Arctic Maritime Transport

Transcription

1 Arctic Maritime Transport Background Paper prepared by the Arctic Centre of the University of Lapland for the Arctic Maritime Transport workshop, a part of the EU-Circumpolar Arctic Dialogue Seminar, Brussels, 29 November 2018 This background paper is meant to inspire discussion among participants. It constitutes a starting point rather than establishes the boundaries of dialogue within the workshop. This paper was drafted by the contractor in the EU Arctic Policy Assessment contract. As such, the ideas presented in this material do not necessarily represent the views of the European Union. THIS WORKSHOP Photo: SCF The Arctic maritime transport workshop is dedicated to better understanding the current dynamics in Arctic maritime transport. A decade ago, some experts were predicting rapid expansion of Arctic shipping. While volumes of destinational shipping have been rising significantly in recent years, fueled primarily by exports of hydrocarbon resources from the Russian Arctic, transit shipping has been limited. The level of uncertainty and risk is high in Arctic shipping, notwithstanding technological and regulatory developments (primarily the Polar Code). This workshop will try to clarify the future prospects for Arctic shipping. Participants will discuss whether policymakers should take actions to make Arctic shipping more economically feasible, while at the same time enhancing the safety and environmental performance of Arctic maritime transport. KEY QUESTIONS (depending on time and discussion dynamics, some questions may be unaddressed) How can we best estimate future volumes and movements for different types of shipping (destinational and transit, container and bulk energy and other goods)? What are the tangible benefits of Arctic shipping routes for Europe? How can Europe seize opportunities arising from the potential expansion of the Arctic shipping routes? What is the current and future role of insurance companies in Arctic shipping developments? What are the impacts of increased shipping volumes and infrastructural developments on Arctic Indigenous communities, and how can they benefit from the increased shipping activities? Does the EU need an active policy on Arctic maritime transport, in view of possible future developments (including for example Chinese interests), or should the EU currently limit its actions to observing the situation and react only when the time comes? The key questions are proposed by the contractor (Arctic Centre), following the consultation with EU officials, and partly building on the issues and questions mentioned by participants upon registration.

2 OVERVIEW Different types of shipping activities in the Arctic can be distinguished: Transit shipping between Europe and Asia; Destinational Arctic shipping exports of Arctic resources to global markets and bringing of good to Arctic communities and projects. Internal Arctic transport traffic between Arctic ports, e.g. cruise tourism operations and fisheries. There are three passages linking Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, which are often considered in the assessment of future Arctic shipping: Northeast Passage / Northern Sea Route (NSR extends between Novaya Zemlya and Bering Strait) along Siberian coast. Due to climate and ice conditions, the NSR is at present the most navigable Arctic route. It was used extensively already during the Soviet Union era. Some search and rescue (SAR) infrastructure is available, with plans for further expansion. The shipping volumes in the NSR are growing dynamically owing primarily to the exports of hydrocarbons from Yamal peninsula (destinational shipping). Russia promotes the NSR as an international shipping route, although recently there have been actions towards placing restrictions on the movement of foreign vessels. Northwest Passage (NWP) crosses Canadian Arctic archipelago. Compared to the NSR, the NWP has more challenging ice conditions. At present, there are also limited economic activities that could generate major destinational shipping volumes. Central Arctic Ocean / Polar Route would cross CAO international waters. This route will be operable, if the Arctic Ocean is largely ice-free. Challenges for shipping are multifaceted, including: Difficult navigational, ice and weather conditions, despite diminishing sea ice cover. Insufficient infrastructure/communications. High costs of Arctic shipping, partly discounting gains in terms of distance and time compared to the main southern shipping lanes. Environmental impacts: emissions (CO2, NOx, SOx, methane), discharges, accidents, invasive species, wildlife disturbance. Governance of Arctic shipping activities is done to a great extent at the international/global level. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as well as the customary law of the sea establish a general framework. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted numerous convention and guidelines, including the MARPOL (maritime pollution from ships), SOLAS (safety of life at sea) and STWC (training, certification and watch-keeping for seafarers) conventions. The earlier voluntary Polar Code has been largely transposed into legally-binding rules under MARPOL, SOLAS and the STWC. Currently, the IMO discusses the use of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the Arctic. Other international conventions are also relevant for the Arctic shipping, for example the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, which entered into force in The Arctic Council and its Protection of Arctic Marine Environment working group (PAME) worked on the marine transport, including the 2009 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) and its follow-up process. RELEVANT EUROPEAN UNION (EU) POLICIES In its 2016 Joint Communication on an integrated EU policy for the Arctic, the EU highlighted its commitment to contributing to the safety of Arctic navigation, particularly through innovative technologies and enhanced monitoring capabilities. The EU satellite programmes, in particular Galileo, may play here a role. The EU declares its support for international efforts to implement the Polar Code and other relevant IMO conventions and guidelines. The EU is also willing to share European best practices, where applicable. The EU Joint Communication on international ocean governance (JOIN(2016) 49 final), among others, calls for promoting the establishment of marine protected areas in the Arctic. The EU adopted an Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) in 2007, which considers the Arctic Ocean as one of the sea basins of concern for the EU. The EU is not an IMO member, but the Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) coordinate positions with the EU Member States. The EU has developed SafeSeaNet and CleanSeaNet networks and given practical support to IMO initiatives. The EU also operates the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet). As some of the vessels crossing Arctic waters call (and will in the future) at European ports, the EU legislation on port state control is of relevance also for Arctic shipping.

3 ANNEX: EXTENDED BACKGROUND INFORMATION The interest in Arctic shipping arises from the impacts of climate change on the Arctic Ocean ice cover, extent of which has been diminishing, with thinner and younger sea ice occurring across the Arctic Ocean. That translates to gradual extension of navigational period and lower costs, for instance, for icebreaking assistance. The Arctic shipping routes may in the future prove potentially attractive alternatives to the main shipping lanes via Suez and Panama canals, in particular between the northern ports of East Asia and northern Europe. The Arctic shipping lanes can be also seen by states and companies as security alternatives in case the traffic on the main southern shipping lanes is disrupted, due to for instance military conflicts or piracy. However, so far the increase in volumes has been generated primarily by the export of Arctic hydrocarbon resources to global markets. The increase in Arctic shipping would translate to demand for the construction of polar class vessels, compliant with the standards introduced by the Polar Code. Many northern ports and regions see the development of Arctic shipping routes as an opportunity for expansion, emergence as transport hubs, and for establishing new transport corridors. Arctic maritime technology and governance framework have developed during the last 1 See, e.g. Russian Ministry of Transport at accessed 7 October SAFETY4SEA, Russian deputy Prime Minister supports restrictions on Northern Sea Route creating conditions for future shipping expansion. However, multiple constraints and challenges make predictions of future shipping difficult. Arctic passages The Northeast Passage (NEP) links northern Europe and Asia via the Eurasian part of the Arctic Ocean. The major part of its Russian section is referred to as the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and is subject to special Russian legislative framework (2012 Law on the NSR). The NSR is the most used Arctic shipping route, due to comparatively mild ice conditions and the longest navigable period. In 2017, almost 10 mln tonnes of cargo was shipped in the NSR (compared to 7,3 mln in 2016 and 5.4 mln in 2015), with exports of Russian LNG the key factor in growth of volumes, while transit shipping has had minor importance. 1 The Russian government promotes the use of the route and has been investing albeit with multiyear delays in the search and rescue infrastructure (e.g. between 2013 and 2016, four SAR centres were opened in Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Dudinka, and Naryan-Mar; new SAR centres are planned in Pevek and Anadyr in Chukotka, as well as in Tuksi in Yakutia). However, at the same time, there are plans to restrict the access to the NSR to Russianflagged and Russian-built vessels from 2019, with the aim to support Russian shipbuilding and shipping companies. However, special permits for foreign vessels and companies are to be issued and some Russian companies appear skeptical or critical of such regulatory development. 2 At the same time, there are plans to lower ice-class demands for certain sections of the NSR in minister-supports-restrictions-on-northern-searoute/, accessed Realnoye Vremya, New Arctic shipping regulations to increase traffic on the Northern Sea Route, at Page 3 of 8

4 Figure 1. Arctic shipping routes, Sanders, Gunnar, and Norwegian Polar Institute, The Northwest Passage (NWP) runs along the northern coast of North America, crossing the Canadian Arctic archipelago. As the ice in western part of the Arctic Ocean is thicker and older, the NWP is at the moment little used. Both the NWP and the NSR cross areas claimed by respectively Canada and Russia as their internal waters. At the same time, the vessels go through the ice-covered exclusive economic zones (EEZs), where the art. 234 of UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows coastal states to introduce additional non-discriminatory measures. Both Canada and Russia introduced corresponding legislation and introduced administrative measures within the portion of their EEZs. 4 The Central Arctic Ocean route could become navigable in the future with the further retreat of sea ice. Such a polar route would cross primarily international waters. However, the severity of climate change impacts occurring at the point of the icefree Central Arctic Ocean affecting economies and other parameters of Arctic shipping mean that any current predictions and planning may have limited feasibility. Types of shipping in the Arctic The Arctic shipping activities, building on the definitions proposed in the Arctic Council s Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA, 2009), can be differentiated into internal-arctic, destinational and transit shipping. 5 These different types of maritime transport face different challenges. Transit or trans-arctic shipping uses Arctic as a transport corridor between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. While the transit shipping is often at the centre of discussion about Arctic maritime transport, it constitutes so far a minor part of shipping volumes, with negligible rates of growth. Both bulk transport (resources, raw materials) and container shipping are possible, but container shipping can be considered more challenging. Recently, the first container transport by Maersk carrying Russian fish products and Korean electronic crossed the NSR. Earlier, Chinese COSCO shipping company announced opening of a seasonal shipping lane via the NSR with focus on bulk transport. Destinational shipping refers to ships sailing to and from the Arctic. In particular, the export of Arctic resources to global markets is the factor accessed Russia: Federal Law 132-FZ, 2012 and the ; Canada: mandatory ship reporting and vessel traffic service system NORDREG. 5 This section is partly based on Sander, G. et al. (2016) Changes in Arctic Maritime Transport, in A. Stępień, T. Koivurova, and P. Kankaanpää (eds). The Changing Arctic and the European Union. Leiden - Boston: Brill/Nijhoff, as well as AMSA (2009), Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment. Protection of Arctic Marine Environment working group. Page 4 of 8

5 generating destinational traffic volumes. Destinational shipping, especially in the NSR, has been increasing in a dynamic manner, with total volumes recently exceeding the NSR numbers in the late 1980s, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. The recent growth is primarily related to the transport of Russian natural gas (Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG projects) to Asian markets. In the NWP, resupplying Arctic communities comprises an important part of current traffic. Internal Arctic transport involves movement of vessels between Arctic ports, including for instance cruise tourism, research, fisheries, offshore hydrocarbon extraction. In particular, cruise tourism is on the increase, triggering concerns for the safety of large numbers of passengers. The voyages of Crystal Serenity in the NWP in 2016 and 2017 drew public attention to challenges arising from that type of tourism. Constraints and challenges for the development of Arctic shipping: The Arctic Ocean sea ice is diminishing and there are predictions of ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next decades. However, the presence of ice in winter months limits the commercially navigable season (some resource exports excluding), and the challenges of High Arctic weather remain throughout the year (for example, icing). In icefree conditions icebergs and ice flows still occur, with possibly increased unpredictability. Importantly, even within the diminishing trend in ice cover, the conditions are bound to vary from year to year, making it difficult for operators to plan for the next shipping season. In some years, also in the future, certain parts of the Arctic Ocean may be covered with ice throughout summer. Many Arctic straits are fairly shallow and would not allow passage of vessels with high tonnage volumes. The insufficient Arctic marine infrastructure for search and rescue, emergency and environmental risk response remains a challenge. There is a need for better navigational aids, communication systems, ship surveillance and reporting, improved meteorological and ice services, more and better equipped SAR facilities or capabilities. As shipping routes pass through areas claimed by coastal states as internal waters and through their ice-covered EEZs, the operators need to notify, acquire permits, and pay tariffs. Costs for operators may be high, including: crew training, Polar Code compliant equipment, higher fuel consumption per the unit of distance, tariffs for using ice pilotage and icebreaking services, or the need to purchase polar class vessels. It may be the case that despite shorted distances, the northern routes would not necessarily translate to shorter shipping times, lower costs and lower emissions. There are various environmental impacts of shipping that need to be taken into account: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, sulphur oxides and methane emissions; operational discharges from vessels (to a great extent limited or banned under MARPOL following Polar Code amendments); pollution from accidents: bunker oil (ship s own fuel); invasive alien species due to ballast water as well as from the cargo; disturbance to wildlife (noise, collisions, human presence). Shipping activities - in particular cruise tourism and oil spills - may adversely impact traditional livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples. However, shipping may also bring socio-economic benefits to local communities if managed in an appropriate, inclusive manner. Page 5 of 8

6 Governance framework International shipping is governed by the law of the sea, mostly codified in UNCLOS, which sets the rights and obligations of flag states and coastal states and navigational rights in different maritime zones and in straits used for international navigation. Beyond the territorial sea, the freedom of navigation constitutes a general rule, while the innocent passage regime applies within the territorial sea but not within internal waters such as bays, ports and within baselines. In general, beyond internal waters, the coastal states cannot enforce requirements for construction, equipment and manning of vessels beyond generally accepted international rules and standards (GAIRS). The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is responsible for setting rules for maritime safety and environmental performance of vessels. The Convention on Marine Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) and the Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) are the main pillars of shipping regulations. The international law on shipping includes hundreds of conventions and IMO guidelines. The implementation of international standards depends largely on actions of flag states and port states. Port state agreements especially the Paris and Tokyo Memoranda of Understanding play here an important role. The IMO adopted in 2002 and 2009 a set of voluntary guidelines for Arctic and Polar shipping. In 2017, many of the Polar Code standards were made legally-binding through amendments to SOLAS and MARPOL conventions, as well as to the 1978 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). Arctic waters. The HFO ban is currently among policy actions most advocated by environmental NGOs and other actors with regard to Arctic maritime transport regulation. The Arctic Council s Protection of Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working group has also carried out work on the HFO in the Arctic. In 2017, the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments entered into force. The Arctic Council and in particular its PAME working group have played an important role in the deliberations on the Arctic maritime transport. The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) was published in The implementation of AMSA recommendations has been uniquely followed up by the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council was also instrumental in assessing the Indigenous Peoples uses of the Arctic waters and evaluating impacts of shipping on indigenous livelihoods. Following the AMSA recommendations, the Arctic Council has facilitated negotiations of legally-binding agreements between the eight Arctic states. The 2011 Agreement on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic (SAR Agreement) and the 2013 Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic (Oil Spills Agreement) enhance conditions for cooperation between Arctic states. Both agreements are based on the relevant globally-applicable conventions. The work on identifying areas of particular biodiversity value (by CAFF and the Convention on Biological Diversity) can be relevant for Arctic shipping in the future if marine protected areas or emission control areas are established or routing schemes introduced. There has been long debate on mitigating the risks associated with the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic. The IMO is currently considering banning the use of the HFO in Page 6 of 8

7 2016 ARCTIC JOINT COMMUNICATION 6 POLICY RESPONSES The 2016 Joint Communication identified three priority areas: Climate Change and Safeguarding the Arctic Environment; Sustainable Development in and around the Arctic; International Cooperation on Arctic Issues. Research, science and innovation play a key role across the EU s Arctic-relevant policies and actions. Among Joint Communication s policy responses relevant for the Arctic maritime transport are: The EU is committed to contributing to enhancing the safety of navigation, in particular through innovative technologies and enhanced monitoring capabilities. The EU wants to support international efforts to implement the Polar Code. Galileo the European global navigation system will improve the coverage of the Arctic region providing safe and reliable navigation capabilities for maritime applications. Arctic needs could be considered in the possible proposals for the next generation of government satellite communications. The EU had been long committed to promoting the ratification of the 2004 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments (which eventually entered into force in 2017). The EU and its Member States experience with managing invasive species pathways can be shared with Arctic partners. The EU encourages the application of the IMO s Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships' Biofouling. In 2016, a call under Horizon 2020 was launched with the aim of establishing a network for the Arctic and the Atlantic to cope with maritime security threats resulting from the opening of the Northeast Passage. The cooperation between the Arctic Coast Guard Forum and the European Coast Guard Functions Forum was advocated. The European Commission is to monitor developments in maritime tourism as an opportunity for sustainable economic development in the Arctic. The northern Trans-European Network for Transport (TEN-T) ports are seen as important links between maritime and land transport. EXAMPLES OF EU POLICIES AND ACTIONS The EU is not a member of the International Maritime Organization. However, due to extensive EU regulations on shipping-related issues (in which areas the EU has pulled competence from its Member States), the European Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) co-ordinate with the Member States in the IMO committees. This was the case for example with regard to the Polar Code. The EU s influence is significant as this co-ordination involves 28 (soon 27) out of 170 members of the IMO, representing considerable tonnage. Some ships traversing Arctic sea lanes are either owned by companies based in Europe or have European ports of departure or destination. The EU has developed a comprehensive regulatory framework regarding shipping safety and environmental standards. For instance, the EU directive on vessel traffic monitoring and information system (2002/59/EC) includes provisions on ice information. The EU has also set a framework for port state control (Directive 2009/16/EC), building on the Paris MoU. 6 European Commission and The High Representative, An integrated European Union policy for the Arctic, Joint Communication, JOIN(2016)21final (27 April 2016). Page 7 of 8

8 European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) is the EU agency offering technical expertise and operational assistance in maritime safety, security and pollution prevention and response. EMSA representatives have been active contributors to the work of the Arctic Council s PAME working group. The EU adopted an Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) in The IMP includes the Arctic Ocean as one of the sea basins of concern for the EU. The Arctic waters are also considered of particular relevance in the 2014 EU Maritime Security Strategy (EUMSS). 7 The EUMSS Action Plan (2014, revised 2016) includes as one of the envisaged actions fostering cooperation in the area of maritime polar capabilities. The EU Joint Communication on international ocean governance: an agenda for the future of our oceans (JOIN(2016) 49 final) addresses a number of issues relevant from the point of view of the Arctic maritime transport: Technical cooperation with the IMO aimed at bolstering and enforcement of IMO instruments. Enhancing the exchange of cross-sectoral maritime surveillance information between Member States, and with third countries, with EMSA involvement. Working to broaden maritime situational awareness on the basis of technological developments in satellite communications and data analysis. The EU agencies are to better cooperate in supporting European coast guards to undertake multipurpose campaigns (including enforcement of MARPOL standards). Promoting the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Arctic. The EU can have major contribution to Arctic shipping safety and environmental performance via its satellite systems. The Galileo satellite system expected to be completed by has a dedicated search and rescue function that will locate ships in distress more efficiently. The Galileo will increase the accuracy of satellite-based positioning in the Arctic, thereby making Arctic navigation safer. The Copernicus earth observation programme has an operational service providing geo-spatial information worldwide in case of emergencies. The Copernicus Maritime Surveillance (CMS) Service provides Earth Observation products to support a better monitoring of activities at sea, within a wide range of operational functions such as maritime safety and security, fisheries control, customs, law enforcement, or marine environment monitoring. The EU has developed SafeSeaNet and CleanSeaNet networks and given practical support to IMO initiatives such as the Automatic Identification System (AIS) and the Long-Range Identification and Tracking. The satellite-based AIS is necessary for the Arctic marine areas where terrestrial AIS cannot cover vast ocean areas. The European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) allows researchers, public authorities, business and civil society to search for, view, download and use data on the bathymetry, geology, habitats, physics, chemistry and marine life of the seas around Europe. 7 European Union Maritime Security Strategy, 11205/14, adopted by the General Affairs Council on 24 June 2014 Page 8 of 8