1. Protecting the unique environment and Eco- systems of the polar regions against increased volume of shipping *THE POLAR CODE* Presented by Helen Noble 23 April 2015

2. The Problem

3. To close for comfort?

4. The Environmental Risks Oil spill Endangering wildlife, current vegetation; Transport of alien species Garbage – pollution

5. When it goes wrong – the MV Explorer

6. Stranded passengers of the ice- bound Akademik

7. Why now? New routes and increased traffic Mining, oil and gas exploration Tourism Fishing

8. Cruises

9. Current Shipping Routes

10. What it might look like by mid- century

11. UNCLOS Article 234: “Coastal States have the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the exclusive economic zone...”

12. Antarctic – Zero Discharge Protection MARPOL Annex 1 Control of discharge of oil and reception facilities Prohibits any discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixtures from any ship in the Antarctic area; requires adequate reception facilities MARPOL Annex II Prohibits any discharge into the sea of noxious liquid substances or mixtures containing such substances in the Antarctic area MARPOL Annex V Disposal of Garbage Prohibits the disposal into the sea of all plastics and all other garbage; requires reception facilities, with special rules for the Antarctic area

13. Current prevention of oil pollution in polar regions Use and carriage of heavy grade oil New chapter 9 of MARPOL Annex I, establishing a ban on the use and carriage of heavy grade oils in the Antarctic area - entered into force on 1 August 2011.

14. The Polar Code – What is it? The International Code for safety for ships operating in polar waters Adopted November 2014 by the IMO Maritime Safety Committee Applies to ships operating in Arctic and Antarctic waters

15. Aim of the Polar Code The Goal of this Code is to provide for safe ship operation and the protection of the polar environment by addressing risks present in polar waters and not adequately mitigated by other instruments of the Organization Introduction Section 1 Goal – The Polar Code

16. A mandatory Code under tacit acceptance The Polar Code Safety – SOLAS Adopted Nov 2014 Entry into force 1 Jan 2017 Environment – MARPOL Expected Adoption date – May 2015 Entry into Force 1 Jan 2017

17. Preamble of Polar Code “1.The International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters has been developed to supplement existing IMO instruments in order to increase the safety of ships' operation and mitigate the impact on the people and environment in the remote, vulnerable and potentially harsh polar waters.” 3.The Code also acknowledges that coastal communities in the Arctic could be, and that polar ecosystems are vulnerable to human activities, such as ship operation. 4 The relationship between the additional safety measures and the protection of the environment is acknowledged as any safety measure taken to reduce the probability of an accident, will largely benefit the environment.

18. Identified Hazards 1.ice; 2.topside icing; 3.low temperature; 4.extended periods of darkness or daylight; 5.high latitude; 6.remoteness and possible lack of accurate and complete hydrographic data, reduced availability of navigational aids and seamarks, limited readily deployable SAR facilities, delays in emergency response and limited communications capability;

19. Identified Hazards 7.potential lack of ship crew experience in polar operations; 8.potential lack of suitable emergency response equipment; 9.rapidly changing and severe weather conditions; 10.the environment with respect to sensitivity to harmful substances and other environmental impacts and its need for longer restoration.

20. What does it aim to cover? Ship Design Ship Construction and equipment Operational and training issues SAR Protection of the Environment

21. Structure of the Code Divided into two parts – Part I and Part II Introduction – mandatory parts to both Part I and Part II Part I sub-divided part I-A mandatory provisions on safety measures and part I-B recommendations safety Part II subdivided into part II-A mandatory provisions on pollution prevention and part II-B recommendations on pollution prevention

22. Part II - A CHAPTERDESCRIPTION 1Prevention of Oil Pollution 2Prevention of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances 3Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances in packaged form 4Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships 5Prevention of Pollution by Garbage

23. Elements of each chapter Goal Functional Requirements Requirements to fulfil Functional Requirements

24. Example Chapter One - Goal The goal of this chapter is to provide for means to reduce and to the extent practicable prevent harmful environmental impacts from oil from ships, taking into account the particular environmental conditions and resilience capabilities in polar waters.

25. Example Chapter One -Functional Requirements In order to reduce and to the extent practicable prevent harmful environmental impacts from oil from ships the following functional requirements are mandatory: – 1. Plans, manuals, records and procedures and means shall be provided to avoid environmental impact from oil or oily mixtures during normal operation. – 2 Ships shall be designed and have plans to minimize the risk of any environmental impact from oil or oily mixtures in case of an emergency situation, in particular one that may lead to an oil spill in ice-covered waters.

26. Example Chapter One Requirements In order to comply with the functional requirements … the following apply: 1 any manuals and records required by MARPOL Annex I shall take into account operation in polar waters; and 2 any discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixtures from any ship shall be prohibited.

27. Non-Mandatory provisions General information section recognising differences between Arctic and Antarctic and the environment protection requirements Ships may on voluntary basis not use or carry HFO in Arctic area In order to minimize the risk of invasive aquatic species transfers via biofouling, measures should be considered to minimize the risk of more rapid degradation of anti-fouling coatings associated with polar ice operations.

28. Is the Polar Code adequate? The Polar Code covers the full range of design, construction, equipment, operational, training, search and rescue and environmental protection matters relevant to ships operating in waters surrounding the two poles. IMO briefing statement 21 November 2014

29. Criticisms John Maggs, President of the Clean Shipping Coalition, Senior Policy Advisor Seas At Risk - “The purpose of developing the Polar Code was to make sure that increased Polar shipping activity as a result of climate change did not put lives and the environment at risk. Sadly, the negotiations have resulted in a Code that falls far short of what is required. Without urgent further strengthening, it is just a question of when, not if, an incident occurs, with serious consequences for the delicate Arctic and Antarctic environments.” Sian Prior, shipping Advisor to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition We have concerns that lessons are not being learned from recent shipping incidents, and Polar Code's adoption will do little to reduce risks to the Antarctic environment”. John Kaltenstein, Marine Policy Analyst with Friends of the Earth U.S. - “The Polar Code doesn’t do nearly enough to tackle substantial risks posed by shipping: use of noxious heavy fuel oil in the Arctic, vessels operating with inadequate ice- strengthening and structural stability, and disturbances of wildlife, to name a few. The IMO and industry seem content to dismiss or put off discussion on issues that really matter – that would truly diminish shipping’s impacts on the sensitive Arctic environment and the region’s residents.” Sue Libenson, Pacific Environment – “Arctic communities are especially dependent on marine resources for food. While the Polar Code is a good step at recognizing the special risks of Arctic shipping, it still fails to directly address the highest potential risk of a heavy fuel oil spill”.

30. Is the Polar Code adequate? “Too weak” “Diluted” “Pollution requirements in arctic waters more lax than those in the Mediterranean” Fails to address need to phase out the use of heavy fuel oil in Arctic Seas although banned in Antarctica already Fails to address noise pollution

31. A promising start? Positive start to protecting assets, people and the environment Room to enhance and develop further guidelines Consensus takes time and patience! IMO meeting May to consider adding further regulations related to pollution

32. A Happy Ending!

33. THANK YOU Helen Noble Campbell Johnston Clark helen@cjclaw.com Tel: +353 871336712