MARITIME

Shipping
accidents Baltic Marine Environment
in the Baltic Sea Protection Commission

from 2014 to 2017

Shipping

helcom.fi
 Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Published by:

HELCOM – Helsinki Commission

Katajanokanlaituri 6 B
FI-00160 Helsinki, Finland

www.helcom.fi

For bibliographic purposes this document should be cited as:

“Report on shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017. HELCOM (2018)”

© Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission – Helsinki Commission (2018)

All rights reserved. Information included in this publication or extracts thereof, with the exception of images
and graphic elements that are not HELCOM’s own and identified as such, may be reproduced without prior
consent on the condition that the complete reference of the publication is given as stated above.

Authors:
Florent Nicolas, Alexey Bakhtov, Markus Helavuori, Deborah Shinoda

Layout: Dominik Littfass

Cover: © TBIT (CC0 Creative Commons)

2
 Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Contents
1. Introduction 4

2.  Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea 5

3.  Overview of accidents in the Baltic Sea 10

4.  Types of accidents 12

4.1. Collisions 14
4.2. Groundings 16

5.  Types of vessels involved 18

6.  Cause of accidents 20

7.  Accidents with pollution and response activities 22

7.1.  Accidents with pollution 22
7.2.  Response activities 22

Annexes 24

3
1. Introduction
1.  Introduction
Annual reports on shipping accidents
in the Baltic Sea area have been com-
piled by HELCOM since 2000. According
to an agreed procedure all accidents are reported
irrespectively if there was pollution or not. This in-
cludes accidents which involved tanker ships over
150 gross tonnage (GT) and/or other ships over 400
GT, both in territorial seas or Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) of the HELCOM Contracting Parties. Acci-
dent types cover i.a. groundings, collisions (striking
or being struck by another ship), contacts with fixed
or floating objects, pollution accidents (e.g. during
fuel transfer) and other types of accidents like fires
and explosions, machinery damage and capsizing.
Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
A new reporting format was taken into use in 2004.1
Data collected before 2004 is thus not fully compa-
rable with the data collected in 2004 and subse-
quent years. In 2012 the HELCOM reporting format
was modified in order to harmonize with reporting
formats for incidents of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) and the European Maritime
Safety Agency (EMSA). Some further fine-tuning
was also made to the reporting in 2013.
The report focuses on the shipping accidents
data collected for the year 2014, 2015, 2016 and
2017 as well as for the longer period since 2004.
All Baltic Sea coastal states (Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Fed-
eration and Sweden) were requested to provide
information on ship accidents. For the period
2014‑2017, the HELCOM Secretariat received na-
tional reports from all these countries. Attached
to this report are the guidelines for the 2013
HELCOM reporting format containing additional
information on the categorization used in this
report (Annex 1).
The content of the report remains the same as
in previous years with an additional chapter on
accidents with pollution and response activities
in 2015 reported by Denmark and Poland, in 2016:
Denmark, and in 2017: Denmark and Estonia. This
report was compiled by the HELCOM Secretariat
and approved for publication by the HELCOM
Maritime Working Group.
1  A major revision of the shipping accidents database of
Denmark, maintained by the Danish Maritime Agency, took place
in 2013. Denmark has informed that the accidents data of the
old database and of the new database can both be considered
valid. However, due to the differences in the content and structure
of the two databases, care should be taken when presenting
regional information on accidents which include Danish data both
from the old (before 2009) and new (after 2010) databases. For
example, this is the case in the southwestern Baltic Sea, where the
relative influence of data from Denmark to overall trends is higher.
However, based on HELCOM Secretariat comparisons between
regional datasets including either old or new Danish data for the
years 2010-2012, the effect of the revision on regional trends can
be considered minor Baltic wide, but also within all sub-regions.
© Powie (CC0 Creative Commons)
4
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

2.  Ship traffic in

To get a full picture of the shipping safety in the Bal-
tic Sea, basic information on the intensity of ship-
ping is of importance. IMO regulations (i.e. SOLAS)

the Baltic Sea

require Automatic Identification System (AIS) tran-
sponders to be fitted on board all ships of 300 GT
and above engaged in international voyages, cargo
ships of 500 GT and above not engaged in interna-
tional voyages, as well as all IMO registered passen-
ger ships irrespective of size. The AIS enables the
identification of the name, position, course, speed,
draught and main ship types.
In the Baltic Sea area movements of ships are
gathered in the regional HELCOM AIS network
and database launched in 2005. The intensity of
traffic based on the HELCOM AIS data is illustrated
in Figure 1.
The ship movements can also be illustrated by
the number of ships crossing the pre-defined sta-
TRAFFIC INTENSITY 2016
tistical lines as presented in Figure 2 (according to
All IMO ships travelling in
the Baltic Sea in 2016 the ship types).
In the previous HELCOM reports on shipping ac-
TRAFFIC
INTENSITY cidents in the Baltic Sea area, the figures regard-
ing the number of ships crossing the lines were
MORE
generated by a tool made available by the Danish
TRAFFIC Maritime Authority. The HELCOM Secretariat is
now producing these figures, more information
Source: HELCOM AIS data and the scripts can be found on the HELCOM
GitHub page (https://github.com/helcomsecre-
tariat). The data is available on the HELCOM Map
and Data Service.
Figure 3 on the two next pages is illustrating the
number of ships crossing each line.
The overall ship traffic in 2014-2017 was stable
in terms of intensity compared to the previous
years with roughly 295 000 visits to the ports of
the Baltic Sea region in 2015, defined as entering
and exiting a port with at least 10 minutes spent
inside the port. While passenger ships make up
almost half of the port visits (mainly due to fre-
quent connections between cities in the region),
about 68 % of the IMO-registered ships navigat-
ing in the Baltic Sea are classified in the ship type
cargo (3778 cargo ships in 2015). Tankers are rep-
resenting 22 % of the fleet operating in the Baltic
Sea region, passenger ships - 5.4 %, service ships
– 5.2 %, container ships – 4.3 %, fishing ships –
4.1 %, RoRo cargo – 3.1 % and other ships – 7.4 %.
The dominance of the cargo ships can also be rep-
resented with the distance sailed in the Baltic Sea
area (cf. Figure 4).
Shipping in the Baltic Sea based on AIS data,
data on shipping accidents and other relevant
data collected under the HELCOM framework
has been visualized in a movie to be found on the
HELCOM web page.

Figure 1: Traffic intensity in the Baltic Sea Region in 2016

5
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Predefined ship traffic crossing lines

Exclusive Economic Zone Territorial waters

Oulu

Umea
14

Finland

St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki
13
Norway 12 Mariehamn 11 Russia
Tallinn

Stockholm
Estonia
Sweden Line Name of the location
Parnu

10 1 Skaw
2 The Great Belt East Bridge
line 1 9 3 Sundet Syd
Gothenburg 8 Riga
Latvia
Frederikshavn 4 Langeland East
Liepaja
5 Kadet Fairway
6 North of Bornholm
Klaipeda
Lithuania
Denmark 7 South of Bornholm
Copenhagen
2 3 6 8 West of Gotland
7 Kaliningrad

4 Gdynia 9 East of Gotland

5
Kolobrzeg
10 Irbe Strait
Rostock
Lubeck 11 Gulf of Finland
12 Åland West
Poland
13 Åland East
Germany 14 Bothnian Sea

Figure 2: Location of the predefined crossing lines.

6
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Aland East Aland West

3000 Aland East 12000
Aland West
3000 12000
2500 10000
2500 10000
Number of crossings

2000

Number of crossings
8000

Number of accidents 2000

Numver of accidents
8000
1500 6000
1500 6000
1000 4000
1000 4000
500 2000
500 2000
0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201
Bothnian Sea East of Gotland
6000 Bothnian Sea 16000
East of Gotland
6000 14000 16000
5000
5000 12000 14000
Number of crossings

4000
Number of crossings
10000 12000
Number of accidents

4000

Number of accidents
3000 8000 10000
3000 6000 8000
2000
4000 6000
2000
1000
2000 4000
1000
0 0 2000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201
Gulf of Finland Irbe Strait
18000 Gulf of Finland 7000 Irbe Strait
16000 18000 7000
6000
14000 16000
5000 6000
Number of crossings

Number of crossings

12000 14000
4000 5000
10000
Number of accidents

12000
Number of accidents

8000 10000 3000 4000

6000 8000 3000

2000
4000 6000
1000 2000
2000 4000
0 0 1000
2000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201

Kadet Fairway Langeland East

30000 Kadet Fairway 12000 Langeland East
30000 12000
25000 10000
25000 10000
Number of crossings

Number of crossings

20000 8000
Number of accidents

Number of accidents

20000 8000
15000 6000
15000 6000
10000 4000
10000 4000
5000 2000
5000 2000
0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201

Figure 3: Number of ships crossing predefined passage

lines based HELCOM AIS data.

7
 Numver of acci
Number of acc
1500 6000

1000 4000
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017
500 2000

0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201

North Bornholm Bothnian Sea Skaw

East of Gotland
30000 25000
6000 16000
25000 14000
5000 20000
12000
Number of crossings

Number of crossings
20000
Number of accidents
4000

Number of accidents
15000 10000
15000
3000 8000
10000
10000 6000
2000
5000 4000
5000
1000
2000
0 0
0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201

South Bornholm Gulf of Finland Sundet Syd Irbe Strait

9000 20000
18000 7000
8000 18000
16000
16000 6000
7000
14000
14000 5000
Number of crossings

Number of crossings

6000
Number of accidents

12000

Number of accidents
12000
5000 4000
10000 10000
4000
8000 8000 3000
3000
6000 6000
2000 2000
4000 4000
1000 2000 1000
2000
0 0
0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201

The Great Belt East Brigade West of Gotland

9000
Kadet Fairway 12000
Langeland East
8000 30000 12000
10000
7000
25000 10000
Number of crossings

Number of crossings

6000 8000
Number of accidents

Number of accidents

5000 20000 8000

6000
4000
15000 6000
3000 4000
2000 10000 4000
2000
1000
5000 2000
0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201

Figure 3 (continued): Number of ships crossing predefined

passage lines based HELCOM AIS data.

8
2. Ship traffic in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Distance sailed per shiptype

MILLIONS NM
5
MILLION KM

Approximate ice season from January to March

2,5

2,0
CARGO

1,5

2
PASSENGER
1,0

TANKER

1
0,5 CONTAINER
ROROCARGO

OTHER
SERVICE
FISHING
00
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
52
55
58
61
64
67
70
73
76
79
82
85
88
91
94
97
1
4
7

100
103
106
109
112
115
118
121 Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4
Figure 4: Distance sailed in the Baltic Sea per ship type.
Series5
Monthly figures from July 2006 to July 2016. (Source: HELCOM 2018) Series6 Series7 Series8

9
 3. Overview of accidents in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

3.  Overview of accidents

in the Baltic Sea
According to the reports from the HELCOM Con-
tracting Parties more than 600 ship accidents oc-
curred in the Baltic Sea area between 2014 and
2017: 163 reported in 2014, 184 in 2015, 131 in
2016, 139 in 2017 (cf. Figure 5).
A detailed categorization of the location of the
accidents – open sea, port approach and port - was
introduced for the reporting in 2012 (cf. Figure 6).
Number of reported accidents in the Baltic Sea
Around one third of the accidents between 2014
200
and 2017 occurred in the ports (226 accidents,
180 9 36.7 %). The open sea is the second location where
the accidents happened the most with 175 events
160 4
(28.4 %). However the location was not specified
10 6 for 18.6 % of the accidents (115 events). The spatial
140 13 11
distribution of the reported accidents in 2014-2017
Number of accicdents

8 9 21
120
10 18
5 4 is presented in Figure 7 on the next page.
100
100
54
10
163
102 111
80 76
85 90
133 125
60 125 114
110
95
40 78
59
20 44 37 33 28 28
12
0 2 2 1
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No in formation No pollution

Figure 5: Number of reported accidents in the Baltic Sea

Location of accidents
Location in the Baltic
of accidents Sea Baltic Sea
in the
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 (bl ank) (bl ank)
Port approach Port approach
Open sea No sea
Open in formation No information
Port Port

Figure 6: Location of the accidents or the period 2014 to 2017

10
3. Overview of accidents in the Baltic Sea Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea

Location Open sea Port approach Port No information

Data from: DK, DE, EE, FI, LT, LV, PL, RU, SE Data from: DE, EE, FI, LT, LV, PL, RU, SE

2014 2015
Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn

Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia

Stockholm Stockholm
Parnu Parnu

Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Gothenburg Riga
Frederikshavn Frederikshavn

Liepaja Liepaja

Denmark Klaipeda
Denmark Klaipeda

Copenhagen Lithuania Copenhagen Lithuania

Kaliningrad Kaliningrad
Gdynia Gdynia

Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg
Rostock Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck

Poland Poland
Germany Germany

Data from: DK, FI, PL, SE Data from: DK, EE, FI, LV, PL, SE

2016 2017
Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia
Stockholm Stockholm
Parnu Parnu

Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Gothenburg Riga
Frederikshavn Frederikshavn

Liepaja Liepaja

Denmark Klaipeda Denmark Klaipeda

Copenhagen
Lithuania Copenhagen
Lithuania
Kaliningrad Kaliningrad
Gdynia Gdynia

Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg
Rostock Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck

Poland Poland
Germany Germany

Figure 7: Location of shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no accident occurrence during
the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).

11
 4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

4.  Types of accidents

Due to modification of the reporting format in
2012, the category “contact”, as a type of accident,
was included in the reporting, defined as striking
any fixed or floating object other than ships or un-
derwater objects (wrecks etc.). In previous reports
“collisions” accounted for both collisions with
ships and objects. In order to retain comparability
Table 1: Definition of the accident type “other” both “collision” and “contact” accidents will be re-
ferred to as “collisions” in following text.
Other reason Collisions were the main type of accidents in
Accidents with life-saving appliances 2014-2017 accounting for almost 32 % of the acci-
dents in total (cf. Figure 8). Groundings or strand-
Capsizing/listing
ings (hereafter referred to only as groundings) ac-
Damage to ship or equipment counted for 153 events or 24.8 % of the accidents.
Door fault / fault in doorways Machinery damage caused accidents in 92 cases
or 14.9 %. Also other types of accidents such as
Flooding/Foundering
damage to ship or to the equipment, fires or ex-
Physical damage plosions and other in total made up about one
Related to the use of rescue equipment third of all accidents during the period 2014-2017.
The type of accidents qualified as “other” can be
Sunk defined following the information in Table 1 below.
Technical failure The spatial distribution of different types of re-
Tilt / crash ported accidents in the Baltic Sea area is present-
ed in Figure 9 on the next page.
Hull failure/failure of watertight doors/ports etc.
Loss of control
Other reason

70

Other Contact Collision Fire / explosion Grounding / stranding Machinery damage Pollution
Other Contact Collision Fire / explosion Grounding / stranding Machinery damage Pollution

0
60

50
0

40
Number of accidents

30

20

0 10

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 8: Types of accidents in the Baltic Sea

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

12
4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea

Machinery
Types Contact Collision Grounding Pollution damage
Other

2014 2015
Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn

Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia

Stockholm Stockholm
Parnu Parnu

Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Gothenburg Riga
Frederikshavn Frederikshavn

Liepaja Liepaja

Denmark Klaipeda
Denmark Klaipeda

Copenhagen Lithuania Copenhagen Lithuania

Kaliningrad Kaliningrad
Gdynia Gdynia

Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg
Rostock Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck

Poland Poland
Germany Germany

2016 2017
Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia
Stockholm Stockholm

Parnu Parnu

Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Gothenburg Riga
Frederikshavn Frederikshavn

Liepaja Liepaja

Denmark Klaipeda Denmark Klaipeda

Copenhagen
Lithuania Copenhagen
Lithuania
Kaliningrad Kaliningrad
Gdynia Gdynia

Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg
Rostock Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck

Poland Poland
Germany Germany

Figure 9: Types of shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no
accident occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).

13
 28

4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in

the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

9 17
14
48 48
4.1.  Collisions
41 Location of ship collisions
0
60 Collisions have been 5the most common type of
shipping accidents in 2014-2017. There were 197
34 3
50 collisions in total in this period (cf. Figure 11
9) or
8
Number of accidents (accidents)

25 32 % of all accidents (48 % contact, 52 % collision):

21 2014
40 39
11 – 52, 2015 – 60, 2016 – 35, 2017 - 50. In 2013
28 collisions accounted for 38 % of all accidents (57 7
28
30 cases in total: 30 - collision, 27 - contact). There was
54 54
14
9 17 a slight decrease in the 17number of collisions in the
48 48 7
20 41 40 41 5
period 2014-2017 (on average) compared to 2013.
34 3
8
Collisions with vessels and contact with 8 objects
8 11

10
11 7 6 accounted
7 for an almost equal share of all collision 8
17
7
8 48 accidents in the period 2014-2017, 51 % and 49 %
7 8
4 2 respectively. The collisions with objects 2 corre-
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 sponds to the number of accidents categorized as
07 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
contact accidents (cf. Figure 10). The main types of
No in formation
No information Open sea Port approach Port collisions are: with vessel, with object, with vessel
and object, contact and other. Of the total number
Figure 10: Location of ship collisions in the Baltic Sea of collision following were the principal: collisions
with pier/quay, contacts, collisions with fixed ob-
jects, fires and other types. Of the contact accidents
about one two thirds were contacts with an object
60 60
and one third – contacts with other ship.
Following the shipping accidents information
With vessel
With object With object With vessel
Withand
vessel and object Contact Other reasons No informat ion
With vessel object Contact Other reasons No informat ion
received from the HELCOM Contracting Parties,
50
the merging of some types of collisions was nec-
50
essary in order to produce Figure 11: The detail of
the collisions with vessel, with object and other
40
reasons are available in Table 2.
40
The spatial distribution of the reported colli-
sions and contact accidents in the Baltic Sea area
30 is presented in Figure 12 (next page).

30

20

20
10

10 0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure 11: Types of collisions

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Table 2: Definition of the types of collisions

With vessel With object Other reasons

With another vessel Buoy Loss of containment
With multiple vessels Dry dock Loss of directional control
Fixed object On the fairway slope
Object other (unsealing the vessel's hull)
Bridge Ship not underway
Pier, quay Drift
Sluice Explosion
Breakwater Fire
Berth Flooding
Loss of electrical power
Loss of propulsion power
Power

14
4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea

Collision and contact accidents Collision Contact

2014 2015
Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn

Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia

Stockholm Stockholm

Parnu Parnu

Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Gothenburg Riga
Frederikshavn Frederikshavn

Liepaja Liepaja

Denmark Klaipeda
Denmark Klaipeda

Copenhagen Lithuania Copenhagen Lithuania

Kaliningrad Kaliningrad
Gdynia Gdynia

Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg
Rostock Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck

Poland Poland
Germany Germany

2016 2017
Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia
Stockholm Stockholm

Parnu Parnu

Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Gothenburg Riga
Frederikshavn Frederikshavn

Liepaja Liepaja

Denmark Klaipeda Denmark Klaipeda

Copenhagen
Lithuania Copenhagen
Lithuania
Kaliningrad Kaliningrad
Gdynia Gdynia

Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg
Rostock Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck

Poland Poland
Germany Germany

Figure 12: Collision and contact accidents in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no accident
occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).

15
 4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Groundings in the Baltic Sea

70
4.2.  Groundings
In the period 2014-2017, there were 153 reported
60
groundings or strandings (hereafter referred to as
groundings) in the Baltic Sea area accounting for
50
24.8 % of the total number of reported accidents
9 5 10 in 2014-2017. The groundings are generally occur-
40 8
ring during when ships are approaching the ports
or in open sea (cf. Figure 10).
30 60 14 14 Figure 14 below illustrates the presence or ab-
56 54
53
46 14 7
sence of pilot on board vessels in cases of ground-
43 11
20 38 39 ing accidents from 2014 to 2017. It is clear that ac-
26
11 cidents usually happen when there is no pilot on
22
10
16 16
board the ship to assist the crew when approach-
13
8 ing a port or manoeuvring in the port.
0 2 For the period 2014 – 2017, most of the reported
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
groundings occurred with vessels with a draught of
No in formation Op en sea - Ope n sea Group3 - Port Port app roach less than 7 metres (cf. Figure 15). It is important to
Figure 13: Location of the grounding accidents
note that small vessels are not covered by the IMO's
recommendations on the use of pilotage.
The spatial distribution of the reported colli-
sions and contact accidents in the Baltic Sea area
Draught size of ships involved in groundings in the Baltic Sea is presented in Figure 16 (next page).
Presence of pilot during groundings
160
140
of grounding

140
Number of accicdents (groundings)

120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
Number

40
40
20
20

0
0
2014 2015 2016 2017
2014 2015 2016 2017
< 7m
Exemption13-15m
11-13m
certificate 7-9m
No informat ion
9-11 m
No
9-11m
Yes
n.i. No in formation

Figure 14: Presence of pilots during groundings

Draught size of ships involved in groundings in the Baltic Sea

160

140
Number of accicdents (groundings)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
2014 2015 2016 2017
< 7m 11-13m 13-15m 7-9m 9-11 m 9-11m n.i. No in formation

Figure 15: Draught of ships involved in groundings in the Baltic Sea (number of accidents per year)

16
4. Types of accidents Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea

Grounding accidents Grounding

2014 2015
Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn

Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia

Stockholm Stockholm

Parnu Parnu

Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Gothenburg Riga
Frederikshavn Frederikshavn

Liepaja Liepaja

Denmark Klaipeda
Denmark Klaipeda

Copenhagen Lithuania Copenhagen Lithuania

Kaliningrad Kaliningrad
Gdynia Gdynia

Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg
Rostock Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck

Poland Poland
Germany Germany

2016 2017
Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia
Stockholm Stockholm

Parnu Parnu

Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Gothenburg Riga
Frederikshavn Frederikshavn

Liepaja Liepaja

Denmark Klaipeda Denmark Klaipeda

Copenhagen
Lithuania Copenhagen
Lithuania
Kaliningrad Kaliningrad
Gdynia Gdynia

Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg
Rostock Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck

Poland Poland
Germany Germany

Figure 16: Grounding Accidents in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no acci-
dent occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).

17
5. Types of vessels involved Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Cargo and passenger vessels were the most

5.  Types of vessels

common type of ships involved in accidents of
all vessels in the period (7). In 2014 cargo vessels
accounted for 46.5 % and passenger vessels were

involved
involved in 28 % of all reported accidents. In 2015,
the number of cargo vessels involved in accidents
considerably decrease to 20 % while the number
of accidents with passenger vessels increased to
42 %. In 2016 cargo vessel accidents increased to
32 % while accidents involving passenger vessels
were reduced to 33 %. Finally, in 2017 the num-
ber of accidents with cargo vessels fell slightly to
30 % and passenger vessels also presented a fall
of 30 %. Other types of vessels such as ice break-
ers, barges, tugboats and research vessels were
involved in less than 15 % of all accidents for the
period 2014-2017.
Concerning the spatial distribution of the acci-
dents by vessel types, Figure 18 on the next page
presents the distribution for the years 2014, 2015,
2016 and 2017. From the figure it can be observed
that the Danish Strait and the area near Stock-
holm present a high concentration of accidents in
the different analysed years.

Type of ships involved in accidents in the Baltic Sea

100%
17
42 17 19
9 0%
6
2
2 4
80% 4 3 1
11

70% 49
38
37
60%
6 102
50% 8
5 4
7
40% 17
8
7 3 6
30%
22
81
20% 8
36 38
10% 48

0%
2014 2015 2016 2017

Cargo Container Tanker Fishing Pass enger Rorocargo Service Oth er

Figure 17: Type of ships involved in accidents

18
5. Types of vessels involved Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea

Cargo Container Tanker Fishing No information
Vessel types Passenger Rorocargo Service ( Other
(

2014 2015
( (
( Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland
(
St.Petersburg St.Petersburg
( ( ( (
Turku Helsinki
( Turku Helsinki
( (
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway ( Mariehamn
( Tallinn

Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia

Stockholm Stockholm

(( Parnu
( Parnu
(
(
(
( (
( (Gothenburg (
Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Riga
Frederikshavn (
Frederikshavn

Liepaja
(( ( Liepaja
( (
Denmark Denmark
Klaipeda ( Klaipeda

Copenhagen
( Lithuania (( (
Copenhagen ( Lithuania
( Kaliningrad Kaliningrad

(Gdynia ( Gdynia

( ( (( (
Rostock
Kolobrzeg
( Rostock
Kolobrzeg ((
Lubeck Lubeck ( (
Poland Poland
Germany Germany

2016 2017
(
Oulu ((( Oulu
(
(
(
( (
(
Umea Umea

(
Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg
(
Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki
( ((
Norway Norway
(
Mariehamn Mariehamn((
( Tallinn Tallinn
(
Sweden (
Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia
Stockholm (
Stockholm
(
( Parnu Parnu

(
Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg ( Riga Gothenburg Riga
((
Frederikshavn (
Frederikshavn

Liepaja
(( (( Liepaja
( (
( ( (
Denmark Klaipeda Denmark Klaipeda
Lithuania Lithuania
(
(Copenhagen Copenhagen
(
( (
( ( Kaliningrad
( Kaliningrad
(
(((
Gdynia
(( ((
Gdynia

Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg (
Rostock Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck

( Poland Poland
Germany Germany

Figure 18: Types of vessels involved in accidents (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can be either no accident
occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).

19
6. Cause of accidents Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

For the period 2014 to 2017, the accidents were

6.  Cause of accidents

mainly caused by human element followed by
technical failures, as can be observed in Figure
19. The year 2015 presented the highest recorded
number of accidents, with a considerable raise in
the following causes: human element, external
causes, structural failure and other causes.
The causes of the accidents were reported by
the HELCOM Contracting Parties. External causes
are related to a factor that is not directly linked to
the ship or the crew. For example, environmental
conditions and surroundings can be counted as
external causes.
The spatial distribution of accidents with indi-
cation of the cause of the accidents for the period
is presented in 20 per year.

Cause of accidents in the Baltic Sea

200

1 80
24

1 60

1 40 10
50
59 11
21
1 20 26 45 54 21
38 64

18 5 51 44
1 00 38
0 41 0 13 35
31 9 21 46
26 26 4
80 25 2
1
0
0 8 4
8 24 0 0 28 1
17 25 6
3
1
60 0
6 0
5 2
0
63 0 51
6 71
62 55 57
40 58 51
64 52
38 42
42
37
20
24 29
15 16 15 14 13 13
10 10 11 11 11
6
0 0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (blank)
External cause s Human element Oth er factor Stru ctural failu re Technical failure Un kn own (blank) - (blank)

Figure 19: Cause of the shipping accidents

20
6. Cause of accidents Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea

Cause Human element Technical failure External causes Structural failure Other factor ( Unknown

2014 2015
Oulu Oulu
(

(
Umea Umea

(
Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

( ( (
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
( (
( Tallinn

Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia

Stockholm (Stockholm

Parnu
( Parnu

( (Gothenburg
Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Riga
( Frederikshavn ((
Frederikshavn
((
((
(
(
Liepaja ( Liepaja

(
Denmark ( ( Denmark (
Klaipeda Klaipeda

( (( Copenhagen Lithuania (( ( Lithuania

((( ( (
Copenhagen
( ( (
(( ( (
( ((( Kaliningrad Kaliningrad
( (((((
( ( Gdynia
(
Gdynia

(((Rostock Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg

Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck (
Poland Poland
Germany Germany

2016 2017
Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

(
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia
(
Stockholm Stockholm

( Parnu
( Parnu

Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Gothenburg Riga
(
Frederikshavn Frederikshavn
( Liepaja Liepaja
(
( (
Denmark Klaipeda Denmark
(
( Klaipeda

(( (Copenhagen Lithuania (Copenhagen Lithuania

( ( ( (
(( ( Kaliningrad
( Kaliningrad

((( ( Gdynia Gdynia

(( (Rostock (
Kolobrzeg (Rostock Kolobrzeg

Lubeck Lubeck

Poland Poland
Germany Germany

Figure 20: Cause of the accidents in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason can
be either no accident occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).

21
7. Accidents with pollution and response activities Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

7.1. Accidents with pollution

7. Accidents with According to the 2014-2017 data, 9,2 % of the re-

ported accidents ended up with some kind of pol-

pollution and
lution. The type of vessels involved in pollution
accidents in the period varied along the years, as
observed in the figure 21. In 2014, the reported

response activities accidents were related to passenger ships, tank-

ers and other ships, respectively. In 2015, cargo
vessels, tankers and other ships were registered.
In 2016, accidents involving passenger vessels,
tankers, RoRo cargo, cargo and other vessels were
observed. Finally, in 2017, accidents resulting in
pollution with passenger vessels, tankers, fishing
vessels, cargo vessels, containers vessels, service
Types of ships involved in pollution accidents vessels and other classifications were registered.
in the Baltic Sea The main cause of the pollution accidents was hu-
man element but also technical failure (cf. Figure 22).
100% The spatial distribution of the accidents result-
9 0% 5 ing in pollution for the period is presented in Fig-
3
80% 2 ure 23 on the next page.
8 Special characteristics such as low salinity,
70% 4 small water volume, restricted connection to the
% of accidents

60% 3 1 ocean, seasonality and the ice cover during win-

50% 1 2 ter make the Baltic Sea highly vulnerable to the
4
effects of oil spills which makes swift response
40% 1
very important. Intensive regional cooperation in
30% 3
the field of response and preparedness to spills
5 5 1
20% 2 in the Baltic Sea has been carried out within HEL-
COM since the 1970s (HELCOM Response Working
10% 5
2 Group). Due to such cooperation efforts the oil
0% recovery rate in the Baltic Sea is generally much
2014 2015 2016 2017 higher than the global average and, as proved by
previous pollution accidents of regional impor-
Cargo Container Fishing Pass enger Rorocargo Service Tanker Other
tance, it can reach as much as 50 %.
Figure 21: Types of ships involved in pollution accidents in the Baltic Sea

Cause of accidents resulting in pollution in the 7.2. Response activities

Baltic Sea Response activities in the Baltic Sea region have
100% been reported by the Baltic Sea states following
90%
1 2 a request by the Secretariat. Only two countries
submitted information for 2017, therefore Table 3
80% 2 9
2 below may not include all response activities that
70% took place in the Baltic Sea area in 2016 and 2017.
% of accidents

60% 1 10
50% 2
40%
3 0% 4 1
2 8
20%
10%
5
1 2
0%
2014 2015 2016 2017

Cargo related Extern al cause s Human element

Stru ctural failu re Technical failure Un kn own

Figure 22: Cause of accidents resulting in pollution in the Baltic Sea

22
7. Accidents with pollution and response activities Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

Shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea

Accidents with pollution Yes No No information

2014 2015
Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn

Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia

Stockholm Stockholm

Parnu Parnu

Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Gothenburg Riga
Frederikshavn Frederikshavn

Liepaja Liepaja

Denmark Klaipeda
Denmark Klaipeda

Copenhagen Lithuania Copenhagen Lithuania

Kaliningrad Kaliningrad
Gdynia Gdynia

Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg
Rostock Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck

Poland Poland
Germany Germany

2016 2017
Oulu Oulu

Umea Umea

Finland Finland

St.Petersburg St.Petersburg

Turku Helsinki Turku Helsinki

Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Norway Mariehamn
Tallinn
Sweden Estonia Russia Sweden Estonia Russia
Stockholm Stockholm

Parnu Parnu

Latvia Latvia
Gothenburg Riga Gothenburg Riga
Frederikshavn Frederikshavn

Liepaja Liepaja

Denmark Klaipeda Denmark Klaipeda

Copenhagen
Lithuania Copenhagen
Lithuania
Kaliningrad Kaliningrad
Gdynia Gdynia

Kolobrzeg Kolobrzeg
Rostock Rostock
Lubeck Lubeck

Poland Poland
Germany Germany

Figure 23: Shipping accidents with pollution in the Baltic Sea (if no accidents are displayed in certain national waters, the reason
can be either no accident occurrence during the period 2014 to 2017, or lack of data).

23
8. Annexes Report on shipping accidents in
the Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2017

8.  Annexes

24
 Table 1: Reported response activities in the Baltic Sea area

Country Year Date Time Place Latitude Longitude Source Type of Amount Amount Responsible Further details
(dd.mm.yyyy) (hh:mm) (DD) (DD) pollution of recovered organization
pollution at sea
(m3) (m3)

Denmark 2017 03.02.2017 11:18 Odense 55,4715 10,534667 Shipyard Gasoil 0,3 Odense Port Oil evaporated
Fjord
25.08.2017 9:15 Kattegat 57,427 11,246167 Vessel Gasoil 0,5 Maritime Oil evaporated
aground Assistance
Services +45
72850370
31.08.2017 18:19 Bandholm 54,838333 11,4905 Spil from Rapssead 0,5 0,5 Bandholm Port
Port shore oil
07.09.2017 10:48 Åbrnrå 55,0385 9,424833 Spil from Gasoil 200 0 Aabenraa Port, Oil evaporated and
Port and shore Maritime collected
Ford instalation Assistance
Services +45
72850370
23.11.2017 12:41 Kattegat 57,368333 11,105 Spil from Heavy 0,5 0,2 Maritime
vessel fuel Assistance
Services +45
72850370
Estonia 7.2.2017 at sea 58° 38` 21°16` ship oil 0,3 0 0 0
19.3.2017 at sea 59° 30` 23° 48` ship oil 8,3 0 0 0
20.9.2017 at sea 59° 30` 24° 18` ship oil 0,63 0 0 0
27.9.2017 at sea 59° 4` 21° 23` ship oil 0,41 0 0 0
7.11.2017 at sea 57° 54` 21° 17` ship oil 0,27 0 0 0
Annex 1
Guideline for filling-in the HELCOM Reporting Format on Shipping Accidents (as of September 2016).

All accidents including, but not limited to grounding, collision with other vessel or contact with fixed
structures (offshore installations, wrecks, etc.), disabled vessel (e.g. machinery and/or structure failure), fire,
explosions, etc., which took place in territorial seas or EEZ of the Contracting Party and involved any ships
which are required to carry AIS should be reported to the HELCOM Secretariat using the agreed reporting
format, irrespectively if there was pollution or not.

The reporting format is provided as an excel file and includes the following information entries. The
predefined entries should be used!

Country Country in whose water the accident took place

Year Year of accident

Date (dd.mm.yyyy)

Time (hh:mm)

Latitude (DD) Please provide latitude in decimal degrees, e.g. 57.123

Longitude (DD) Please provide longitude in decimal degrees, e.g. 18.456

Location of accident
Fixed answers; please choose from: “Port”, “Port approach”, “Open sea”
or ”n.i.” (no information available). The category “Open sea” covers all
accidents at sea i.e. not defined as “Port” or “Port approach”. Categories
are used only for the purpose of statistics and are too be defined
according to national practice of the reporting authority.

Ship 1 Ship 1 name, ID, flag

Ship 1 AIS category Fixed answers; please choose from: “Tanker”,

“Cargo”, “Passenger” or “Other”.

Ship 1 type (detail) Please, provide further details on type of ship,

e.g. tanker (oil, chemical, gas tanker), cargo ship
(general cargo, bulk carrier, etc) and other ships
(icebreaker, tug boat, ro-ro, etc).

Hull construction Fixed answers; please choose from: “Single,

(tankers only) hull”, “Double hull”, “Double bottom”, “Double
sides”, “Mid deck” or “Other” .

Size (gt)_ship1

Draught (m)_ship1 Fixed answers; please choose from: “< 7m”, “7-
9m”, “9-11m”, “11-13m”, “13-15m”, “>15m” or
“n.i.”.

Ship 2 (if relevant) Ship 2 name, ID, flag

Fill this in only if accident Ship 2 AIS category Fixed answers; please choose from: “Tanker”,
involved two ships, e.g. in “Cargo”, “Passenger” or “Other”.
case of a collision
Ship 2 type (detail) Please, provide further details on type of e.g.
tanker (oil, chemical, gas tanker), cargo ship
(general cargo, bulk carrier) and other ships
(icebreaker, tug boat, ro-ro etc).

Hull construction Fixed answers; please choose from: “Single,

(tankers only) hull”, “Double hull”, “Double bottom”, “Double
sides”, “Mid deck” or “Other” .

Size (gt)_ship2

Draught (m)_ship2 Fixed answers; please choose from: “< 7m”, “7-
9m”, “9-11m”, “11-13m”, “13-15m”, “>15m” or
“n.i.”.

Type of cargo If relevant, please specify amount and type of cargo, e.g. people
(passengers and crew), oil, dangerous goods, harmful substances, bunker,
ballast and empty, other.

Type of accident Fixed answers; please choose from:

“Collision” (striking or being struck by another ship)

“Stranding/grounding” (being aground, or hitting/touching shore

or sea bottom or underwater objects (wrecks, etc.))

“Contact” (striking any fixed or floating object other than those

included previously)

“Pollution” (e.g. during fuel transfer)

“Fire or explosion”

“Hull failure/ failure of watertight doors/ports etc.”

“Machinery damage”

“Damages to ships or equipment”

“Capsizing/listing”

“Missing (assumed lost)”

“Accidents with life-saving appliances”

“Other”

Type of collision or Fixed answers; please choose from: “With vessel”, “With vessel and
contact(collision and contact object”, “With object” or “n.i.”.
accidents only)
Further details about More detailed information, especially if “Other” was selected in the “Type
accident of accident” column.

Cause of accident Fixed answers; please choose from:

“Human element” (violations or error)

“Structural failure”

“Technical failure” (machinery/equipment incl. design errors)

“Cargo related”

“External causes”(including environment, navigational infrastructure,

criminal acts etc.)

“Unknown”

Human element Please provide further details if “Human element” was selected in the
subcategories previous column. Fixed answers; please choose from:

“Violation” (deliberate decision to act against a rule or plan)

“Slip” (unintentional action where failure involves attention)

“Lapse” (unintentional action where failure involves memory)

“Mistake” (an intentional action where there is an error in the

planning process; there is no deliberate decision to act against

a rule or procedure):

Accident in ice conditions Fixed answers, please choose from: “Yes”, “No” or “n.i.”.

Crew trained in ice Fixed answers, please choose from: “Yes”, “No” or “n.i.”.
navigation

Further details on cause of Please, provide further details on cause e.g. hard winds, heavy waves,
accident reduced visibility, etc.

Pilot on board Fixed answers, please choose from: “Yes”, “No”, “Exemption certificate”
or “n.i.”.

Offence against rules or Please, specify e.g. use of pilot, routeing, weather restriction, deficiency of
regulations the ship, operation of the ship, COLREG, speed limits, max draft, others.

Damage Please specify, e.g. lives (crew and passengers), total loss, leakage, others.

Need of assistance Please specify, e.g. SAR, towing, lightering, salvage, others.

Pollution Fixed answers; please choose from: “Yes”, “No” or “n.i..

Amount of pollution (m3)

Amount of pollution
(tonnes)

Type of pollution Please, specify e.g. crude oil, diesel fuel, other.

Consequences/response Please, specify e.g. consequences of pollution, response to contamination

action taken, amount of pollution recovered, etc.

Additional info Any other relevant information, e.g. needed to evaluate the limitation of
data, etc.