243
Arctic Yearbook 2013
The Arctic Ocean Review
The Council should move beyond the knowledge-building niche to policy brokerage since it has the
institutional capacity to create specific high-level Task Forces such as the ones which delivered the
binding regional agreements of 2011 and 2013. The Arctic Council has the proven institutional
capacity to create negotiating spaces such as the ones which delivered the binding Arctic regional
agreements of 2011 and 2013. The Arctic Council and its members should promote the creation of
such negotiating spaces with a clear mandate to deal with the negotiation of agreed common
positions based on AMSA and AOR reports, enabling where appropriate a formal representation
where one Arctic state can speak on behalf of all eight Arctic states when negotiating global
conventions or protocols. This process could also consider how Arctic Council member states may
engage Observer states to strengthen the Arctic voice at the global level. These institutional
coordination opportunities do not preclude Arctic Council working groups pursuing influence
through other means. There are multiple opportunities for coordination at the Senior Arctic Official
level and through other means like Expert Groups.
In order to strengthen the effectiveness of the target institution (IMO) and to promote the policy
models of the source institution (Arctic Council), Arctic states should intentionally trigger a formal
interaction with the IMO aiming to actively advance and shape the Arctic institutional complexes.
Based on the premise that international commitments provide a driver for interaction, the latest
decisions as per the Kiruna Declaration regarding the completion of work at the IMO to develop a
mandatory Polar Code for ships, Arctic states have a responsibility to collectively coordinate their
influence on the IMO‘s decision-making process and output.
Recognize
the important ongoing work in the International Maritime Organization to develop a
mandatory Polar Code on shipping and
decide
to strengthen our collaboration in that work toward
its expeditious completion, (Kiruna Declaration, 2013)
This commitment is a step forward in recognizing the need to collaborate in comparison with the
Nuuk Declaration of 2011 simply urging the completion of the Polar Code. However, it does not
explicitly call for a unified position between the Arctic states. There are also clear limitations with
respect to the scope of the Polar Code; it is limited to pollution issues and at this point, only
pollution of the sea. Black Carbon, Heavy Fuel Oil and Oxides of nitrogen are not even included.
Furthermore, it is likely that spatial measures such as routing areas to be avoided will be excluded.
Thus, Arctic Council member governments must create a coordinated response to update Arctic-
specific shipping measures addressing the mutually dependent issues of environment and safety in
relevant international instruments (e.g. MARPOL, SOLAS, and Ballast Water Management
Convention). Meanwhile, Arctic states must develop a coordinated response ensuring that the
provisions of the IMO Polar Code are consistent with the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment
Report and the Arctic Ocean Review Reports‘ findings and recommendations.