Polar Code:

Past, Present & Future (?) , ( )

Arctic Ocean Beyond National Jurisdiction, Fairbanks Alaska

July 26, 2011 Victor Santos-Pedro

Overview
Existing Measures in Arctic waters A tale of two vessels Polar Code development
Rationale, background and progress to date

Keys to success Concluding remarks

Existing Measures in Arctic Waters UNCLOS Article 234

Canada
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act

Russian Federation
Northern Sea Route Regime

Denmark/Greenland
Navigation: Rules & Reporting Baltic Rules

What do th Wh t d these vessels have in common? l h i ?

RMS Titanic

MS Explorer

B th hit i Both ice. Both sank. p p p p y Both prompted important developments in maritime safety:
Titanic SOLAS Explorer Mandatory Polar Code

Requirements in Central Arctic Ocean

Same as for a vessel in open water elsewhere, elsewhere i.e. SOLAS, MARPOL , etc.

Rationale for the Polar Code

No specific mandatory measures exist beyond those for open water navigation Polar regions present unique hazards to navigation, not least remoteness Projected increase in traffic as ice extent decreases and drive for resource exploitation increases p Polar waters considered to be at greater risk - recovery from environmental damage slower due to cold and ice, reliance of native peoples on sea life Recommendation by the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (2009) that Arctic states support the updating and the mandatory application of relevant parts of the Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-covered Waters, which incorporate requirements for Polar Class ships.

Why a Polar Code?

Polar waters pose particular challenges that th t can b mitigated with appropriate be iti t d ith i t measures:
Remote, with limited search and rescue capability Ice, in many forms and ages Cold temperatures Limited infrastructure Aids to navigation Pollution response

Arctic SAR sectors

H Harmonized, common rules will i d l ill provide greater protection world-wide and simplify life for designers, builders, builders operators and regulators. regulators
Multi-year ice

Steps leading to a Polar Code

1993
Original Guidelines

IMO Outside Working Group formed after Helsinki meeting Requirements proposed to IMO for vessel operation in Polar waters Guidelines for ships operating in Arctic ice-covered waters published Include provisions for construction equipment operations and construction, equipment, environmental protection and damage control Construction aspects refer to draft IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Class Ships

1998 2002

2006 2007
Expansion

IACS Council adopts Unified Requirements World-wide distribution of images of MS Explorer accident and sinking Guidelines updated and expanded to cover all Polar waters (A.1024 (26)) Development of mandatory Polar Code added to IMO work plan

2009

2010

Proposals for ice navigator competencies considered Discussion on mandatory requirements began

Progress to Date
Principles guiding Code development:
Risk-based approach in determining scope Holistic approach to mitigate risks to acceptable levels

Development and use of an extensive Hazards and Risks list for validating risk mitigation measures p y Hazards and risks provisionally consolidated into four main categories:
1. 2. 3. 3 4. Environmental conditions High latitude Environmental sensitivity E i t l iti it Human element (e.g. ice, temperatures) (e.g. remoteness, communications issues) (e.g. slow recovery f ( l from d damage) ) (e.g. specialized training and experience requirements, physiological effects of polar conditions)

Polar Code structure and components

Structure similar to other recent IMO Codes
General, Part A (required), Part B (recommended), Part C (guidelines)

Construction requirements established by reference to IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Class Ships All vessels to require a Polar Ship Certificate to operate in Polar waters t Polar Operation Manual (Permit or Ice Certificate) to contain vessel specific guidance for crew Additional components, e.g. reporting, monitoring, as well as application of specific provisions still to be determined

Polar Waters

Arctic waters

Antarctic waters

Unified Requirements for Polar Class Ships

Common set of construction requirements for all IACS members
(International A (I t ti l Association of Cl i ti f Classification S i ti ) ifi ti Societies)

Joint effort from class, academia, industry and researchers Hull design requirements are state-of-the-art scenario and mechanics based: Design based on plastic structural behaviour Steel distributed differently Machinery requirements have similar approach to new Baltic Rules No power requirements p q

Keys to success
Agreement upon provisions th t mitigate the risks that a vessel is A t i i that iti t th i k th t li likely to encounter, including:
Harmonization of ship structure and other characteristics through adoption of P l Cl d ti f Polar Classes Requirements for knowledgeable and experienced crew Monitoring and enforcement

Ability to provide current and accurate ice and weather information Continued development of IACS Unified Requirements based on experience Understanding by operators that remoteness and limitations in infrastructure mean voyages in polar waters require additional planning and preparation

Concluding remarks
Current measures do not adequately protect polar waters from shipping activities. pp g Coastal states have introduced own rules as a result. There is a need and work is underway to develop measures that are robust, harmonized, and risk-based. Cooperation and a concerted effort will be required to achieve the desired goal. If not adequate, the rules introduced by various Coastal states will continue.

Questions please! p

RDIMS 6873915