Polar Shipping Routes

Over the past few decades, the Arctic Ocean has experienced rising temperatures and accelerated melting of the Arctic ice cap (Overland et al., 2019). Such accelerated melting has seen renewed interest in the possibility of an ‘open polar sea’ (Robinson, 2007). This is good news for the shipping industry, as should the Arctic ocean be traversable, it can potentially shorten shipping distances between Asia and Europe by 30 to 50%, and reduce transit time by 14 to 20 days (Bennett et al., 2020; Gunnarsson & Moe, 2021). Three plausible shipping routes across the Arctic have been brought forward, as seen in the Figure below (Figure 1). This includes the Northern Sea Route (shown in pink), the Northwest Passage (shown in blue), and the Transpolar Sea Route (shown in purple). Currently, of these three routes, the Northern Sea Route, has the highest potential of becoming a traversable polar route in the future, as it has already experienced periods in summer where it has been ‘ice-free’ (Staalesen, 2019). However, as the route traverses along the coast of Russia, it presents significant geopolitical issues, which present challenges to it being widely used as an international shipping route (Bennett et al., 2020). 

Figure 1: Arctic shipping routes. The Northern Sea Route is shown in pink, Transpolar Sea Route in purple, and the Northwest passage in blue.

However, a recent paper published by Lynch et al. (2022) appears to indicate further ‘good news’ for the shipping industry. In their study, they have modelled the probability of Arctic navigability (period of 32 days) for routes outside of Russian territorial waters for the period of 2015 to 2065. This was done using projections from 14 CMIP models across four scenarios (SSP1-2.6; SSP2-4.5; SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5). Figure 2 below highlights their results. Notably, it suggests that from around 2050 onwards, under SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5, there is an approximate 50% probability that such routes would be navigatable. 

This is especially so under the SSP5-8.5 (very high GHG emissions scenario), where Lynch et al. (2022) note the increase in the viability of an open-water season for both the Transpolar Route and the Northwest Passage. This is shown in Figure 3, which depicts the frequency of models’ detection of an open-water navigable route from 2015- 2065 under the SSP5-8.5 (very high GHG emissions) scenario. The Transpolar Route is shown in Yellow, while the Northwest Passage is shown in red.

Figure 2: Projections from 14 CMIP models across four scenarios of the probability of Arctic navigability for 32 d (including shoulder periods) outside Russian territorial waters over the period 2015 to 2065, under four SSP scenarios (SSP1-2.6; SSP2-4.5; SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5). (Lynch et al., 2022).

Figure 3: Spatial distribution of open-water navigable routes over the period 2015 to 2065 for the SSP5-8.5 scenario, expressed as a frequency of route detection per unit time. The transpolar route is indicated in yellow, the Northwest passage in red, and the Northern Sea routes in orange. (Lynch et al., 2022).

With the potential use of such routes as shipping routes, there is a need to think about the possible negative environmental impacts as a result of the pollutive impacts of the shipping industry. As explored in the previous blogs, these include (but are not limited to), the increase in air pollutants (NOx, SO2, black carbon); noise pollution; the introduction of invasive species and the negative impacts related to blige dumping (Blair et al., 2016; Brussaard et al., 2016; Erbe et al., 2019; Casas-Monroy et al., 2014; Couletti et al., 2006; Erying et al., 2010; McCarthy et al., 1994; Viana et al., 2014). For instance, should no measures be put in place, under business as usual (BAU) conditions, a study by Winther et al. (2014) predicts that by 2050, black carbon emissions will increase by 80%, while sulphur dioxide will increase by 1000%. 

This view is echoed by the lead author of the study, Amanda Lynch, where in an interview, she highlighted the need to “start thinking critically about the legal, environmental and geopolitical implications” (ScienceDaily, 2022). 

The Polar Code: What is it? 

In addressing the future operation of ships in the Arctic, there currently exists one key set of international regulations, released by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), known as the Polar Code (International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Water). Entered into force in 2017, the purpose of the code is to provide safety and environmental standards for ships operating in polar regions (IMO, n.d.). It ensures that ships operating in the polar regions do so safely and with minimal impact on the environment (Liu, 2016). Figure 4 shows illustrate the various environmental requirements that ships sailing in the Arctic ocean have to adhere to. The following highlights some of the key points of the Polar Code, in preventing pollution: 

  1. The prohibition of the carriage and use of heavy fuel oil (fuel oil having a density at 15°C higher than 900kg/m3. 
  2. Prohibition of the discharge of any oil or oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, sewage (unless treated) and garbage. 

Figure 4: Environmental requirements of the Polar Code. (IMO, n.d.).

The Polar Code: Is it sufficient? 

A cursory analysis of the Polar Code suggests that it is indeed effective in limiting and reducing future vessel-source pollution. By extension, we can therefore consider it sufficient in protecting the Arctic environment, by preventing and reducing future pollutive effects of the shipping industry (Explored in previous blogs). However, there are several main limitations to the Polar Code. Firstly, the Polar Code remains voluntary among countries. As such, the above environmental regulations, while stated in the Polar Code, are not being enforced by any law agency. This severely limits its effectiveness (Kauffman, 2019). Next, Chapter 3 of Part II-A, ‘Prevention of Pollutions by Harmful Substances Carried by Sea in Packaged Form’, has been left blank. This hints that further improvements to the code are also needed in the future. Lastly, the Polar Code also includes no limits or targets on greenhouse gas emissions by ships in the Arctic sea. This highlights the lack of focus on mitigating future climate change (Kauffman, 2019). 

Conclusion

With the increasing likelihood of future regular use of new polar routes (Lynch et al., 2022), there is a critical need to set in place strict environmental regulations, to prevent and limit the pollutive effects of shipping activities. While a mandatory Polar Code can help limit many of the impacts by enforcing various environmental standards, its current voluntary nature severely limits its effectiveness. Therefore, moving forward, the key aim for the IMO is to first get the support to ratify and subsequently enforce the environmental regulations stated in the Polar Code by member states of the Arctic council. Additionally, further limits on greenhouse gas emissions should be set, towards mitigating and preventing future climate change. 

 

References: 

Bennett, M. M., Stephenson, S. R., Yang, K., Bravo, M. T., & De Jonghe, B. (2020). The opening of the Transpolar Sea Route: Logistical, geopolitical, environmental, and socioeconomic impacts. Marine Policy, 121, 104178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104178

Blair, H. B., Merchant, N. D., Friedlaender, A. S., Wiley, D. N., & Parks, S. E. (2016). Evidence for ship noise impacts on humpback whale foraging behaviour. Biology Letters, 12(8), 20160005. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0005

Brussaard, C. P. D., Peperzak, L., Beggah, S., Wick, L. Y., Wuerz, B., Weber, J., Samuel Arey, J., Van Der Burg, B., Jonas, A., Huisman, J., & Van Der Meer, J. R. (2016). Immediate ecotoxicological effects of short-lived oil spills on marine biota. Nature Communications, 7(1), 11206. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11206

Casas-Monroy, O., Linley, R.D., Adams, J.K., Chan, F.T., Drake, D.A.R., & Bailey, S.A. (2014). National risk assessment for introduction of aquatic nonindigenous species to Canada by ballast water. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library-bibliotheque/352598.pdf

Colautti, R. I., Bailey, S. A., van Overdijk, C. D. A., Amundsen, K., & MacIsaac, H. J. (2006). Characterised and projected costs of nonindigenous species in canada. Biological Invasions, 8(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-0236-y

Erbe, C., Marley, S. A., Schoeman, R. P., Smith, J. N., Trigg, L. E., & Embling, C. B. (2019). The effects of ship noise on marine mammals—A review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00606

Eyring, V., Isaksen, I. S. A., Berntsen, T., Collins, W. J., Corbett, J. J., Endresen, O., Grainger, R. G., Moldanova, J., Schlager, H., & Stevenson, D. S. (2010). Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping. Atmospheric Environment, 44(37), 4735–4771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.059

Gunnarsson, B., & Moe, A. (2021). Ten years of international shipping on the northern sea route: Trends and challenges. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 12(0), 4. https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v12.2614

International Maritime Organisation (IMO). (n.d.). Shipping in polar waters: International code for ships operating in polar waters (Polar Code). https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/polar-default.aspx

Kauffman, R. (2019, June 27). An analysis of the Polar Code. The Henry M.Jackson School of International Studies- University of Washington. https://jsis.washington.edu/news/an-analysis-of-the-polar-code/

Liu, N. (2016). Can the Polar Code save the Arctic. American Society of International Law, 20(7). https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/20/issue/7/can-polar-code-save-arctic#:~:text=Is%20the%20Polar%20Code%20Sufficient,for%20shipping%20in%20the%20Arctic

Lynch, A. H., Norchi, C. H., & Li, X. (2022). The interaction of ice and law in Arctic marine accessibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(26), e2202720119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202720119

McCarthy, S. A., & Khambaty, F. M. (1994). International dissemination of epidemic Vibrio cholerae by cargo ship ballast and other nonpotable waters. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 60(7), 2597–2601. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.60.7.2597-2601.1994

Overland, J., Dunlea, E., Box, J. E., Corell, R., Forsius, M., Kattsov, V., Olsen, M. S., Pawlak, J., Reiersen, L.-O., & Wang, M. (2019). The urgency of Arctic change. Polar Science, 21, 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polar.2018.11.008

Robinson, M.F. Reconsidering the theory of the open polar sea, in: K.R. Benson, H.M. Rozwadowski. In K.R. Benson., H.M. Rozwadowski. (Eds.), Extrem. Oceanogr. Adventure poles (pp. 15-29). Science History Publications. 

ScienceDaily. (2022, June 20). Melting Arctic ice could transform international shipping routes, study finds. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220620152119.htm

Staalesen, A. (2019, August 28). There is no ice left on Northern Sea Route. The Barents Observer. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2019/08/there-no-ice-left-russias-northern-sea-route

Viana, M., Hammingh, P., Colette, A., Querol, X., Degraeuwe, B., Vlieger, I. de, & van Aardenne, J. (2014). Impact of maritime transport emissions on coastal air quality in Europe. Atmospheric Environment, 90, 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.03.046

Winther, M., Christensen, J. H., Plejdrup, M. S., Ravn, E. S., Eriksson, Ó. F., & Kristensen, H. O. (2014). Emission inventories for ships in the arctic based on satellite sampled AIS data. Atmospheric Environment, 91, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.03.006