Page 51: of Maritime Logistics Professional Magazine (Q2 2011)

50 52

www.maritimeprofessional.com Maritime Professional 51

Commission on the Limits of the

Continental Shelf. The Russian claim to the underwater Lomonosov Ridge – also claimed by Canada and Denmark – would grant Russia nearly one half of the Arctic area.” O’Rourke’s report to the U.S. Congress, entitled “Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for

Congress,” details other “unresolved

Arctic territorial disputes,” most of which will be debated at a meeting in 2013.

The United States also has critical energy and security interests in the region. As such, the Bush

Administration released in January 2009 a National Security Presidential

Directive 66/Homeland Security

Presidential Directive 25 (NSPD 66/HSPD 25), establishing new U.S. policy for the Arctic region. Former

USCG Commandant Thad Allen has since warned that the U.S. does not have enough operational icebreakers and equipment to handle an oil spill in

Alaskan waters. Today, two of the Coast

Guard’s three polar icebreakers sit in layup and prospects for their repair or replacements has been tied up in a polit- ical turf war because icebreaker funding is considered a National Science

Foundation appropriation.

Current international guidelines for ships operating in Arctic waters are being updated, with a targeted comple- tion date of 2010. Also at issue is the

Northwest Passage which, although contained in Canadian territory, is being treated as an international strait by oth- ers. Canada last year moved preemp- tively to require all traffic to report their movements. The decision – one which underscores the need for caution and safety improvements – was widely crit- icized by shipping organizations and various flag states.

O’Rourke’s report to Congress also addresses the existing framework for international governance of maritime operations in the Arctic region. He asserts that what is currently in place is not legally binding, adding, “…the

Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) and other International

Maritime Organization (IMO) conven- tions include provisions regarding ships in icy waters, the provisions are not spe- cific to the polar regions.” The IMO has

Guidelines for Ships Operating in

Arctic, but these are considered inade- quate by many flag states. Finally, a

NOAA report pans the non-binding

IMO provisions as “inconsistent with the hazards of Arctic navigation and the potential for environmental damage from such an incident.”

As the IMO seeks to establish a new

Polar Code and ship classification soci- eties coordinate ice rules for ships, the need for pollution response capabilities for the Arctic is a clear vulnerability.

The lack of salvage capabilities, repair yards and navigational aids is an imme- diate concern, not only to regulators, but also by insurers scrambling to meet the rising demand for cover.

Exacerbating the situation is the claim by the International Hydrographic

Organization that at little as 10 percent of Arctic waters were adequately chart- ed. The current situation points to a sce-

Sampling oil on the surface of pancake ice during a 1986 field experiment off the Canadian East Coast.

Photo Cr edit: SL Ross and DF Dickins