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.
Table of Contents
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
Research Objectives and Themes
This research aims to analyze the current Arctic regulatory framework regarding oil and gas (O&G) activities to identify its effectiveness in mitigating environmental risks. It specifically investigates existing governance gaps and proposes a new Arctic Framework Treaty (ATF) alongside an ecosystem-based management plan, using Norway and Russia as comparative case studies to assess the viability of national and sub-regional regulatory approaches.
- Analysis of the existing international and regional legal frameworks governing Arctic O&G activities.
- Identification of significant regulatory and governance gaps within the Arctic region.
- Evaluation of the proposed Arctic Framework Treaty (ATF) as a potential solution for regional regulation.
- Comparative study of Norwegian and Russian national petroleum regulations and environmental enforcement mechanisms.
- Development of a sub-regional ecosystem-based management approach for the Russian continental shelf.
Excerpt from the Book
1.1.2. Environmental Impact Arising From E&P Activities in the Arctic
The Arctic region is home to more than 30 indigenous peoples’ cultures and is the permanent habitat for numerous rare animal species such as polar bears, arctic foxes, and snowy owls. The region itself is a vast untapped area consisting of fjords and tundra, frozen seas, glaciers and icebergs. With the Arctic States engaging in a “race for oil”, the area has been identified as the next oil frontier. Consequently, E&P activities will bring new environmental challenges to the region’s already fragile eco-system.
The main environmental issues arising from such activities are:
i. Climate change due to increased CO2 emission arising from installations and infrastructure development and gas flaring;
ii. Pollution by oil spills, discharges, processed waters and drilling muds. Due to the harsh weather conditions and prolonged period of polar night, oil spills could stay undetected for long periods of time;
iii. Difficulties related to clean-up operations. The region’s harsh environment usually results in a very small recovery percentage of oil spills-around 10-15%. This problem is further exacerbated by the dearth of Arctic infrastructure in place to respond rapidly to accidents.
Greenpeace representative, Ben Stewart, noted that: ‘All the information we have is that an Arctic oil spill would be impossible to clean up’.
iv. Oil pollution in the Arctic region has the potential to increase mortality rates of marine mammals, fish and birds, and could even lead to permanent extinction of some species. For instance, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, where 257,000 barrels of oil was released into the water, had a dramatic environmental impact on marine mammals, seabirds, fish and eco-system, at recovery rate of 8%. Even 25 years after the disaster, wildlife has not fully recovered yet.
Summary of Chapters
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION: This chapter establishes the environmental context of Arctic oil and gas exploration, outlines the research goals, identifies existing regulatory limitations, and reviews relevant literature.
CHAPTER 2. CURRENT REGULATION AND REGULATORY GAPS RELATED TO O&G SECTOR IN THE ARCTIC REGION: This chapter provides a critical analysis of international, regional, and soft-law instruments, highlighting the lack of a specific, binding regulatory body for Arctic petroleum activities.
CHAPTER 3. LEGALLY BINDING APPROACHES IN ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GAPS OF THE O&G SECTOR IN THE ARCTIC: This chapter explores potential legally binding options for the Arctic, ultimately advocating for the adoption of an Arctic Framework Treaty (ATF) under the auspices of the Arctic Council.
CHAPTER 4. ADDRESSING O&G ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC UNDER COSTAL STATES REGULATION - NORWAY AND RUSSIA CASE STUDIES: This chapter compares the robust Norwegian regulatory framework with the Russian approach, emphasizing the potential for adopting an ecosystem-based management plan at a sub-regional level.
CHAPTER 5. RECOMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: This final chapter synthesizes the research findings, confirming the urgent need for a more coherent regional and sub-regional regulatory framework to manage environmental risks effectively.
Keywords
Arctic, Oil and Gas, Environmental Regulation, Regulatory Gaps, UNCLOS, OSPAR, Arctic Council, Ecosystem-based Management, Norway, Russia, Offshore E&P, Petroleum Policy, Sustainability, Pollution Prevention, Arctic Framework Treaty
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research?
The work examines the effectiveness of current international and national regulatory frameworks in addressing the environmental impacts of offshore oil and gas exploration and production in the Arctic.
What are the central thematic areas?
The research focuses on environmental security, regulatory governance, marine protection, transboundary pollution, and the comparative analysis of national implementation strategies between Norway and Russia.
What is the primary research objective?
The goal is to identify existing regulatory gaps and propose a legally binding Arctic Framework Treaty (ATF) as well as sub-regional ecosystem-based management plans to ensure sustainable O&G development.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The research utilizes a comparative legal analysis of international treaties and national legislation, supported by literature reviews and an evaluation of existing regional management models.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body systematically analyzes international law (UNCLOS, MARPOL, OSPAR), the role of the Arctic Council, and conducts detailed case studies of Norwegian and Russian national legislation and management practices.
Which key terms characterize the study?
Key terms include Arctic governance, environmental sanctity, offshore oil and gas, regulatory gaps, ecosystem-based management, and sustainable development.
How does the author evaluate the Norwegian management approach?
The author considers the Norwegian integrated ecosystem-based management plan as an advanced and effective model, noting its success in balancing economic activity with environmental protection in the Barents Sea.
What specific challenges does the author identify regarding Russia?
The author highlights issues such as weak enforcement of environmental laws, a high level of corruption, and an reliance on "end-of-pipe" regulatory approaches that fail to act as a sufficient disincentive for environmental damage.
Why is an Arctic Framework Treaty proposed?
The author argues that a framework treaty is necessary to provide a legally binding structure that can supervise the implementation of agreements and address the specific, evolving environmental challenges of the Arctic region.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Joanna Grigorjeva (Autor:in), 2014, Addressing Regulatory Gaps in Relation to the Environmental Issues Arising from Offshore Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/337756
