Regulating Arctic Regulating Arctic ShippingShipping

Past, present and future Past, present and future role of the Arctic Councilrole of the Arctic Council

OutlineOutline

• How Arctic-wide inter-governmental How Arctic-wide inter-governmental co-operation has evolved? co-operation has evolved?

• What kind of shipping-related work What kind of shipping-related work has been done in the WG’s has been done in the WG’s

• Recent challenges to the work of the Recent challenges to the work of the AC partly because of shipping (CC and AC partly because of shipping (CC and EG)EG)

• Conclusions Conclusions

1. Arctic co-operation in 1. Arctic co-operation in briefbrief

• 1991 AEPS1991 AEPS– Priority environmental problemsPriority environmental problems– Institutional structureInstitutional structure– Four environmental protection and Four environmental protection and

assessment WG’s (CAFF, PAME, EPPR, assessment WG’s (CAFF, PAME, EPPR, AMAP) AMAP)

– ParticipantsParticipants– 1991-19971991-1997

ContinuedContinued

• Arctic CouncilArctic Council– Common issuesCommon issues– Participants and decision-making (unique Participants and decision-making (unique

position to IP’s)position to IP’s)– New institutional structure (semi-New institutional structure (semi-

permanent secretariat in Troms)permanent secretariat in Troms)– Two new WG’sTwo new WG’s– Ambitious assessmentsAmbitious assessments– 1996-1996-

What has, in the end, What has, in the end, changed?changed?• AEPSAEPS

– MandateMandate– Participants and DMParticipants and DM– Institutional settingInstitutional setting– Commitment (legal Commitment (legal

status, funding)status, funding)– DeliverablesDeliverables– Normative Normative

deliverablesdeliverables

• Arctic CouncilArctic Council– MandateMandate– Participants and DMParticipants and DM– Institutional setting Institutional setting – Commitment (legal Commitment (legal

status, funding)status, funding)– DeliverablesDeliverables– Normative Normative

deliverablesdeliverables

Mid-term conclusionMid-term conclusion

• From the beginning, the Arctic-wide co-From the beginning, the Arctic-wide co-operation has remained much the same – operation has remained much the same – resilience to changeresilience to change

• Performs most effectively via co-ordinating Performs most effectively via co-ordinating assessments (spotlighting), with assessments (spotlighting), with connected policy recommendationsconnected policy recommendations

• Indigenous perspectiveIndigenous perspective• Other normative work non-binding, Other normative work non-binding,

technical and hard to evaluate how technical and hard to evaluate how effectiveeffective

2. WG’s - 1. phase2. WG’s - 1. phase

• AEPS – priority pollution problemsAEPS – priority pollution problems• Climate change was seen as a secondary Climate change was seen as a secondary

issue to be taken care of in global forumissue to be taken care of in global forum• WG’s commenced their work 1992-1993, WG’s commenced their work 1992-1993,

and thus tried to prioritise actionand thus tried to prioritise action• 1996 PAME report – shipping part1996 PAME report – shipping part• Current and future shipping trends should Current and future shipping trends should

be evaluated, but because of economic be evaluated, but because of economic developments (NSR), not climate changedevelopments (NSR), not climate change

WG’s - 2. phaseWG’s - 2. phase

• Climate change work starts even if Climate change work starts even if AMAP was hesitant during Clinton AMAP was hesitant during Clinton administrationadministration

• Turns out to change the whole work in Turns out to change the whole work in all WG’s since it was only with the ACIA all WG’s since it was only with the ACIA work that Arctic was established as the work that Arctic was established as the early-warning system of climate changeearly-warning system of climate change

• And a region which is transforming And a region which is transforming radically and on ongoing basisradically and on ongoing basis

ContinuedContinued

• This had already from 2000 influence This had already from 2000 influence on the work of all WG’s and explicitly on the work of all WG’s and explicitly so after the release of ACIA, which so after the release of ACIA, which provided as one of its key findings provided as one of its key findings that: that:

• ””Reduced sea ice is very likely to increase marine transport and access to resources”

ContinuedContinued

• Hence, this had the effect of having all Hence, this had the effect of having all seen shipping future in fairly different seen shipping future in fairly different terms – as compared to the 1. stageterms – as compared to the 1. stage

• Connected with hydrocarbon Connected with hydrocarbon development, it meant lot of new development, it meant lot of new shippingshipping

• With the melting sea ice, it meant a With the melting sea ice, it meant a totally new planning horizon for totally new planning horizon for navigational routesnavigational routes

WG’s 3. phase WG’s 3. phase

• So, after ACIA process 1998-2004, So, after ACIA process 1998-2004, shipping issues back in the agenda shipping issues back in the agenda

• a new set of connected assessments were a new set of connected assessments were commenced, among these AMSA (oil and commenced, among these AMSA (oil and gas), which was part of AMSP 2004gas), which was part of AMSP 2004

• Suddenly, shipping became one of the hot Suddenly, shipping became one of the hot issues in the Arctic Council, starting with issues in the Arctic Council, starting with the assessmentthe assessment

• AMSA a very prominent, inclusive processAMSA a very prominent, inclusive process

Shipping deliverables within Shipping deliverables within these 3. stagesthese 3. stages• Direct: 2004 Direct: 2004 Arctic Waters Oil Transfer Guidelines• 3-stage ”3-stage ”assessment of existing measures for port

reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues” – overlapp with IMO work

• Indirect: All the ecosystem-based governance work under Indirect: All the ecosystem-based governance work under AMSP, CPAN potential?AMSP, CPAN potential?

• Much of EPPR work: Environmental Risk Analysis of Arctic Much of EPPR work: Environmental Risk Analysis of Arctic Activities (1998) Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Activities (1998) Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters (1998); Circumpolar Map of Resources at Risk from Waters (1998); Circumpolar Map of Resources at Risk from Oil Spills in the Arctic (2002); Shoreline Clean-up Oil Spills in the Arctic (2002); Shoreline Clean-up Assessment Technique (SCAT) Manual (2004); Arctic Guide Assessment Technique (SCAT) Manual (2004); Arctic Guide (updated annually; information on emergency systems and (updated annually; information on emergency systems and contact points, overview of environmental risks, and contact points, overview of environmental risks, and applicable agreements); applicable agreements);

Mid-term conclusionMid-term conclusion

• The most influential work clearly been The most influential work clearly been done in the AMSA, in the assessment field, done in the AMSA, in the assessment field, with policy recommendationswith policy recommendations

• Some influence on limited issues with the Some influence on limited issues with the technical guidance but no evaluation as to technical guidance but no evaluation as to whether these have made any real-life whether these have made any real-life management impactsmanagement impacts

• So, very much in line with the 1- mid-term So, very much in line with the 1- mid-term conclusionsconclusions

3. Future work3. Future work

• Could AMSA induce any of the processes Could AMSA induce any of the processes VanderZwaag identifies as possibilities in AMSA VanderZwaag identifies as possibilities in AMSA paperpaper

• IMO designation for Arctic sea areas?IMO designation for Arctic sea areas?• IMO revision of the Polar Code?IMO revision of the Polar Code?• IMO’s Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping (polar training?)?• Arctic MOU on port state control enforcement

efforts?• Ballast water exchange recommendations, such as Ballast water exchange recommendations, such as

in the Antarctic?in the Antarctic?• Shows how AMSA triggers new ambitious Shows how AMSA triggers new ambitious

governance questionsgovernance questions

4. New dynamics resulting 4. New dynamics resulting from changing Arcticfrom changing Arctic

• Many states and political entities re-Many states and political entities re-drawing their Arctic policies in strong part drawing their Arctic policies in strong part because of securing hydrocarbons from because of securing hydrocarbons from the region + future navigational routesthe region + future navigational routes

• This shows in:This shows in:• Coastal state co-operation – perhaps even Coastal state co-operation – perhaps even

challenging the AC and causingchallenging the AC and causing• Internal pressures in the Arctic CouncilInternal pressures in the Arctic Council• Even more inclusive multilateral initiativesEven more inclusive multilateral initiatives

Coastal state co-operation – Coastal state co-operation – Ilulissat declaration May 2008Ilulissat declaration May 2008• Remain committed to law of the sea + no Arctic-

specific treaty• “we intend to work together including through the

[IMO] to … develop new measures to improve the safety of maritime navigation and prevent or reduce the risk of ship-based pollution in the Arctic Ocean”.

• They are concerned of risk of accidents and “therefore the need to further strengthen search and rescue capabilities”

• “We will work to promote safety of life at sea in the Arctic Ocean, including through bilateral and multilateral arrangements between or among relevant states”.

Conclusion on Coastal state co-Conclusion on Coastal state co-operationoperation

• What is interesting is that these 5 What is interesting is that these 5 seem to be identifying agenda for seem to be identifying agenda for future co-operationfuture co-operation

• Uncertainty (SAO briefing)Uncertainty (SAO briefing)

• Friction (SAO briefing + shadow Friction (SAO briefing + shadow Council)Council)

• And shipping seems to be one of the And shipping seems to be one of the main agenda itemsmain agenda items

New states and entities New states and entities wanting to have a (better) say wanting to have a (better) say in the ACin the AC• Non-Arctic states observers to the Non-Arctic states observers to the

Council wanting better statusCouncil wanting better status

• New applications to observership (EU New applications to observership (EU South Korea, even Japan?)South Korea, even Japan?)

• This shows that more and more This shows that more and more states and EU want to have their say states and EU want to have their say in the AC – and one reason is the in the AC – and one reason is the shipping agendashipping agenda

More radical proposalsMore radical proposals

• Commission work – Commission work – “[d]evelop an EU “[d]evelop an EU Arctic policy based on the evolving geo-Arctic policy based on the evolving geo-strategy of the Arctic region, taking into strategy of the Arctic region, taking into account i.a. access to resources and the account i.a. access to resources and the opening of new trade routes”opening of new trade routes” - Solana has - Solana has publicly taken up a multilateral treatypublicly taken up a multilateral treaty

• Arctic Communication (9.9.2008 Joe Borg Arctic Communication (9.9.2008 Joe Borg in Ilulissat Greenland, Nordic Council of in Ilulissat Greenland, Nordic Council of Ministers meeting). Ministers meeting).

ContinuedContinued

• EU Parliament (EU Parliament (European Parliament European Parliament resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic governance) – urges the Commission governance) – urges the Commission to pursue ATS type of solution or at a to pursue ATS type of solution or at a minimum core Arctic Ocean minimum core Arctic Ocean

• These have been shot down by the These have been shot down by the current Arctic Council chair Norway (+ current Arctic Council chair Norway (+ 5)5)

5. Overall conclusion5. Overall conclusion

• Arctic Council has only recently energised its Arctic Council has only recently energised its work on shippingwork on shipping

• Important assessment work, otherwise Important assessment work, otherwise marginalmarginal

• Probably the recommendations from AMSA Probably the recommendations from AMSA influence AC shipping agenda + the agendas of influence AC shipping agenda + the agendas of othersothers

• It remains to be seen where the incipient It remains to be seen where the incipient coastal state co-operation will challenge the AC coastal state co-operation will challenge the AC or whether there are pressures to even some or whether there are pressures to even some broader treaty arrangement – all of this have broader treaty arrangement – all of this have bearing on regulation of shipping in the Arcticbearing on regulation of shipping in the Arctic