of these benefits against the total costs in a 10 year implementation period.



Equipment and Operational Costs
There are various costs associated with the project “Mediterranean Electronic Marine Highway”, and these can be considered in terms of their cause and their timing. Costs are caused by undertaking certain actions to provide the necessary infrastructure and systems, and a categorization of these actions. Some of the actions incur relatively high initial costs with lower annual charges thereafter. The costs for providing the necessary infrastructure and operational systems (as identified by Port of Elefsis AEMMED Data Center) include • MEMH BASE STATIONS: hardware/ software, installation, maintenance, etc (19 BS in Greece/ Cyprus, 27 BS in Italy, 4 BS in France and 10 BS in Spain) • MEMH DATA CENTERS: National Data Centers (Greece, Cyprus, Italy, France, Spain), AIS servers, Data Servers, etc • MEMH DATA CENTERS’ SOFTWARE • MEMH INFO CENTERS • PERSONNEL & TRAINING • PROJECT MANAGEMENT It is estimated that the total cost after a 10 year period of the full scale AEMMED system would be around 16.55 million Euros.

The costs of Oil Spills
The factors that affect cleanup costs and determine the per unit oil spill cleanup costs are complex & interrelated. Most experts agree that the most important determinant of cleanup costs is location. Location itself is a complex factor involving both geographical and political and legal considerations. The timing of a spill, both seasonally and diurnally (e.g., tide cycles), can profoundly influence the nature and sensitivity of the geographical location. In some circumstances, timing can also impact the political and legal regime under which the spill falls. Both geographical location and timing can have a profound effect on the logistics of a spill response.



When an oil spill occurs, the most important geographical factors to consider are: • Is the oil spill close enough to shore or under the influence of currents and wind conditions that make it likely that the oil will impact the shoreline? • What type of shoreline is involved? • How close is the shoreline to inhabited areas? • What value does the population place on the shoreline or resources likely to be impacted? According to the INTERNATIONAL OIL SPILL DATABASE (OSIR), Cleanup Costs differ among countries and Continents, and the estimation for Europe is calculated at an average of 8.596 US Dollars per tonne cleaned (prices in 1997).

Benefits the AEMMED AIS System
While the MEH concept is still relatively new and is not in a worldwide use, it is predictable that its application will expand to cover all major shipping routes and have a global influence on traffic safety and marine environmental protection. This will include all areas where it is beneficial to exchange and share the various marine information datasets. While some of the benefits in terms of marine transportation have been mentioned earlier, a more complete listing of benefits is as follows: • Enhanced ability to track and identify vessels and to detect illegal activities, e.g. the illegal discharge of bilge and ballast water; • Increased marine traffic safety and pollution prevention in congested sea lanes and port entrances, due to effective oil spill detection, prediction and response. Pollution detection often remains visual and random; pollution forecast is still very random. Software for pollution drift calculation can be interesting assistants but never replace reset observations on a regular basis. • Lower response and clean-up costs, due to pollution prevention and immediate pollution detection. Light hydrocarbon pollutions detected on the surface offshore disappear before reaching the coasts (of course they still remain pollutions). • Improved regional co-operation in data exchange on marine and environmental matters. Obviously, digitising of data allows quick information transfers between the involved partners. That is what directive 2002/59 recommends. • Higher efficiency and increased profits for the shipping industry due to more efficient voyage planning, vessel position checking and verification, and fuel savings which derive from a lower requirement for maneuvering. • The life expectancy of machinery also improves because accurate positioning reduces engine movement. This is because fewer route corrections are needed when an optimized speed and course can be set to reach the destination at the desired time of arrival. • Reduced workload for navigators, because their paper chart folio can be minimized, with less manual updating and handling needed. Costs are also saved on chart correction and replacement, while operational efficiency is improved when performing normal navigational tasks. • Decreased insurance premiums, due to reduced risks of vessel accidents. This still depends on the insurers’ initiative. It is true that through premiums increase for dangerous behaviours (old ships, makeshift crew, etc.), they have often taken part in changing the customs of the ship loaders and ship owners. • It also requires a financial penalty for defaulting certification companies. • More effective route planning, improved efficiency in managing vessel arrivals / departures and decreased downtime due to weather restrictions. • Reduced queuing time for vessels entering and leaving ports.



• Investments and opportunities for information technology and environmental industries in the bordering coastal states. • Improved security against criminal or terrorist activities and faster response by coastal states to incidents of any threatening nature. • Enhanced use of port facilities and services, through a more efficient system for land transportation. • Enhanced monitoring and forecasting of water quality and toxic plankton. • Enhanced commercial production level and quality. • Promotion of public-private partnerships that benefit the global environment • Promotion of Green Job development An additional and very important benefit is the possibility of greater payload arising from the reduced under-keel clearance stemming from greater reliability of or trust in the navigation charts. The ability to map ocean bottoms precisely has major implications for maximum safe loading. The effect could be four-fold as: 1. vessels can carry more cargo (higher inventory costs) 2. fewer journeys might be necessary (lower transport costs) 3. fewer ships might be needed (lower capital costs) 4. fewer journeys and/or fewer ships mean less congestion and certainly safer navigation. The MEH would suggest the occurrence of the latter even in the absence of fewer journeys. Each of these four effects is, of course, a potential benefit accruing either to the shipping company or the community at large, i.e. the littoral states and their inhabitants.



This is indicated by the fact that from the total quantity of oil spilled between 1977 and 2003, in 376 accidents in Med region, which was 304,700 tonnes of oil, more than 80% of that quantity was spilled in just three accidents. Furthermore it would be easy to control and avoid small maritime accidents (control the traffic of small vessels) and relatively difficult to control, check or even avoid a major accident caused by a big vessel carrying many tonnes of oil. Thus, taking the above data into account the basic assumptions and calculations in our study are the following: According to REMPEC’s historical data analysis, 321.300 tonnes of oil entered into the Mediterranean Sea as a result of accidents between 1977 and 2007. For the aforementioned period 10,710 (A) tonnes of oil spilled in average per year. The Cleanup Cost for Europe equalled 8.596 (B) average $/PTC (OSIR) Thus the total cleanup cost for oil spilled in Med per year equals: (A) X (B) = 92.063.160 U.S. Dollars (in 1997 U.S. Dollars prices). If the MEH implementation results in a 10% reduction of the quantity of oil to be spilled for the next years in Mediterranean Sea region, this would be equal to 1.071 of less oil to be spilled per year. In this case the quantity of oil to be spilled on yearly basis would be 9,639 tonnes and thus there would be a reduction of [1.071 x 8,596$] 9,206,316$ or the equivalent of 5,862,528€ to the relative cleanup cost per year.

Overall Economic Appraisal
The Overall Economic Appraisal contains a discounted (at 11%) cash flow calculation and estimates the net present value of the benefits accruing to the littoral states from a reduction by 10% in the quantity of oil to be spilled each year for the next 10 years as a result of the full scale AEMMED system implementation. The direct environmental benefits have only been included after the end of the two year’s implementation project period, when the ship trials would have been completed. Benefits accruing to the owners of ships involved in the demonstration project have been omitted, since it was not possible to quantify these benefits, even though the cost of fitting the ships with ECDIS/ AIS has been included. The calculation assumes that when the MEH is operational, most ships passing through the Med region will be fitted with ECDIS/ AIS even though the net benefits accruing to shipowners from doing so could not be quantified. The annual implementation cost figures are based on information provided by the experts of the Port of Elefsis AEM MED Data Cente. They reflect both the timing and the nature of the costs of the various components of the AEMMED system. As such: The total cost after a 10 year period of the full scale AEMMED system would be around 16.55 million Euros. The total direct environmental benefits would be around 46.9 million Euros. Thus the total Net Benefit would be 30.37 million Euros, and if all costs and benefits have been discounted at 11% to meet present values, then the Discounted Net Benefits would be 26.44 million Euros. Even under this very conservative scenario, the full application of the Mediterranean Electronic Marine Highway has a positive net present value and a healthy internal rate of return. It is apparent that if all the other benefits were to be included they would exert a strong positive effect on the results and make the economic case for the investment even more compelling. For this purpose there must be a serious cooperation between all littoral state stakeholders (Ports, State and Local Authorities, Economic Organisations etc.) for the further development and expansion of the AEMMED AIS Network.

A further benefit stems from a possible reduction, in the minimum required under-keel clearance which would result from more accurate and up-to-date hydrographical information. This should lead to increased loads for any tankers which are currently draft constrained (namely VLCC vessels over 250,000 dwt), resulting in fewer transits. a) A most precise navigation must not lead to more risk-taking behaviours (reduced under-keel clearance, more cargo, etc.). The French authorities have always objected to requests (notably emanating from the Netherlands) to increase authorised draughts of the VLCC in Pas de Calais (Dover Strait). b) Illegal traffic often happens with ships not compelled to have an AIS (GT < 300UMS). Detection of ship AIS allows identification of radar echoes by means of monitoring without necessary diverting for visual identification. This allows optimisation of ship missions and above all monitoring airplanes. Therefore, targeting is facilitated. As we said earlier though, this study will not attempt to quantify all of these but will base its conclusions on the inclusion of direct environmental benefits and a comparison of the present value of these against the total costs.

Direct Environmental Benefits
One major environmental benefit to the littoral states will follow from a 10% reduction in the quantity of oil to be spilled into the Mediterranean Sea Region for the next 10 years. According to the analysis above, this would be the main quantified target for MEH implementation, rather than a possible reduction in the number of maritime accidents, because such an impact would not be effective enough to give positive benefits.



Packaging the AEM-MED system as an investment proposal and evaluation of its full-scale implementation


he aim of this activity had been to look into the development of marketing strategies in order to package the AEMMED system and its various functionalities and features as investment schemes to attract more users and partners. The establishment of the AEMMED Marine Electronic Highway system proves to have significant technical, financial, economic, social and institutional impacts. The necessary steps to ensure success of the project have been identified as: • Understanding the objectives: the prime objective has been to put in place a pilot project that will expand over time to include the entire Mediterranean. The system is available at • Involving public, private sector and academic stakeholders: In order to specify a program that will benefit the largest number of potential stakeholders, it will be necessary to ensure that the requirements of all three sectors are considered. • Engaging in capacity building and regional knowledge transfer: During the discussion phase, every effort has been made to explain the process and the benefits. Seminars and workshops were specified on issues such as sensitivity mapping, marine protected areas, oil spill contingency planning and the implementation of international conventions. • Ensuring financial sustainability: Financial sustainability will be achieved through the commitment of the certain project partners to maintain the system well beyond the expiration of the project activities.

The system’s Data Center is located at the Municipal Port of Hersonissos in Crete, and it is fully operational. It is expected that the AEMMED network will includes the areas of Valencia, Marseille, and Genoa besides the Greek seas under the name of AIS-MED system platform. The system is operating under 4 different map systems (Google maps, Microsoft virtual earth, MapPoint carts, BSB (Electronic Navigational charts), in120 natural languages (Greek, English, French, etc). The system in its full version, provides reporting, alarms, weather reporting, and many more in any of the 120 different languages. Many of these capabilities will be free to any internet user worldwide. Testing of the system can be undertaken by any potential user at: http://www. Certain technical functionalities of the system include: A. AEMMED AIS NETWORK SOLUTION The AEMMED AIS Network Solution allows competent authorities to monitor the movements of AIS equipped vessels on coastal waters within unlimited area. The Internet-based online AIS national solution allows competent authorities to: • Detect and identify AIS equipped vessels • Track AIS targets • Send messages to AIS equipped vessel • Receive messages from AIS equipped vessel • Create sophisticated reports • Alert alarms • Investigate accidents (the unlimited history replay function) The solution supports Virtual Earth, Google, MapPoint maps, and BSB nautical charts. B. AEMMED AIS SERVER AEMMED AIS Server is a software solution that collects AIS messages, redistributes them, and decodes and stores AIS data in the database. AEM MED AIS Server is available in three versions: • AEMMED AIS Server Lite, entry level version. This version does not store historical data. • AEMMED AIS Server Mate, restricted version. This version does not store historical data. • AEMMED AIS Server Professional, full functional product. C. Web VTS Web VTS Professional (WVP) is a highly sophisticated web-based marine traffic monitoring system for ports and other organizations interested in monitoring real-time or historical vessel traffic. The Project is expected to generate coastal development and environmental benefits for the littoral states; global environment benefits by reducing the pollution of shared marine water bodies; and economic benefits for the international shipping industry and their customers. It will further result in reduced vulnerability to catastrophic pollution for the coastal states and the communities depending on the marine and coastal resources for their livelihoods. The technological innovations associated with the Project’s implementation and its information generation and sharing aspects, in particular, are expected to significantly contribute to improved environmental stewardship and natural resource management capacity the Mediterranean Sea region. The Basic investment required to join the AEMMED system in order to establish an AEM MED INFORMATION CENTER vary from 22.250 Euros for the BASIC VERSION and 55.000 Euros for the EXTENDED VERSION.

The AEM MED VTIS/AIS in brief
The AEMMED VTIS/ AIS provides all IMO information on passing vessels, (in a radius of approximately 100 Nautical Miles), including info on class A & B ships, AtoN (Aids to Navigation), SAR (Search and Rescue) and ARPA (Radar).



The services provided through the AEMMED system are summarized below: - AIS National and International Network: It is an AIS network for the whole MEDOCC with the ability to monitor the movements of AIS equipped vessels on coastal waters within unlimited area. - AIS Long Range Solution for fleet traffic monitoring: AIS Long Range Solution provides a long-range fleet traffic monitoring and management system for shipping companies. - AIS Fleet Management Solution for shipping companies of all sizes: AIS Fleet Management Solution is an Internet-based fleet traffic monitoring and management system for shipping companies of all sizes. - AIS Port Solution for ports of all sizes: AIS Port Solution represents an vessel traffic monitoring system for maritime professionals ranging from single user to international systems, i.e. ideal for ports of all sizes. - AIS Pilot Solution for marine pilot associations of all sizes: AIS Pilot Solution represents a vessel traffic monitoring system for the harbor and municipal police departments. - AIS Aids to Navigation Management Solution: AIS Aids to Navigation (AtoN) Management Solution provides an AtoN management system for AtoN maintenance authorities. - AIS Marine Life Protection Solution: AIS Marine Life Protection Solution allows competent authorities to improve protection for whales. This solution could also be applied for all kinds of marine natural environment and wildlife protection such as from oil spillage, any discharge of a pollutant and ocean dumping. The solution could protect marine parks and key habitats. - AIS Environmental Health Protection Solution: AIS Environmental Health Protection Solution is an efficient tool to protect the environment. - AIS Maritime Domain Intelligence Solution : AIS Maritime Domain Intelligence solution intended for harbor and municipal police departments. - AIS Boat Charters Solution for charter companies of all sizes: AIS Boat Charters Solution is an affordable Internet-based boat traffic monitoring system for charter companies of all sizes.

AEMMED BASE STATIONS: 2.310.000 AEMMED DATA CENTERS HARDWARE: 91.000 AEMMED DATA CENTERS SOFTWARE: 57.500 AEMMED INFO CENTERS: 54.000 TRAINING: 116.000 PROJECT MANAGEMENT: 400.000 GRAND TOTAL COSTS: 3.028.500 All amounts in Euros A market survey has been contacted in order to determine the potential users through system testing and filling of questionnaires. The aim of the questionnaire was to determine potential users of the AEMMED System and to define the major stakeholders that at the same time are also considered beneficiaries from the implementation of the system in the Mediterranean Sea. The results of the market survey are: Main interest areas for the port authorities are safer port operations, traffic control and control of the quality of water and the enhancement of navigational safety, improvement in vessel traffic movement and strengthening dissemination and use of environmental information. The coastal municipalities are quite involved in the protection of their maritime environment (nearby waters, beaches, protected areas, etc) and also in promoting a safer leisure navigation. These municipalities are great beneficiaries of the system since it provides in one system the information that comes from different information sources. The Marinas and Leisure Ports thanks to the Class B AIS transponders, it’s possible to detect leisure boats and yachts. Class B AIS transponders have been designed for being installed in boats not obliged to install an AIS receiver and that therefore, it’s volunteer. NGO’s dealing with the protection of the marine environment could take advantage of the system since they could monitor the intrusion of vessels in protected areas, and also follow certain ships banned or carrying dangerous goods or present a threat to the environment. The installation of a class B AIS receiver could be an affordable way to do so. The connection to a wider system covering environmental or weather information could be also very useful to them in order to carry out studies and reports in a sound basis.

Necessary steps for the development of a full scale AEMMED AIS Network in the MEDOCC area include: a. Evaluation and testing of the AEM MED pilot project. (Potential candidates may test the AEM MED system at: http://www.aemmed. net/ais/default.asp b. Certain transitional activities for the development of the full-scale AEMMED system and the feasibility of establishing a full phase AEMMED network are included in an implementation plan. Such an implementation plan should include the following steps: 1: Proposal Development, Endorsement and Approval - Full-scale Project 2: Start up phase 3: Establishment of the Marine Electronic Highway 4: Integration of Marine Environment Protection Systems 5: Development of the Operational and Administrative Mechanisms 6: Evaluation of the Financial, Social and Economic Benefits 7: Promoting the MEMH System and Participation of Relevant Stakeholders 8: Capacity Building, Evaluation and Project Management 9: Second Phase MEMH System 10: Wrap up of the project An Indicative Cost for the Baseline Activities and Investments for the full scale development of the AEM MED system in the MEDOCC area is summarized below:



Regional Government Institutions find the system ideal as a working tool, both for managing incidents or developing studies. Reports and records regarding the pass of vessels, weather and environmental information, etc., could be developed more quickly and taking a first-hand information. In order to attract more users and partners and promote awareness and participation of relevant stakeholders to support the AEMMED system, recommended additional activities may include: The organization of national and regional workshops and special seminars on the benefits and applicability of the AEMMED system and users feedback and production and dissemination of information on the AEMMED system through print media and via the Internet. National and regional capacity building, project evaluation and management: One of the key factors in the sustainability of the Mediterranean Electronic Marine Highway (MEMH) system will be the availability of a pool of dedicated technical staff to operate and maintain the system over the long term, effectively and efficiently and at the same time, able to move forward with new or emerging needs and technologies. The recommended activities under this component are the organization of regional training on the operation and management of the AEMMED system and the organization of specialized short-term trainings on various components of the AEMMED system covering data processing, maintenance, field validation, troubleshooting and communications Monitoring and Evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation of the project activities will include milestones for each major activity with a corresponding specific timeframe to complete. In addition, there will be annual reviews on project implementation as well as results and outputs. The findings of these reviews will have to be used to assess project progress and the need to modify approaches and resources. Project Management: In order to have a coherent programme a Project Management Office will be established and would be based in any of the littoral States. It will have to be staffed by a Project Manager and four experts and will work closely with the national staff assigned to the AEM MED Functional Units. The four experts should have the following specializations: Cartography/ Hydrography and Navigation Safety Expert, an Environmental Science Expert, an ICT Expert, an Economics and Financial Expert.



Financial assessment of the AEM-MED system
This activity had been focused on the establishment of charging mechanisms for using the services, products and facilities of the AEMMED system.




he financial assessment to establish the viability of the Marine Electronic Highway has been conducted initially on a pilot scale system in Hersonissos (Greece) and Valencia (Spain). The outputs of this initial assessment have been utilized to fine-tune the assessment procedure for application to the full-scale AEMMED system. Such assessment has looked look into issues like capital and operating costs and revenue projections. Among the potential products and services of the MEH system that could generate revenues are: - Electronic navigational charts, its updating and upgrading services; - Advanced maritime traffic management information services; - Real time and near-real time information services, especially environmental data, tides, currents and wind, etc.; - Enhanced navigational safety and pollution prevention and response services; - Outputs from hydrodynamic, environmental, oil and chemical spills models - Real time digital telecommunications services via AIS and satellite; and - Sensitivity maps (ENC-based) and sensitivity mapping services; The target groups are: • Port Authorities (for the management of port operations in big commercial ports, global fleet traffic control, etc). • Harbour Masters (For controlling vessels in territorial waters, coordination of emergencies (collisions, sinkings, etc.), for survey purposes, etc. • Managers of Regional Ports (For controlling fishing fleet, leisure crafts with installed Class-B AIS, for knowing the state of maritime traffic in case of sportive events, etc. • Ship-owners (Fleet control and management )

• Shipping companies (Freights transportation management, fleet control and management, decision making tool • Multimodal Transportation companies ( Position and arrival date of a container ship let transportation companies to manage better their schedules and optimizing truck departure and arrival time, improving transportation times and reducing unnecessary costs. • Rescue and salvage services operators • Consultant companies (for making studies, statistics, feasibility studies, records, annual reports, etc). • Different university departments with a focus on ICZM and maritime safety.

Best practices on cost recovery mechanisms
Various best practices on cost recovery mechanisms for services provided by the AEMMED system have been recognised: Cost recovery mechanisms in Spain. In Spain, funding programmes for infrastructure and services are supplied by different Ministries in a national level such as the Ministry of Science and Innovation, the Ministry of Infrastructures, the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade. At regional level, in Valencia there’s the IMPIVA, an Institute that also promotes technological development with national or European funding programs. In the United States the Marine Exchange of Southern California has been identified as a good PPP example. This is an eighty plus year old, non-profit organization dedicated to the development and efficient flow of maritime commerce throughout the region and being in partnership with the United States Coast Guard in running the only public-private partnership VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICE in the United States. Its VTS section provides operating rules, important notices, user fees and, for those authorized, a real time picture of the vessel traffic situation. In



Los Angeles/Long Beach the VTIS fee is considered low, especially when compared to many port charges that can be thousands of dollars. Modest fees will not affect vessel behavior; fair (user pays), and simple to administer (the vessel’s agent can be billed. In Singapore, Indonesian and Malaysian Ports the User Charges for Cost Recovery of Services are similar to ports worldwide. All major ports levy a variety of traditional fees, dues or charges on vessels, such as pilot charges, tug services and other port fees. Fee structures appear to promote vessel efficiency by charging lees that reflect the higher marginal costs associated with accommodating larger vessels and some ports offer lower lees for day-time periods. Singapore has a mandatory pilotage system for certain hard-to-operate vessels (e.g., VLCCs, vessels under tow). Indonesia and Malaysia also have pilot services at major ports. Navigational aids are supported by (1) port users, (2) the three littoral States and (3) donor countries—specifically, Japan. In the case of individual ports along the Straits, financial mechanisms such as light dues or lighthouse dues for funding navigational aids serving the port itself are in place. The only apparent issue is the perception that such dues may affect a port’s relative competitiveness. Potential new mechanisms. Certain options can be envisioned, each with its strengths and weaknesses: - Cooperative Collection of Dues for Navigational Aids. The Med States could levy uniform dues to finance navigational aids used primarily to support transit through the Straits of Suez, Gibraltar and Bosporus as opposed to those aids that a nation would elect to provide for safety for its own territorial seas. - Dues could be collected for vessels engaged in trade in the Med, with the amounts collected subsequently shared among the littoral Stales based on their incremental costs. To operationalize such a process estimates must be made of the incremental investment, operating and maintenance costs to be financed. The advantages of this approach are obvious. It follows the user pays principle; and transactions costs (collection and distribution costs) are low. Further, a uniform levy across ports should allay concerns among ports about loss of relative competitiveness in trade. Funding through International Organizations. This alternative would call upon international bodies, with IMO in collaboration with GEF presumably taking the lead, to promote making international funding available to coastal states. This approach is worth raising because it appeals as a potential long-run solution. Additionally, the incidence of an international cost-sharing approach, in effect, would have worldwide beneficiaries that bear costs in rough proportion to the benefits they receive. Implementation Issues. Among the important issues are: (1) marshaling the support for eventual approval of such a program; (2) devising a methodology for deter-

mining what is adequate funding for such a program; (3) prioritizing the need for additional support among international straits, and (4) guarding against rent seeking. User- or Benefit-based Cost-Sharing Schemes Rationale. This approach has appeal on the grounds of fairness. It would: (1) provide the littoral States with compensation for the incremental costs of navigational aids, and (2) redistribute costs to those who benefit, i.e., the user pays. A major point in its favor is the voluntary nature of this alternative, avoiding the herculean and highly problematic efforts needed to revise UNCLOS to achieve Option 2. Issues. Principal issues include; (1) defining who are users, (2) estimating users’ benefits, (3) deciding upon the level of ad equate (incremental) funding and (4) designing mechanisms lo distribute this funding. Issue (3) is a common issue for any approach. Defining users of the Straits seems straightforward but has been a matter of some debate. Are users, shippers, the originating countries (e.g., oil producers), those who receive the goods, or some combination of these entities? A pragmatic implementation policy could focus on physical measures of traffic to estimate cost shares. This raises the obvious question of what measure of traffic would serve as an index: the number of vessels, the number of vessels by category,by size, etc. On the other hand, a focus on traffic, rather than benefits avoids the need to quantify monetary values of benefits, a task which can be done but adds much complexity and additional challenges. Co-operation and Article 43 of 1982 UNCLOS Under Article 43 of the 1982 UNCLOS, the financial burdens being incurred by the Straits States arising from the installation, maintenance and management of the navigational safety facilities, aids and mechanisms do not provide that these burdens will be borne solely by the States. This specific provision is intended to establish an arrangement such that user States and the Straits States “shall by agreement co-operate” for the purposes specified. The establishment of the MEMH system could be the mechanism to carry out the provisions of Article 43 of UNCLOS. By using incentive-based approaches, which focus on cost recovery rather than pricing strategies, any charging will avoid any appearance of authorizing tolls. In recent years, a consensus has emerged around the user-pays principle, which reflects commonly shared notion of fairness. However, application of user-pays principle as a compensation mechanism is not a straightforward exercise. Potentially Profitable Partnerships Although no financial assessments of MEHs are publicly available, private sector activity potentially could be an important element of a MEMH. On the demand side, individual vessels might realize large benefits from participation in an MEMH due to enhanced safety, less down time due to bad weather and the ability to carry larger loads. However, an effective



MEMH requires precise hydrographic data, which can be costly to gather and largely has been provided by national governments. One proposal is that littoral States participating in data gathering and sharing would be compensated for international cooperation by receiving royalty revenues from vessel operators for data usage. At the same time, many firms now provide real time weather and related data electronically, for a fee. This demonstrates the commercial value of information and that there is a basis for private sector involvement in the production of updated, precise data necessary for an effective MEMH. Further, advanced methods for obtaining hydrographic information at lower cost, using laser-based technology, may also provide for private sector financing and involvement. This suggests that greater private involvement on the supply side may occur in the future. Beyond private benefits to vessels, an MEMH will create broader, external benefits that cannot be captured by a participating vessel. This occurs when an MEMH reduces delays due to congestion or lowers the risk of accidents and spills. It is unclear, however, whether fees that vessels would be willing to pay (based to their private benefits) for MEMH data would be adequate to cover ongoing costs of an MEMH. Further, high fees may discourage vessels if the higher fee exceeds private benefits from using an MEMH. If external benefits from an MEMH are important, one does not want to discourage vessels from using an MEMH. This suggests that careful attention must be given to an appropriate fee structure. For example, prevailing port fees typically increase with the size of the vessel and the type of cargo. Vessel size and cargo may also be an important factor to allow for in setting fees with an MEMH. Finally, countries that are major beneficiaries of the Mediterranean Sea lanes might provide some support for a MEMH. Even though the MEMH has important elements of a public good, some countries may capture sufficient benefits to justify some support, rather than go without MEMH. Sustainable Financing of the AEMMED system. Cost of charts and on-board equipment would be borne by individual vessel owners. Infrastructure costs, however, would be considerable and hydrographic data would have to be updated, which is expensive. Ii is unlikely that fees could be levied and enforced on all vessels due of the provisions of UNCLOS Article 43. One solution is the use of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to cover the incremental costs of an MEMH. Some of those involved with promotion of an MEMH for the Malacca Straits for example are optimistic that GEF would look favorably on a proposal for the Straits. What is unclear, however, is how incremental operating costs might be covered, and whether the GMF would provide for periodic maintenance and updating of the system, and do so over a prolonged period.



Purposes of the MEΜH Fund The MEΜH Fund has the following purposes: 1. To fund the operation, administration, upgrade and management of the MEΜH system in the MEDOCC region ; 2. To fund the operation, upgrade and management including capacity building of the MEMH Opearational Mechanism (Data Centers, Base Stations and Information Centers) 3. To fund the collection, processing, packaging and marketing of relevant marine information and products and services of the MEΜH system. 4. To fund the establishment, maintenance and upgrade of marine pollution preventive equipment such as navigational aids and environmental monitoring sensors, linked to the MEΜH system; 5. To fund the operation, upgrade, calibration and quality control of environmental monitoring equipment that are part of the MEΜH system such as tidal and current instruments as well as oil and chemical spill models (trajectory and fate models), and environmental databases that are being operated by the MEΜH Data Centers; 6. To subsidize specific activities of the littoral States on chemical and oil pollution prevention and response including environmental monitoring and surveillance, training and joint exercises as well as the conduct of workshops and meetings to improve environmental management practices, environmental surveillance and monitoring in the Med. 7. To subsidize scientific and technical research in the development of indicators on the environment, ecosystems and coastal resource management for enhanced environmental monitoring including innovative marine environment protection applications within the scope of the MEΜH system. The development of a charging mechanism for the products and services of the MEMH system will look into incentive-based approaches such as the user-pays principle and various cost recovery strategies. Associated issues on charging mechanism are the financial valuation of the products and services under the system collection of fees, defining the users characterizing and quantifying the fees (e.g., based on the incremental cost associated with the system and pollution prevention and response measures), and cooperative arrangements (e.g., public private partnerships, existing funding arrangements on maritime safety and marine pollution mitigation), among others. Necessary steps to ensure project success towards the realization of a full scale AEMMED system for the MEDOCC area are: • Understanding the objectives: The prime objective has been to put in place a pilot project that will expand over time to include the entire Mediterranean • Involving public, private sector and academic stakeholders: In order to specify a program that will benefit the largest number of potential stakeholders, it will be necessary to ensure that the requirements of all three sectors are considered. • Engaging in capacity building and regional knowledge transfer: Efforts have been made to explain the process and the benefits. Seminars and workshops will have to be further organized and deal with issues such as sensitivity mapping, marine protected areas, oil spill contingency planning and the implementation of international conventions. • Ensuring financial sustainability: Financial sustainability will only be achieved through an overall commitment of the relevant stakeholders of the respected countries and the oil, fishing and shipping interests.

As a necessary step towards the sustainability of the AEMMED project the MUNICIPAL PORT AUTHORITY OF HERSONISSOS has committed itself to maintain the installed system also beyond the end of this project. Also FEPORTS in Valencia is going the same direction. The following key issues are fundamental to the advancement of the MEH technology to a full scale system in the MEDOCC area, namely: 1, Information technology, its use and specifically the integration of existing technologies and capacities within the littoral States with new and innovative technologies focusing on the specific needs of users. 2. Socio-economic benefit to the relevant stakeholders, industry/private sectors, and the communities as a consequence of the MEMH technology; 3. Financing mechanisms and investment potential, and the establishment of interagency, intergovernmental and intersectoral partner-



ships as vehicles for successfully developing, financing, constructing and operating the MEMH as a self sustaining, revenue generating enterprise and 4. Institutional arrangements, with agreement among participating parties on the administrative, legal, financial and operational aspects. The most suitable approach is to form the MEMH fund under the umbrella of the creation of a Mediterranean fund for public-private financing of maritime security as proposed by the French EU presidency. The proposal is to create a financial contribution, new for Gibraltar and the Bosphorus and additional for Suez, for the security of the Mediterranean maritime area. It would be collected on the basis of the weight of goods transported in the maritime area as delimited by the straits. These straits form the entrances to this closed sea and make it easier to measure maritime activity and statistically evaluate volumes of trade and transit.




egulation 19 of SOLAS Chapter V - Carriage requirements for shipborne navigational systems and equipment - sets out navigational equipment to be carried on board ships, according to ship type. In 2000, IMO adopted a new requirement (as part of a revised new chapter V) for all ships to carry automatic identification systems (AISs) capable of providing information about the ship to other ships and to coastal authorities automatically. The regulation requires AIS to be fitted aboard all ships of 300 gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards not engaged on international voyages and all passenger ships irrespective of size. The requirement became effective for all ships by 31 December 2004. Ships fitted with AIS shall maintain AIS in operation at all times except where international agreements, rules or standards provide for the protection of navigational information. A flag State may exempt ships from carrying AISs when ships will be taken permanently out of service within two years after the implementation date. Performance standards for AIS were adopted in 1998. The regulation requires that AIS shall: • provide information - including the ship’s identity, type, position, course, speed, navigational status and other safety-related information - automatically to appropriately equipped shore stations, other ships and aircraft; • receive automatically such information from similarly fitted ships; • monitor and track ships; • exchange data with shore-based facilities. The regulation applies to ships built on or after 1 July 2002 and to ships engaged on international voyages constructed before 1 July 2002, according to the following timetable: • passenger ships, not later than 1 July 2003; • tankers, not later than the first survey for safety equipment on or after 1 July 2003;

Policy context of the AEM-MED system

• ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 50,000 gross tonnage and upwards, not later than 1 July 2004. IMO Resolution MSC.74(69) includes Recommendation on Performance Standards for Universal Automatic Identification System (AIS) states that AIS should “improve the safety of navigation by assisting in the efficient navigation of ships, protection of the environment, and operation of Vessel Traffic Services (VTS), by satisfying the following functional requirements: 1. in a ship-to-ship mode for collision avoidance; 2. as a means for littoral States to obtain information about a ship and its cargo; and as a VTS tool, i.e. ship-to-shore (traffic management).

imposes obligations on all EU ports (including recreational ports and marinas) to provide adequate facilities to receive ship waste and cargo residues on the basis of waste management plans developed for each port, and sets out the main principles for the fee systems to be applied for waste delivery. Ships are required to deliver their waste to the facilities unless they have sufficient storage capacity to proceed to the next port of call. On 13 December 2001, the EU adopted the Erika I package. The package, announced by the European Commission shortly after the “ERIKA” sinking on 12 December 1999, contains three measures: • Directive 2001/106/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control). The Directive, amending Directive 95/21 on port state control, will increase both the intensity and the frequency of compulsory ship inspections for substandard vessels. • Directive 2001/105/EC on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations. The Directive, amending Directive 94/57/ EC is designed to tighten up on procedures for authorising and monitoring the performance of classification societies. • Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers and repealing Council Regulation (EC) N° 2978/94 (gradual phaseout of single-hull oil tankers from EU waters by 2015). In 2002 the EU adopted additional tools, the Erika II package: • Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system, replacing the Directive 93/75/EEC. [27 June 2002] • Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency. [27 June 2002] • Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 establishing a Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of pollution from Ships (COSS) and amending the Regulations on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships [5 November 2002] • Directive 2002/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Directives on marine safety and the prevention of pollution from ships [5 November 2002] Finally, in 2003 the EU issued the following texts: • Report from the Commission to the European Council on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige disaster (COM(2003) 105 final). [5 March 2003] • Proposal for a Directive on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for pollution offences (COM(2003) 92 final). [5 March 2003] • Decision to strengthen the criminal-law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution (COM(2003) 227 final). [2 May 2003] Directive 2002/59/EC of 27 June 2002 established a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system. The operator of any vessel wishing to call at a port in a Member State must, in advance, supply various information to the relevant port authority, particularly concerning dangerous or polluting cargoes. The vessel must be fitted with an automatic identification system (AIS), and a timetable was laid down for the compulsory fitting of vessels with voyage data recording systems (VDR systems or ‘black boxes’). The Directive gave Member States greater powers of intervention and authorised the competent authorities to forbid vessels from departing in bad weather conditions. It also required Member States to adopt plans for giving refuge to vessels in distress.

AEMMED and European policy context
In the field of water protection and management, the Dangerous Substances Directive 76/464/EEC includes targets on oil pollution with reference to persistent and non-persistent mineral oils and hydrocarbons of petroleum origin. Targets are total elimination for persistent compounds and specific quality objectives set by Member States for nonpersistent compounds. In the field of maritime safety, the Directives 93/75/EEC and 95/21/ EC were issued to support the MARPOL 73/78 convention established by the International Maritime Organisation for the prevention of pollution from ships. On November 2000, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. This directive complements MARPOL, which mainly focuses on ships’ obligations while at sea, by requiring ports to provide adequate facilities to receive waste, and by setting out rules as to when ships are to use those facilities. More specifically, the Directive



The role of European Maritime Safety Agency EMSA
EMSA was established under Regulation 1406/2002/EC to contribute to the enhancement of maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by ships within the Community. Its main role is to assess the practical implementation and impact of existing EU rules and to provide the European Commission and EU Member States with the necessary assistance and expertise to properly apply the Community legislation in this field. This includes several different tasks related to the prevention of pollution from ships. At the heart of these activities lies the monitoring of compliance with Directive 2000/59/EC. Based on a request by the Commission, EMSA assesses how the Directive is implemented in practice in the EU Member States. Agency staff regularly visit Member States and individual ports to obtain the best possible knowledge of how ship waste and cargo residues are handled in practice. While on site, they visit competent authorities (such as port state control authorities), ports and ships and/or hold interviews with local actors (such as waste contractors) in order to obtain a clear picture of the situation. The outcome of each visit is reported to the Commission as an input to decision making, and the goal is to complete the first cycle of visits to all Member States before mid-2010. EMSA is also leading the development of the SafeSeaNet and CleanSeaNet systems. SafeSeaNet locates and tracks ships and their hazardous cargoes, and will incorporate the use of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) and Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) capabilities. CleanSeaNet uses satellite remote sensing technology to provide oil pollution alerts and images to those monitoring EU and surrounding waters. When they are effectively integrated, it will be possible to use the SafeSeaNet system to identify the most likely vessels responsible for pollution which has been spotted by CleanSeaNet and verified by national surveillance.

Drafting the EU AIS Master Plan
At the request of the COSS Committee, the Commission tasked EMSA with organising a workshop with the participation of the Member States to discuss on the AIS master plan. EMSA began preparations for the workshop in cooperation with the Commission and in consultation with a correspondence group of Member States technical experts from Denmark, Germany, Sweden, UK and the Netherlands. The group had met twice before the workshop, (in Copenhagen on 20 July and 12 October 07). They had also assisted in the preparation of the preliminary discussion paper, circulated to participants prior to the workshop. The meeting was held in Lisbon on 22nd and 23rd January 2008 and was attended by delegations from Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands (the), Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden. The EU AIS Master Plan was defined in the conclusions that were discussed and agreed as follows: 1. AIS - opportunity and threat The mandatory introduction of shore-based AIS installations in accordance with Article 9 of the Directive (2002/59) gives the opportunity for significant improvements in available knowledge and awareness of EU waterways and vessel traffic situations for the Member State Authorities. The high load of AIS VDL can create potential threats to the secure and reliable functioning of AIS, if operated in an uncoordinated way. 2. Need for an AIS master plan To implement regulation and recommendations from IMO, ITU and IALA, a coordinated approach is recommended in Europe for the management of the AIS Base Stations, taking the form of a plan (the so-called AIS Master Plan). The AIS Master Plan will be developed by



the Commission, with the assistance of EMSA and in cooperation with the Member States based on the requirements of the COSS decisions and the Council Resolution on LRIT. 3. Coordination at national level The Member States will be held responsible for the management of the Base stations, control of AIS networks, the integrity of the information transmitted from AIS Base stations and the misuse of AIS stations in general. 4. Coordination at EU level The management of the AIS requires also coordination at EU level and the creation of a European AIS Master Plan that will be agreed among the MS. The plan may also include cooperation with neighbouring States. The development and continuous maintenance of an EU AIS Master Plan, at present is necessary for the optimised use of AIS functions. Coordination with inland AIS will also be sought. 5. EU SSN AIS coordination group This AIS Master Plan could be managed by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States and with the assistance of EMSA. The formation of an EU SSN AIS coordination group (which falls within the remit of the existing SSN group) that will meet if required and resolve any coordination tasks regarding AIS management is recommended. The coordination could be supported by a central software tool, which can assist the Member State Authorities in their decision making. 6. Development of a common EU AIS/LRIT network Establishment of a common EU AIS/LRIT network (integrated into SafeSeaNet) will create new opportunities for the Member States. Costs related to requesting LRIT data may be avoided when similar or more detailed information can be obtained through the EU AIS network. 7. AIS data quality Member States must work closely and in coordination to improve the quality of the AIS data by agreeing coordinated actions to be taken by all of the relevant Authorities (e.g. PSC, VTS, Radio Regulatory Authorities and NCAs). 8. Standards for AIS Data Exchange The group was informed about the standards for the exchange of AIS data, as defined in the STIRES study.



European best practices in the field of maritime safety technology

HELCOM’s common Baltic maritime traffic monitoring system
The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) on 1 July 2005 officially launched an Automatic Identification System (AIS) for monitoring maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea. It is an automatic VHF radio-based system which enables the identification of the name, position, course, speed, draught and cargo of every ship of more than 300 gross tonnes sailing in the Baltic Sea, and displays all available data over a common background map of the region. The system consists of land-based stations established in all the coastal countries to receive ship-borne information as the vessels pass through national waters, and a so-called “HELCOM server”, which combines all the data and provides a comprehensive real-time picture of the overall vessel traffic in the Baltic Sea to the competent authorities in each HELCOM member state. The server updates ship positions every six minutes. The primary task of the shore-based AIS network is to provide competent authorities with a monitoring tool for supervision, statistics, risk analyses, search and rescue (SAR), port state control, security and other safety related tasks to ensure safe navigation in the crowded waters of the Baltic Sea. The HELCOM AIS network will make it possible to not only monitor maritime traffic but also to elaborate statistics on the nature and extent of shipping as well as the amount of cargo being transported in the Baltic Sea area. Thus it will also provide the basis for future risk assessments and identification of needs for additional measures. The decision to establish a land-based monitoring system for ships, based on AIS signals, was agreed during the HELCOM Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting in Copenhagen in 2001, which followed one of the gravest recent oil spill incidents in the Baltic Sea when on 29th of March 2001, close to the sea border between Germany and Denmark, the double hull oil tanker “Baltic Carrier” collided with the bulk carrier “Tern”, releasing 2700 tons of heavy fuel oil from the cargo tanks of which a significant part eventually washed up onto parts of the Danish coast. This system builds upon the International Maritime Organisations (IMO) requirements for ships to be equipped with AIS. Together with the establishment of land-based stations which are able to receive AIS data the Baltic Sea States are now able to gather information on ship traffic in the Baltic. This HELCOM work will also give valuable input at European level to the implementation of the EU directive on traffic monitoring and information under which an AIS exchange system shall be operational by the end of 2008.



The Spanish experience
Different maritime safety systems are currently in operation in Spain. Firstly, systems for capture, analysis and distribution of meteorological information, using the meteorological satellites controlled by EUMETSAT, who send the data gathered by these satellites to various meteorological agencies and institutes in countries registered for these services. The Agencia Estatal de Meteorología (Spanish State Meteorological Agency), formerly the Instituto Meteorológico Nacional (National Meteorological Institute) is responsible for analysing and distributing this information. In the maritime field, the Sociedad Estatal de Salvamento Marítimo (SASEMAR, the State Agency for Marine Rescue) receives this information and distributes it in turn using different media (medium wave, VHF, telephone, NAVTEX, etc.) to the ships. Secondly, there are control and monitoring systems for maritime traffic. Puertos del Estado, the state organization overseeing Spanish ports, has an Automatic Identification System (AIS) network which covers practically the whole Spanish coast. SASEMAR has coastal stations managed by Telefónica which also receive AIS signals, so there is complete coverage of the Spanish coast. There are also three VTS (Vessel Traffic Service) sites at strategic points on the Spanish mainland: Cape Finisterre, the Strait of Gibraltar and Cabo de Gata). Spanish ports also have their own local VTS systems and more and more ports are using AIS for local traffic control. Other maritime safety and marine environment protection systems are: • ESEOO (Establecimiento de un Sistema Español de Oceanografía Operacional – Establishment of a Spanish System of Operational Oceanography). This was a 3-year project, ending in 2007, whose objective was to promote operational oceanography at a national level and, more specifically, to promote those services which can provide solutions to maritime incidents such as oil spills or the monitoring of drifting objects. ESEOO developed various products based on predictive models of sea behaviour. • Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS). This system was implemented all over the world and is made up of the following elements: a fleet of satellites including COSPAS-SARSATS and INMARSAT, beacons to send alarm signals such as EPIRBs (Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon), search and rescue transponders, high frequency radio stations, a NAVTEX system and digital selective calling devices. This system is becoming quicker and more precise all the time – and so more effective. • Spanish network of marine seismometers. This system is managed by the Real Instituto y Observatorio de la Armada Española (ROA, the Royal Institute and Observatory of the Spanish Navy), which, apart from its mission as a geophysical and astronomical observatory, carries out investigative tasks in the areas of physics and mathematics for the army and o provide superior scientific information. This network of seismometers is made up of Ocean Bottom Seismometers (OBS) which gather seismic data related to the contact between the Eurasian and African plates. This network is very useful for earthquake and tsunami forecasts which might affect the Spanish coast. In general, these systems are not interconnected to a common network although the accessibility of these systems via the internet and their high level of standardization mean that it is likely that in the future all of this will form part of an integrated informational system like the AEM-MED. David Incertis, project officer, FEPORTS





The marine and coastal environment need our attention

It is time to
Let’s be part of the solution