Transcript Climate Change and the Prospects of Increased Navigation

Climate Change and the Prospects
of Increased Navigation in the
Canadian Arctic:
Some issues to consider for
ICCMI 2008
Aldo Chircop
Marine & Environmental Law Institute,
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, NS, Canada
The argument
 IPCC:
 “The Arctic is very likely to warm during this century in most
areas, and the annual mean warming is very likely to exceed the
global mean warming. Warming is projected to be largest in
winter and smallest in summer. … Arctic sea ice is very likely to
decrease in extent and thickness. It is uncertain how the Arctic
Ocean circulation will change. “ (IPCC, 2007).
 Summer ice disappearing at the rate of 3% per decade (USONR,
2001).
 Significance:
 “Reduced sea ice is very likely to increase marine transport and
access to resources” (ACIA, 2004)
 Ecological disruptions and northward movements of some
marine resources will be likely (USARC, undated).
 Dramatic decrease of Arctic ice by 2050 is conceivable.
 Would a decrease in the ice cover necessarily result in reliable icefree summer season commercial navigation?
 If increased Arctic commercial navigation becomes likely, what
additional measures in the interests of safety of navigation and
environment protection would become necessary and by when?
Arctic fragility
 The Arctic coastal and marine environment is
arguably one of the most sensitive to human
disturbance: hence the adoption of the law of the
sea rule on ice-covered areas to justify higher
standards of protection than the normal
international norm (UNCLOS, 1982, Art. 234).
 The Arctic has not been fully charted and some
navigation charts are notoriously out of date
(CMMC, 2006, per Potts, CCG).
UNCLOS, 1982
SECTION 8: ICE-COVERED AREAS
Article 234
Ice-covered areas
 Coastal States have the right to adopt and enforce nondiscriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention,
reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in
ice-covered areas within the limits of the exclusive
economic zone, where particularly severe climatic
conditions and the presence of ice covering such areas
for most of the year create obstructions or exceptional
hazards to navigation, and pollution of the marine
environment could cause major harm to or irreversible
disturbance of the ecological balance. Such laws and
regulations shall have due regard to navigation and the
protection and preservation of the marine environment
based on the best available scientific evidence.
Potential commercial navigation in
the Arctic
 The Arctic ocean proper.
 Northeast passage (now known as the Northern
Sea Route) through the Russian Arctic.
 Northwest passage through the Canadian Arctic
(consisting of a package of routes through the
Canadian Arctic archipelago) between Europe
and Asia (Wilson et al., 2004):
 9,000 km shorter than the Panama Canal route
 17,000 km shorter than the Cape Horn route
Potential
Navigation
Routes in the
Arctic
Source: Arctic Council,
2006
Potential maritime industry
interests in the Arctic
 Hydrocarbons and minerals.
 Commercial shipping:





Asia/Europe/North America trades
Shipbuilding & shiprepairing
Insurance
Ports
Services (e.g., pilotage, salvage, etc.)
 Fishing.
 Tourism.
Decreasing ice cover is a fact, but
how realistic is a concomitant
increase in international
commercial navigation through the
Northwest Passage?
The optimists
 Huebert, 2001:
 Commercial navigation will become more feasible as
the Northwest Passage becomes ice-free.
 US Office for Naval Research, 2001; USARC,
undated:
 Summertime disappearance of ice in the Arctic Ocean
likely by 2050: Canadian archipelago and Alaskan
coast will be ice-free and navigable every summer by
non-ice-breaking ships.
 Northwest Passage will be open to non-ice
strengthened vessels for at least one month each
summer.
 “Ice free” understood as a navigable Arctic with iceinfested waters.
The skeptics
 CMMC, 2006 comments:
 Falkingham (EC): although the Arctic summer
shipping season may be extended by the end
of the century (from 3 to 6 months), the NWP
is not likely to become an east-west corridor
because of extreme inter-annual variability.
 Potts (CCG): virtually no infrastructure to
support ships in the Arctic (no ship repair
facilities, no fuel supplies; only one dock in
the region, Nanisivik).
 Barry: reinforced ships are more expensive to
navigate in open water due to increased fuel
consumption.
More skepticism
 Griffiths, 2005:
 “Unpredictability, not conditions clearly
favourable to navigation, is the net effect of
climate change on the Northwest passage
thus far.”
 Predictions of heavy use of Arctic North
American waters by major shipping firms in
2020s & 2030s cannot be sustained, although
increase of ships traffic to transport
hydrocarbons, minerals and fishing vessels
conceivable.
More from Griffiths
 Although the Atlantic-Pacific navigation through the
NWP is shorter through the Arctic than Suez or
Panama canals, passage is not likely commercially
feasible because:
 Short navigation season (arctic summer).
 Likely continued lack of predictability of ice movement.
 Insufficient navigation charts/data for the region.
 Higher expense of polar class vessels (additional equipment
& training required under the IMO Polar Code).
 Risks of delay.
 Insurance costs.
 Etc.
A sobering possible scenario
(Wilson et al., 2004, based on Canadian Ice Service work)
 Melting first year ice around the Queen Elisabeth Islands




areas may permit old ice to drift into the Northwest
passage, and a southern shift of the Beaufort Sea ice
pack, thereby increasing the rate and supply of ice in the
Passage.
Possible effects include blockage of the western
Passage routes and drifting of old ice creating choke
points in narrow channels.
Multi-year ice is extremely strong and dangerous,
thereby increasing hazards to navigation and the marine
environment.
Navigation in the North West Passage will continue to
face a wide range of possible ice conditions.
A false sense of optimism?
Northwest Passages in the Canadian Arctic
Source: Wilson et al., 2004
Canada’s sovereignty concern
 Canada claims sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic




archipelago and considers their status as internal waters.
US protest.
If there is increased international shipping activity in the
Northwest Passage, could its status change to that of an
international strait? UNCLOS concerns.
Would protection under the Arctic Waters Pollution
Prevention Act and UNCLOS Art. 234 on ice-covered
areas be sufficient?
Or should Canada (and neighbours) consider MARPOL
73/78 special areas and PSSAs as potential tools?
Would the above be consistent with its sovereignty
claim?
Work of the Arctic Council




Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, 1991.
Arctic Council established in 1996.
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 2004.
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment
(PAME):
 Arctic Marine Strategic Plan (employing an
ecosystem approach).
 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, 2005-2008 (led
by Canada, Finland, US) – final report to be
presented in fall 2008.
IMO Polar Code & IACS
 IMO has started to anticipate the prospect of
increased navigation in Arctic ice-covered
waters by persuading IACS to move away from
traditional hull classifications and towards
polarworthiness (i.e., winterization of the hull
and crew):
 Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered
Waters, IMO Doc. MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ. 399,
23 December 2002 (IMO Polar Code, 2002).
 Construction
 Equipment
 Operations
 Environment protection and damage control
 IACS responded with a unified approach.
Arctic IceCovered
Waters for the
purposes of
the IMO Polar
Code
Source: IMO Polar
Code, 2002
Conclusion:
Some issues for ICCMI 2008?
 Compare the NWP to the Northern Sea Route in terms of




likely development of new international polar navigation
routes.
Does anything else need to be done from an international
maritime regulatory perspective at this time? Is the Polar
Code sufficient?
Colreg: how would these rules (e.g., action to avoid
collision) apply in ice-covered waters?
Should MARPOL 73/78 special areas and possibly PSSAs
be designated in the Arctic Ocean as a precautionary
measure? Could this be done before there is an actual,
imminent or reasonably foreseeable threat from
international shipping activity? What would port reception
facility requirements be in Arctic ports?
Salvage: what issues can be expected to arise? Places of
refuge too?
More issues
 With increased international navigation, what search and




rescue regime is conceivable in the Arctic Ocean?
Should there be conditions/restrictions on the types of
cargoes that can be moved through the Arctic?
Are the current compensation regimes sufficient to
mitigate losses/damage in an Arctic environment?
Should commercial international cross-polar navigation
become a reality, who should pay for the expensive
infrastructure needed to support international shipping?
Using UNCLOS Art. 234, may a coastal state adopt
standards for navigation in ice-covered areas higher than
the international norm, and possibly without going
through the IMO?
References










Arctic Council, 2006. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment: The Arctic Council’s Response to
Changing Marine Access. PAME, Progress Report, October 2006.
CMMC, 2006. Review of the Seminar “Canadian Arctic Issues in a Changing Climate,” organized
by the Company of Master Mariners of Canada in conjunction with the Marine Affairs Program of
Dalhousie University and Lloyd’s register, North America, December 2006 (revised January 2007).
Griffiths, 2005. F. Griffiths, “New Illusions for a Northwest Passage.” In M. Nordquist et al.,
International Energy Policy, The Arctic and the Law of the Sea (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2005), 303-319.
IMO Polar Code, 2002. Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered Waters, IMO Doc.
MSC/Circ.1056, MEPC/Circ. 399, 23 December 2002.
Huebert, 2001. R. Huebert, “Climate Change and Canadian Sovereignty in the Northwest
Passage.” 2 ISUMA (Winter 2001).
IPPC, 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Draft 4th Assessment Report. WG1
report: The Physical Science Basis, Chap. 11 Regional Climate Projections, online: http://ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch11.pdf
Newton, 2005. G. B. Newton, “Coming to the Arctic: Oil, Ships and UNCLOS Plus.” In M.
Nordquist et al., International Energy Policy, The Arctic and the Law of the Sea (Leiden: Nijhoff,
2005), 321-335.
USARC, undated. United States Arctic Research Commission, “The Arctic Ocean and Climate
Change: A Sceario for the US Navy.” Arlington, VA.: USARC, undated).
USONR, 2001. US Office for Naval Research et al., Naval Operations in an Ice-Free Arctic.
Symposium 17-18 April 2001 (Arlington, VA: US Office for Naval Research, 2001).
Wilson et al., 2004. K.J. Wilson, J. Falkingham, H. Melling and R. De Abreu, “Shipping in the
Canadian Arctic: Other Possible Climate Change Scenarios”. Congrès IGARSS 2004 (Science for
society: exploring and managing a changing planet) (2004 IEEE International Geoscience and
Remote Sensing Symposium) (proceedings) (20-24 September, 2004, Anchorage, Alaska).