Governing Arctic Shipping: Finding a Role for the Arctic Council

Yearbook of Polar Law

Volumn 2, Issue , 2010, Pages 115-138

  Koivurova, Timo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAPLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874377755     PISSN: 18768814     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/22116427-91000031     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. ACIA: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005), 1042;
2. See “Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ” in eds. Martin L. Parry et al., IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007), 653–685, http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm (accessed December 15, 2009).
3. The Arctic Council has carried out important assessments regarding oil and gas and marine shipping. See the Arctic Council website, www.arctic-council.org (accessed December 15, 2009).
4. For a general overview, see the Background Paper on Arctic Shipping, contribution to the Arctic Transform project. (Lead authors: Erik J. Molenaar, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea and Robert Corell, Heinz Center), http://arctic-transform.org/download/ShipBP.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
5. For an overview, see the IMO website, (Legal, IMO Conventions), http://www.imo.org/ (accessed December 15, 2009).
6. See generally “AMSA: Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, ” http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PDF_Files/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
7. “Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and United States, ” 14 January 1991, 30 I.L.M. 1624, s. 2.1(v) at 1631 (AEPS).
8. The Soviet Union still signed the AEPS, even though the country was then quickly succeeded by the Russian Federation.
9. See Timo Koivurova, Environmental Impact Assessment in the Arctic: A Study of International Legal Norms (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing 2002), 25–28.
10. Iceland also has areas of territorial sovereignty above the Arctic Circle, as its territorial sea extends above the Circle.
11. See David Scrivener, “Arctic Environmental Cooperation in Transition.” Polar Record 35 (192) 1999: 51–58.
12. See Joint Communiqué and Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council (Ottawa Declaration), 35 I.L.M. 1382, (1996), http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/Declaration%20on%20the%20Establishment%20of%20the%20Arctic%20Council-1.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
13. Ibid. Ottawa Declaration, para. 1.
14. Eva C.H. Keskitalo, Constructing ‘the Arctic’ (Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 47, 2002), 113–158. (Revised version published as Eva C.H. Keskitalo, Negotiating the Arctic the Construction of an International Region (New York and London: Routledge 2004).
15. The Arctic Council’s Rules Of Procedure as adopted by the Arctic Council at the first Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, 17–18 September 1998. Iqaluit: Arctic Council, http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/official%20rules%20and%20procedures.PDF (accessed December 15, 2009).
16. “Common Objectives and Priorities for the Norwegian, Danish and Swedish chairmanships of the Arctic Council (2006–2012), ” http://arctic-council.org/article/2007/11/common_priorities (accessed December 15, 2009).
17. Ottawa Declaration, para. 2, supra note 11.
18. Supra note 11.
19. “Final Report of the Svolvaer SAO Meeting, ” 23–24 April 2008 para.12.2., http://arcticcouncil.org/filearchive/Sao%20Svolvaer%20Final%20Report.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
20. Evan Bloom, “The Establishment of the Arctic Council, ” American Journal of International Law 93 (1999): 712–722.
21. Ottawa Declaration, para.1, supra note 11.
22. Ibid., first footnote in p. 2.
23. The 2009 Tromsø Declaration provides that the ministers “decide to further strengthen the political role of the Arctic Council by having a meeting at deputy Minister level, with representatives of Permanent Participants, to discuss emerging issues between Ministerial meetings” (emphasis in the original), http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/Tromsoe%20Declaration-1..pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
24. AEPS 2.1. (i and ii), supra note 6.
25. Supra note 6, AEPS, 2 (1v)).
26. Ibid., AEPS, 30–31, which provide the following: “Two of the most significant threats to the present Arctic environment may come from climate change, induced by global warming, and the effects of stratospheric ozone depletion. Programs to detect and determine the causes and effects of climate change and ozone depletion are to a large extent being developed by other international groupings and in other fora.” For a general overview see: Timo Koivurova and Waliul Hasanat, “The Climate Policy of the Arctic Council” in eds. Timo Koivurova, Eva C.H. Keskitalo, and Nigel Bankes, Climate Governance in the Arctic (Dodrecht, NL: Springer, 2009): 51–76.
27. Supra note 6, AEPS 1, “Introduction.”
28. See PAME: Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Report – 1996, 28, http://www.pame.is/images/stories/Work_Plans/Framework_documents/PAME-1996-Report.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
29. ACIA: Impacts of a Warming Arctic, ACIA Overview Report (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004) [ACIA Synthesis Report];
30. see generally the ACIA Final Scientific Report, supra note 1. See the ACIA website, http://www.acia.uaf.edu/ (accessed December 15, 2009).
31. See Annika Nilsson, “A Changing Arctic Climate: Science and Policy in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, ” in eds. Timo Koivurova, Eva C.H. Keskitalo and Nigel Bankes, supra note 25, 77–98.
32. See Impacts of a Warming Arctic: ACIA Overview Report (2004), supra note 28, 10–11.
33. Para. 8 of the Inari Declaration 2002. Inari declaration was adopted on the occasion of the third Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council (Inari: Arctic Council 2002), http://arcticcouncil.org/filearchive/The%20signed%20Inari%20Declaration.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
34. Reykjavik Declaration 2004, Climate Change in the Arctic. Reykjavik declaration 2004 was adopted on the occasion of the fourth ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council 2004. Reykjavik: Arctic Council, http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/The%20signed%20Reykjavik%20Declaration.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
35. See “Field Guide for the Oil Spills Response in Arctic Waters, ” http://eppr.arctic-council.org/content/fldguide/intro.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
36. See “Circumpolar Map of Resources at Risk from Oil Spills in the Arctic, ” http://eppr.akvaplan.com/.
37. See “The Arctic SCAT Manual: A Field Guide to the Documentation of Oiled Shorelines in Arctic Environments.” Available (for reference) at: http://eppr.arctic-council.org/ (accessed December 15, 2009).
38. See “Arctic Council Guidelines for Transfer of Refined Oil and Oil Products in Arctic Waters, ” http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PDF_Files/Doc_lib/OilandGasReports/TROOP_-_English_2.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
39. This was formally done in the PAME meeting on 6–7 March 2007 in Copenhagen.
40. See “Program for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment, ” Working Group Meeting Report 2007, http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PDF_Files/Doc_lib/Meeting_Reports/pame-report-i-2007.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
41. This was noted already on p. 6 of the minutes of the PAME meeting on 22–23 February 2005 Copenhagen, Denmark: “Some participants noted that the IMO had already prepared Guidelines for Ensuring the Adequacy of Port Waste Reception Facilities (adopted in 2000) which could also be used in this work. The IMO Guidelines provide guidance on the determination of adequacy of reception facilities for ship-generated waste as part of the implementation of MARPOL 73/78.” See “Program for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment, ” Working Group Meeting Report 2005, http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PDF_Files/Doc_lib/Meeting_Reports/PAME%20report%20I-2005.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
42. See“ObservedBestPracticesinEcosystem-basedOceansManagementintheArcticCountries, ” http://www.pame.is/images/stories/Ecosystem_Approach/SDWG-PAME_BePOMAR_Observed_Best_Practices_Document1.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
43. The larger report is available at: http://www.pame.is/images/stories/Ecosystem_Approach/SDWGPAME_Best_Practices_in_Ecosystem_based_Oceans_Management_20091.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
44. The following were found to be the key elements: 1). flexible application, 2). integrated and science based decision-making, 3). commitment to ecosystem-based oceans management, 4). area-based approaches and transboundary perspectives 5). stakeholder participation, and 6). adaptive management.
45. See “PAME Work Plan 2009–2011, ” 3, http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PAME_Work_Plan_2009–2011/PAME.b_work__plan_2009–2011.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
46. See Timo Koivurova, “Governance of Protected Areas in the Arctic, ” Utrecht Law Review, 5:1 (2009), 44–60, http://www.utrechtlawreview.org/publish/articles/000101/article.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
47. See section 7.2.2. of the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan, http://www.pame.is/images/stories/AMSP_files/AMSP-Nov-2004.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
48. See supra note 5, 13.
49. As provided on p. 11, ibid., “The AMSA covers all types of marine transport under the general topic of “shipping”: tankers, bulk carriers, offshore supply vessels, passenger ships, tug/barge combinations, fishing vessels, ferries, research vessels and government and commercial icebreakers.”
50. As provided in the SAO Report to the Tromsø Ministerial Meeting: “Approve the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) 2009 Report prepared by PAME in association with EPPR and other bodies including its recommendations on enhancing Arctic marine safety, protecting Arctic people and environment and building Arctic marine infrastructure and request SAOs to continue to review its findings and develop appropriate follow up actions.”
51. See supra note 5, 6–7.
52. See “Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered Waters, ” http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D6629/1056-MEPC-Circ399.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
53. See “List of Resolutions Adopted by the Assembly at the twenty-sixth session”, A 26/INF.10/Rev.1, 23 November -2 December 2009, http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D26999/INF-10-Rev-1.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
54. SOLAS (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974) amendments may be the main thing, but there are also suggestions to have additional legally binding standards, for instance, to be included in STCW 78 (International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978) and possibly also MARPOL 73/78 (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto). All these IMO Conventions can be downloaded from the IMO website (path: Legal, IMO Convention), http://www.imo.org/ (accessed December 14, 2009).
55. It is important to point out that Article 234 raises various questions of interpretation, as explained by VanderZwaag: “What is required to meet the litmus of ‘ice covering such areas for most of the year’? For example, will even partial ice cover suffice if there is an exceptional hazard to navigation? What is the significance of giving special coastal state powers only in the EEZ? Some writers have suggested the EEZ limitation implies that coastal states are given no greater powers than applicable to the territorial sea... while others have supported a bestowing of much broader powers, in particular the right to unilaterally adopt special ship construction, crewing and equipment requirements... Application of Article 234 to international straits used for navigation may also be questioned. Since UNCLOS does not exempt straits from the application of Article 234, questions of interpretation may again rise over the geographical scope of coverage and the breadth of coastal state regulatory powers”, 9. See: David VanderZwaag, “Governance of Arctic Marine Shipping, ”10 October 2008, by Marine & Environmental Law Institute, Dalhousie University, http://www.pame.is/images/stories/AMSA/AMSA_Background_Research_Documents/History_and_Governance_of_Arctic_Shipping/2.5-Governance-of-ArcticMarine-Shipiping.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
56. Ibid., 50–73.
57. See SAO meeting in Kautokeino on 19–20 November 2008, Norway, final report, para. 3.4., http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/AC-SAO-NOV08-Final%20Report%20of%20the%20Meeting.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009). This was confirmed by an e-mail communication with Julie Gourmley on 28 August 2009 (on file with the author).
58. See “Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas” further info at http://www.imo.org/environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1357.
59. See “Special Areas under MARPOL” further info at http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=760 (accessed December 14. 2009).
60. For the dates of entry into force of special areas under Annexes I, II and V, see: http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=760 (accessed December 14, 2009).
61. These MARPOL 73/78 Annexes are I (Prevention of pollution by oil), II (Control of pollution by noxious liquid substances) and V (Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships). All these IMO MARPOL Annexes can be downloaded from the IMO website (path: Legal, IMO Convention), http://www.imo.org/ (accessed December 14, 2009).
62. “Practical Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange in the Antarctic Treaty Area” Annex to resolution 3 (2006), http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att345_e.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
63. See “PAME Work Plan 2009–2011” at 2, http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PAME_Work_Plan_2009–2011/PAME.b_work__plan_2009–2011.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
64. See “PAME Working Group Meeting Report No: PAME I 2009, ” http://www.pame.is/images/stories/FrontPage/PAME_I-2009Report._samsett.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
65. These are now detailed in the meeting report, in Annex V “Matrix for AMSA Follow-Up, ” http://www.pame.is/images/stories/FrontPage/PAME_I-2009Report._samsett.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
66. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008. The Ilulissat Declaration of the Arctic Ocean Conference, Ilulissat, Greenland, 27–29 May, 2008, http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/Ilulissat-declaration.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
67. In the discussion at the Narvik Senior Arctic Official meeting (18.1.), “Iceland expressed concerns that separate meetings of the five Arctic states, Denmark, Norway, U.S., Russia and Canada, on Arctic issues without the participation of the members of the Arctic Council, Sweden, Finland and Iceland, could create a new process that competes with the objectives of the Arctic Council. If issues of broad concern to all of the Arctic Council Member States, including the effect of climate change, shipping in the Arctic, etc. are to be discussed, Iceland requested that Denmark invite the other Arctic Council states to participate in the ministerial meeting. Permanent participants also requested to participate in the meeting. Denmark responded that the capacity of the venue may be an issue.” Narvik SAO meeting 2007, Final Report (28–29 November 2007), http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/Narvik%20-FINAL%20Report-%2023Apr08.doc (accessed December 14, 2009).
68. Ilulissat Declaration, supra note 67.
69. Para. 36, Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region. 2008. Report of the eighth conference of parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Fairbanks, USA, 12–14 August 2008, http://www.arcticparl.org/_res/site/file/files%20from%208th%20conference/Conference_Report_Fairbanks_final.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
70. See AMSA report at 111, supra note 49.
71. See “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – The European Union and the Arctic Region” COM (2008) 763, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:DKEY=483680:EN:NOT (accessed December 14, 2009).
72. Supra note 76.
73. As provided in the 2006 Conference Statement from the Kiruna Conference, para. 28: “In light of the impact of climate change, and the increasing economic and human activity, initiate, as a matter of urgency, an audit of existing legal regimes that impact the Arctic and to continue the discussion about strengthening or adding to them where necessary.” See “Seventh Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, ” Kiruna, Sweden, 2–4 August 2006, http://www.arcticparl.org/_res/site/File/static/conf7_conference_statement_final_draft.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
74. S.J. Res. 17, 3 August 2007.
75. See “European Parliament Resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic Governance, ” http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-0474 (accessed December 14, 2009).
76. See “European Parliament Resolution on the Opening of International Negotiations with a View to Adopting an International Treaty for the Protection of the Arctic, ” http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+MOTION+B6-2009-0163+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN (accessed December 14, 2009);
77. also the response from the Council of Ministers, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/111814.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
78. See “Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre” at http://www.eu-norway.org/NR/rdonlyres/BEDA6CB47ADF40A8AB0AEF53CC1077D2/93513/arcticgovernanceJGS070508.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
79. See e.g., the recent speech notes by the Danish chair of the SAO’s, http://arctic-council.org/article/2009/10/the_arctic_is_an_area_of_peace (accessed December 14, 2009).