Advertisement

Beyond the Polar Code: IMO Measures for Assuring Safe and Environmentally Sound Arctic Navigation

  • J. Ashley Roach
Chapter
Part of the WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs book series (WMUSTUD, volume 7)

Abstract

The Polar Code has entered into force and the new polar seafarer requirements are expected to enter into force in July 2018. In the meantime the IMO is working on additional issues pertinent to operations in polar areas, such as risk assessment, additional performance and test standards, gathering data on non-SOLAS ships operating in polar waters, and amendments to the survey guidelines. There are additional measures that IMO might consider to strengthen safety and environmental protections in the Arctic, including ships’ routeing and reporting, VTS, port State control, MARPOL special areas, PSSAs, emission control areas, marine protected areas, ballast water and anti-foulants.

Keywords

Polar Code Port State control ISPS Code MARPOL special areas Emission control areas Marine protected areas Ballast water control 

References

  1. Arctic Council. (2001). Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program Working Group, The Impact of Black Carbon on Arctic Climate, AMAP Technical Report No 4 (2001). http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/the-impact-of-black-carbon-on-arctic-climate/746
  2. Arctic Council. (2015b). Iqaluit Ministerial Declaration, 24 April 2015, para. 24. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/662
  3. Arctic Council. (2015c). Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Working Group, Framework for a Pan-Arctic Network of Marine Protected Areas (April 2015). https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/417
  4. Clean Arctic Alliance. (2016). Press Release, Clean Arctic Alliance Response to Cruise Operators’ support of Arctic Heavy Fuel Oil Ban (17 November 2016). http://arcticjournal.com/press-releases/2706/clean-arctic-alliance-response-cruise-operators-support-arctic-heavy-fuel-oil
  5. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). (2014). Report on Specially Designated Marine Areas in the Arctic High Seas, Report No/DNV Reg No: 2013-1442/17JMT1D-26 (11 March 2014) Part I. http://www.pame.is/index.php/projects/arctic-marine-shipping/specially-designated-marine-areas-in-the-arctic (finding it difficult to find support for a MARPOL Special Area for the high seas of the Arctic Ocean)
  6. DNV Report. (2014), pp. 56–60.Google Scholar
  7. Fathom. (2015). Fathom Spotlight: 8 Things You Need to Know about Black Carbon and the Shipping Industry (3 August 2015), Ship & Bunker. http://shipandbunker.com/news/features/fathom-spotlight/767141-fathom-spotlight-8-things-you-need-to-know-about-black-carbon-and-the-shipping-industry
  8. International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities. (2009). Establishment of a Vessel Traffic Service beyond territorial seas, IALA Guideline No. 1071 (9 December 2009).Google Scholar
  9. International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities. (2012). Vessel Traffic Services Manual (5th ed.). IALA, 2012. http://www.pmo.ir/pso_content/media/files/2013/1/22176.pdf
  10. International Maritime Organization (Assembly). (2001). Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas under MARPOL 73/78 and Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, Resolution A.927(22) (29 November 2001).Google Scholar
  11. International Maritime Organization (Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation). (2002). Special Areas and Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, NAV 48/INF.2 (4 April 2002) (IHO).Google Scholar
  12. International Maritime Organization (Assembly). (2005). Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of PSSAs, Resolution A.982(24) (1 December 2005). http://www.imo.org/blast/blastData.asp?doc_id=11277&filename=A%20982%2824%29.pdf
  13. International Maritime Organization (Marine Environment Protection Committee). (2010). Amendments to the Annex of MARPOL, Resolution MEPC.189(60) (26 March 2010), MEPC 60/22, Annex 10, adding chapter 9 to MARPOL Annex I.Google Scholar
  14. International Maritime Organization (Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment). (2011). DE Report to the MSC, DE 55/22 (15 April 2011), p. 23, para. 12.7.1.Google Scholar
  15. International Maritime Organization (Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment). (2012a). DE Report to the MSC, DE 56/25 (28 February 2012), p. 22, para. 10.7.Google Scholar
  16. International Maritime Organization. (2012b). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 91st Session, MSC 91/22 (17 December 2012), p. 35, para. 8.5.Google Scholar
  17. International Maritime Organization. (2012c). Annexes to the Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 91st Session, MSC 91/22/Add.1 (17 December 2012), Annex 27.Google Scholar
  18. International Maritime Organization. (2013). Report of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee on its 65th Session, MEPC 65/22 (24 May 2013), para. 9.7.Google Scholar
  19. International Maritime Organization. (2014a). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 94th Session, MSC 94/21 (26 November 2014), para. 3.62.Google Scholar
  20. International Maritime Organization. (2014b). Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 67th Session, MEPC 67/20 (31 October 2014), p. 46 para. 9.21.Google Scholar
  21. International Maritime Organization. (2014c). Draft Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 67th Session, MEPC 67/WP.1 (16 October 2014), paras. 7.26–7.27 adding the carriage of HFO as ballast to the prohibition.Google Scholar
  22. International Maritime Organization (Marine Environment Protection Committee). (2014d). Amendments to MARPOL Annex I (Amendments to regulation 43), MEPC 67/7 (23 June 2014), Annex adding the carriage of HFO as ballast to the prohibition (Secretariat).Google Scholar
  23. International Maritime Organization. (2014e). Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 67th Session, MEPC 67/20 (31 October 2014), para. 10.1.Google Scholar
  24. International Maritime Organization (Maritime Safety Committee). (2015a). Report of the Correspondence Group on the Development of guidance on a methodology for determining limitations for operation in ice, MSC 95/3/7 (6 March 2015) (Norway).Google Scholar
  25. International Maritime Organization. (2015b). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 95th Session, MSC 95/22 (19 June 2015), p. 22, para. 3.91.Google Scholar
  26. International Maritime Organization (Sub-Committee on Ship Systems and Equipment). (2015c). Additional performance and/or test standards in support of the implementation of the Polar Code, SSE 3/15/4 (15 December 2015) (Argentina, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Norway and Vanuatu).Google Scholar
  27. International Maritime Organization. (2015d). Report of the Sub-Committee on Ship Systems and Equipment on its 3rd session, SSE 3/16, p. 50, paras. 15.15–15.16.Google Scholar
  28. International Maritime Organization (Maritime Safety Committee). (2015e). Request for data on incidents within polar waters, MSC 95/21/3 (24 March 2015) (Iceland, New Zealand and South Africa).Google Scholar
  29. International Maritime Organization (Maritime Safety Committee). (2015f). Request for data on incidents within polar waters, MSC 95/21/11 (14 April 2015) (Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) and Pacific Environment).Google Scholar
  30. International Maritime Organization. (2015g). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 95th Session, MSC 95/22, p. 85, para. 21.24.Google Scholar
  31. International Maritime Organization. (2015h). Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 68th Session, MEPC 68/21 (29 May 2015), pp. 19–21, paras. 3.24–3.30.Google Scholar
  32. International Maritime Organization. (2015i). Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 68th Session, MEPC 68/21 (29 May 2015), p. 48, para. 10.3.Google Scholar
  33. International Maritime Organization (Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response). (2015j). Report of the Working Group on Air Pollution from Ships, PPR 2/WP.5 (22 January 2015), paras. 35–47.Google Scholar
  34. International Maritime Organization (Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response). (2015k). Report to the MEPC, PPR 2/21 (16 February 2015), paras. 8.1–8.7.Google Scholar
  35. International Maritime Organization (Maritime Safety Committee). (2016a). Report of the Correspondence Group on the Development of guidance on a methodology for determining limitations for operation in ice, MSC 96/3/4 (9 February 2016) (Norway).Google Scholar
  36. International Maritime Organization. (2016b). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 96th Session, MSC 96/25 (31 May 2016), paras. 3.74–3.78.Google Scholar
  37. International Maritime Organization. (2016c). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 96th Session, MSC 96/25, pp. 7–18, paras. 3.75–3.78.Google Scholar
  38. International Maritime Organization. (2016d). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 96th Session, MSC 96/25, p. 23, para. 3.9.Google Scholar
  39. International Maritime Organization. (2016e). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 96th Session, MSC 96/25, p. 23, para. 3.93.Google Scholar
  40. International Maritime Organization. (2016f). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 96th Session, MSC 96/25, paras. 24.1–24.3.Google Scholar
  41. International Maritime Organization. (2016g). Report of the Sub-Committee on Ship Systems and Equipment on its 3rd session, SSE 3/16 (24 March 2016), paras. 15.15–15.16, 16.2.12.Google Scholar
  42. International Maritime Organization. (2016h). Report of the Marine Safety Committee on its 97th session, MSC 97/22, paras. 8.27–8.32, 21.7–21.8.Google Scholar
  43. International Maritime Organization (Marine Safety Committee). (2016i). Clarification on the requirements related to the initial and maintenance surveys required by the Polar Code, MSC 97/16/2 (16 September 2016) (IACS).Google Scholar
  44. International Maritime Organization (Marine Environment Protection Committee). (2016j). The need to evaluate the status of effectiveness of Special Areas and Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, MEPC 70/8/1 (15 August 2016) (Russia).Google Scholar
  45. International Maritime Organization. (2016k). Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 70th Session, MEPC 70/18 (11 November 2016), paras. 8.6–8.10.Google Scholar
  46. International Maritime Organization (Marine Environment Protection Committee). (2016l). Heavy fuel oil use by vessels in Arctic waters, MEPC 69/20/1 (12 February 2016) (FOEI, WWF, Pacific Environment and CSC).Google Scholar
  47. International Maritime Organization. (2016m). Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 69th Session, MEPC 69/21 (13 May 2016), paras. 20.3–20.4.Google Scholar
  48. International Maritime Organization. (2016n). Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 70th Session, MEPC 70/18, para. 17.20.Google Scholar
  49. International Maritime Organization (Marine Environment Protection Committee). (2016o). Ship-mediated bioinvasions in the Arctic: Pathways and control strategies, MEPC 69/INF.17 Annex (9 February 2016) (FOEI).Google Scholar
  50. International Maritime Organization. (2016p). Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 69th Session, MEPC 69/21, para. 4.24.2.Google Scholar
  51. International Maritime Organization. (2017a). Additional performance and/or test standards in support of the implementation of the Polar Code, MSC 97/21/3 (18 August 2016) (Argentina, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Norway and Vanuatu).Google Scholar
  52. International Maritime Organization. (2017b). Comments on document MSC 97/21/3 MSC 97/21/12 (30 September 2016) (ICS and CLIA).Google Scholar
  53. International Maritime Organization. (2017c). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 97th session, MSC 97/22, paras. 9.22–9.23, 16.6–16.7.Google Scholar
  54. International Maritime Organization. (2017d). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its 97th session, MSC 97/22, paras. 21.9–21.10.Google Scholar
  55. Kingston, M. (2015). Implementing the Polar Code; Education about requirements and fostering best practice in operational safety to make it work: Insurance Industry Contributions, presentation at ShipArc2015, 26 August 2015. http://commons.wmu.se/shiparc/2015/allpresentations/31
  56. MarEx. (2016). Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators Support HFO Ban (16 November 2016). http://maritime-executive.com/article/arctic-expedition-cruise-operators-support-hfo-ban
  57. OSPAR Commission (The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic). (2015). Summary Record of BDC 2015, BDC 15/10/1-E, pp. 21–24, paras. 5.22–5.32. http://www.ospar.org/meetings/archive/biodiversity-committee-13
  58. OSPAR Commission (The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic). (2016a). Summary Record of BDC 2016, BDC 16/9/1-E, pp. 18–19, paras. 5.8–5.16. https://www.ospar.org/meetings/archive/biodiversity-committee-631
  59. OSPAR Commission (The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic). (2016b). Summary Record of Meeting of the OSPAR Commission (OSPAR) Tenerife: 20–24 June 2016, OSPAR 16/20/1-E, p. 23, para. 6.28. https://www.ospar.org/meetings/archive/ospar-commission-650
  60. Vard Marine Inc. (2015). Fuel Alternatives for Arctic Shipping rev. 1 (20 April 2015). http://awsassets.wwf.ca/downloads/vard_313_000_01_fuel_alternatives_letter_final.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Ashley Roach
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for International Law, National University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations