Editing IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-3 (section)

==== 3.5.2.7 Marine Transportation ====

<div id="section-3-5-2-7marine-transportation-block-1"></div>

Increases in Arctic marine transportation create impacts and risks for ecosystems and people, such as an increased likelihood of accidents, the introduction of invasive species, oil spills, waste discharges, detrimental impacts on animals, habitat and subsistence activities (Sections 3.2.4.3, 3.4.3.3.2). There has been a rise in geopolitical debate regarding national and international level regulations and policies, and maritime infrastructure to support Arctic shipping development (Heininen and Finger, 2017; AMAP, 2018; Drewniak et al., 2018; Nilsson and Christensen, 2019). Without further action leading to adequate implementation of well-developed management plans and region-specific regulations, anticipated future increases in Arctic shipping will pose a greater risk to people and ecosystems ( ''high confidence'' ).

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has responsibility for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships, including in the Arctic and Antarctic. There are a number of mechanisms standardising regulation and governance, such as the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea; the International Convention on Standards of Training, and the Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, and the newly implemented International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters, or Polar Code (IMO, 2017).

The Polar Code of 2017 sets new standards for vessels travelling in polar areas to mitigate environmental damage and improve safety (IMO, 2017). The Polar Code, however, currently excludes fishing vessels and vessels on government service, thereby excluding many shipping activities, particularly in the Antarctic region (IMO, 2017). Many ships travelling these waters will therefore continue to pose risks to the environment and to themselves, as they are not regulated under the Polar Code ''(high confidence).'' The Polar Code does not enhance enforcement capabilities or include environmental protection provisions to address a number of particular polar region-specific risks such as black carbon, ballast water and heavy fuel oil transport and use in the Arctic (Anderson, 2012; Sakhuja, 2014; IMO, 2017). However, both Russian and Canadian legislation provide the possibility for stricter shipping provisions in ice-covered waters. The IMO has prohibited the use of heavy fuel oil in the Antarctic.

States can individually or cooperatively pursue the establishment of Special Areas and Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas at the IMO with a view to protect ecologically unique or vulnerable and economically or culturally important areas in national and international waters from risks and impacts of shipping, including through routing, discharge and equipment measures. Continued, and in some areas, greater, international cooperation on shipping governance can facilitate addressing emerging climate change issues (Arctic Council, 2015a; ARR, 2016; PEW Charitable Trust, 2016; Chénier et al., 2017; IMO, 2017) ( ''high confidence'' ). Cooperation of the member states of the Arctic Council resulted in the 2011 Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic and in the 2013 Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic. These agreements can, if adequately implemented, reduce risks from increased Arctic shipping ( ''medium confidence'' ), however, developing more effective measures is needed as preparedness and response gaps still exist, for example, for the central Arctic Ocean.

Industry has responded to the increase in shipping activity by investing in development of shipping designs for travel in mixed-ice environments (Stephenson et al., 2011; Stephenson et al., 2013). These increases in investments are occurring in spite of the limited total savings when comparing shorter travel to increased CO 2 emissions (Lindstad et al., 2016). In anticipation of spills, research in several regions has explored oil spill response viability and new methods of oil spill response for the Arctic environment (Bullock et al., 2017; Dilliplaine, 2017; Holst-Andersen et al., 2017; Lewis and Prince, 2018) ( ''medium confidence'' ) ''.'' A comparative risk assessment for spills has been developed for the Arctic waters (Robinson et al., 2017) and Statoil has developed and uses risk assessment decision-support tools for environmental management, together with environmental monitoring (Utvik and Jahre-Nilsen, 2016). These tools facilitate the assessment of Arctic oil-spill response capability, ice detection in low visibility, improved management of sea ice and icebergs, and numerical modelling of icing and snow as risk mitigation.

<div id="section-3-5-2-8-arctic-human-health-and-well-being"></div>

<span id="arctic-human-health-and-well-being"></span>