Appendix — Government response
Introduction
The Government is grateful to the Environmental Audit
Committee for producing its report into Protecting the Arctic.
The Arctic is changing rapidly primarily as a result of climate
change already built into the global system. It is not the Arctic
of twenty years ago and it will likely be different again twenty
years from now. Global Arctic policy must be ready for and take
account of these changes. Increasing activity should be balanced
with robust environmental protection, which enables resilience
to the rapid changes facing the region. The Committee's report
is therefore a well-timed and constructive contribution to the
debate on the Arctic.
The Arctic represents a critical region for the global
environment. As the Government's written evidence to the Committee
made clear, the UK is not an Arctic state, but it is a close neighbour
with a long history and strong environmental, political, economic
and scientific interests in the region. Events in the Arctic,
whether natural or human-induced, have an impact on the UK, and
vice versa.
The Government fully recognises the sovereignty of
the Arctic states and welcomes the positive steps they are already
taking to address the changes being seen in the Arctic, both unilaterally
and through for such as the Arctic Council. The Government is
also mindful that four million people live in the Arctic and welcomes
the role that the Arctic Council's Permanent Participants can,
do and should play in deciding the future of the Arctic.
The Government remains committed to working bilaterally
and multilaterally with Arctic states and others to ensure a stable,
peaceful Arctic, well governed by the Arctic states, supplemented
and complemented by international agreements and treaties on specific
issues.
The Government recognises the need to communicate
its Arctic policy effectively, both with domestic and international
partners, and to keep its policy current towards this changing
environment. That is why in this response the Government has committed
to producing and publishing a policy framework for the Arctic
in 2013. In so doing, the Government will consult interested stakeholders,
including the Arctic states, and develop plans for public outreach
to increase awareness of the UK's ongoing interests in the Arctic.
The Government believes it has adopted the right
approach towards the Arctic and is, and is seen to be, a "good
neighbour" to the Arctic and the Arctic states. We believe
the actions outlined in this response will ensure this continues
to be the case.
Government response to the recommendations of
the report
1. There is growing evidence that the damaging
effects of climate change are being felt strongly in the Arctic.
The ice-cap is retreating. In September 2012 it had reached its
lowest extent since records began, and new evidence shows that
it is also thinning faster than previously thought. The general
view that the ice-cap is not at risk of a summer collapse in the
next few years may need to be revisited and revised. A collapse
not only threatens the unique ecosystems there, but would have
damaging ramifications for regional and global climate. (Paragraph
28)
The Government fully understands that Arctic climate
is changing and perhaps faster than most other regions. The possible
future negative impacts of recently observed reductions in summer
sea-ice extent and overall sea-ice volume compared to 1979-2000
are very concerning.
We note that the recent long term trend in sea-ice
and in-year seasonal variations are generally well represented
by most climate models. However, we recognise that year-to-year
to decadal variations in sea-ice extent and thickness have only
been captured by few models to date. We understand that some recent
modelling is showing signs of being capable of capturing the essence
of all three aspects—in-year and in-decadal variations and
long-term trends.
Based on observations and available climate model
evidence, we do not anticipate a complete "collapse"
of sea-ice cover in "the next few years", with the late
summer Arctic Ocean being essentially free of sea-ice being the
norm as early as 2015 to 2020. However, assuming greenhouse gas
emissions continue without significant reductions in the near
future, recent modelling experiments indicate that the Arctic
may become essentially sea-ice free for some days or weeks in
most summers, at some time after 2030 and before 2080, with increasing
indications of an earlier, rather than later date.
The Government is aware that recent research suggests
that less sea-ice could directly impact on regions outside the
Arctic, including NW Europe, for example by changing the frequency
of winter cold weather events and indirectly through links with
Atlantic Ocean circulation and temperature, which themselves drive
variations in European weather.
DECC and DEFRA support the Met Office Hadley Centre
Climate Programme and the NERC Arctic Research Programme and encourage
UK and international research collaborations. The Government is
also encouraging and funding significant research to improve our
understanding of the changes occurring in the region, improve
climate and earth system model representation of the Arctic, and
to understand the impacts of such change outside the region.
2. In the absence of urgent action on climate
change, there may be a number of tipping points in climate-drive
systems in the Arctic, which threaten to rapidly escalate the
danger for the whole planet. A collapse of summer sea-ice, increased
methane emissions from thawing permafrost, runaway melting of
the Greenland ice-sheet, and a collapse of the thermo-haline circulation,
may all be approaching in the
Arctic and will have disastrous
consequences for global climate and sea levels. These together
comprise a wake-up call to reinvigorate efforts to tackle climate
change. A lack of consensus on precisely how fast any tipping
points are approaching in the Arctic should not be used as an
argument for inaction; rather it demonstrates the need for continued
and sustained research to underpin further action. The UK makes
an essential contribution to Arctic science, and we look to the
Government to continue supporting Arctic science as a key component
of its work on climate change.
(Paragraph 45)
We agree that urgent international action is needed
to tackle climate change through reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and the Government is working through the UNFCCC to
deliver a global legally binding agreement by 2015 to come into
effect by 2020 and to agree additional mitigation actions that
will help to bridge the gap between current business-as-usual
emissions and a climate responsible trajectory consistent with
our 2°C goal.
The Government is fully aware of the need for increased
understanding of the Arctic system, and is funding and will continue
to fund Arctic science as a key component of its climate change
research. NERC and Met Office Hadley Centre lead UK research efforts.
The 5-year, £15m NERC Arctic Research Programme is now co-funded
by DECC and DEFRA and a significant component of the 3-year £50m
DECC and DEFRA-funded Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme
is devoted to developing a better understanding of climate system
"tipping points" and resilience, including methane release
and ice-sheet dynamics, to improving climate and Earth System
models, and to understanding possible impacts on regional and
global environment and societies.
3. Geo-engineering techniques for the Arctic
at present do not offer a credible long term solution for tackling
climate change. Further research is needed to understand how such
techniques work and their wider impacts on climate systems. In
the meantime, therefore, we remain unconvinced that using 'technical
fixes' is the right approach and efforts should not be diverted
from tackling the fundamental drivers of global climate change.
(Paragraph 50)
We agree that geo-engineering (sometimes called climate
engineering) does not offer a credible long-term solution for
tackling climate change, and are also unconvinced that using technical
fixes is the right approach. Government maintains that actions
must focus on tackling the root cause of climate change by reducing
emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities and adapting
to those impacts that are unavoidable. We agree that understanding
of the efficacy, costs and societal and environmental impacts
of geo-engineering techniques needs to be improved and are supportive
of the need to undertake relevant, careful and responsible multi-disciplinary
research. In order to understand better the possible impacts of
geo-engineering techniques, DECC is working with the Natural Environment
Research Council (NERC) and the Met Office Hadley Centre to report
on knowledge gaps and priorities to inform the development of
a research strategy for geo-engineering.
4. The risks to ecosystems from the effects
of Arctic warming and potential climate tipping points, together
with additional risks from energy and shipping development make
it imperative that any readily available opportunity to make a
difference is grasped. Tackling emissions from shipping is such
an opportunity, and the Government must engage positively with
the EU's efforts to look at options for doing this. (Paragraph
55)
The Government agrees with the Committee that reducing
emissions from shipping is immensely important, and notes that
the Committee focuses in particular on black carbon and greenhouse
gases. These are both areas where the UK is active in the work
of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) which, as we
indicated in evidence to the Committee, is an effective body with
a substantial record of achievement.
The issue of black carbon is being considered by
an IMO correspondence group chaired by the United States under
the auspices of the IMO's Bulk Liquids and Gases Sub-committee.
The UK is playing an active role in the work of the group. The
Correspondence Group is tasked with considering three key issues
that will underpin the IMO response to the issue of black carbon.
These are:
- agreeing a definition of black
carbon, utilising work already undertaken by UNEP and individual
States;
- identifying suitable measurement methods to apply
to maritime emissions of black carbon, and gathering information
about the scale of the problem; and
- developing a range of control options for black
carbon emissions from shipping and evaluating their likely practicality
and effectiveness.
The Correspondence Group will report its outcome
to the next session of IMO's Bulk Liquids and Gases Sub-Committee
in early March 2013. The Sub-Committee will then develop a work
programme for further action on the issue.
The Government strongly supports and is actively
involved in the work of the IMO to address greenhouse gas emissions
from ships, through both technical and market-based measures.
The Government is pleased with IMO's successful adoption, in 2011,
of a technical measure for new ships—the Energy Efficiency
Design Index (EEDI). The Government considers that emissions trading
should be the IMO's preferred market-based measure, and the UK
is active in the IMO as a leading proponent of a global emissions
trading system. Given that a market-based measure will take several
years to negotiate and bring into effect, the UK is also actively
working with a range of other States from both within and outside
the EU, and with the European Commission, to develop a technical
and operational measure which will apply to those existing ships
which are not covered by the EEDI.
The UK has also been actively participating in the
European Commission's ongoing work to develop an EU measure to
address greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The European Commission's
announcement on 1 October that the EU legislative proposal which
the Commission will put forward in early 2013 relates to monitoring,
reporting and verification of CO2 emissions from shipping usefully
complements the future work in the IMO on a technical and operational
measure.
5. Oil companies primarily respond to market
supply and demand. The Government's approach in helping avoid
dangerous climate change is to encourage the UK to reduce consumption,
not supply, of fossil fuels, through, for example, electricity
market reform and the EU Emissions Trading System. We are concerned
that there appears to be a lack of strategic thinking and policy
coherence within Government on this issue, illustrated by its
failure to demonstrate how future oil and gas extraction from
the Arctic can be reconciled to commitments to limit temperature
rises to 2°C. The Government should seek to resolve this
matter. (Paragraph 64)
The Government believes that national and international
action to tackle climate change is essential. Our approach is
based on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through domestic and
internationally binding targets, increased use of low carbon energy
sources, improvements in energy efficiency and, where possible,
carbon sequestration. This emphasis on reducing emissions rather
than limiting production is reflected in the agreements reached
under the UNFCCC process. There is currently no international
mechanism to agree limits on production.
However, the Government recognises that the world
economy will continue to rely on fossil fuels as we transition
to a low carbon economy. The International Energy Agency (IEA)
2011 World Energy Outlook forecasted that in 2035 world oil demand
will be 78.3million barrels per day compared to 86.7 million barrels
per day in 2010, with gas demand expected to rise from 3,076 billion
cubic metres in 2009 to 3,876 billion cubic metres in 2035 under
its 450 Scenario, which sets out an energy pathway consistent
with a 50% chance of meeting the goal of limiting the increase
in average global temperature to 2°C. The same document also
forecasts that oil output from existing sources will decline to
around 40 million barrels per day by 2035, with the difference
between this level and demand requiring the development of substantial
new production capacity. This implies that we will need to source
over 30 million barrels per day new oil production between now
and 2035 even under a two degree scenario, and therefore there
need be no inconsistency between extracting more oil and gas from
the Arctic (or any other source) and maintaining a 50% chance
of meeting our two degree target according to IEA analysis, so
long as the overall level of global oil and gas production does
not exceed levels needed in a two degree world.
Such an approach is also consistent with our energy
security goals.
With the decline in domestic oil production, the
UK will become increasingly reliant on imported oil, with import
dependency rising from 30% now to over 80% by 2030. It is against
this background that we need to ensure we have continued access
to a well supplied and competitive world oil market, whilst reducing
our exposure to volatile oil and gas prices and ensuring energy
security through innovation in renewable technologies.
6. The development of Citizens Advisory Councils
to engage citizens in oversight of the Arctic oil industry should
be part of the Govt Strategy for the Arctic. (Paragraph 92)
The Government fully recognises the need for those
affected by developments to be able to make their views heard.
Such contributions help ensure decisions are properly informed
by local concerns. We would therefore welcome the use of Citizens
Advisory Councils where these are appropriate to local circumstances.
However, we would not advocate a one-size-fits-all approach by
seeking to have the use of such Councils made mandatory across
the Arctic, since alternative arrangements may be better suited
to some situations. The Government welcomes and supports the steps
being taken in the Arctic Council, particularly the Sustainable
Development Working Group, around developing Social Corporate
Responsibility.
The Government also recognises the political sensitivity
of environmental planning. It is for national governments to determine
the regulatory structure within which such decisions are made.
7. Drilling is already going ahead in the
Arctic and regulatory authorities are approving plans to drill.
However, only a small fraction of oil would be recovered in the
event of a significant oil spill in the Arctic and it might take
decades for wildlife to recover. Given the heightened risks of
drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic, including a lack of conclusive
evidence that oil spill response techniques will work fully effectively
in Arctic conditions, we conclude that there should be a moratorium
on drilling in the Arctic until:
The Government is acutely aware of the potential
environmental impacts of an oil spill in the Arctic and recognises
the risks of drilling for hydrocarbons. We therefore fully support
the use of the highest environmental and drilling standards in
the Arctic. As detailed under point 12, we welcome steps already
being taken by the Arctic littoral states and by the Arctic Council
in identifying and protecting areas of particular ecological significance
in the Arctic, and their introduction of specially designated
marine areas. We are committed to working towards a new global
mechanism to regulate the conservation of marine biodiversity
in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction; we will press for a new
Implementing Agreement under the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea to deliver this; and, in the event this becomes
a reality, we will work with the Arctic Council, Arctic states
and the UN on its application in the Arctic. We have made clear
to Arctic states that we are willing to provide advice on secure
and sustainable drilling where needed. We are fully supportive
of efforts to enhance Arctic oil spill prevention and response
mechanisms and stand ready to respond to any request for assistance
within the limits of our capabilities.
We believe these measures—combined with effective
and ambitious global action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions—are
more likely to be effective in protecting the Arctic environment
than pressing for a complete moratorium on all drilling in the
Arctic region.
- the regulatory regimes of
all Arctic states impose the highest available environmental standards,
and require the best available and safest technology to be used
for all components of drilling. The risk standard adopted must
be 'As Low as Possible' and the Government should work with Arctic
states, including through the Arctic Council, to help bring this
about.
We welcome the use of the highest environmental and
drilling standards in the Arctic, as elsewhere. However what constitutes
such standards varies according to the conditions in which drilling
takes place—for example there are likely to be differences
in what is most appropriate onshore versus offshore, or in deep
rather than shallow water, or again in seas subject to seasonal
ice cover compared with seas that are ice-free all year round.
While we would of course be happy to provide advice
where this is sought, the UK has no experience of regulating drilling
in Arctic conditions and is therefore not best placed to advise
on such activity. The states with such experience are the Arctic
states themselves, who also have relevant jurisdiction, and we
would therefore expect them to be able to use or, if they think
it necessary, develop their existing regulatory systems to provide
suitable levels of environmental protection.
- a pan-Arctic oil spill response
standard is in place. The UK Government should seek to persuade
the Arctic Council to draw on the expertise of other states in
its work to develop such a standard.
The Government welcomes the steps already taken by
the Arctic Council in seeking an agreement on co-operation on
marine oil pollution preparedness and response in the Arctic that
would bind all the Arctic states. The Government further welcomes
work being under taken, particularly by the Emergency Prevention,
Preparedness and Response (EPPR) Working Group of the Arctic Council,
to develop operational guidelines that will support that binding
agreement including an Arctic Region Oil Spill Response and Logistics
Guide. EPPR is collaborating with the IMO and other experts, including
on the production of the Arctic Region Chapter of the IMO's In-Situ
Burn of Oil Spills on Water and Broken and Solid Ice Conditions.
Other organisations are also considering oil spill
response in the Arctic. For example, the International Petroleum
Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) is working
on "Spill Response in the Arctic Offshore". And cooperation
agreements such as BONN and HELCOM (the governing body of the
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Baltic Sea Area) provide useful forums for sharing technical and
operational developments in relation to oil in ice conditions,
and permit the sharing of resources for responding to incidents.
The Government will support moves that promote strong
collaboration between all expert bodies looking to pull together
best practice for dealing with oil in Arctic conditions, including
the Arctic Council, to ensure robust, evidence-based oil spill
response arrangements are in place across the Arctic.
- a much higher, preferably
unlimited, financial liability regime for oil and gas operations
is in place throughout the Arctic. Such a liability regime should
require companies operating there to demonstrate that they have
adequate funds, financial guarantees or insurance, to meet the
costs of responding to an oil spill. The UK Government should
seek to advance this through the Arctic Council and the IMO. Consideration
should also be given to setting up a liability deposit bond scheme
which could be administered by the Arctic Council.
Setting the limits of financial liability for oil
and gas operations is a matter for the countries in whose national
jurisdiction the activities are taking place. It is not for the
UK Government to dictate what these financial limits should be
or whether or how a liability deposit bond scheme should be established
or administered. However, it is in the strong interests of those
countries and the oil and gas companies themselves to ensure that
adequate funds, financial guarantees or insurance are in place
before commencement of commercial operations.
In the event of an oil spill, the Government would
stand ready to respond to any request for assistance within the
limits of our capabilities.
- an oil and gas industry
group is set up to peer-review companies' drilling and spill response
plans and operating practices, reporting publicly. The Government
should seek, through the Arctic Council, to engage the oil companies
operating in the Arctic to set this up.
The Government agrees that such a peer review process
could help spread best practice. However any such peer-review
process would need to be acceptable to the relevant national authorities
and complement national regulation. It would also have to be demonstrably
expert in its opinions. And if such a system were established,
the Government believes that companies' participation should be
on a voluntary basis, as involvement could be both costly and
potentially result in duplication of work done within national
administrations.
- further independent research
and testing on oil spill response techniques in Arctic conditions
is conducted, including assessing the environmental side-effects
of such techniques. Only once response techniques have been independently
proven to be as effective as those used for temperate latitudes
should drilling be permitted to go ahead. Through the Arctic Council,
the Government should seek to persuade Arctic littoral states
to carry out and publish the results of such further research
and testing.
The Government notes that a large degree of research
and development into the effectiveness of oil spill response techniques
in Arctic conditions has already been conducted and published
by industry, governments and independent research institutions.
However, the Government agrees with the Committee that more needs
to be done. The Government welcomes the strong lead in this field
played by Arctic states, in particular the United States and Norway,
and will encourage them to continue their research programmes
and make all results publicly available.
- an internationally recognised
environmental sanctuary is established in at least part of the
Arctic. (Paragraph 106)
As is noted in point 12, the Government welcomes
the steps already being taken by the Arctic littoral states and
by the Arctic Council in identifying and protecting areas of heightened
ecological significance in the Arctic and their introduction of
specially designated Arctic marine areas within their national
jurisdictions based on scientific evidence. The Government is
also working towards delivering a new global mechanism to regulate
the conservation of marine biodiversity in the High Seas. The
Government believes such an agreement should set up a clear means
of designating High Seas Marine Protected Areas, building on the
work undertaken by Regional Seas Conventions, such as OSPAR.
8. An increase in Arctic shipping is inevitably
bringing new opportunities for UK businesses and ports, and that
will enable UK authorities to play a regulatory role in future
Arctic shipping. The Government should review how it can support
the relevant sectors of the economy but with a clear focus on
meeting the requirements of sustainable development of the Arctic.
(Paragraph 111)
The Government believes that the UK ports and shipping
industries, together with the wider maritime cluster, are generally
well placed to take advantage of any commercial opportunities
that expansion of Arctic shipping may present in the short term.
The Government intends to keep under review, in the
longer term, whether there is anything that it is best placed
to do, in order both to facilitate worthwhile trade opportunities
and to help ensure that this is done with due regard to the environment.
9. There are clear risks from increased shipping
to Arctic ecosystems and effective standards must be put in place
as soon as possible in readiness for an inevitable increase in
the volume of Arctic shipping. The Government should use its influence
in the IMO and Arctic Council to:
- ensure the Polar Code, currently
being developed, is robust and provides for environmentally safe
navigation through Arctic waters. We are disappointed that the
IMO chose to not give evidence to us on this inquiry, which hindered
our scrutiny of the IMO's work to develop this Code;
- speed up the development of the Polar Code
by working with other members of the IMO to identify Chapters
that could be agreed to a quicker timeframe than the rest of the
Code. Although essential to reach international agreement on shipping
regulations, the pace of its work is slow;
The Government fully agrees that the development
of the Polar Code within the IMO must produce a clear direction
on the design, equipment and, where appropriate, operational methods
of shipping which will transit or be employed within this fragile
environment. Government officials are playing a leading role in
the development of the Code so as to ensure it comprehensively
addresses safety and environmental issues. The range of issues
to be covered has necessarily expanded to ensure a satisfactory
coverage.
In particular, the environmental aspects of the Code
have been assessed as better presented as references to the relevant
articles of the appropriate Annex to the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) with any additional
requirements stated within the Code and made mandatory by complementary
references within MARPOL. This will go some way to reduce the
burden of development of the Code and will also immediately reflect
any future revisions of MARPOL.
The Code will be implemented as a single Mandatory
Instrument by way of amendments to existing IMO mandatory instruments.
It is probable that this will be arranged in order to allow for
a single implementation of all its aspects which is essential
to ensure a universal application. The time available for discussion
at IMO is entirely dependent on the IMO schedule of the relevant
meetings and the UK is strongly committed to intersessional work
with other IMO Member States which assists progress on development
of the Code.
- increase the maximum financial
liability of ship operators for pollution in the Arctic; and
In the IMO's "High Level Action Plan of the
Organization and priorities for the 2012-2013" there is an
action to give consideration to a proposal to amend the limits
of liability of the Protocol of 1996 to the Convention on Limitation
of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 in accordance with article
8 of that Convention.
The Bunkers Convention was adopted to ensure that
adequate, prompt, and effective compensation is available to persons
who suffer damage caused by spills of oil, when carried as fuel
in ships' bunkers. It requires ships over 1,000 gross tonnage
to maintain insurance or other financial security, such as the
guarantee of a bank or similar financial institution, to cover
the liability of the registered owner for pollution damage in
an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable
national or international limitation regime, but in all cases,
not exceeding an amount calculated in accordance with the Convention
on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, as amended.
Amendments to increase the limits of liability in
the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability
for Maritime Claims were adopted by the Legal Committee of the
IMO, when the Committee met for its 99th session in London.
The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime
Claims sets specified limits of liability for two types of claims
against shipowners—claims for loss of life or personal injury,
and property claims (such as damage to other ships, property or
harbour works). Taking into account the experience of incidents,
as well as inflation rates, the limits set in the 1996 Protocol
have, in recent years, been seen to be inadequate to cover the
costs of claims, especially those arising from incidents involving
bunker fuel spills.
The new limits are expected to enter into force 36
months from the date of notification of the adoption, under the
tacit acceptance procedure. This is expected to be during 2015.
- increase the protections
afforded to the Arctic under existing IMO shipping regulations,
including seeking support to designate the Arctic as a 'Particularly
Sensitive Sea Area' within the MARPOL regulations (Paragraph 120)
The Government fully agrees that the Arctic should
receive the level of protection from ship-source pollution which
it needs, and the UK plays an active part in the work of the IMO
which is the body best qualified to regulate international shipping.
The IMO brings together coastal States, flag States and port States,
and the international associations which represent industry and
environmental interests, and makes the most of their combined
knowledge and expertise.
The Government considers it immensely important that
the expansion of shipping in the Arctic should not have a damaging
effect on the environment. To this end, the UK will certainly
work with the IMO to endeavour to provide, where scientific evidence
demonstrates that a particular vulnerability requires an increase
in the level of protection which is applied to Arctic waters under
MARPOL or other IMO international instruments, that the necessary
increase in the level of protection is achieved.
Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) is the designation
which the IMO can make to protect waters which are not only significant
for recognised ecological, socio-economic or scientific reasons
but are also at risk from international shipping. A proposal for
a PSSA is not usually developed if another IMO designation or
designations would be more appropriate to address the vulnerability
of the waters in question. It is normal practice in the IMO for
the littoral state (or states) concerned to develop and submit
the proposal to the IMO. If one of more of the Arctic states submitted
a proposal for a PSSA covering all or part of the Arctic waters,
the UK would give it full consideration and would assess the proposal
against the IMO's criteria for PSSAs on the basis of the evidence
provided by the proponent (or proponents).
The Committee also identifies a ban on the use of
heavy fuel oil in Arctic waters as a possible measure. Proposals
to ban the use of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic have been discussed
at the IMO following the decision in 2011 to ban the use and carriage
of heavy fuel oil in the Antarctic region. While there are environmental
arguments in favour of a ban, the alternative lighter distillate
fuels also represent a significant environmental hazard if they
leak. Additionally, the potential for oil development in the Arctic
renders it quite likely vessels will be carrying crude oil as
cargo in the region—and a general prohibition on carriage
of heavy oils would prevent such activity. A ban on the use of
heavy fuel oil in the Arctic would be more practicable, but it
would need to be demonstrated that such a ban would address a
significant environmental vulnerability and that it would represent
a proportionate response to the threat identified. If the carriage
of bulk crude oil in the region is permitted then it may be difficult
to justify a ban on the use of heavy fuel oil as fuel.
10. The Government should play a full role
in developing a new international agreement on the conservation
and sustainable use of the marine biological diversity of the
Arctic beyond national jurisdictions (Paragraph 124)
In the Natural Environment White Paper, the Government
committed itself to work towards delivering a new global mechanism
to regulate the conservation of marine biodiversity in the high
seas. Such an agreement should set up a clear means of designating
High Seas Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), building on the work
undertaken by Regional Seas Conventions.
The Government is therefore committed to the negotiation
of a new Implementing Agreement (IA) under the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea for the conservation and sustainable
use of marine biological diversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction
and in particular, addressing the need for a coherent global regime
for MPAs and environmental impact assessments (EIAs).
At the United Nations Biodiversity Beyond National
Jurisdiction (UN BBNJ) Working Group in May no agreement could
be reached that would indicate that a decision on whether to start
negotiations for a new Agreement should be taken by the next United
Nations General Assembly. Instead, it was agreed that discussions
on the issues should continue and to undertake two workshops,
one covering MPAs and EIAs and the other on Marine Genetic Resources
(MGR) during the next 12 months to further inform its work. Subsequently,
the Rio+20 summit agreed that the United Nations General Assembly
should take a decision on a new IA in 2014.
The UK is playing a full role in these negotiations
and has indicated that it would like to be part of the EU Task
Forces which have been set up as part of the EU preparations for
the UN BBNJ intersessional workshops and which are taking place
in 2013.
We accept that a new IA will include discussions
on the need for an access and benefit sharing (ABS) mechanism
for the exploitation of MGR. However, the UK does not agree at
this stage that the outcome of those negotiations for an IA should
include an ABS system for MGR without a better understanding of
the type of regime that could be put in place and its effects
on research and sustainable utilisation of these resources.
11. As an observer on the Arctic Council,
the Government should seek to influence Arctic states to regulate
their fisheries sustainably. Any bilateral agreements between
the UK and other states should seek to ensure that smaller boats,
which more readily support sustainable fishing practice, are able
to benefit from any quotas agreed. (Paragraph 125)
The management of fisheries does not fall within
the remit of the Arctic Council. However, by and large the Arctic
states sustainably manage fish stocks under their control. For
stocks that are jointly managed with a proportion being fished
in the Arctic, the UK would always argue that scientific advice
should be respected.
Where the UK enters into bilateral agreements with
Arctic states we do so under the European Union. We only accept
fishing opportunities where the science indicates it is safe to
do so. Our experience is that larger vessels fishing in the Arctic
are as capable of fishing sustainably as smaller vessels and can
fish more efficiently through needing less fishing trips and time
in the area to take their quotas. We do accept, however, that
quotas should be made available for indigenous Arctic vessels.
12. We support the need for an internationally
recognised environmental sanctuary covering part of the Arctic.
The Government should seek to gather support for this within the
Arctic Council, and to encourage the Council and UN to begin a
dialogue on the scope for this. We see the development of such
a Sanctuary as a pre-requisite for further development of the
Arctic's natural resources. (Paragraph 139)
The Government welcomes the steps already being taken
by the Arctic littoral states and by the Arctic Council in identifying
and protecting areas of heightened ecological significance in
the Arctic and their introduction of specially designated Arctic
marine areas within their national jurisdictions based on scientific
evidence.
As mentioned earlier, the Natural Environment White
Paper committed the Government to work towards delivering a new
global mechanism to regulate the conservation of marine biodiversity
in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. The Government will therefore
press for a new Implementing Agreement under the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea to cover, in particular, the
need for a coherent global regime for Marine Protected Areas and
Environmental Impact Assessments. The Government believes such
an agreement should set up a clear means of designating High Seas
Marine Protected Areas, building on the work undertaken by Regional
Seas Conventions, such as OSPAR. At Rio+20 it was agreed that
a decision on whether a new Implementing Agreement should be negotiated
should be taken before the end of the 69th session of the United
Nations General Assembly in 2014. In the event this becomes a
reality, the Government will work with the Arctic Council, Arctic
states and the UN to establish whether there is a scientific basis
for an internationally recognised Marine Protected Area in the
area of the Arctic beyond national jurisdictions.
13. We recommend that the Government begin
the development of an Arctic Strategy to bring together the UK's
diverse interests in the Arctic and engage all stakeholders. Such
a strategy should include analysis of the potential impact of
climate change on the Arctic and necessary responses, as well
as how and where the Government would act to support sustainable
development in the Arctic. It should identify potential end-states
for the Arctic and how the Government intend to use its influence
at the UN and the Arctic Council to bring those about, taking
account of the limits on the UK's ability to directly drive such
changes. In particular, an Arctic strategy should include:
- a narrative on how the Rio
principles and the outcomes from Rio+20 Summit will guide the
UK's approach to the Arctic;
- how the Government intends to use its science
and research to increase its influence on Arctic matters;
- how the Government plans to secure action
against the pre-conditions we consider should be attached to further
drilling in the Arctic;
- the need for an area of the Arctic to be set
aside as a 'sanctuary' and protected from oil and gas development,
to be progressed in dialogue with both the Arctic Council and
the UN;
- how the Government will use its influence
at the IMO, UN and Arctic Council to help protect the Arctic from
the possible impacts of increased international shipping, and
how it will support relevant sectors of the UK economy to take
advantage of future opportunities in a sustainable way;
- the Government's commitment to support the
sustainable management of Arctic fisheries;
- consideration of the ideal of a 'wider' Council,
convened under the UN, to allow the interests of non-Arctic states
to be taken into account in the development and environmental
protection of the Arctic, and identification of available levers
to bring that about;
- how the Government will work to develop Citizens
Advisory Councils to engage citizens in the oversight of the Arctic
oil industry; and
- opportunities for 'grand bargains' that might
be explored with potential observer states, including China, on
wider environmental issues. (paragraph 155)
The Government remains of the view that it would
be inappropriate for the UK to have an Arctic Strategy akin to
the strategies produced by the Arctic states because the UK does
not have Arctic jurisdiction. However, the Government recognises
the importance of making more accessible its Arctic policies,
and will therefore produce and publish a policy framework for
the Arctic in 2013. As part of the development of this framework,
the Government will consult interested stakeholders, including
the Arctic states, and include plans for public outreach to increase
awareness of the UK's interests in the Arctic.
The policy framework will underpin the Government's
commitments to put sustainable development at the centre of the
international agenda. It will also reaffirm that the UK highly
values its status as an observer to the Arctic Council, and that
we will fully utilise this status to contribute to the work of
the Arctic Council, where invited to do so, and to ensure that
economic and environmental agendas in the Arctic go hand in hand.
We will also continue to advocate that any activities in the Arctic
need to be informed by high quality Arctic science. The policy
framework will therefore reflect the role that UK science has
played and will continue to play in the Arctic.
The policy framework will bring together the Government's
views and action on the UK's main Arctic policy interests, including:
oil and gas extraction; Marine Protected Areas; sustainable fishing;
shipping; and Arctic governance. The implementation and delivery
of the framework will be overseen by the existing cross-Government
Arctic network group, which will publish regular updates to the
framework, as appropriate.
| 
