Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Flaggship Sea Ice in the Arctic Ocean, technology and regulatory frameworks Bjørn Fossli Johansen Gunnar Sander. Arctic sea ice extent 23.September 2010 Source : Polar View/Universität Bremen.
SeaIce in the Arctic Ocean, technology and regulatoryframeworks
Bjørn Fossli Johansen
Arctic seaiceextent 23.September 2010
Source: Polar View/Universität Bremen
From the shipment of iron ore from Kirkenes through NWS summer 2010. Photo from Russian ice breaker in the area with most sea ice
X = to be adressed in lecture
-2.6 % per decade (relative to 1979-2000 average)
-4.2 % per decade
-11.6 % per decade
Decline throughout all seasons in almost all regions. Exception: Bering Sea in winter
Implications for shipping: Must adapt to ice – even in summer (drift ice)
Large differences summer – winter conditions
IPCC 2007 underestimateddecline: towards end ofcentury
Six IPCC AR4 models closer to observations; Sea ice-free summers likely by 2050. (Wang and Overland, 2009)
Do we understand the processes?
Are global models good enough at regional scale?
Large and even increasing variability expected: relatively low/high years around trend
Green: New accessible areas
White: Still inaccessible areas
Basedonclimate scenario A1B and climate modell CCSM3. Average 2045-59 compared to 2000-2014
Stephensenet al 2011
“Arctic voyages through 2020 will be overwhelmingly
destinational, not trans-Arctic”
Lawson Brigham (leader of AMSA):
“Destinational shipping is Arctic shipping as good as
Trigger off mostlythe same need for improved
infrastructure and regulations
Kilde: DNV, ARCON -prosjektet
Sovereignty and jurisdiction: Who has the right to which maritime areas and what can they decide within these?
Peace and political stability – or the absence of this
Protection of the environment – sustainable development: How to regulate human activities in the Arctic Ocean?
For sovereignty and jurisdiction, yes – and the only one
LOSC sets the principles and gives mandates to states, other conventions etc. for making concrete, detailed regulations.
Min. of Foreign Affairs Jonas G. Støre about Illulisat:
We agreed that we have an international legal framework in place – namely the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. All states abide by the Convention’s provisions, including the US (…). This framework must now be filled with concrete policies.
UN LawoftheSea Convention
Many bilateral treatieswithinthemesmentionedabove
Int. collaboration: Arctic Council, severalonscience etc.
Global treaties dominate. Relevant/sufficient for the Arctic?
Few regional treaties. Almost none with the Arctic Ocean as geographical scope (Polar bear and SAR-agreement)
Fragmentation versus need for integrative approach: ecosystem approach to marine management
Who experience problems, who creates and can solve them? Origin inside – outside Arctic. Unclear linkages and participation
Hard law – soft lawFuture role of Arctic Council?
Missing accession to important international treaties
Implementation of international instruments?
AO coastal states declare themselves to have ”a stewardship role in protecting (the unique Arctic ecosystem).”
Only voluntary standards for construction, design, equipment and manning (CDEM), including regulations on fuel and treatment of ballast water (Polar code negotiations)
No binding, Arctic-specific standards for discharges to air and water
No binding rules for seafarers competence, manning and working conditions on ships in polar waters apart from general minimum standards defined by IMO, ILO and WHO
No Arctic routing systems approved by IMO
(No regional search and rescue agreement) In place now!
Rules for liability and damage are fragmented and insufficient
Insurance is not regulated internationally