wp.arcticportal.org

Tag: PAME

AMSA Report

The AMSA report (2009) is the leading source of information about Arctic shipping today. The Arctic Council decided in November 2004 at the ministerial meeting in Reykjavík that a comprehensive Arctic marine shipping assessment was necessary.

The Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working group was in charge of creating the report with the assistance of more than 185 experts from a number of organizations.

The AMSA report was approved at the ministerial meeting Tromsø meeting in 2009.

This report is one of the key sources of information for the AP shipping portlet as well as a key document for anyone interested in Arctic shipping.

Click HERE to read the report (PDF)

The possibility of a Trans-Arctic shipping route has intrigued seafarers since the days of the first Arctic explorers, as it would shorten the distance between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean significantly and shorten trade routes.

This possibility still intrigues various stakeholders and is an issue that has received significant media coverage. Although some people consider this option not the most dominant issue in Arctic shipping today, Trans-Arctic shipping will probably become a reality during the 21^st Century due to decline in sea Ice.

How and when this will happen is hard for scientists to predict. It is estimated that we will possibly see an ice-free arctic ocean for a short period annually as soon as 2015, but conditions that would make regular Trans-Arctic shipping a viable option are harder to predict. There are numerous factors that will have to be taken into account such as the lack of infrastructure; technological advances in ice strengthened cargo ships, pressure to develop alternative shipping lanes due to pressure on existing lanes such as the Panama and Suez canals will all play a role in the development of Trans-Arctic cargo shipping.

Key Issues

During the year 2004, about 6000 vessels navigated the Arctic, many making multiple voyages operating in their operations. Virtually all shipping in the region is destinational, conducted for community re-supply, resource oriented or connected to tourism. There has been a significant increase of cruise ships in the Arctic, were the majority is not specifically built for navigation in Arctic waters. These ships may have significant effect on wildlife, as the purpose of these voyages is to seek places of special interest such as wildlife refuges.

There are a number of ways that a cruise ship can cause harm to delicate areas in the Arctic. It includes; noise, air and ocean pollution and inappropriate behavior of passengers ashore are the most prominent impacts. Sewage is also a major concern whereas an average cruise ship produces more than 95.000 liters of oily bilge a week, which can increase chances of accidental spillage or leaks.

Additionally there is an increased security risk involved for passengers if a cruise liner would need immediate assistance. Search and rescue resources are limited in the Arctic with a tighter timeframe due to challenging surroundings.

These are among the key issues that need to be addressed in connection to shipping activities within the Arctic.

February 8, 2011
Arctic Council – the venue for Arctic decision making

Short history of the Arctic Council

Through times the unknown has always fascinated people. New cultures and undiscovered lands have allured adventurers of all sorts and great stories are told about people who have courageously travelled through landscapes that traditionally have been thought inaccessible. For many centuries, the Arctic was remote and pristine region left outside of scientific exploration as well as world politics. It was not before after second world war with technical advancement and ever increasing need for resources and space that world’s eyes turned to the Arctic. But instead of becoming a new scientific playground furthering our understanding on world’s ecology, the Arctic became militarized region of both the east and the west for four long decades or until the emergence of the perestroika in the Soviet Union which gradually brought the cold war enemies closer and eventually to the same table in 1989.

The first purely Arctic oriented meeting of the eight Arctic countries – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the U.S. – took place in Rovaniemi Finland in September 1989. The topic of the meeting was the fragile Arctic environment and a potential for joint effort in tackling the very delicate but urgent issue. After intensive cooperation for the next two years, the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy was initiated in 1991. The AEPS concentrated on cooperation in scientific research and sharing of data on effects of pollution as well as assessing the potential environmental impacts of development activities in the Arctic through its four specific measures, namely Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Protection of the Marine Environment in the Arctic, Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response in the Arctic and Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna. The cooperation around the AEPS was quite untraditional for many reasons. First, it was one of the first venues where the cold war parties cooperated together to reach a common goal and secondly it became one of the very few inter-governmental institutions including indigenous peoples of the region in the work from the beginning.

It became, however, soon clear that the Arctic issues and the change happening in the Arctic environment would have such an immense impact globally that it was decided that the AEPS would step aside and new inter-governmental high level forum would be created to deal Arctic environmental issues. In 1996, the Arctic Council, with membership of all eight Arctic states and permanent participation of regional indigenous peoples associations, was established to promote cooperation, coordination and interaction in issues of sustainable development and environmental protection.

Arctic Council and its Working Groups

The Arctic Council consists of eight Arctic states; Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the U.S and six permanent participants; Aleut International Association, Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC), Gwich’in Council International (GCI), Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), Russian Arctic Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) and Saami Council. The Arctic Council is governed by Senior Arctic Official (SAO) meetings, which are held twice a year and biennial Ministerial meetings. The chairmanship of the Council rotates between the eights states, each state holding the position for two years at a time. The chair state establishes a secretariat for the period to deal with administrative matters.

During the past fourteen years the Arctic Council has advanced knowledge about the Arctic environment through its working groups CAFF, PAME, EPPR, SDWG, AMAP and ACAP. In 2009, PAME published a comprehensive assessment on Arctic Marine Shipping pointing out both possibilities as well as downsides of Arctic shipping. CAFF has conducted various large researches and reviews on Arctic biodiversity, latest being the Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010. ACAP, EPPR and SDWG have as well all introduced valuable material concerning various urgent issues facing the Arctic and AMAP releases regularly assessments on various issues relating to contaminants.

Contemporary challenges of the Arctic Council

Since the end of the cold war the Arctic has been changing in ever increasing speed. Not only does the international community face immense environmental challenges that will influence every part of the world, but also will the Arctic states face territorial claims, issues concerning maritime transportation and infrastructure, natural resource exploitation and a whole new political setting. The Arctic is becoming a lively international region rich of natural resources and high economic potential. The fact is, however, that there is lacking a common political agenda for the future in the Arctic and a legal framework for the emerging maritime activities. Infrastructure on the Arctic coastline is not ready to welcome the incipient economical activities and the participation procedure of the indigenous peoples in developing the area has not yet been fully established. Most of these activities must be undertaken jointly by all the Arctic nations for them to have real impact. The shortage of the Arctic Council mandate to deal with issues other than environment has led to a situation where decisions are made in isolation creating thus incomplete and fragmented framework for the Arctic region.

This situation has been understood in the Arctic states and in every established national Arctic Policy the need for stronger Arctic Council is recognized. In the next few years then, the states have a challenge of reforming the Arctic Council to better correspond to the contemporary challenges. The mandate must be broadened to cover issues other than environment as well and the restructured Council must be presented with a higher level image to equal other international actors in the Arctic region.

October 20, 2010
The Arctic Ocean – Challenges in Governance

One of the major issues in discourse of Arctic related matters has in recent years been the governance of the Arctic region. Often in public debate it has got forgotten that the Arctic is an area situated on land of eight Arctic states as well as a large sea area defined as high seas under international law. In a following short feature, the contemporary governance scheme of the Arctic region will be discussed and the different legal and political settings participating in the Arctic governance introduced.

Contemporary Legal Regime

As stated in the introduction, the land mass defined as part of the Arctic is situated on a land of eight states, namely Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the US. These states govern their territory under international law as sovereign states. Each coastal state occupies in addition a 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Arctic Ocean, which still today is covered in the most part by snow and ice. The global warming and predicted melting of Arctic sea ice have, however, stimulated the discourse on extended EEZ towards the north pole in a hope of possible natural resource discoveries. All such claims are dealt within the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) on the bases of the article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The much publicity gained Russian flag incident does not , therefore, have any legal consequences concerning the sovereignty over the sea bed of the Arctic Ocean.

Beyond the national EEZ’s opens up an area of high seas which under international law is open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. The freedom of the high seas includes that all states, whether coastal or land-locked, have a right to navigate, overfly, lay submarine cables and pipelines and construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law in the area. Further, in the high seas there exists freedom of fishing, though subject to international fisheries regulation and freedom of scientific research, subject as well to international regulation and cooperation.

Arctic shipping on the other hand is regulated under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) framework. The IMO regulations cover both environmental issues, including oil pollution, pollution by chemicals, goods in packaged form, sewage, garbage and air pollution (MARPOL 73/78) and safety issues including collision regulations and global standards for seafarers, regulations concerning search and rescue, the facilitation of international maritime traffic, load lines, the carriage of dangerous goods and tonnage measurement (SOLAS, etc.).

What is still lacking, however, are legally binding standards for Arctic shipping. According to the AMSA Report 2009, an Arctic Council Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working group prepared large Arctic shipping assessment report, the lack of mandatory regulations for ships operating in Arctic Ice-covered waters is one of the major safety issues still unsolved. In addition, lack fo proper coastal infrastructure and pressure to develop alternative shipping lanes due to pressure on existing lanes such as the Panama and Suez canals are issues that still need to be resolved.

Arctic Political Regime

The regional governance of the Arctic takes place in different multilateral settings. The major international forum for Arctic governance is the Arctic Council. The Council was established in 1996 with a mandate to promote cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States in the fields of sustainable development and environmental protection. Member states of the Arctic Council are all the eight states situated in the Arctic region in addition to the Arctic Indigenous representatives who hold a formal status of Permanent Participants in the Council. Further, the Arctic Council welcomes observers in to the meetings. Observer status in the Council have various non-arctic states, inter-governmental and inter-parliamentary organizations and non-governmental organizations.

Since the mandate of the Arctic Council is strictly bound to environmental issues, there seems to be a void in discourse concerning other issues. The Nordic countries released common proposals for closer foreign and security policy cooperation between the Nordic countries in beginning of the year 2009 in the so called “Stoltenberg report“. Further, Barents Euro-Arctic Council deals with various issues concerning the area both in inter-governmental and inter-regional level. Canada and the US made bilateral agreement on Arctic cooperation in 1988 that allows for practical cooperation regarding matters relating to the Northwest Passage despite the disagreement about the status of the passage under applicable international law.

However, contemporary international jurisdictional issues do not fall within the existing Arctic governance regimes, which has led to an establishment of a yet new cooperation regime between the five Arctic Coastal states, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the US. This party of five met for the first time in Ilulissat, Greenland in May 2008 in Arctic Ocean Conference to discuss the Arctic Ocean and the unresolved issues of maritime safety, environmental protection and potential shipping routes. The conference issued a declaration where the five Arctic Coastal states reassured compliance of existing legal framework without any intention to initiate new international Arctic legislation. The three Arctic states left outside the meeting as well as the Arctic indigenous peoples were not satisfied with the procedure and felt that the issues should have been dealt with either in the Arctic Council or in a meeting where all the Arctic states and peoples could have had a representation.

The Arctic Indigenous Peoples have yet again expressed their discontent for the upcoming meeting of foreign ministers of the five Arctic Ocean coastal states on March 29, 2010, in Chelsea, Quebec and called for an invitation to the meeting. It is clear that if the five coastal states want to strengthen the cooperation and create a permanent forum for Arctic dialogue they have to include the Arctic indigenous peoples somehow into the cooperation. Question is, however, how a forum of this kind will affect the status of the Arctic Council and how the three non-coastal Arctic states, who despite their geographical situation will one way or another be affected by the decisions made in the coastal states meetings, will be taken into consideration.

February 19, 2010