A warmer Arctic Ocean needs shipping rules

The Arctic Ocean has until recently received about as much attention from politicians, economists and foreign policy experts as the back of the moon. But before long, thanks to global warming, the ocean may turn into a new economic frontier. About 20-30 per cent of the world’s likely but undiscovered oil reserves lie beneath it. High energy prices and advances in ship design, drilling equipment and remote sensing combine to open up opportunities to exploit these reserves and ship freight between the Pacific and the North Atlantic via the Arctic. The five Arctic Ocean states (the US, Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia) are boosting military capacity to assert competing territorial claims.

Opening the northern route is attractive for reasons of both distance and security. Shanghai to Rotterdam via the north-east sea route across the top of Russia is almost 1,000 miles shorter than via Suez. The Suez and Panama canals are already operating at maximum capacity and, while they are to be expanded, economic development in south and south-east Asia alone will take up the extra capacity. Additional freight will have either to go round the Cape of Good Hope or take the much shorter trip through the Arctic. China is especially keen to open the northern route with giant container ships.

Present computer projections suggest that the average temperature in the Arctic could rise between 3°C and 9°C during the next century, twice as much as the average rise in the rest of the world. The models project that by 2040 most of the Arctic Ocean will be entirely ice-free for a short period in late summer, meaning that ice formed later in the year will be new ice rather than multi-year ice, which improves the prospects for navigation in all seasons. However, last summer the rate of melting was much faster than the models predicted. Some experts now think that a tipping point has already been crossed into a period of faster melting, such that shipping routes may open for much of the year, even for normal ships without icebreaker capacity, by as early as 2015.

Tiny Iceland suddenly takes on new geo-economic significance. It sits at the mouth of the Arctic Ocean, ideally located for transhipment of cargoes to or from giant container ships travelling between Iceland and a transhipment port in the Bering Sea. It has at least three plausible deep fjord sites. China maintains the biggest of all the embassies in Reykjavik and it welcomed the president of Iceland with all the pomp normally reserved for the head of a major state on his visit in 2007. It has been very helpful as Iceland seeks election to the United Nations Security Council in 2008.

As the opportunities open, difficult legal and environmental problems loom. Most of the Arctic states say that there should be a right of uninterrupted passage across the ocean. But Russia claims not only the territory of the continental shelf stretching all the way from northern Russia to the North Pole, but also the right to control sea traffic along the north-east passage – on grounds that continuous ice poses dangers to traffic, and that the Law of the Sea Convention sanctions a riparian state controlling traffic and setting fees in such conditions. Canada makes a similar claim for the north-west passage. These and other issues will force a clarification of international law, especially international law on sea ice.

Shipping poses dangers to the ecosystem of the Arctic, which is even more vulnerable than more southerly environments. The biggest danger is from accidents, because oil and other organic substances decompose more slowly in cold water and ice, and ice can interfere with clean-up. Also, emissions from fossil-fuelled vessels may cause greying of the ice cap, accelerating melting. On the other hand, shorter shipping routes could significantly cut fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, especially if engines use hydrogen or nuclear fuel.

The Arctic Council is the official circumpolar body, comprising the five Arctic Ocean states plus Iceland, Sweden and Finland. The council also includes, unusually, representatives of several indigenous peoples, who have equal status with the state represent­atives. It further includes a growing number of “observers”, including states such as the UK, Spain, Italy, Netherlands and several non-governmental organisations. China is applying for observer membership.

Strong differences of interests between the member states have made agreement on matters beyond information sharing and limited environmental projects difficult. The US has tended to block anything more than anodyne statements about important issues such as climate change and has always been uncomfortable sitting at the same table as representatives of indigenous peoples, some of whom reject US sovereignty in Alaska. The Arctic Council has expressed concern over the dangers of resource development and increased shipping, including from cruise ships now travelling to the Arctic edges in fast-growing numbers. Without mandatory shipping rules, accidents are just waiting to happen. But the conflicting interests of the main stakeholders have put agreement on such rules out of reach up to now.

With the stakes so high, the Arctic states owe it not only to themselves but to the world to formulate a comprehensive Arctic shipping regime designed to make Arctic routes and resources safely accessible. A new US administration, more inclined to multilateral co-operation than the Bush administration, could play a crucial role in reaching agreement.

Source:RamblerNews