Melting of the Arctic ice, caused by global warming and energy security issues, has led Arctic states to prospect further North for new petroleum opportunities. Consequently, the already fragile Arctic marine environment has been further compromised. The Arctic coastal states, under the Ilulissat Declaration, agreed that UNCLOS will provide a legal basis for the regulatory framework in the Arctic, supplemented by Arctic Council soft-law. Consequently, the environmental issues in the Arctic, arising as a result of O&G activities, mainly have to be dealt under the discretion of the Arctic coastal states’ regulations.
By analysing current environmental regulation in the Arctic, the paper aims to discover if the framework can ensure that petroleum activities are carried out in an environmentally safe fashion. To make sure that the Arctic states can address the aforementioned issues, under national legislation, the paper will examine Russia’s and Norway’s petroleum regulations applicable to the Arctic.
In the light of the performed analysis, the paper will propose to address the regulatory gaps created as a result of environmental issues arising from petroleum activities in the Arctic under the Arctic Framework Treaty. To address topical issues at the sub-regional level, an ecosystem-based management plan will be analysed, and suggesting its implementation on the Russian continental shelf.
At a glance
- Compares Norway’s and Russia’s offshore petroleum environmental regulations
- Examines UNCLOS, OSPAR and the Antarctic Treaty as regulatory approaches
- Proposes an Arctic Framework Treaty under the Arctic Council
- Examines the Barents Sea–Lofoten management plan for potential Russian application
- 3 figures
Table of Contents
Abstract
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic: Environmental Consequences and Importance of an Adequate Regulation
1.1.1 The Size of the “Prize”
1.1.2 Environmental Impact Arising From E&P Activities in the Arctic
1.1.3 Current Regulation to Address O&G Activities in the Arctic
1.2 Aim and Objectives of the Research
1.3 Research Limitation
1.4 Literature Review
1.5 Expected Research Outcomes
CHAPTER 2. CURRENT REGULATION AND REGULATORY GAPS RELATED TO O&G SECTOR IN THE ARCTIC REGION
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Main Hard Law Regulation of the Arctic Region
2.2.1 UNCLOS
Relevant Provisions to O&G Sector
Gaps Addressing O&G Activities in the Arctic
2.2.2 MARPOL 73/78
2.2.3 OPRC Convention
2.2.4 London Convention
2.2.5 OSPAR Convention
Main Provisions Related to O&G Activities
Major Gaps of the Conventions
2.3 Soft Law Regulation of the Arctic
2.3.1 Role of the Arctic Council in Environmental Protection of the Arctic
Regulation Addressing O&G Activities
The Arctic Council Gaps
CHAPTER 3. LEGALLY BINDING APPROACHES IN ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GAPS OF THE O&G SECTOR IN THE ARCTIC
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Addressing Environmental Regulatory Gaps in the Arctic Under the Auspices of the International and Regional Regulations
3.2.1 Adopting Arctic Regulation Under UNCLOS Provisions
3.2.2 Expansion of the Spatial Scope of the OSPAR Convention
3.2.3 The Antarctic Treaty System
3.2.4 Granting the Arctic Council Status of Intergovernmental Organisation
The Arctic Framework Treaty
Protocol and Safety Net
Supportive Agreements
Working Groups
Membership
Territorial Scope
CHAPTER 4. ADDRESSING O&G ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC UNDER COSTAL STATES REGULATION - NORWAY AND RUSSIA CASE STUDIES
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Norway Case-study
4.2.1 Environmental Regulation Pertaining to Offshore O&G Activities in the Arctic
Licensing and Permitting
Oil Spill Preparedness and Response
Environmental Liability
4.3 Russia Case-study
4.3.1 Environmental Regime Pertaining to Offshore O&G Activities in the Arctic
Licensee Obligations and Permitting
Oil Spill Response and Monitoring
Environmental Pollution Liability
4.4 Managing Arctic Area on Sub-regional Level: Norwegian Approach- Possibilities for Russia
4.4.1 The Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea−Lofoten Area
Planning Process
Implementation of the Plan
Addressing O&G Activities under the Management Plan
Russia’s Response Towards the Management Plan
CHAPTER 5. RECOMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Conclusions
5.1.1 The Fragile Arctic
5.1.2 Regulatory Gaps of the Arctic Region
5.1.3 Addressing Regulatory Gaps on Regional Level
5.1.4 Addressing Regulatory Gaps on Sub-regional Level
5.2 Recommendations
5.2.1 Recommendations on Adopting of ATF on Regional Level
5.2.2 Recommendations on Adoption of the Integrated Ecosystem-Based Management Plan on Sub-regional Level
Objectives and Themes
This dissertation examines whether international, regional and national environmental regulations can adequately address the risks of offshore oil and gas activity in the Arctic. It identifies regulatory gaps, compares Norwegian and Russian approaches and considers regional and sub-regional options for strengthening environmental protection.
- Environmental risks associated with Arctic petroleum exploration and production
- International conventions and Arctic Council soft law
- Alternative legally binding frameworks for Arctic governance
- Norwegian and Russian licensing, spill response and environmental liability
- Ecosystem-based management in the Barents Sea and Lofoten area
Excerpt from the Book
3.2.1. Adopting Arctic Regulation Under UNCLOS Provisions
Given the ‘constitutional’ nature of UNCLOS and the fact that the Arctic is considered mostly as an ice-covered sea, there is no wonder why many scholars propose specific to the Arctic regulation, based on UNCLOS. In accordance with UNCLOS, there is only one article, which directly addresses increasing activities in the Arctic. The Article encourages coastal states to develop stricter standards within the limits of their EEZ, where the ice cover stay for most of the year.
However, the specific wording of the Article, ‘presence of ice covering most of the year’ has considerably limited its applicability. Due to fundamental changes in the Arctic weather conditions, resulting in shrinking of the ice cover, there are an increasing number of the areas in the region, which are free from ice all-year-round. Additionally, the article applies only to oil tankers or vessels, to the exclusion of oil platforms and other O&G installations.
Another regulatory approach of addressing the Arctic marine region can be employed in accordance with the Articles 122 and 123, encouraging the coastal states’ cooperation in order to negotiate a legal background to Arctic waters, taking into account that the Arctic waters to be considered as enclosed or semi-enclosed seas. According to Article 122:
enclosed or semi-enclosed seas’ means a golf basin or sea surrounded by two or more States and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrow or consisting entirely or primarily of the territorial seas and EEZ of two or more coastal states.
However, due to the unclear wording of the article, it is unclear if the Arctic Ocean can be called enclosed or semi – enclosed sea, and as a consequence applicability of the articles to the Arctic region. Even if the Arctic Ocean was qualified under the Article 122, the Article 123 does not provide direct obligations for the States to introduce regional cooperation, stating that they ‘should coordinate the implementation of their rights and duties with respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment’. Consequently, the provisions encourage states to cooperate in order to protect marine environment rather than stipulates legal obligation to do so. Even if the coastal states negotiate a legal arrangement based on Article 122, the agreement will be limited to the territory of the Arctic States EEZ.
Chapter Summaries
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION: The opening chapter introduces Arctic petroleum development and its environmental risks, sets out the research objectives and reviews relevant literature.
CHAPTER 2. CURRENT REGULATION AND REGULATORY GAPS RELATED TO O&G SECTOR IN THE ARCTIC REGION: This chapter examines international conventions and Arctic Council instruments, identifying regulatory and governance gaps affecting offshore activities.
CHAPTER 3. LEGALLY BINDING APPROACHES IN ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GAPS OF THE O&G SECTOR IN THE ARCTIC: The author considers approaches based on UNCLOS, OSPAR and the Antarctic Treaty System alongside a proposed Arctic Framework Treaty.
CHAPTER 4. ADDRESSING O&G ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC UNDER COSTAL STATES REGULATION - NORWAY AND RUSSIA CASE STUDIES: The chapter compares national environmental regimes and examines the Barents Sea–Lofoten management plan and its potential application in Russia.
CHAPTER 5. RECOMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: The final chapter presents conclusions and recommendations for regional governance and sub-regional ecosystem-based management.
Keywords
Arctic, offshore oil and gas, environmental law, regulatory gaps, UNCLOS, OSPAR, Arctic Council, Arctic Framework Treaty, Norway, Russia, oil spill response, environmental impact assessment, ecosystem-based management, Barents Sea
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the dissertation about?
It examines environmental regulation of offshore oil and gas activities in the Arctic, focusing on regulatory gaps and possible responses.
What are its main themes?
The main themes include Arctic environmental risks, international and regional governance, national regulation, oil spill response and ecosystem-based management.
What is the primary research question?
The work asks whether the existing Arctic regulatory framework and coastal states’ national laws can adequately address environmental issues arising from offshore petroleum activities.
What research method is used?
The author conducts legal and literature analysis, including a comparative examination of Norwegian and Russian legislation and consideration of alternative governance frameworks.
What does the main body cover?
It analyses current hard and soft law, possible binding regulatory approaches, the two national case studies and Norway’s Barents Sea–Lofoten management plan.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Arctic environmental law, offshore petroleum, regulatory gaps, UNCLOS, the Arctic Council, oil spill response and ecosystem-based management.
How does the work assess a possible Arctic Framework Treaty?
It discusses a treaty associated with the Arctic Council, including potential protocols, working groups, membership and territorial scope.
Why is the Barents Sea–Lofoten plan discussed?
The plan provides an example of integrated ecosystem-based management that the author examines for potential adaptation to the Russian continental shelf.
Which aspects of Norwegian and Russian regulation are compared?
The comparison covers environmental permitting, impact assessment, oil spill preparedness and response, monitoring and liability.
- Quote paper
- Joanna Grigorjeva (Author), 2014, Addressing Regulatory Gaps in Relation to the Environmental Issues Arising from Offshore Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/337756
