THE INTRODUCTION OF ALIEN AQUATIC
\nSPECIES BY SHIPS IN THE ARCTIC
\nThe role of the Polar Code and other international legal instruments<\/p>\n
ABSTRACT
\nMaritime transport plays, and will continue to play in the future, an important role in
\ntrade patterns as a result of globalization. Ships carry seawater in ballast tanks when
\nthey are not fully loaded in order to ensure transverse and longitudinal stability, and
\nlimit stresses on the hull. The water pumped contains aquatic organisms which can
\nsink to the sediments in the bottom of tanks. Organisms can also attach to the outside
\nof ships, on the hulls and appendages, through the process of biofouling.
\nBy transferring species from one biogeographic region to another, shipping breaks
\nthrough natural barriers. The introduction of non-indigenous organisms into a new
\nbiogeographic region may have environmental, economic and health impacts.
\nTo remedy this situation, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) developed
\nthe International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships\u2019 Ballast
\nWater and Sediments (BWM Convention) and the Guidelines for the control and
\nmanagement of ships\u2019 biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species
\n(biofouling guidelines).
\nGlobal warming gives better access to the Arctic. Located in a median position
\nbetween Eurasia and America, abundantly supplied with natural resources, the Arctic
\nhas considerable assets arousing greed. The expansion of human activities generates
\na greater need for maritime transport. Because existing instruments do not cover
\nthoroughly polar specifics, the IMO has undertaken the development of a mandatory
\ncode for ships operating in polar waters (Polar Code). The draft Code includes an
\nenvironmental protection chapter addressing the translocation of alien species
\nthrough ballast water and biofouling.
\nThis paper analyses, from the operational and environmental perspectives, the
\nappropriateness and feasibility of the measures intended to limit the transfer of nonindigenous species by ships in the Arctic provided by the BWM Convention, the
\nbiofouling guidelines and the draft Polar Code.
\nKeywords : Arctic, Alien species, Shipping, Ballast water, Biofouling, Polar Code.
\niv
\nTABLE OF CONTENTS
\nDeclaration ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii
\nAbstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iii
\nTable of contents…………………………………………………………………………………………. iv
\nList of figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………v
\nList of tables ………………………………………………………………………………………………….v
\nList of acronyms………………………………………………………………………………………….. vi
\n1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………1
\n1.1. General remarks………………………………………………………………………………….1
\n1.2. Key international actors……………………………………………………………………….3
\n1.3. Aim…………………………………………………………………………………………………..6
\n1.4. Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………7
\n2. The transfer of alien aquatic species by ships ……………………………………………..8
\n2.1. Basic physiology principles………………………………………………………………….8
\n2.2. Global environment protection principles…………………………………………….17
\n2.3. International regulations…………………………………………………………………….19
\n2.3.1. BWM Convention …………………………………………………………………….19
\n2.3.2. Biofouling guidelines………………………………………………………………..24
\n2.4. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….24
\n3. The Arctic : synopsis of the region ……………………………………………………………25
\n3.1. Boundaries……………………………………………………………………………………….25
\n3.2. Political dimension ……………………………………………………………………………30
\n3.3. Ecological dimension ………………………………………………………………………..32
\n3.4. Socioeconomic dimension………………………………………………………………….37
\n3.5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….38
\n4. The Arctic : a region in change…………………………………………………………………39
\n4.1. Global warming ………………………………………………………………………………..39
\n4.2. Exploitation of natural resources…………………………………………………………40
\n4.3. Increasing cargo ship traffic ……………………………………………………………….42
\n4.4. Increasing non-cargo ship traffic…………………………………………………………44
\n4.5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….45
\n5. Regulating the transfer of alien aquatic species by ships in the Arctic………..46
\n5.1. Draft Polar Code……………………………………………………………………………….46
\n5.2. Difficulties with regard to ships ………………………………………………………….48
\n5.3. Difficulties with regard to port facilities ………………………………………………49
\n5.4. Adjustment to pristine environmental conditions…………………………………..50
\n5.5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….54
\n6. Overall conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………55
\nAppendix A Glossary………………………………………………………………………………….57
\nAppendix B States parties to the BWM Convention…………………………………….59
\nReferences ……………………………………………………………………………………………….60
\nv
\nLIST OF FIGURES
\nFigure 1 Key international actors…………………………………………………………………..3
\nFigure 2 International instruments considered …………………………………………………6
\nFigure 3 Schematic of the chosen approach…………………………………………………….7
\nFigure 4 Energy use as a means of classifying organisms …………………………………8
\nFigure 5 Carbon use as a means of classifying organisms…………………………………9
\nFigure 6 Alien species\u2019 establishment process in a new environment ……………….15
\nFigure 7 Multiple definitions of the Arctic ……………………………………………………25
\nFigure 8 Definition of Arctic waters provided by the draft Polar Code……………..26
\nFigure 9 Arctic waters protected by the OSPAR Convention…………………………..27
\nFigure 10 Export ports and trade routes for Russian oil traffic in the Barents Sea..29
\nFigure 11 The seventeen Arctic Large Marine Ecosystems……………………………….33
\nFigure 12 Increasing ship traffic : an indirect consequence of global warming ……45
\nFigure 13 Life span of Listeria and Salmonella at 18\u00b0C……………………………………51
\nFigure 14 Life span of Listeria and Salmonella at 5\u00b0C……………………………………..52
\nLIST OF TABLES
\nTable 1 Examples of micro- and macro-fouling organisms…………………………….12
\nvi
\nLIST OF ACRONYMS
\nAEPS Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy
\nAFS Anti-fouling System
\nBWE Ballast Water Exchange
\nBWM Ballast Water Management
\nBWMS Ballast Water Management System
\nBWT Ballast Water Treatment
\nCAFF Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna
\nCBD Convention on Biological Diversity
\nCFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
\nDE Ship Design and Equipment Sub-Committee
\nEEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
\nEP European Parliament
\nGESAMP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
\nEnvironmental Protection
\nGHG Greenhouse gas
\nIFREMER French research institute for the exploitation of the sea
\nIMO International Maritime Organization
\nIUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing
\nMARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
\nMEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee
\nMIC Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion
\nMSC Maritime Safety Committee
\nNGOs Nongovernmental organizations
\nNSR Northern Sea Route
\nODSs Ozone Depleting Substances
\nOIE World Organization for Animal Health
\nOSPAR Convention for the Protection of the marine Environment of the
\nNorth-East Atlantic
\nPAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
\nPSSA Particularly Sensitive Sea Area
\nPCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
\nPOPs Persistent organic pollutants
\nSAR International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue
\nSOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
\nSTCW International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
\nWatchkeeping for Seafarers
\nTBT Tributyltin
\nUN United Nations
\nUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
\nUNCHE United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
\nUNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
\nUNEP United Nations Environment Programme
\n1
\n1. Introduction
\n1.1. General remarks
\nThe last twenty years have witnessed the development of worldwide awareness,
\nresearch and action to protect and make a sustainable use of biodiversity. Collective
\nconsciousness arose during the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
\nDevelopment (UNCED) and resulted in the adoption of the Convention on Biological
\nDiversity (CBD), which defines biological diversity as \u201cthe variability among living
\norganisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic
\necosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part\u201d (UN, 1992a). It is a
\nthree-level concept encompassing genetic variation within a species, variation
\nbetween species and variation between different biotopes (UN, 1992a). State parties
\nare committed to preserve biodiversity and make sustainable and equitable use of the
\nEarth\u2019s biological resources.
\nThe marine environment is the richest one in terms of biodiversity, with nearly
\n250,000 known marine species (Census of Marine Life, 2010). Maintaining marine
\nbiodiversity is also preserving the possibility for humans to feed, to cure, to earn
\ntheir living and to undertake scientific research.
\nMaritime transport plays an essential role in international trade patterns and is
\nexpected to expand as a result of globalization. Economies of scale have brought
\nabout bigger ships to convey more cargo. When they do not carry a full cargo load,
\nships pump seawater into ballast tanks to maintain proper stability, trim and draught,
\nto adjust list and limit stresses on the hull. This practice is necessary to ensure safety,
\nmaneuverability (suitable propeller immersion) and resistance (to withstand rough
\nseas). The water pumped contains aquatic organisms (including pathogens, fish eggs
\nand larvae) which settle in tank bottoms as sediments. Organisms also attach to the
\noutside of ships through the process of biofouling on e.g. the hull, anchor, chains,
\nand propellers. These can be transferred between ports along the ship\u2019s voyage. The
\nspread of alien species threatens the integrity of ecosystem biodiversity. If they
\nsucceed in setting up into the new biogeographic region, they can alter habitats,
\n2
\ncompete with indigenous species, cause material damage and even endanger human
\nhealth.
\nNon-indigenous species are regarded as biological pollution by some marine
\necologists (Wallentinus & Werner, 2008). It seems so if substituting \u201csubstances\u201d by
\n\u201calien species\u201d in the GESAMP definition of marine pollution (1991) :
\nPollution means the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances
\nor energy into the marine environment (including estuaries) resulting in such
\ndeleterious effects as harm to living resources, hazards to human health,
\nhindrance to marine activities including fishing, impairment of quality for use
\nof seawater and reduction of amenities.
\nHowever, the introduction of alien organisms does not always result in the
\noccurrence of adverse effects, which is a required condition to use appropriately the
\nterm \u201cpollution\u201d (GESAMP, 1991).
\nThe Arctic is a pristine area undergoing significant change due to global warming.
\nThis phenomenon has direct and indirect consequences for the marine environment.
\nOn the one hand, it is a threat to biodiversity because some native species will not be
\nable to adapt to changes in their environment (ecosystem stress) or, conversely, will
\nbecome invasive. Meanwhile some non-native species may find more favorable
\nconditions for establishment. On the other hand, it gives better access to the Arctic
\ndue to greater ice-free areas and paves the way for more human activities, namely
\nship transit, mining, offshore drilling, tourism, scientific research and fishing. These
\nactivities are attractive not only to countries which have an Arctic coastline, but also
\nto countries worldwide.
\nThe IMO has undertaken the development of a mandatory Polar Code. This
\ninstrument is intended to remedy the gaps or weaknesses of existing conventions as
\nfar as shipping in polar waters is concerned. However, some of the provisions set in
\nthe draft Polar Code are directly derived from existing instruments, without further
\nadaptation.
\n3
\nIs the geographical scope of the Polar Code wide enough to protect thoroughly the
\nArctic marine environment ? Are its requirements achievable in Arctic waters and
\nports from an operational perspective ? Are the standards to which it refers
\nappropriate for a vulnerable environment ?
\n1.2. Key international actors
\nSince environmental management requires scientific knowledge, assessment,
\nregulation and planning, three international actors seem to have a major role to play
\nwith regard to the translocation of species by ships in the Arctic : the Joint Group of
\nExperts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP),
\nthe IMO and the Arctic Council.
\nFigure 1 Key international actors.
\nGESAMP
\nThe GESAMP is an advisory body, composed of 25-30 permanent specialized
\nscientists, whose mission is \u201cto provide authoritative, independent, interdisciplinary
\nscientific advice to organizations and Governments to support the protection and
\nsustainable use of the marine environment\u201d (GESAMP, 2005).
\nIt was created in 1969 to support the United Nations (UN) and the following seven
\norganizations :
\nArctic
\nGESAMP
\nIMO Arctic
\nCouncil
\n4
\n\uf0b7 IMO (which shelters the GESAMP Secretariat)
\n\uf0b7 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
\n\uf0b7 Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations
\nEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO-IOC)
\n\uf0b7 World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
\n\uf0b7 World Health Organization (WHO)
\n\uf0b7 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
\n\uf0b7 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
\nAlthough GESAMP experts are nominated by these institutions, their reports are
\nindependent and based on the latest scientific improvements in the field of marine
\nand coastal area protection and management (GESAMP, 1991). Surveys are
\nconducted within the framework of specialized working groups, such as the
\nGESAMP ballast water working group (GESAMP-BWWG). This entity played a
\nconsultative role to the MEPC in the development of the approval procedure for
\nballast water management systems (BWMSs) making use of active substances.
\nToday, it is involved in the scientific approval process of BWMSs (IMO, 2008b).
\nIMO
\nThe IMO is a specialized agency of the UN whose purpose is to regulate maritime
\nsafety, maritime security and to protect the marine environment. The Organization
\nwas created by an International Conference held in Geneva, in 1948, and is based in
\nLondon. Originally designated as the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative
\nOrganization (IMCO), the institution changed its name in 1982 to become the
\nInternational Maritime Organization. Like most of the UN institutions, the IMO is
\ncomposed of a sovereign body, the Assembly, in which sit all member States, and an
\nexecutive body, the Council, in which sit only a limited number of States (forty).
\nThese are elected by the Assembly when it meets once every two years.
\nAdministrative work is executed by a Secretariat, directed by a Secretary-General.
\nThis official is nominated by the Council upon the Assembly\u2019s approbation.
\n5
\nTechnical work is carried out by five committees, among which are the Marine
\nEnvironment Protection Committee (MEPC) and the Maritime Safety Committee
\n(MSC). They are Helped by nine sub-committees, such as the Sub-Committee on
\nBulk Liquids and Gases (BLG), which addresses biofouling and ballast water issues,
\nand the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE), which is developing
\nthe Polar Code. Within this framework, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
\nhave consultative status.
\nArctic Council
\nIntergovernmental cooperation among the eight Arctic States – the five coastal States,
\ni.e. Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States, plus Iceland, Sweden
\nand Finland – began in 1989, on the initiative of Finland, with the Rovaniemi
\nmeeting. Government representatives joined efforts for the common purpose to
\nprotect the Arctic environment and developed the Arctic Environmental Protection
\nStrategy (AEPS). This action plan was adopted in 1991, in Rovaniemi (Arctic
\nCouncil, 1991). Five years later, on 19 September 1996, the eight States reaffirmed
\ntheir engagement and signed the Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic
\nCouncil in Ottawa (Arctic Council, 1996).
\nWithin this institution, indigenous peoples have permanent representatives who are
\ninvolved in decision making (Koivurova, 2009) :
\n\uf0b7 Aleut International Association (Aleutian Islands in the Bering Sea)
\n\uf0b7 Arctic Athabaskan Council (United States and Canada)
\n\uf0b7 Gwich\u2019in Council International (United States and Canada)
\n\uf0b7 Inuit Circumpolar Conference (United States, Canada, Greenland and Russia)
\n\uf0b7 Saami Council (Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia)
\n\uf0b7 Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (Russia)
\nIn addition, observers (non-Arctic States, inter-governmental organizations and
\nNGOs) take part in senior meetings and working groups.
\n6
\nThe Arctic Council is chaired by one of its members for two years (Sweden performs
\nthe current chairmanship until 2013). Strategic programmes are followed up by five
\nworking groups :
\n\uf0b7 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)
\n\uf0b7 Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)
\n\uf0b7 Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR)
\n\uf0b7 Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG)
\n\uf0b7 Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME)
\nMember States are committed to achieve the sustainable development of economic,
\nsocial and cultural activities in the region and to protect the Arctic environment,
\nincluding its biodiversity and natural resources.
\n1.3. Aim
\nThe purpose of this dissertation is to look into the feasibility and appropriateness of
\nthe measures set in the BWM Convention, the biofouling guidelines and the draft
\nPolar Code, to minimize or ultimately prevent the introduction of alien aquatic
\nspecies by ships in the Arctic.
\nFigure 2 International instruments considered.
\nArctic
\nDraft Polar
\nCode
\nBiofouling
\nguidelines
\nBWM
\nConvention
\n7
\n1.4. Methodology
\nThe chosen approach to discuss the appropriateness and feasibility of the regulations
\napplicable to the Arctic is illustrated in Figure 3.
\nFigure 3 Schematic of the chosen approach.
\nTransfer of alien aquatic species by ships
\nThe first two chapters define what the transfer of alien aquatic species by ships is,
\nidentify the challenges associated with this issue and provide an insight into its
\nbiological, regulatory and practical aspects.
\nArctic context and current trends
\nChapters three and four elaborate upon the situation in the Arctic, identify challenges
\nand associated concerns. Geographical, political, ecological and socioeconomic
\ndimensions are assessed and prevailing trends are identified.
\nAppropriateness and feasibility of the measures intended to limit the transfer of alien
\naquatic species by ships in the Arctic
\nIn view of the provisions set in the draft Polar Code to reduce the transfer of alien
\naquatic species by ships in the Arctic, attention is given in the last two chapters to
\ntheir feasibility and appropriateness. This includes assessing maritime safety aspects,
\nreception facility availability and discharge impacts.
\nInstruments
\nregulating the
\ntransfer of alien
\naquatic species
\nby ships
\nArctic context
\nand current
\ntrends
\nAppropriateness
\nand feasibility of
\nthese regulations
\nin the Arctic ?
\n8
\n2. The transfer of alien aquatic species by ships
\n2.1. Basic physiology principles
\nThe following items are a reminder of the basic physiology principles which help to
\nunderstand the functions and activities of aquatic organisms, the extreme variety of
\ntheir properties and also the difficulty in developing universal management
\ntechnologies.
\nOrganisms need a source of energy and a source of carbon to live. They can be
\ndivided in groups according to the way they use these sources.
\nFigure 4 distinguishes chemotrophic organisms, oxidizing chemical compounds,
\nfrom phototrophic organisms, gaining energy from sunlight.
\nFigure 4 Energy use as a means of classifying organisms.
\n(Source : Ekenstierna, 2003)
\nSource of energy
\nChemical element
\nChemotrophic organisms
\nOxydation of non-organic
\ncompounds (H2S, Fe2+, Fe3+
\n,
\nammonium, nitrite ions, H)
\nOxydation of organic
\ncompounds (carbohydrates,
\nproteins)
\nSunlight
\nPhototrophic organisms
\nTransformation of sunlight into
\nchemical energy (carbohydrates and
\nother molecules) through
\nphotosynthesis
\n9
\nFigure 5 sets apart autotrophic (producers, self-feeding from carbon dioxide)
\norganisms, from heterotrophic\/organotrophic (consumers of organic compounds)
\norganisms.
\nFigure 5 Carbon use as a means of classifying organisms.
\n(Source : Ekenstierna, 2003)
\nFor each chemical (pH, salinity, oxygen concentration) and physical (temperature,
\nsunlight) parameter, a given species has an optimum value.
\nSome species are sensitive to small changes in these parameters and may become
\n\u201cstressed\u201d. Coliform bacteria (enterobacteria), such as Escherichia coli, which end
\nup in the marine environment are stressed by high salinity. The presence of organic
\nmatter in seawater – e.g. coming from raw sewage – helps them to overcome this
\nstress because the organic effluent serves as a substrate for the growth of such
\nheterotrophic bacteria (Dupont & Kevorkian, 1994 ; Perry, Staley & Lory, 2002 ;
\nMonfort, 2006). Other species are able to endure considerable variations in their
\nenvironments (eurytopic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) species), e.g. in salinity (euryhaline species) or in
\ntemperature (eurythermal species).
\nSome organisms switch between fresh and marine environments during their life
\ncycle for reproduction. Catadromous species – e.g. eel – migrate from fresh to marine
\nCarbon source
\nCO2
\nAutotrophic organisms
\n(algae and some bacteria)
\nOrganic compounds
\nHeterotrophic organisms
\n(fungi, protozoa and some
\nbacteria)
\n10
\nwater to spawn in the oceans, while anadromous species migrate from marine to
\nfreshwater to spawn in rivers – e.g. salmon.
\nOrganisms are classified as \u201cmacro\u201d or \u201cmicro\u201d according to their size. In the latter
\ncase, they cannot be seen with the unaided eye but only with a microscope.
\nExamples of macro-organisms are crustaceans – e.g. shrimps, molluscs – e.g. mussels
\n– and macro-algae – e.g. the brown alga Laminaria digitata, with a size of 1 to 4 m.
\nMicro-organisms are divided into eukaryotes (micro-algae, protozoa and microfungi), which have a nucleus, and prokaryotes (bacteria and viruses), which do not.
\nOf the two populations, prokaryotes are more numerous. They represent the simplest
\nform of life.
\nThe characteristics of micro-organisms can be summarized as follows :
\n\uf0b7 Micro-algae are photoautotrophic, drift in the water and constitute the
\nphytoplankton, which is the basis of the food chain. They include diatoms
\n(e.g. genera Nitzschia and Thalassiosira) and dinoflagellates (e.g. Dinophysis
\nand Alexandrium). Diatoms are among the most important ship fouling algae
\n(Callow, 2000). Some dinoflagellates that produce toxins can cause harmful
\nalgal blooms. These toxins may kill some animals directly (mass fish
\nmortality) or accumulate in the filter-feeding bivalves. Humans eating these
\nbivalves can become sick – e.g. paralytic shellfish poisoning (Heimdal, 1989 ;
\nHallegraeff, 1998).
\n\uf0b7 Protozoa are chemoheterotrophic and feed on bacteria, algae and other
\nprotozoa. Pathogenic protozoa are responsible for parasitic diseases (e.g.
\nmalaria, leishmania and amoebiasis). For instance, Bonamia exitiosa and
\nPerkinsus marinus infect oysters (World Organization for Animal Health,
\n2009).
\n\uf0b7 Micro-fungi are chemoheterotrophic, include molds and yeasts, and produce
\nspores. They are the most important cause of plant diseases, but also affect
\nhumans (skin and respiratory diseases) and animals (Perry et al., 2002). For
\ninstance, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis infects amphibians (OIE, 2009).
\n11
\n\uf0b7 Bacteria are characterized by their diversity and their adaptability. Some are
\nphotoautotrophic, others are photoheterotrophic. Their shape is spherical,
\ncylindrical or helicoidal. Each bacterial species has an optimal temperature
\nfor growth, whether it is psychrophilic (between – 5\u00b0C and 30\u00b0C), mesophilic
\n(between 10\u00b0C and 45\u00b0C) or thermophilic (between 25\u00b0C and 100\u00b0C).
\nPsychrophilic bacteria inhabitat the polar sea ice (Perry et al., 2002). The
\nlargest group of bacteria, which includes all of the pathogenic forms, is the
\nmesophiles (Volk, Gebhardt, Hammarskj\u00f6ld & Kadner, 1996). In the same
\nway, while their optimum surrounding pH is usually between 6.5 and 7.5,
\nthermoacidophilic bacteria live in a pH of 1. Vibrio cholerae, which causes
\ncholera, grows well above pH 8 (Volk et al., 1996). Some bacteria are able to
\nlive in extreme environments where other organisms cannot. For example,
\nanaerobic bacteria live without oxygen (and use sulphur instead). They have
\nalso a great ability to adapt to their surrounding conditions. Enteric bacteria
\nand Staphylococcus can grow in presence or absence of oxygen by changing
\ntheir metabolic machinery in response (Volk et al., 1996). Examples of
\npathogenic bacteria include the genera Salmonella, Listeria (responsible for
\nfood poisoning) and Vibrio. They do not come from the marine environment
\nbut from humans. The bacterium Escherichia coli is often considered as a
\nreference indicator for faecal contamination (Monfort, 2006).
\n\uf0b7 Viruses are infectious particles that can reproduce only when inside a living
\ncell. Replication inside a host cell, either prokaryotic or eukaryotic, results in
\nthe release of virus particles. They infect animals, plants and humans – e.g.
\nhepatitis A, paralytic poliomyelitis and gastroenteritis (Volk et al., 1996).
\nBallast water
\nBallast water is fresh, brackish or marine water pumped into ships\u2019 tanks either in
\nports or at sea. Ports are located in coastal areas, which tend to be the most abundant
\nand diverse in phytoplankton and zooplankton. Meanwhile, port waters are often
\n12
\npolluted by human activities and may contain fecal material (raw sewage). They may
\ntherefore be a vector of water-borne infectious diseases.
\nA settling process takes place in tanks when micro-organisms, as well as fish eggs
\nand larvae, sand, mud and other organic material that are pumped into the tanks, sink
\nand aggregate onto the bottom and transverse hull architecture elements – e.g.
\nlongitudinal framing. The direct consequence of sedimentation is organism
\nconcentration. It is estimated that sediments are 100 to 1000 times more
\ncontaminated than the surrounding waters (Monfort, 2006). Sediments must be
\nperiodically removed from ballast tanks to prevent microbiologically influenced
\ncorrosion. This metal\/microbe interaction consists in electron transfer (Hamilton,
\n2000) and induces accelerated anodic dissolution of metals (Lewandowski, 2000).
\nBiofouling
\nBiofouling is the \u201caccumulation of aquatic organisms such as micro-organisms,
\nplants, and animals on surfaces and structures immersed in or exposed to the aquatic
\nenvironment. [It] can include microfouling and macrofouling\u201d (IMO, 2011b). There
\nare more than 4,000 marine fouling species (Arai, 2009).
\nMicro-organisms Macro-organisms
\nSessile bacteria (e.g.
\nPseudomonas, Vibrio,
\nMicrococcus)
\nDiatoms (e.g. Nitschia,
\nNavicula)
\nMicro-fungi
\nHeterotrophic flagellates
\n(e.g. Monosiga,
\nPteridomonas)
\nSarcodines
\nSessile ciliates
\nSponges
\nHydroids
\nCorals
\nSessile polychaetes
\nBarnacles
\nMussels
\nBryozoans
\nSea cucumbers
\nAscidians
\nMacro-algae :
\n\uf0b7 green algae (e.g. Ulva and
\nEnteromorpha) ;
\n\uf0b7 red algae (e.g. Ahnfeltia) ;
\n\uf0b7 brown algae (e.g. Laminaria).
\nTable 1 Examples of micro- and macro-fouling organisms.
\n(Source : Railkin, 2004)
\n13
\nThe process can be decomposed in five stages (Zinn, Zimmerman & White, 2000 ;
\nCallow, 2000 ; Quiniou & Comp\u00e8re, 2009) :
\n\uf0b7 Attachment of organic and nitrogen compounds as well as salts and silica on
\na surface (a few seconds to a minute).
\n\uf0b7 Attachment of primary colonizers (non-moving temporary adhesion) :
\nbacteria, algal cells, spores and diatoms (a few minutes).
\n\uf0b7 Excretion of various compounds, among which are the extracellular
\npolymeric substances (EPSs) (permanent attachment). EPSs consist mainly of
\nproteins and polysaccharides. They are the construction material of biofilms
\n(Flemming, Wingender, Griebe & Mayer, 2000).
\n\uf0b7 Production of a biofilm, i.e. a cell layer, as a result of cell division (few days
\nto a month). This matrix is composed of micro-colonies of bacteria, diatoms,
\nprotozoa, larvae, algal cells and spores separated by interstitial voids filled
\nwith water (Lewandowski, 2000). It provides a substratum for attachment of
\nmacro-organisms. When structured in a biofilm, micro-organisms are more
\nresistant against treatment with chemical biocides that would kill them in the
\nplanktonic form (Allison, Maira-Litran & Gilbert, 2000). Indeed, the EPS
\nmatrix acts as a physical barrier protecting embedded micro-organisms
\n(Donlan, 2000).
\n\uf0b7 Macro-organisms, such as barnacles, mussels and algae, adhere to the
\nbiofilm. Algae are the major contributors. Limiting factors for their growth
\nare light quantity and space availability (Holmstr\u00f6m & Kjelleberg, 2000).
\nThe development of biofouling depends on various environmental factors – e.g.
\ntemperature, pH, nutrient availability. At the beginning of the process, organisms are
\neasy to remove. As time goes by, they stick fast, can make the ship heavier, induce
\ngreater hull frictional resistance and, in turn, increase consumption of bunker fuel
\nand CO2 emissions (Zinn et al., 2000 ; IMO, 2010c). An increase of 100 \u00b5m in the
\naverage hull roughness augments approximately fuel consumption by 6 % (Arai,
\n2009). By hampering the operation of navigation instruments, they may compromise
\nsafety (Callow, 2000). Removal of biofouling can be expensive and is usually done
\n14
\nwith water jets, steam, ultrasound or acid and base baths. Some of these methods are
\nnot applicable to large ships or mobile drill rigs (Zinn et al., 2000). This is the reason
\nwhy ships\u2019 hulls have to be coated regularly with anti-fouling systems (AFSs).
\nAccording to Alexander Railkin (2004), macro-fouling communities have low
\ndiversity because few macro-algal and invertebrate species can resist toxic paints and
\nship motion. Nevertheless, biofouling is deemed to be a greater conveyor of aquatic
\nspecies than ballast water (Drake & Lodge, 2007).
\nDespite coatings, organisms are still found on underbodies. They accumulate in niche
\nareas or on surfaces where the AFS is damaged, worn – e.g. ice abrasion – or
\nimproperly applied. Another source of concern is that non-toxic AFSs are less
\nefficient in preventing biofouling :
\nThe type of anti-fouling coating (toxic versus non-toxic) was the most
\nimportant influence on macro algal fouling assemblages. The ship carrying an
\nunusually high number of species, including a large percentage of noncosmopolitan species, was the only one with a non-toxic coating (Mineur,
\nJohnson, Maggs & Stegenga, 2007).
\nFurthermore, research has shown that :
\nSome common macro-algae, e.g. the green alga Enteromorpha and the brown
\nalga Ectocarpus, can adopt a diminutive form when growing in hostile
\nconditions, for example on anti-fouling paint on a ship\u2019s hull (\u2026) mixed
\nspecies diatom biofilms also adhere to non-toxic, foul-release silicone
\nelastomers (\u2026) the new generation of non-tin polishing anti-fouling paints
\nfrequently become fouled with biofilms dominated by diatoms and
\nEnteromorpha (\u2026) the ability of certain species to form biofilms on toxic
\ncoatings is due to the resistance of particular species to biocides (Callow,
\n2000).
\nSince the entry into force in 2008 of the International Convention on the Control of
\nHarmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 (AFS Convention), the use of
\norganotins in anti-fouling paints is prohibited. Two types of AFSs have been
\n15
\ndeveloped. First, paints that still make use of biocides, but other than tin – e.g. copper
\nassociated with booster biocides. Second, paints which are biocide-free, such as
\nsilicone-based products. These coatings may have a shorter service life than
\norganotin paints and, consequently, may need to be applied more often (Champ,
\n2001 ; Readman, Van Hattum, Barcelo, Albanis, Riemann, Blanck, Gustavson,
\nTronczynski & Jacobson, 2002). Moreover, silicone elastomeric coatings may not be
\nsufficiently robust for many deep-sea ships (Callow, 2000).
\nThe movement of species through ballast water and biofouling
\nThrough ballast water and biofouling, ships carry species from one biogeographic
\nregion to another over natural barriers (continents, differences in salinity or
\ntemperature). The species diversity conveyed by a ship is in proportion with the
\ngeographical variety of its trade areas. Provided species are able to survive the
\nvoyage – e.g. lack of light or nutrients in ballast tanks – and reach the new
\nenvironment, the presence of alien organisms in an ecosystem creates a hazard. If
\nbiotic (other living organisms) and abiotic (sunlight, temperature, salinity and pH)
\nfactors are suitable, they can establish themselves and proliferate.
\nFigure 6 depicts the successive steps of alien species\u2019 establishment in a new
\necosystem.
\nFigure 6 Alien species\u2019 establishment process in a new environment.
\n(Source : Wallentinus & Werner, 2008)
\n1.
\nArea of
\norigin
\nA vector carries
\nspecies to a new
\nenvironment
\nReproduction
\nThe
\npopulation
\ngrows
\nDistribution or
\ncolonization
\n2.
\nArrival
\n3.
\nTemporary
\nfixing
\n4.
\nPermanent
\nsettlement
\n5.
\nEstablishment
\nin the new area
\n16
\nThe first step is the movement of an organism to a new area by a vector (ship). Some
\nmicro-organisms have special dispersal and survival stages – e.g. endospores and
\ncysts – which allow them to survive for many days, weeks or even years (Perry et al,
\n2002). This enables them to resist adverse environmental conditions, such as lack of
\nfood or moisture, temperature changes and even contact with toxic chemicals (Volk
\net al., 1996 ; Alekseev, Makrushin & Hwang, 2010). Ballast tank sediments provide
\na perfect shelter to dormant organisms such as toxic dinoflagellate cysts (Hallegraeff,
\n1998).
\nThe two following steps, temporary and permanent settling, require favorable
\nconditions – e.g. absence of predators, available food – for organisms to survive and
\nfix. The last step is establishment in the new environment and sometimes
\ncolonization. Local species may disappear if the species become invasive.
\nEnsuing environmental, economic, social and health impacts are not immediately
\napparent. They are particularly significant in regions where seafood is the main
\nsource of nutrition and when commercial (fisheries and aquaculture) species are
\ninfected or disappear.
\nFor example :
\n\uf0b7 Escherichia coli causes diarrheal diseases and dysentery.
\n\uf0b7 Vibrio cholerae is responsible for cholera ; people acquire the infection by
\nthe ingestion of fecally contaminated water and food (Volk et al., 1996).
\n\uf0b7 Myxobolus cerebralis affects salmon ; this parasite is responsible for
\ndeformed (curved) backbones which affect mobility in young fish (they swim
\nin circles) ; the result is a higher mortality rate (Wallentinus & Werner,
\n2008).
\n\uf0b7 Salmonella typhimurium is responsible for salmonellosis ; cattle have recently
\nbeen infected by this bacterium in the vicinity of a gas terminal in western
\nNorway ; the outbreak was attributed to ballast water discharges (IMO,
\n2010b).
\n17
\nIt is noteworthy that remoteness and harsh climate do not necessarily hamper the
\nestablishment of alien species and the development of pests and diseases. \u201cAll
\ntaxonomic groups have produced invasive alien species and all ecosystems are at
\nrisk. Distance and high latitude is not necessarily a barrier or impediment to invasive
\nspecies\u201d (De Poorter, 2006).
\n2.2. Global environment protection principles
\nStates have an overall duty to protect, preserve and enhance the environment. The
\nUnited Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) held in 1972 in
\nStockholm was the starting point of the development of environmental consciousness
\nat an international level. In particular, it led to the creation of the United Nations
\nEnvironment Programme (UNEP), the introduction of the \u201ccommon heritage of
\nmankind\u201d concept in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (UN,
\n1974) and the adoption of the World Charter for Nature. The latter provides that
\n\u201cecosystems and organisms, as well as the land, marine and atmospheric resources
\nthat are utilized by man, shall be managed to achieve and maintain optimum
\nsustainable productivity, but not in such a way as to endanger the integrity of those
\nother ecosystems or species with which they coexist\u201d (UN, 1982a).
\nAs far as the marine environment is concerned, the 1982 United Nations Convention
\non the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) includes a whole part (XII) dedicated to the
\nprotection and preservation of the marine environment. This treaty is considered as a
\nframework, providing general guidance for more technical legal instruments. It is
\nworth mentioning that the transfer of aquatic species is addressed among the general
\nprovisions : \u201cStates shall take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control
\npollution of the marine environment resulting from (\u2026) the intentional or accidental
\nintroduction of species, alien or new, to a particular part of the marine environment,
\nwhich may cause significant and harmful changes thereto\u201d (UN, 1982b).
\nThe UNCLOS defines the concepts of flag, port and coastal State and specifies the
\nscope of their prescriptive – i.e. their power to adopt legislation – and enforcement –
\n18
\ni.e. their power to give effect to this legislation – jurisdiction with regard to
\nenvironment protection.
\nAnother important momentum is the UNCED, which resulted in the adoption of the
\nRio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Agenda 21 Action Plan and
\nthe CBD. The objectives of the latter are \u201cthe conservation of biological diversity,
\nthe sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the
\nbenefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources\u201d (UN, 1992a). Its
\nprovisions are implemented through other instruments developed by international
\norganizations.
\nEnvironmental protection should be conducted through a precautionary approach, i.e.
\n\u201cwhere there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
\ncertainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
\nprevent environmental degradation\u201d (UN, 1992b).
\nThe precautionary principle is applied by the IMO and is enshrined in the preamble
\nof conventions dealing with marine environment protection. The BWM Convention
\nis one of these. The precautionary approach governs the approval process of BWMSs
\nmaking use of active substances.
\nStates are obliged to cooperate to protect the environment, at international and
\nregional levels. Regional cooperative agreements emerged after the UNCHE, which
\nencouraged States to \u201cjoin together regionally to concert their policies and adopt
\nmeasures in common to prevent the pollution of the areas which, for geographical or
\necological reasons, form a natural entity and an integrated whole\u201d (UN, 1972).
\nThis process has been fostered by the UNEP\u2019s Regional Seas Programme, created in
\n1974. It currently has thirteen cooperative agreements throughout the world. Local
\ncooperation also takes place outside of the UNEP framework.
\nThe UNCLOS reinforced the concept of a regional approach : \u201cStates shall cooperate
\non a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis, (\u2026) in formulating and
\nelaborating international rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures
\n19
\n(\u2026) for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, taking into
\naccount characteristic regional features\u201d (UN, 1982b).
\nThe BWM Convention incorporates this principle and poses an obligation of
\ntechnical Helpance and cooperation on States parties. This consists of training
\npersonnel, transferring expertise, regional agreements or research partnerships (IMO,
\n2004b).
\n2.3. International regulations
\nCanada was the first country to report to the IMO, in 1988, on the threat posed by the
\ntransfer of harmful organisms in ballast water. At that time, invasive species were
\nproliferating in the Great Lakes (IMO, 2004a). The MEPC developed the first
\ninternational guidelines for preventing the introduction of unwanted aquatic
\norganisms and pathogens from ships\u2019 ballast water and sediment discharges, which
\nwere adopted in 1991 (IMO, 1991). The following year, the UNCED assigned the
\nissue of the transfer of alien species by ships\u2019 ballast water to the IMO. As the 1991
\nvoluntary guidelines were not applied, the Organization decided to submit this point
\nto the Assembly, which adopted the preceding guidelines in 1993, but this time in the
\nform of an Assembly resolution (IMO, 1993). Thereafter, amendments were made to
\nprovide ships with thorough guidance (IMO, 1997a) on safe ballast water exchange
\nat sea. Consequently, the Guidelines for the control and management of ships\u2019 ballast
\nwater to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens were
\nadopted by the Assembly in 1997 (IMO, 1997b). Afterward, the Organization
\ndecided to develop a legally-binding instrument.
\n2.3.1.BWM Convention
\nThe BWM Convention was adopted on 13 February 2004 by a Conference held in
\nLondon. It requires ratification from thirty States, whose fleets represent 35 % of the
\nworld merchant fleet tonnage, to enter into force (IMO, 2004b). There are presently
\nthirty Contracting States to the Convention, representing approximately 26.44 % of
\nthe gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping (IMO, 2011c).
\n20
\nThis instrument applies to all ships carrying ballast water, without tonnage condition,
\nas well as to floating platforms. Its purpose is \u201cto prevent, minimize and ultimately
\neliminate the risks to the environment, human health, property and resources arising
\nfrom the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control
\nand management of ships\u2019 ballast water and sediments\u201d (IMO, 2004b).
\nBallast water management is achieved through, either ballast water exchange (BWE),
\nballast water treatment (BWT) or ballast water discharge to a reception facility.
\nThis last option is often not practicable considering the large ballast water volumes
\ncarried, for instance, in bulk carriers. Moreover, after being collected, these volumes
\nhave to be stored and then treated. The required capacity for such treatment plants
\nwould be quite high and a new logistic service would have to be created in ports
\n(Veldhuis, Hallers, Brutel de La Rivi\u00e8re, Fuhr, Finke, Steehouwer, Van de Star &
\nVan Sloote, 2010). Another hindrance is that only tankers are fitted with
\nstandardized connections to piers. On other ships, additional equipment would have
\nto be installed to enable them to discharge ballast water (Gollasch, David, Voigt,
\nDragsund, Hewitt & Fukuyo, 2007). Conversely it can be argued that, in certain
\ncountries experiencing a shortage of freshwater sources, there may be a need for
\ntreated water reuse (Donlan, 2000) ; that a land-based ballast water reception and
\ntreatment facility would offer economies of scale (Donner, 2010) ; and that shore
\npersonnel would be better skilled than ship crews to handle chemical agents and
\noperate water treatment plants (Donner, 2010). Parties are not required to provide
\nballast water reception facilities.
\nAccording to the BWE standard (regulation D-1), exchange is achieved if, at least,
\n95 % of the volume of ballast water is replaced (IMO, 2004b). This can be done by
\nway of three approved exchange methods (IMO, 2005) :
\n\uf0b7 sequential method : ballast tanks are first emptied and then refilled.
\n\uf0b7 flow-through method : pumped water passes through tanks and comes out
\nthrough the overflow onto the deck.
\n21
\n\uf0b7 dilution method : ballast tanks are filled with a certain volume of water and
\nsimultaneously discharged of the same volume through the bottom.
\nThe last two techniques are called \u201cpump-through\u201d methods. They are accepted
\nprovided pumped water is three times the volume of each ballast water tank or, if less
\nthan three times, provided it can be demonstrated that 95 % of ballast water has been
\nexchanged (IMO, 2004b). Their advantage is that they do not impair ship stability
\nsince equivalent volumes of water are simultaneously pumped in and discharged.
\nBWE should be conducted in areas located at, at least, 200 nautical miles from the
\nshore and with a water depth of, at least, 200 meters. The replacement of coastal
\nwater by open-ocean water aims at removing coastal organisms. It is assumed that
\ndeep sea water contains fewer organisms and that species taken on during the
\noperation are less likely to invade coastal zones (IMO, 2003b ; Minton, Verling,
\nMiller & Ruiz, 2005). A ship should not be compelled to deviate from its route to
\nperform BWE (IMO, 2004b).
\nInterim regional strategies have been developed as far as BWE is concerned. It is
\nnoteworthy that in the Arctic waters covered by the Convention for the Protection of
\nthe Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, 1992 (OSPAR Convention),
\nships are encouraged to renew ballast waters before entering the area, keep records of
\nBWE operations and have a BWM plan on board (IMO, 2008).
\nThe Convention provides a time schedule for gradual implementation of BWT,
\nwhich will completely replace BWE in 2016. After that date, ships will be required
\nto comply with the ballast water performance standard (regulation D-2) (IMO,
\n2004b). The introduction of enforcement dates – as early as 2009 for new ships – in
\nthe text of the Convention, without knowing when the instrument would enter into
\nforce, was an adventurous undertaking. Indeed, in 2004, the availability of treatment
\ntechnologies at the scheduled dates was unknown (Minton et al., 2005). It may be
\ndeemed that these deadlines were purposely introduced in the Convention to prompt
\nindustries to develop innovative technologies (Greensmith, 2010).
\n22
\nThe ballast water performance standard (regulation D-2) provides maximum levels
\nof organism size categories and indicator microbe concentrations in discharged
\nballast waters (IMO, 2004b) :
\nShips conducting ballast water management in accordance with this regulation
\nshall discharge less than 10 viable organisms per cubic metre greater than or
\nequal to 50 micrometres in minimum dimension and less than 10 viable
\norganisms per millilitre less than 50 micrometres in minimum dimension and
\ngreater than or equal to 10 micrometres in minimum dimension ; and discharge
\nof the indicator microbes shall not exceed the specified concentrations
\ndescribed in [the following] paragraph.
\nIndicator microbes, as a human health standard, shall include:
\n\uf0b7 Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139) with less than 1 colony
\nforming unit (cfu) per 100 millilitres or less than 1 cfu per 1 gram (wet
\nweight) zooplankton samples.
\n\uf0b7 Escherichia coli less than 250 cfu per 100 millilitres.
\n\uf0b7 Intestinal Enterococci less than 100 cfu per 100 milliliters.
\nTreatment can be executed through mechanical, physical, chemical or biological
\nprocesses. In fact, most of the BWMSs use a combination of them because no single
\nprocess can alone be efficient against the great diversity of organisms. For example,
\nfiltration is a mechanical method associated with ultraviolet light and chemical
\ntreatment (Veldhuis et al., 2010). By removing organic particles from water, the
\naction of disinfectants (chlorine, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide, bromine and
\nozone) and ultraviolet light is enhanced (Taube, 2010). Other techniques include
\ncyclonic separation, energetic shock (electric current and wave effect of cavitation),
\nheating, deoxygenation and magnetic field (Suban, Vidmar & Perkovic, 2010). The
\ntoxicity of the substances used is of special concern, so the MEPC has developed
\nguidelines for basic and final approval procedures of BWMSs. Proposals submitted
\nby member States are carefully analyzed by the IMO and the GESAMP-BWWG
\n(IMO, 2008b). Biocides, intended to kill organisms, are highly toxic for the marine
\n23
\nenvironment and human health. When storing and handling these chemicals on
\nboard, the crew is exposed (inhalation, contact, ingestion) to substances which have
\nthe potential to cause cancer. Disinfection processes produce toxic fumes and an
\nexhaust system has to be installed to remove them (OIE, 2009). Therefore, it is
\nessential that seafarers are properly trained to operate and monitor BWT plants as
\nwell as to keep records. In this respect, the development of BWM standardized
\ntraining courses and appropriate amendments to the International Convention on
\nStandards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW
\nConvention) and STCW Code has been an early objective of the IMO (IMO, 2003a).
\nIn addition, within the framework of a partnership with the Global Environment
\nFacility (GEF) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the
\nOrganization created in 2000 the Global Ballast Water Management (Globallast)
\nProgramme. Its objective is to help developing countries in preparing the
\nimplementation of the BWM Convention.
\nSediment management is achieved when ships discharge them either ashore, to a
\nreception facility, or at sea. In the former case, port State parties are obliged to
\narrange such equipment in ports and terminals where ballast tanks are cleaned and
\nrepaired (IMO, 2004b). In the latter, disposal has to take place in areas located 200
\nnautical miles from land and with a water depth of 200 meters (IMO, 2005).
\nA ship is obliged to carry on board and implement a regularly updated BWM plan,
\ndescribing ballast water and sediment management methods used on board. It must
\nbe ship-specific and approved by the flag State. Ships must undergo surveys
\nperformed by the Administration and are provided with an International BWM
\nCertificate (IMO, 2004b).
\nIn waters under their jurisdiction, port and coastal States must monitor the effects of
\nBWM (this ecological monitoring allows early detection of ecosystem disturbance)
\nand may grant, after having carried out an environmental risk assessment,
\nexemptions to ships operating exclusively between specified ports or locations.
\n24
\nPort States must inspect ships while in ports and terminals. Such inspections include
\nverification of the BWM Certificate, the Ballast Water record book and\/or sampling
\nof ballast waters. Besides, flag States must determine equivalent compliance
\nrequirements for pleasure craft and search and rescue boats (IMO, 2004b).
\n2.3.2.Biofouling guidelines
\nGeneral perception of biofouling as a vector of alien species came onto the scene in
\nIMO work in the wake of the adoption of the AFS Convention. Australia informed
\nthe MEPC of a study conducted on biofouling accumulated in hulls\u2019 niche areas,
\nwhere AFSs were inoperative (IMO, 2006). Later on, New Zealand also reported the
\nfindings of a research programme assessing biofouling risk on ships arriving in the
\ncountry. The MEPC assigned this issue to the BLG Sub-Committee for deeper
\nanalysis (IMO, 2007b) and adopted the Guidelines for the control and management
\nof ships\u2019 biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species in July 2011.
\nThe intended goal is to reduce the accumulation of micro- and macro-fouling on the
\nhull by choosing the appropriate AFS, by conducting in-water inspection and
\neffective cleaning and maintenance, either in the water or at dry dock. The guidelines
\nprovide recommendations to avoid niche areas at the design and construction stages,
\nto manage biofouling waste in land-based facilities and to train crews. Ships are
\nencouraged to develop and follow a biofouling management plan and to keep a
\nbiofouling record book which mentions, in particular, periods of time spent in Arctic
\nwaters (IMO, 2011b).
\n2.4. Conclusion
\nRegarding alien species as a whole, it should not be forgotten that this designation
\nhides in reality various forms of life, with dissimilar physiological tolerances and
\ngrowth ranges. A ship is a vector inasmuch as it carries aquatic organisms in ballast
\nwater or as biofouling. The presence of alien species in an ecosystem is a hazard.
\nStates have an obligation to consider the consequent risk and take appropriate
\npreventive measures. The IMO has developed dedicated legal instruments and
\nguidelines to this purpose.
\n25
\n3. The Arctic : synopsis of the region
\n3.1. Boundaries
\nUnlike the Antarctic, which is a continent surrounded by an ocean, the Arctic is an
\nocean surrounded by continents. It is enclosed by ten marginal seas, namely the
\nBarents, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, Chukchi, Bering, Beaufort, Lincoln, Greenland
\nand Norwegian Seas, with shallow waters.
\nConsidering the Arctic, land areas are generally included to an extent which is often
\nnot clearly determined. As a matter of fact, Annika E. Nilsson (2011) stresses the
\nmultiplicity of definitions referring to the Arctic : geographers designate the area
\nlocated beyond the Arctic Circle ; climatologists designate the area located beyond
\nthe isotherm line corresponding to an average temperature in July of less than 10 \u00b0C ;
\necologists consider either the vegetation limit or the ecosystem ; ethnologists
\nconsider indigenous populations settlements.
\nFigure 7 Multiple definitions of the Arctic.
\n(Source : https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/amap.no\/, 2011)
\n26
\nJulian Dowdeswell and Michael Hambrey (2002) reached the conclusion that \u201cthe
\nArctic [has] a group of attributes that are concerned with climate, the presence of ice
\nand snow, a unique fauna and flora adapted to harsh conditions, sparseness of
\npopulation and remoteness and [does not have] precise boundaries\u201d.
\nTimo Koivurova (2009) recognizes the absence of consensus about the definition of
\nthe southernmost boundary of the Arctic, but points out that \u201cin Arctic-wide
\ncooperation, the Arctic Circle (\u2026) has been used as a criterion for membership, with
\nonly those States that possess areas of territorial sovereignty above the Arctic Circle
\nbeing invited to participate in the cooperation\u201d.
\nThe definition of Arctic waters provided by the draft Polar Code is similar to the one
\nincluded in the Guidelines for ships operating in polar waters (IMO, 2009e), but a
\nlittle wider in scope than the one given by the Guidelines for ships operating in
\nArctic ice-covered waters (IMO, 2002).
\nFigure 8 Definition of Arctic waters provided by the draft Polar Code.
\n(Source : IMO, 2009c)
\nIt is noteworthy that this definition does not correspond to any of the preceding
\ndelimitations (cf. Figure 7). The southwest part of the Barents Sea, including the
\n27
\nWhite Sea, is excluded. Indeed, this area remains permanently ice-free during winter
\ndue to the influx of warm Atlantic water masses (Heimdal, 1989 ; Matishov,
\nGolubeva, Titova, Sydnes & Voegele, 2004). As a result, the environmental
\nrequirements of the Polar Code would not apply there.
\nFor this reason, NGOs claim a broader geographical scope (IMO, 2009d).
\nThe area is nevertheless covered by the OSPAR Convention (region I \u2013 Northern
\nOSPAR region).
\nFigure 9 Arctic waters protected by the OSPAR Convention.
\n(Source : https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/ospar.org, 2011)
\nSeven scientific criteria are used to identify ecologically or biologically significant
\nmarine areas (EBSMAs) in need of protection in open-ocean waters (Conference of
\nthe Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2008). The Arctic owns
\nthirteen \u201csuper\u201d EBSMAs, i.e. areas that \u201cmeet most or all of the criteria, or meet one
\nor more of them at a global level of significance\u201d. The White Sea\/Barents Sea Coast
\narea is one of them :
\nThis region is characterized by highly productive coastal waters (\u2026) supports
\ndiverse and productive benthic communities (\u2026) provides important nursery
\nhabitat for several species of pelagic fishes, and supports Atlantic salmon as
\nwell as seabird colonies with diverse species composition (\u2026) [it] also
\nsupports local populations of White Sea beluga whales and provides pupping
\n28
\nand molting areas for the entire East Ice harp seal population (Speer &
\nLaughlin, 2011).
\nMeanwhile, the region undergoes several environmental stresses from anthropogenic
\nsources (Doskoch, 2004).
\nFirst, although aquaculture (farmed salmon, Rainbow trout) and fisheries (Northeast
\nArctic cod, haddock, shrimp, capelin and saithe) represent a major economic sector
\non the Barents Sea coast, fish stocks have been depleting since the mid-1960s as a
\nresult of both overfishing and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing
\n(Matishov et al., 2004 ; Burnett, Dronova, Esmark, Nelson, R\u00f8nning & Spiridonov,
\n2008).
\nSecond, several navigation routes cross the Barents Sea (not in the least, the
\nNortheast Passage) with vessels transiting throughout the year. This traffic will
\nintensify in view of the development of large-scale offshore drilling operations
\n(Matishov et al., 2004 ; Burnett et al., 2008). As a matter of fact, the Barents Sea
\nshelf holds the Shtokmanovskoe gas condensate field (three trillion cubic meters of
\ngas and more than twenty million tonnes of gas condensate) and the Prirazlomnoe oil
\nfield (more than two hundred million tonnes) (Patin, 1999). The estimated oil
\ntransport volume goes up to forty million tonnes by the year 2020. Plans for
\nPrirazlomnoe alone are to extract seven million tonnes of oil each year. According to
\nthese project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)ions, the corresponding fleet would be composed of eighteen iceresistant platforms, ten to twelve ice-breakers, about sixty supply ships, and tankers
\nwith a total deadweight of four million tonnes. The corollary is higher risks for oil
\nspill and alien species transfer (Matishov et al., 2004). Figure 10 shows export ports
\nand trade routes for Russian oil traffic in the Barents Sea. Four of these ports fall
\noutside of the scope of the Polar Code. Among them, Murmansk and Arkhangelsk,
\nwhich handle 73 % of the traffic (Kystverket, 2004). Murmansk is Russia\u2019s fourth
\nport and can berth ships up to 250,000 tonnes deadweight (Matishov et al., 2004).
\n29
\nFigure 10 Export ports and trade routes for Russian oil traffic in the Barents Sea.
\n(Source : Kystverket, 2004)
\nThe third stress is atmospheric, hydrologic and sediment radioactive pollution. It
\nstems from the testing of heavy nuclear devices in the 1950s – 1960s (especially on
\nthe Novaya Zemlya Island), the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, dumped nuclear
\nsubmarine and ice-breaker reactors as well as solid and liquid radioactive wastes.
\nThe focal point is the Kola Peninsula where the port of Murmansk lies (Anderson &
\nDyrssen, 1989 ; Giltsov, Mormoul & Ossipenko, 1992 ; Dowdeswell & Hambrey,
\n2002 ; Matishov et al., 2004 ; Vasilyev, Dubasov, Safronov, Tkachenko, Filippovsky
\n& Chugunov, 2004 ; Ramirez-Llodra, Tyler, Baker, Bergstad, Clark, Escobar, Levin,
\nMenot, Rowden, Smith & Van Dover, 2011).
\nFourth, the ecosystem has already been modified by biological invasions resulting
\nfrom experiences of new commercial species introduction – e.g. the Red king crab –
\nand ballast water discharges – e.g. Snow crab. A risk Assessment regarding further
\ninvasions suggests a need for control measures :
\nThe expected changes in the future caused by intentional and unintentional
\nintroduction of alien species cause a great potential risk for the region (\u2026)
\nalien species (\u2026) pose a serious threat to the economy of northern Norway as
\nwell as for coastal communities in Russia. Due to the ecological and socio-
\n30
\neconomic value of the living marine resources in the Barents Sea and their
\nsensitivity to the threats associated with human development, a potential risk
\nfrom the introduction of alien species has to be taken very seriously (Matishov
\net al., 2004).
\nConsequently, the Barents Sea ecosystem appears vulnerable and should benefit fully
\nfrom the environmental protection of the Polar Code. As far as the prevention of nonindigenous species transfer is concerned, the current geographical scope of the draft
\nPolar Code is insufficient.
\n3.2. Political dimension
\nA political analysis is important insofar as it determines the cooperation potential to
\nremedy environmental issues. Political decision is a key factor, for instance, in the
\nsettlement of national and regional strategies (Tamelander, Riddering, Haag &
\nMatheickal, 2010).
\nIntergovernmental cooperation among Arctic States relies on soft law – i.e. voluntary
\nmeasures without legally-binding power – and does not have any enforcement
\nmechanisms (Koivurova, 2009). Conversely, the Antarctic regime relies on the 1959
\nAntarctic Treaty signed in Washington and, as far as environment protection is
\nconcerned, on the 1991 Protocol signed in Madrid. When comparing the two, Davor
\nVidas (2000) notes that :
\nWhile the Antarctic Treaty System is a true form of international
\nadministration, the Arctic Council is still largely confined to international
\nconsultation (\u2026) the Arctic still lacks any counterpart to the Antarctic Treaty
\nSystem, governing the whole spectrum of human activities in the Antarctic
\nwith an increasing reliance on hard law (\u2026) even the Arctic Council has been
\nestablished, not by an international treaty, but by a declaration.
\nThis assertion is confirmed by the principle enshrined in the Arctic States\u2019 first
\nformal common decision : \u201cthe implementation of the Strategy will be carried out
\nthrough national legislation and in accordance with international law, including
\n31
\ncustomary international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on
\nthe Law of the Sea\u201d (AEPS, 1991).
\nFour out of five coastal States are parties to the UNCLOS (the United States has not
\nratified it). The Convention addresses the protection of the marine environment in
\nice-covered areas (article 234). Coastal States are given the right to adopt and
\nenforce specific regulations within the limits of their exclusive economic zone
\n(EEZ). However, global warming challenges the application of this provision since
\nits two requirements, severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice for most of
\nthe year, will no longer be met (Mare, 2009).
\nThe Arctic marine environment is not as well protected as the Antarctic despite of its
\nvulnerability. It is neither a special area in the International Convention for the
\nPrevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) nor a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area
\n(PSSA). Norway contemplates a PSSA application for the Lofoten
\nArchipelago\/Barents Sea marine area (Kystverket, 2004), but it has not been
\nsubmitted to the IMO yet. The Arctic Council (2009), Norway (IMO, 2010a) and
\nNGOs (IMO, 2010d), have stressed the lack of mandatory environmental standards
\nto protect the Arctic marine environment. Whereas almost 20 % of the Arctic land
\nhas protected area status, little of the Arctic marine environment has been designated
\nas marine protected area (Koivurova, 2009).
\nIn the legal study commissioned by the World Wide Fund for Nature, Timo
\nKoivurova and Erik J. Molenaar (2009) concluded that a new multilateral agreement
\nwas necessary to protect the Arctic marine environment :
\nGiven the pace of change in the Arctic, it is difficult to see how the Arctic and
\nits ocean could be sustainably and coherently managed without an institution
\nwith the legal and political mandate to carry out the necessary changes to
\nensure the Arctic ecosystem is protected. Rules alone – especially non-legally
\nbinding ones – are hardly enough to govern the new sea emerging from the sea
\nice.
\n32
\nThe European Parliament (EP) has also underlined the need to open international
\nnegotiations in order to adopt an international treaty for the protection of the Arctic
\nenvironment (EP, 2008).
\nThere are some geopolitical disputes and competition among Arctic States. Two of
\nthe contentious issues are maritime claims regarding the extension of sovereign
\nrights over the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, and the conditions of
\nnavigation in territorial waters (Dodds, 2010).
\nAccording to the UNCLOS (article 76.8), Coastal States must submit their claims to
\nthe Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Russia did it in 2001 (UN,
\n2001), Norway in 2006 (UN, 2006), Iceland in 2009 (UN, 2009) and Denmark in
\n2010 (UN, 2010). The exclusive sovereign rights exercised over the continental shelf
\nconsist in the exploration and exploitation of natural resources, except fishing
\nmigratory species (article 77).
\nThe right of innocent passage in territorial seas, laid down in the UNCLOS (article
\n17), is also controversial. Canada, the United States and the European Union disagree
\nabout the legal status of the Northwest Passage (waterway in internal and territorial
\nwaters vs. strait used for international navigation) (Kraska, 2007). The same goes
\nbetween Russia and the United States (Brass, 2002) about the Northeast Passage or
\nNorthern Sea Route (NSR) – strictly speaking and according to Russian Law, the
\nNSR is the segment of the Northeast Passage extending between the Kara Gate
\n(south of the Novaya Zemlya Island) and the Bering Strait (Arctic Council, 2009a).
\nAt the time when the UNCLOS was written, lawyers did not suspect the far-reaching
\neffects of global warming on sovereignty delimitation.
\n3.3. Ecological dimension
\nJean-Fran\u00e7ois Hamel and Annie Mercier (2005) distinguish five marine ecosystems
\nin the Arctic : the High Arctic oceanic region (deep sea), the High Arctic coastal
\nregion, the High Arctic brackish water subregion (along the coasts of Russia, Canada
\nand the United States), the Boreal littoral region of Norway (influenced by the Gulf
\n33
\nStream) and the Low Arctic shallow region (transitional area between the boreal
\nNorwegian fauna and the High Arctic fauna).
\nThe United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
\nthe Arctic Council have identified seventeen Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) in
\nthe Arctic (Arctic Council, 2009b).
\nFigure 11 The seventeen Arctic Large Marine Ecosystems.
\n(Source : https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/pame.is\/, 2011)
\nPolar regions are harsh living environments in winter. Individuals can survive only if
\ntheir metabolism withstands very low temperatures (between – 20 \u00b0C on coastal areas
\nand – 50 \u00b0C in the interior of Greenland), the lack of sunlight (22 weeks without sun),
\nthe presence of sea ice and the lack of available liquid water (Dowdeswell &
\nHambrey, 2002 ; Elander & Windstrand, 2008). Flora and fauna have adapted to
\nthese conditions. Marine mammals such as polar bears, seals and cetaceans reduce
\n34
\ntheir heat loss thanks to a thick layer of fat. Polar fishes have a specific proteincarbohydrate compound in their blood acting as an antifreeze (Dowdeswell &
\nHambrey 2002 ; Shirihai, 2007). Physiological processes such as growth,
\nreproduction, respiration, absorption and assimilation of nutrients are influenced by
\nsurrounding conditions. In the history of evolution, the way species have succeeded
\nin adapting to the cold temperatures is a continuous matter of interest for scientific
\nresearch. Ice algae are also studied as indicators of past environmental conditions
\n(Horner, 1989).
\nAquatic organisms must adjust to temperature and salinity variations in the upper
\nwater layer. These are induced by the alternate succession of ice melting and
\nfreezing, as well as the inflow of precipitation water drained by streams and rivers
\n(Hamel & Mercier, 2005). During the freezing period, brine is released from sea ice
\n(seawater loses about two-thirds of its salinity through this process) and salt is
\ncarried downward. The melting of ice in May brings large amounts of relatively fresh
\nwater. During summer, air temperatures may rise above 20 \u00b0C (Anderson & Dyrssen,
\n1989 ; Dowdeswell & Hambrey, 2002 ; Matishov et al., 2004).
\nThe sea ice microbial community develops during the early spring and includes algae
\n(mostly diatoms), bacteria and protozoa. It grows in the lower 10 to 20 cm of the ice
\nlayer, just above the seawater, at a temperature of – 1.8 \u00b0C, and accounts for
\napproximately one-third of the primary productivity (Perry et al., 2002). More than
\n300 species of micro-algae (e.g. Nitzschia spp.) have been found in sea ice. Some of
\nthem are distributed over a wide geographic area while others have been reported
\nfrom only one or a few small areas. Ice algae support an extensive food web
\n(copepods, amphipods and fish) (Horner, 1989).
\nInbreeding populations have few connections with species from other oceanic masses
\nbecause the Arctic Ocean is a semi-enclosed area. The connection with the Pacific
\nOcean is very narrow and its influx is of minor importance. The main exchange of
\nwater is therefore with the Atlantic Ocean (Heimdal, 1989), when warm waters enter
\nthe Norwegian Sea with the Gulf Stream. The Arctic Ocean\u2019s outflow takes place
\n35
\nwhen pack ice goes out with the Eastern Greenland Stream (Elander & Widstrand,
\n2008).
\nIn spring and summer, Arctic waters provide shelter for highly migratory species,
\namong which are the cetaceans. Whales migrate northwardly in order to feed and
\nreproduce. By late August, they move southwards and congregate in warmer waters
\nduring winter. They use four main migratory paths, namely the Norwegian Sea,
\nBering Sea\/Bering Strait\/Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay\/Davis Strait, and Denmark
\nStrait\/Greenland Sea\/Fram Strait (Arctic Council, 2009a & 2010).
\nThe Arctic Ocean has a low species diversity and biological productivity (Hamel &
\nMercier, 2005). The main limiting factor for phytoplankton growth is sea ice, which
\naffects salinity, temperature and light penetration (Heimdal, 1989). However, recent
\nresearch has shown that it shelters abundant eukaryotic organism populations
\n(Stoeck, Kasper, Bunge, Leslin, Ilyin & Epstein, 2007).
\nThroughout the year, the production of phytoplankton undergoes significant
\nvariations according to sunlight duration and ice coverage ; it is low in winter and
\nreaches a peak in spring (Dowdeswell & Hambrey, 2002). This phenomenon has
\nrepercussions on the whole food chain since zooplankton fluctuates proportionally,
\nand so does the quantity of food for fish, birds and marine mammals.
\nOver the shelves, marginal seas have a rich productivity and biodiversity (Anderson
\n& Dyrssen, 1989). Two examples are the Barents Sea (Patin, 1999 ; Matishov et al.,
\n2004) and the Bering Sea (Anderson & Dyrssen, 1989). The latter receives nutrients
\nfrom volcanoes and is therefore very productive with 450 species of fish,
\ncrustaceans, and mollusks, 50 species of seabirds and 25 species of marine mammals
\n(United States National Research Council, 1996).
\nThe six pollution issues against which Arctic States join efforts are persistent organic
\npollutants (POPs), oil, heavy metals, noise, radioactivity and acidification (AEPS,
\n1991). The Arctic is the terminus for contaminated air and water streams. Polluted air
\nmasses, from other regions of the world, cool when they reach the Arctic and release
\nharmful substances in its ecosystems. Ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), such as
\n36
\nchlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons, used respectively in refrigerating and fireextinguishing systems, end up and accumulate in the Arctic. The 1987 Montreal
\nProtocol has imposed control and elimination of production of most CFCs and halons
\n(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2005).
\nPOPs, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), have long-term impacts on human
\nhealth and the environment because they degrade relatively slowly and
\nbioaccumulate in fatty tissues, due to their lipophilicity (Safe, 1994). This explains
\nwhy they can still be found today in spite of the fact that they have been banned.
\nSince they are persistent and lipophilic, these pollutants concentrate along food webs
\n(Skaare, Larsen, Lie, Bernhoft, Derocher, Norstrom, Ropstad, Lunn & Wiig, 2002),
\nespecially in higher trophic levels, i.e. top predators such as polar bears, cetaceans
\nand seals.
\nPCBs impair reproductive ability, nervous and immune responses (Safe, 1994 ;
\nLahvis, Wells, Kuehl, Stewart, Rhinehart & Via, 1995). A direct consequence is that
\nmarine mammals produce fewer antibodies against infectious diseases caused by
\nvirus and bacteria. High levels of PCBs in fish can cause immunosuppression in
\nmarine mammals (Lahvis et al., 1995), particularly in polar bears :
\nSignificantly lower lymphocyte responses to lipopolysaccharide from
\nEscherichia coli and Mycobacteria with high PCB exposure levels and
\nsignificantly negative correlation between PCBs and IgG (the major
\nimmunoglobulin class in blood) were also registered. From the present
\npreliminary results on effects of PCBs on the immune system of polar bears, it
\nis reasonable to assume that PCBs are associated with decreased resistance to
\ninfections (Skaare et al., 2002).
\nPOPs levels in the Arctic are so high that they even pose a risk for human health
\n(UNEP, 2001), particularly because indigenous Arctic communities eat \u201ccountry\u201d
\nfood, i.e. lipid-rich higher trophic organisms (GESAMP, 2001).
\nOther sources of concern for the marine environment and human health are the
\nreported high quantities of heavy metals (lead and mercury), resulting from
\n37
\nextracting and metallurgic activities (GESAMP, 2001), polycyclic aromatic
\nhydrocarbons (PAHs) in seawater and marine sediments (GESAMP, 2001), and
\ntributyltin (TBT). The latter has been found in mussels collected in northern Norway,
\nespecially near harbors (Kannan & Tanabe, 2009). TBT has immunotoxic effects on
\nfish and increases its susceptibility to pathogen infections (Nakayama, Segner &
\nKawai, 2009). The resuspension of sediments during oil exploration and exploitation
\nmay remobilize these contaminants and result in higher levels of exposure for marine
\nlife (GESAMP, 2001 ; Langston, Harino & Pope, 2009).
\n3.4. Socioeconomic dimension
\nAlmost four million people live in the Arctic and half of them are settled in Russia
\n(Arctic Council, 2004). The largest native populations include the Aleuts, the Inuit of
\nthe Canadian Eastern Arctic, the Cree of the Canadian Sub-Arctic, the Inuit of
\nNorthwest Greenland, the Saami of the Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish Arctic, the
\nKarelians, the Nenets of Siberia and the Samoyed people (Caratini, 1990 ;
\nAlexander, 1996). But there are also smaller communities. In Russia alone, for
\nexample, forty ethnic groups are conferred the \u201cIndigenous Numerically Small
\nPeoples of the North, Siberia and Far East of the Russian Federation\u201d official status
\n(Aslaksen, Dallmann, Holen, H\u00f8ydahl, Kruse, Poppel, Stapleton & Turi, 2009).
\nIndigenous communities\u2019 traditional occupations are fishing (e.g. Arctic char),
\ncollection of wild plants, trapping (e.g. beavers) and hunting (e.g. polar bears, seals,
\nmoose, caribou, otters and wild geese). Fatty meat and seafood, mostly eaten raw, are
\nimportant sources of nutrition (Alexander, 1996).
\nGlobal warming and the extension of human activities alter Arctic native peoples\u2019
\ntraditional lifestyle, based on values such as the transmission of inherited practices,
\nsharing and close relationship to nature (Aslaksen et al., 2009 ; IMO, 2011b) :
\nAmong indigenous people in Alaska, approximately 50 % of the calories
\nconsumed come from country foods. The seal, walrus, whale and fish
\ncomponents of the subsistence harvest will change as the climate changes (\u2026)
\nthese changes may be accompanied by the growth of commercial harvesting in
\n38
\nthe region by fishing vessels from farther south. In the Russian Arctic,
\nsubsistence hunting and fishing at sea may well expand due to the retreat of the
\nEuropean population and the consequent reduction in the supply both of food
\nstaples and of the cash economy necessary for the purchase of imported food
\n(Brass, 2002).
\nThe extracting industry development has several negative impacts on Arctic
\ncommunities\u2019 land. For example, reduction of pasturelands for reindeer grazing
\n(compulsory purchase orders), disturbance of wildlife migratory paths and pollution
\nof rivers, lakes and ground water by petroleum and chemical contaminants (Aslaksen
\net al., 2009).
\nHowever, these productive activities also create economic opportunities for Arctic
\ninhabitants. In Russian Arctic, the gross regional product per capita is three times
\nhigher than in the rest of the country. The Canadian Northwest Territories and the
\nState of Alaska derive as well substantial revenues from their local natural resources.
\nMeanwhile, Arctic regions also import consumer goods. Because of a low population
\ndensity and high transport costs, they face higher costs of living than non-Arctic
\nregions (Glomsr\u00f8d, M\u00e4enp\u00e4\u00e4, Lindholt, McDonald & Goldsmith, 2009 ; Lindholt &
\nGlomsr\u00f8d, 2009 ; M\u00e4enp\u00e4\u00e4, 2009).
\n3.5. Conclusion
\nThe geographical scope of the draft Polar Code should integrate the whole Barents
\nSea because this ecosystem experiences various anthropogenic stresses, resulting in
\nincreased environmental risks.
\nThe Arctic marine environment suffers from a lack of international legal protection
\nand enforcement institution, compared with the Antarctic. Yet it shelters rare species,
\nundergoes various sorts of pollution and sustains native peoples.
\n39
\n4. The Arctic : a region in change
\n4.1. Global warming
\nGlobal warming is particularly acute in the Arctic. As a matter of fact, in its Fourth
\nAssessment Report (2007), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
\nnoted that \u201caverage Arctic temperatures have increased at almost twice the global
\naverage rate in the past 100 years (\u2026) in some project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)ions Arctic late-summer sea
\nice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st
\ncentury\u201d.
\nAmerican researchers (Stroeve, Holland, Meier, Scambos & Serreze, 2007) have
\nshown that sea ice is shrinking even faster than predicted by the IPCC\u2019s models :
\nObservations indicate a downward trend in September Arctic sea ice extent
\nfrom 1953\u20132006 that is larger than any of the IPCC AR4 simulations, and
\ncurrent summer minima are approximately 30 years ahead of the ensemble
\nmean model forecast (\u2026) the Arctic has often been viewed as a region where
\nthe effects of GHG loading will be manifested early on, especially through loss
\nof sea ice. The sensitivity of this region may well be greater than the models
\nsuggest.
\nWarmer temperatures, particularly in summer, lead to the shrinkage of ice pack,
\nsnow and permafrost extent. This modifies living conditions for local flora and
\nfauna, changes their distribution and hierarchies in ecosystems. It can also threaten
\ntheir survival when, for example, habitats disappear – e.g. polar bear (Arctic Council,
\n2004 ; Masters & Norgrove, 2010). In a sense, climate warming can be compared to
\na \u201cpowerful natural selection filter\u201d (Stoeck et al., 2007). The climate-induced stress
\ncreates more favorable conditions for exotic species to survive, settle and spread
\n(Rosentrater & Ogden, 2003 ; IPCC, 2007 ; Hall, James & Wilson, 2010). That is
\nwhy some ecologists (Masters & Norgrove, 2010) advise to regard biological
\ninvasions as a component of climate change.
\nIn its \u201cScenario for Arctic Ocean Sea Ice in the Year 2050\u201d, the United States Arctic
\nResearch Commission made the following project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)ion :
\n40
\nDuring winter, the central Arctic and all peripheral seas including the
\nGreenland Sea, Bering Sea, and Gulf of St. Lawrence will continue to have
\nsignificant ice cover. Extent and, in most areas, ice thickness will be reduced.
\nThe Sea of Okhotsk and Sea of Japan will be ice-free for the entire year. In late
\nsummer, the entire Russian coast will be ice free, allowing navigation through
\nthe Barents, Kara, Laptev and East Siberian Seas along the entire Northern Sea
\nRoute. The Northwest Passage through the Canadian Archipelago and along
\nthe coast of Alaska will be ice free and navigable every summer by nonicebreaking ships. Ice will be present all year along the eastern and northern
\ncoasts of Greenland. Ice will also remain throughout the summer within and
\nadjacent to the northern Canadian Archipelago. Significant ice will remain in
\nthe central Arctic Ocean, though the mean thickness will be about 1.5 m, and it
\nwill be less compact (Brass, 2002).
\n4.2. Exploitation of natural resources
\nBoth developed and developing countries are longing for Arctic natural resources,
\nmainly oil, gas and minerals. On the other hand, Arctic States are determined to
\ndevelop economic activities in their northern regions. For instance, Sweden\u2019s
\nstrategy for economic development in the Arctic includes oil, ores and forest
\nexploitation as well as land transport infrastructure upgrading (Sweden\u2019s Department
\nof Foreign Affairs, 2011). The reduction of ice coverage and the thaw of permafrost
\ncreate better material conditions to exploit natural resources.
\nAn estimation of undiscovered oil and gas north of the Arctic Circle executed within
\nthe framework of the United States Geological Survey (2008) revealed that \u201c90
\nbillion barrels of oil, 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 44 billion barrels of
\nnatural gas liquids may remain to be found in the Arctic\u201d.
\nThe Arctic is said to shelter almost 13 % of the Earth\u2019s oil resources and 30 % of the
\nEarth\u2019s natural gas resources (Granholm, Hald\u00e9n, Larsson, Lindvall, Ljung,
\nNeretnicks & Oldberg, 2008).
\n41
\nRussia owns a vast continental shelf in the Arctic, with great potential for future
\nexploitation :
\nUnique reserves of oil and gas on the Arctic shelf of Russia may constitute the
\nbasis for an increased development of Russia in the 21st century. At present,
\n62.5 trillion m3
\nof natural gas and 9 billion tons of oil have been discovered in
\nthe seas of the Arctic Ocean and 3.5 billion tons of oil have been discovered on
\nthe coast (Matishov et al., 2004).
\nRussian and American interests have allied in the energy sector and oil companies
\nconcluded an agreement for exploratory offshore drilling in the Kara Sea (Parker,
\n2011).
\nNevertheless, competition for Arctic resources may also be a potential cause of
\nconflict, not only between Arctic States but among all countries which intend to
\nbenefit from the Arctic\u2019s rich deposits (European Parliament, 2008 ; Arctic Council,
\n2009a). One example is China (Dodds, 2010).
\nIn a situation of fossil fuel shortage, owning huge reserves of natural resources gives
\ngeopolitical power.
\nNavies are patrolling, first to assert sovereignty over national maritime territories
\nand, second, because NGOs protest against exploitation plans. For instance,
\nGreenpeace activists boarded an oil rig in Greenland\u2019s waters. This action aimed at
\npreventing a Scottish oil company from deep sea drilling (Carrell & Van Der Zee,
\n2010).
\nThe life cycle of offshore installations is composed of four stages (Patin, 1999),
\nnamely geological and geophysical survey (test drilling), exploration (rig
\nemplacement, exploratory drilling, well plugging), development and production
\n(platform emplacement, pipe laying, well and pipeline maintenance), and
\ndecommissioning (disassembling, structure removal). All have environmental
\nimpacts – e.g. turbidity, disturbance of fish migrations – and require support vessels.
\n42
\nArctic living marine resources provide indigenous peoples with subsistence but also
\nhave a global economic significance (Murray, Anderson, Cherkashov, Cuyler,
\nForbes, Gascard, Haas, Schlosser, Shaver, Shimada, Tjernstr\u00f6m, Walsh, Wandell &
\nZhao, 2010). For instance, 70 % of the world\u2019s total white fish supply comes from
\nArctic waters (Burnett et al., 2008). Because of global warming, some fish species
\nmigrate northwards in order to find the cold waters they need to feed and reproduce.
\nSuch northward ecosystem migration has been observed in the Bering Sea and in the
\nNortheast Atlantic (Murray et al., 2010). This phenomenon brings new species in the
\nArctic and some major marine fisheries, such as those for herring and cod, will
\nbecome more productive (Murray et al., 2010 ; Arctic Council, 2004). Therefore,
\ncommercial fishing also moves northwardly. Besides IUU fishing (Burnett et al.,
\n2008), it will reinforce overfishing in marginal seas. In 2005, the total catch of cod in
\nthe Barents and Norwegian Seas was estimated to be in excess of at least 100,000
\ntonnes compared with the quota (Kosmo, Stub, H\u00f8egh, Hansen & Fr\u00f8iland, 2007).
\nThis threatens the sustainability of fisheries with a global interest. It also hinders the
\ncapacity of Arctic fish stocks to adapt to climate change (Burnett et al., 2008).
\nThe enlargement of natural resources exploration and exploitation will bring a
\ngreater need for maritime transport in the Arctic, thereby increasing maritime safety
\nand environmental risks.
\n4.3. Increasing cargo ship traffic
\nThe Arctic has a strategic median location between the Eurasian and American
\ncontinents. From the shipping company\u2019s viewpoint, Arctic waterways reduce
\ndistances between Asian, European and North-American markets. Three enviable
\nadvantages come forth. First, a gain in time thanks to shorter voyages. Second, a gain
\nin voyage costs through reduced fuel costs – which would nevertheless be mitigated
\nby the higher fuel consumption of Polar Class ship engines – and by avoiding the
\nspending of canal charges – the Northwest Passage avoids transiting the Panama
\nCanal and the Northeast Passage avoids transiting the Suez Canal. The third gain
\n43
\nrelates to maritime security, since Arctic routes will enable ships to steer clear of
\nregions where pirate attacks rage (Baldursson, 2007).
\nReduced sea-ice cover, both in extent and in thickness, will lengthen the navigation
\nwindow and widen the range of ships able to transit Arctic waters (Arctic Council,
\n2004). Transit routes will be accessible for ships via the Northwest Passage, along
\nthe coasts of Canada and the United States, via the Northeast Passage, along the
\ncoasts of Russia, and in a farther future across the North Pole itself (Future Central
\nArctic Shipping route). In the latter case, navigation would take place beyond coastal
\nState jurisdiction (Brigham, Santos-Pedro, McDonald, Juurmaa & Gudmundsdottir,
\n2006 ; Arctic Council, 2009a).
\nOn the other hand, voyage costs must integrate escort costs charged by ice-breakers.
\nAs far as Russia is concerned, the international shipping community disapproves of
\nthe lack of transparency from the Northern Sea Route Administration :
\nThe Russian authorities have yet to declare their 2011 fee structure, and if and
\nwhen they do, owners will look at how these compare in terms of freight rates
\nto determine if there are benefits in sending cargoes east, or, depending on the
\ncargo, selling into Europe, or sailing round the Cape or through the Suez Canal
\n(Eason, 2011).
\nThe shipping industry is eager to take advantage of these new opportunities. China,
\nfor instance, intends to use the Northeast Passage for both importing and exporting.
\nDry bulk cargoes, such as ores and fertilizers, would be shipped from Europe to Asia
\n– e.g. iron ore from Narvik to Qingdao and fertilizers from Porsgrunn to Shekou –
\nwith ice-breaking bulk carriers. In return, steel products and structures used in
\nbuilding construction would be sent to Europe (Murphy & Eason, 2011 ; Parker,
\n2011). During the Northern Sea Route User Conference, held in Oslo in 1999,
\nRonald Bergman expressed the following point of view :
\nThe NSR is indeed potentially very interesting to many shipowners. Each of us
\nwould welcome the opportunity to drastically cut our freight rates if the
\ndistance from, for example, Hamburg to Japan can be decreased by thousands
\n44
\nof miles. Owners would save huge amounts on daily running costs and bunker
\nuse, savings that would immediately be reflected in the freight rates.
\nAdditionally, a shortening of travelling time of this magnitude would allow us
\nto take on more business, thereby improving the status of international
\ncommerce.
\nIn the more northerly options, Panamax and Suezmax ships can transit the NSR
\n(Eason, 2011). This means dry bulk carriers and tankers with a deadweight tonnage
\nbetween and 60,000 and 200,000 tonnes. Several successful voyages, from Russian
\nports in the White and Barents Seas to Thailand and China, lead shipping analysts
\n(Parker, 2011) to consider that \u201cthe northern sea route moves from its present
\nexperimental status towards true commerciality\u201d.
\n4.4. Increasing non-cargo ship traffic
\nNon-cargo ship traffic relates to ice-breakers, tugs, fishing boats, floating platforms,
\nbarges, pipe carriers, pipe layers, and offshore supply, research and passenger
\nvessels.
\nEven though scientific research has been conducted in the Arctic for a long time,
\ngreater accessibility and remote countries\u2019 growing interest in natural resources will
\nreinforce scientific activities in polar bases and hence research vessel movements.
\nA particular source of concern for the Arctic environment is the development of
\ncruise shipping (UNEP, 2007 ; Hall et al., 2010). Tourists sail about in Arctic waters
\neither on ice-breakers and reconverted research vessels or, mainly, on cruise ships
\nwhich are not Polar Class (Elander & Widstrand, 2008 ; Arctic Council, 2009a). In
\n2007, 1.5 million tourists visited the Arctic region – including Iceland and North
\nScandinavia. More than 70,000 tourists come to Svalbard each year and Greenland
\nwelcomes annually 50 cruise ships, i.e. more than 15,000 passengers. Among the
\nvessels which transited the Northwest Passage in 2005, more than a half were cruise
\nships. These figures are expected to increase. Furthermore, with regard to its length,
\nthe Russian coastline owns a great potential for tourism development. The
\n45
\n\u201cSocioeconomic strategy for the Murmansk region till the year 2025\u201d includes
\ntourism development in the following directions : ski, forestry ecotourism, sport
\nfishing, fishery tourism, ethno-cultural tourism, cruise, educational and business city
\ntourism in Murmansk (Ministry of Economic Development of the Murmansk region,
\n2010).
\nWhile tour operators are organized within the International Association of Antarctic
\nTour Operators (IAATO) in the Southern Ocean, there is no similar organization for
\ncruises in the Arctic. This type of association would yet help to disseminate good
\npractices to protect the environment.
\n4.5. Conclusion
\nGlobal warming in the Arctic results in the retreat of sea-ice and the thaw of
\npermafrost. These changes facilitate or create anthropogenic activities, namely
\nmining, offshore drilling, cargo transportation, fishing, scientific research and
\ntourism. All of these have in common to generate a need for maritime transport.
\nTherefore, the rising Arctic ship traffic is an indirect consequence of climate change.
\nFigure 12 Increasing ship traffic : an indirect consequence of global warming.
\nGlobal warming
\nSea-ice cover
\nshrinking
\nPermafrost
\nthawing
\nMaritime routes
\nMining
\nDrilling
\nFishing
\nScientific
\nresearch
\nTourism
\nIncreasing ship
\ntraffic
\n46
\n5. Regulating the transfer of alien aquatic species by ships in the Arctic
\n5.1. Draft Polar Code
\nMost of the major IMO Conventions do not address the specific conditions and risks
\ninherent to the operation of ships in polar waters. The reason for this is that at the
\ntime when they were adopted, ship traffic in polar areas was so scarce that even
\ncharts were insufficiently developed (Arctic Council, 2009a). Few countries
\nconducted hydrographic surveys and, in the same way, few legislative bodies cared
\nabout those remote areas. Today, the situation is different and there is therefore a
\nneed, on the one hand, to adapt the provisions of existing IMO instruments to polar
\nconditions and, on the other hand, to add extra requirements which will guarantee an
\nequivalent level of life and environment protection as everywhere else. A practical
\noutfit for those specific regulations would be a single document, entitled Polar Code,
\ncompounding technical and operational provisions with regard to ship design, life
\nsaving appliances, training of crew and prevention of pollution.
\nThe DE Sub-Committee has been entrusted by the MSC with the development of a
\nmandatory code for ships operating in polar waters. The scheduled deadline of this
\n\u201chigh-priority item\u201d is 2012 (IMO, 2009a).
\nIn the wake of the adoption of the Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Icecovered Waters (IMO, 2002) and the Guidelines for Ships Operating in Polar Waters
\n(IMO, 2009e), both being recommendatory measures, the IMO was requested by the
\nAntarctic Treaty Parties to issue mandatory requirements for ships operating in
\nAntarctic waters (IMO, 2009b). In addition, the Arctic Council issued a report (2009)
\nwith recommendations directed to the IMO to enhance the regulations governing
\nArctic shipping. These steps reinitiated the development of an IMO instrument
\nwholly dedicated to polar waters.
\nThe present draft is the second draft of a Polar Code. The first one was submitted to
\nthe IMO by Canada, on behalf of an Outside Working Group, in 1998 (Brigham,
\n2000). The reason for which it never came to an end was that \u201cit failed to distinguish
\nbetween the conditions and nature of shipping in the Arctic and those in Antarctica,
\n47
\nwhich is unique in its geography and governance (\u2026) there were conflicts between
\nthe draft Code and the Antarctic Treaty and UN Law of the Sea Convention\u201d (IMO,
\n1999).
\nIt was decided that \u201cAntarctic waters [were] to be excluded from the application of
\nthe guidelines, unless Antarctic Treaty members decide otherwise\u201d (IMO, 1999).
\nThe second draft Polar Code submitted by Canada (IMO, 2009c) applies in Arctic
\nand Antarctic waters. It is structured as other IMO codes, i.e. part A contains
\nmandatory requirements and part B recommendatory measures, and arranges for
\nconstruction, equipment, operation and environmental protection. The intention is to
\nmake it applicable to all ships, existing and new ones.
\nThe environmental protection chapter addresses both ballast water management and
\nbiofouling issues. In the first case, the requirements are those of the BWM
\nConvention, i.e. exchange, treatment, discharge to a reception facility or retention
\n(paragraph 16.5.2). Ships would have to manage ballast water before and after
\nentering polar waters (paragraph 16.5.1).
\nAs for biofouling management, \u201cvessels and offshore installations that have been
\nstationary in polar waters for a period of months shall have hull and sea-chests
\ncleaned in situ before moving to a new location\u201d (paragraph 16.6).
\nIt is noteworthy that this provision applies to the Arctic as a donor region, but not as
\na potential receiver. Therefore, the issue is not completely addressed.
\nA recent proposal, submitted by Norway (IMO, 2010g), amends the initial
\nenvironmental protection chapter to prohibit any discharge of ballast water in polar
\nwaters, unless treated or delivered to a reception facility.
\nAs far as the adoption of the Code is concerned, three options are considered by the
\nIMO (IMO, 2011a). The first option would be to add a new chapter to the
\nInternational Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) through
\nthe tacit acceptance procedure. It would be dedicated to ships operating in polar
\nwaters and would include the entire Polar Code. The second option would be to split
\n48
\nthe Code by amending both the SOLAS and MARPOL Conventions. In that case, it
\nwould also be necessary to amend the AFS and BWM Conventions. Finally, the third
\noption would be to adopt a new convention on ships operating in polar waters. The
\nmajor drawback being that the Polar Code would come into force later in time, since
\na certain number of ratifications would be required.
\n5.2. Difficulties with regard to ships
\nPerforming BWE operations at sea may jeopardize ship safety, especially when using
\nthe sequential method. Potential effects include impaired stability, longitudinal and
\ntorsional stresses, sloshing action in partially-filled tanks, hull vibrations, impaired
\nbridge visibility as a result of increased blind sectors or reduced horizontal fields of
\nvision (IMO, 2004c), tank over-pressurization and additional hazards to crew (IMO,
\n1997a & 2005). Most current ships have not been designed to execute this operation.
\nThis also explains why ballast tanks cannot be fully emptied (Gollasch, David, Voigt,
\nDragsund, Hewitt & Fukuyo, 2007). The bigger the ship, the longer is the time
\nnecessary to perform the operation in unsafe conditions. Some large vessels need one
\nto three days to execute BWE (Gollasch et al., 2007). A provision of the BWM
\nConvention allows a master to renounce BWE if he deems it dangerous for
\npassengers, crew and ship safety (IMO, 2004b).
\nVersatile, poor weather conditions and the presence of constantly drifting sea ice
\ncharacterize Arctic waters (Dowdeswell & Hambrey, 2002). Another difficulty for
\nArctic navigation will be the increase in wave amplitude due to the gradual reduction
\nof the ice cover. Insufficient reliable marine weather information and hydrographic
\ndata worsen the situation (Arctic Council, 2009a).
\nOn board the ship, equipment functioning is altered by the freezing conditions. The
\nballast water overflow on the deck may turn into ice and accumulate, jeopardizing
\nstability. Water flux through valves and pipes may be disrupted. The hull bears
\nadditional stresses caused by ice. This is precisely the reason why the IMO
\nrecommends avoiding BWE operations in freezing weather conditions (IMO, 2005).
\n49
\nSpecific guidelines for BWE in the Antarctic Treaty area have been adopted (IMO,
\n2007b), but nothing equivalent has been developed with regard to the Arctic.
\nA ship already experienced severe list while exchanging ballast water in the Pacific
\nOcean (IMO, 2007a). Considering the lack of Helpance and rescue facilities (e.g.
\ntugs) in the Arctic, the BWE operation does not seem to be safe.
\nIs the retention of ballast water on board a realistic option ? Intake and discharge
\noperations are not limited to ports, they are also necessary at sea to maintain ship
\nsafety (Veldhuis et al., 2010).
\nAnother hindrance is that navigation through the Northwest and Northeast Passages
\nis performed close to shore, in shallow waters. The BWE conditions of distance from
\nland and depth are seldom achievable. For instance, along the NSR the average
\ndepths of the Chukchi, East Siberian and Kara Seas are 88 m, 58 m and 90 m
\nrespectively (Arctic Council, 2009a).
\n5.3. Difficulties with regard to port facilities
\nFor the same reason as charts were insufficiently developed, so is infrastructure
\nequipment in Arctic ports. In the Guidelines for ships operating in Arctic ice-covered
\nwaters, the IMO recognized the lack of waste reception and repair facilities in the
\nregion (IMO, 2002).
\nThe Arctic Council (2009) also acknowledged this infrastructure deficit and
\nrecognized necessary improvements as a matter of urgency.
\nThe Norwegian Maritime Directorate contracted (2006) Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
\nto conduct a study on Arctic port reception facilities. A questionnaire was sent to the
\ncoastal States. The results remain incomplete since :
\nNo Russian ports have answered the electronic questionnaire (\u2026) no specific
\ncomments have been received from Russian authorities regarding what
\nregulations and incentives the country has implemented (\u2026) for Russia the
\nonly available information is the information from the IMO-database on port
\n50
\nreception facilities which indicates that all the listed ports can receive some
\nkind of oily waste.
\nPresently, only two of the coastal Arctic States are parties to the BWM Convention,
\nnamely Canada and Norway – Denmark, Russia and the United States have not
\nratified it. When the Convention enters into force, these countries will have to
\nprovide, at least sediment reception facilities, at most sediment and ballast water
\nreception facilities.
\nWhat will be provided in other coastal States ? What about the Barents Sea, where
\nshipping is expected to increase by a factor of 6 (Matishov et al., 2004) ?
\nIf, as required by the provisions regarding biofouling, ships\/rigs that have been
\nstationary in Arctic waters for a period of months want to have their underbody
\ncleaned in situ before moving to a new location, will they find facilities to do so ?
\n5.4. Adjustment to pristine environmental conditions
\nOne of the reasons put forward to explain the success of biological invasions was
\nenvironment susceptibility resulting from a combination between ecosystem
\ndisturbance and low biological diversity (GESAMP, 2007). These two conditions can
\nbe found in some areas of the Arctic and its marginal seas. For example, variations in
\nclimate and perhaps overfishing led to lower abundance levels in certain fish – e.g.
\nwalleye pollock – stocks in the Bering Sea. This had repercussions on the whole food
\nweb, i.e. fishes, marine mammals and seabirds (United States National Research
\nCouncil, 1996 ; Walther, Post, Convey, Menzel, Parmesank, Beebee, Fromentin,
\nHoegh-Guldberg & Bairlein, 2002 ; Nilsson, 2011).
\nAs far as BWE is concerned, this management option is not fully reliable (IMO,
\n2003b). First, the effectiveness of the exchange depends on the water depth and
\nseasonal organism concentration of the area where water is pumped (Gollasch et al.,
\n2007). Second, ballast tanks can never be totally emptied and \u201ca 95 % volumetric
\nexchange of water may not always be equivalent to a 95 % organism removal as the
\norganisms are not homogeneously distributed in a tank\u201d (Gollasch et al., 2007).
\n51
\nIn remaining ballast waters and sediments, organisms can still proliferate
\n(Hallegraeff, 1998). They use the organic material accumulated in the sediment
\nlayer. Moreover, in cold temperature micro-organisms have a longer life span
\nbecause their metabolism is slowed down (Monfort, 2006).
\nA study was conducted on the life span of the enteric bacteria Listeria and
\nSalmonella in the marine environment (Monfort, Piclet & Plusquellec, 2000).
\nExperiments were made in estuarine and sea water at two temperatures, 18\u00b0C and
\n5\u00b0C.
\nThe results (Figures 13 and 14) indicated that :
\nThe survival profiles were independent of the bacteria (Salmonella or Listeria)
\nor the origin of the water (estuarine water or seawater) but differed markedly
\nwith the temperature (\u2026) this incidence of the water temperature is sanitarily
\nrelevant and the higher persistence noted at a low temperature may be related
\nto the higher prevalence observed in situ (\u2026) in the winter period.
\nFigure 13 Life span of Listeria and Salmonella at 18\u00b0C.
\n(Source : IFREMER, 2000)
\nContinuous lines are data collected in estuarine water, dotted lines those collected in
\nseawater. Data concerning Listeria are in blue, those concerning Salmonella in
\nyellow.
\n52
\nFigure 14 Life span of Listeria and Salmonella at 5\u00b0C.
\n(Source : IFREMER, 2000)
\nOrganisms which have a life cycle including a stage of resilient cysts – e.g. the
\napicomplexans, affecting mammals, or which produce cysts during periods of
\nenvironmental stress – e.g. dinoflagellates, will demonstrate a greater ability to
\nsurvive (Horner, 1989 ; Stoeck et al., 2007).
\nWhen BWE cannot be executed in the prescribed conditions of depth and distance
\nfrom the shore, port States have to indicate the BWE areas they have previously
\nidentified (IMO, 2004b). On which basis, national or regional approach, would these
\nareas be determined in the Arctic ? Is it practicably feasible and safe ?
\nAs far as BWT is concerned, treated ballast water discharges still contain viable
\norganisms because no BWT can remove or kill 100 % of these. Disinfection for
\ninstance, even with chlorine, does not kill all of the bacteria and protozoa – e.g.
\nCryptosporidium cysts (Perry et al., 2002). Are the maximum organism
\nconcentrations provided by the performance standard (IMO, 2004b) suitable for the
\nArctic marine environment ?
\nAlthough the ballast water performance standard is stringent – nearly as strict as
\ndrinking water standards (Veldhuis et al., 2010), it remains to be pointed out that, in
\nmany regions of the world, humans and animals have developed defenses against
\ntargeted micro-organisms. Immune protection is passively acquired at an early age
\n53
\nwhen maternal antibodies pass to the fetus across the placenta or to the newborn in
\nthe colostrums of the mother\u2019s milk (Perry et al., 2002). Nevertheless, is it the case in
\na remote place ? In addition, as seen in previous analysis, some pollutants found in
\nthe Arctic can impair human and animal immune responses.
\nAnother source of concern is that treated ballast water discharges may contain
\nresidual oxidants, for example in case of treatment plant malfunctioning or
\nmanipulation error. What would be the consequences of chlorine or bromine
\ndischarges into the marine environment ?
\nShips have the option to dispose of sediments at sea, provided they respect two
\nconditions, i.e. distance of 200 nautical miles from land and water depth of 200
\nmeters. Is this provision acceptable in the Arctic ?
\nAs for biofouling removal, when executed in open waters, it poses a hazard to the
\nenvironment since coating waste may be toxic. Underbody cleaning should be done
\nin contained spaces and wastes should be collected. This operation generates risks,
\nboth chemical – biocides used – and biological – removed organisms, and therefore
\nrequires adequate facilities.
\nThe precautionary approach should prevail when considering these interrogations
\nand favor the adoption of stricter environmental requirements. NGOs have called for
\nmore stringent measures than those set in the draft Polar Code (IMO, 2009d &
\n2010e), arguing the vulnerability of polar regions.
\nThe Arctic\u2019s vulnerability is due to a relatively short growing season and a smaller
\nbiodiversity – concentrated in key areas – compared with temperate areas, as well as
\nharsh climatic conditions (Arctic Council, 2004). \u201cArctic ecosystems are highly
\nsensitive to changes in species or community composition and population dynamics
\nand are highly vulnerable to ecological or artificially imposed stresses such as
\npollution, waste and physical disturbances, all of which often have more widespread
\nenvironmental effects than in other regions\u201d (CAFF, 1996).
\n54
\nThe specific vulnerability to biological invasions can be explained by considering
\ntwo sources of ecosystem imbalance and their interrelation. On the one hand, there is
\nthe climate-induced stress which creates higher risks for alien species invasions. On
\nthe other hand, a higher risk for biological invasion, for example due to greater ship
\ntraffic, means that some local species are likely to reduce in abundance or disappear.
\nThis alters communities\u2019 structure and functions. It results in a more critical
\nsensitivity to climatic perturbation. The combined actions of alien species invasions
\nand climate change seem to be synergistic (Masters & Norgrove, 2010).
\nConversely, a survey conducted by DNV (IMO, 2010f) led to the following
\nconclusion :
\nThis study has found no evidence for considering the threats from spread of
\nalien species under the IMO Ballast Water Convention any differently in polar
\nwaters than in any other areas. In polar areas, as in other areas, the Convention
\nis considered sufficient for controlling the spread of species via ballast water ;
\nhowever it does not control the spread of organisms via fouling on ship\u2019s hull
\nand rudder.
\nYet the BWM Convention entitles coastal Arctic States parties to take additional
\nmeasures within a regional approach (IMO, 2004b). Such an initiative would be in
\nline with the Arctic States\u2019 commitment to promote the adoption of measures to
\nprotect areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance from the impacts of
\nshipping (Arctic Council, 2009a).
\n5.5. Conclusion
\nThe Polar Code is an instrument being developed by the IMO to strengthen or
\nremedy the lack of specific provisions regarding navigation in polar waters.
\nHowever, as far as the transfer of alien organisms is concerned, it does not prescribe
\nextra measures but rather refers to existing standards. As a result, ships may face
\npractical difficulties in implementing safely the prescribed operations, ports may not
\nbe able to play the role they are assigned and the vulnerability of the Arctic marine
\nenvironment is not sufficiently taken into consideration.
\n55
\n6. Overall conclusion
\nToo often, unfortunately, humans realize the value of natural resources only when
\nthey begin to disappear. Most of the time consciousness arises too late to take action
\n(Mora & Sale, 2011). The development of the Polar Code is a unique opportunity to
\nanticipate the multiple changes affecting the Arctic and take preventive measures
\nbefore the expansion of maritime transport. This instrument aims at complementing
\nthe major IMO conventions as far as shipping in polar waters is concerned. The brisk
\npace of climate change in the North Pole region urges the outcome of the Polar Code.
\nIn the environmental domain, especially in the prevention of alien species transfer by
\nships, the standards are directly derived from existing instruments without further
\nadaptation. Navigational constraints in the area, the lack of port reception facilities
\nand the ecological vulnerability of the Arctic have not been sufficiently taken into
\nconsideration.
\nThe presence of non-indigenous organisms in an ecosystem is a hazard. The
\nassociated risk is biological invasion, leading to biodiversity loss. Global warming in
\nitself has the potential to trigger a chain of events resulting in environmental
\nimbalance. As it opens new opportunities for human activities, there is an increase in
\nship traffic. Thereby, there is a higher biological invasion risk.
\nThe Arctic suffers from a lack of international legal protection and enforcement
\ninstitution, compared with the Antarctic. Yet it shelters rare species, undergoes
\nvarious sorts of pollution and sustains native peoples. The Barents Sea, which is
\nsubjected to several anthropogenic stresses and experiences a significant growth in
\nship traffic, should benefit fully from the environmental protection of the Polar Code.
\nArctic States have a duty to preserve the biodiversity of their marine environment,
\nparticularly because it is pristine and because native peoples depend on it.
\nSince the UNCHE, the concept of a regional approach to protect the marine
\nenvironment has been supported by authoritative fora, such as the UNEP and the
\nThird United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. IMO instruments also
\nemphasize the need for regional cooperation to efficiently address environmental
\n56
\nissues. From the beginning, Arctic States have founded their association on a strategy
\nto protect the Arctic environment. The control of the transfer of alien species by
\nships should come within this regional strategy.
\nIn view of the global insatiable thirst for fossil fuels and the ensuing race to find new
\nsupply sources, potentially divergent national interests regarding resources
\nexploitation and subsequent reAssessment of political priorities, the Arctic States\u2019
\ndetermination to protect and preserve their marine environment will undoubtedly be
\nchallenged in a near future.
\n57
\nAPPENDIX A
\nGLOSSARY
\n\u201cActive Substance\u201d means a substance or organism, including a virus or a fungus
\nthat has a general or specific action on or against harmful aquatic organisms and
\npathogens (IMO, 2008a).
\n\u201cAnadromous\u201d species are organisms that spawn\/reproduce in freshwater
\nenvironments, but spend at least part of their adult life in a marine environment
\n(IMO, 2007b).
\n\u201cApicomplexans\u201d are parasites of animals. Most species live in or on cells lining the
\nintestine and are transmitted by resistant spores passed out with feces. They are
\nunited by features of the life cycle and ultra structural details rather by readily visible
\ngross morphological features (Perry et al., 2002).
\n\u201cArctic waters\u201d means those waters which are located north of a line from the
\nlatitude 58\u00ba00\u03840 N and longitude 042\u00ba00\u03840 W to latitude 64\u00b037\u03840 N, longitude
\n035\u00b027\u03840 W and thence by a rhumb line to latitude 67\u00ba03\u03849 N, longitude 026\u00ba33\u03844 W
\nand thence by a rhumb line to S\u00f8rkapp, Jan Mayen and by the southern shore of Jan
\nMayen to the Island of Bj\u00f8rn\u00f8ya, and thence by a great circle line from the Island of
\nBj\u00f8rn\u00f8ya to Cap Kanin Nos and thence by the northern shore of the Asian Continent
\neastward to the Bering Strait and thence from the Bering Strait westward to latitude
\n60\u00ba N as far as Il\u2019pyrskiy and following the 60th North parallel eastward as far as and
\nincluding Etolin Strait and thence by the northern shore of the North American
\ncontinent as far south as latitude 60\u00ba N and thence eastward along parallel of latitude
\n60\u00ba N, to longitude 56\u00ba37\u03841 W and thence to the latitude 58\u00ba00\u03840 N, longitude
\n042\u00ba00\u03840 W (IMO, 2009c & 2009e).
\n\u201cBallast Water Management System\u201d means any system which processes ballast
\nwater such that it meets or exceeds the ballast water performance standard. This
\nsystem includes ballast water treatment equipment, all associated control equipment,
\nmonitoring equipment and sampling facilities (IMO, 2008c).
\n\u201cBiofilms\u201d are heterogeneous, complex matrices composed of micro-colonies
\ninterspersed with channels allowing the movement of fluids (Lewandowski, 2000).
\n\u201cBiogeographic region\u201d is a large natural region defined by physiographic and
\nbiologic characteristics within which the animal and plant species show a high
\ndegree of similarity. There are no sharp and absolute boundaries but rather more or
\nless clearly expressed transition zones (IMO, 2007b).
\n“Biological diversity” means the variability among living organisms from all sources
\nincluding, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the
\necological complexes of which they are part ; this includes diversity within species,
\nbetween species and of ecosystems (UN, 1992).
\n58
\n\u201cCatadromous\u201d species are organisms that spawn\/reproduce in marine environments,
\nbut spend at least part of their adult life in a freshwater environment (IMO, 2007b).
\n\u201cEuryhaline\u201d species are organisms able to tolerate a wide range of salinities (IMO,
\n2007b).
\n\u201cEurythermal\u201d species are organisms able to tolerate a wide range of temperatures
\n(IMO, 2007b).
\n\u201cGreenhouse Gases\u201d are the gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and
\nanthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation within the spectrum of the thermal
\ninfrared radiation that is emitted by the Earth\u2019s surface, by the atmosphere and by
\nclouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in
\nthe Earth\u2019s atmosphere are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide
\n(N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3). Moreover, there are a number of entirely
\nanthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as the halocarbons and
\nother chlorine- and bromine-containing substances that are covered by the Montreal
\nProtocol. Some other trace gases, such as sulphur hexafluoride (SF6),
\nhydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), are also greenhouse gases
\n(IPCC, 2005).
\n\u201cIce-covered waters\u201d means polar waters where local ice conditions present a
\nstructural risk to a ship where ice covers more than one-tenth of the water\u2019s surface
\n(IMO, 2009c).
\n\u201cNon-indigenous species\u201d is any species outside its native range, whether transported
\nintentionally or accidentally by humans or transported through natural processes
\n(IMO, 2007b).
\n\u201cOzone-depleting substances\u201d are controlled substances which can significantly
\ndeplete or modify the ozone layer in a manner that is likely to result in adverse
\neffects on human health and the environment. These are, for instance, CFCs and
\nhalons (UNEP, 1987).
\n\u201cPolychlorinated biphenyls\u201d are aromatic compounds formed in such a manner that
\nthe hydrogen atoms on the biphenyl molecule (two benzene rings bonded together by
\na single carbon-carbon bond) may be replaced by up to ten chlorine atoms (UNEP,
\n2001).
\n59
\nAPPENDIX B
\nSTATES PARTIES TO THE BWM CONVENTION
\nALBANIA
\nANTIGUA & BARBUDA
\nBARBADOS
\nBRAZIL
\nCANADA
\nCOOK ISLANDS
\nCROATIA
\nEGYPT
\nFRANCE
\nIRAN
\nKENYA
\nKIRIBATI
\nLIBERIA
\nMALAYSIA
\nMALDIVES
\nMARSHALL ISLANDS
\nMEXICO
\nMONGOLIA
\nNETHERLANDS
\nNIGERIA
\nNORWAY
\nPALAU
\nREPUBLIC OF KOREA
\nSAINT KITTS AND NEVIS
\nSIERRA LEONE
\nSOUTH AFRICA
\nSPAIN
\nSWEDEN
\nSYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
\nTUVALU
\n60
\nREFERENCES
\nAlekseev, V., Makrushin, A. & Hwang, J.-S. (2010). Does the survivorship of activated resting stages
\nin toxic environments provide cues for ballast water treatment ? Marine Pollution Bulletin 61
\n(2010). Elsevier. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/sciencedirect.com\/
\nAlexander, B. (1996). The vanishing Arctic. Blandford. London.
\nAllison, D.G., Maira-Litran, T. & Gilbert, P. (2000). Antimicrobial resistance of biofilms. In L.V.
\nEvans (Ed.), Biofilms : recent advances in their study and control. Harwood Academic Publishers.
\nAmsterdam.
\nAnderson, L. & Dyrssen, D. (1989). Chemical oceanography of the Arctic Ocean. In Y. Herman (Ed.),
\nThe Arctic Seas : climatology, oceanography, geology and biology. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New
\nYork.
\nArai, T. (2009). Preface. In T. Arai, M. Ohji, H. Harino & W.J. Langston (Eds.), Ecotoxicology of
\nantifouling biocides. Springer. Tokyo.
\nArctic Council. (1991, June 14). Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS). http:\/\/arcticcouncil.org\/filearchive\/artic_environment.pdf
\nArctic Council. (1996, September 19). Declaration on the establishment of the Arctic Council.
\nhttp:\/\/arctic-council.org\/filearchive\/ottawa_decl_1996-3..pdf
\nArctic Council. (2004). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) : impacts of a warming Arctic.
\nCambridge University Press. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/amap.no\/acia\/
\nArctic Council. (2009a, April). Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/pame.is\/images\/stories\/PDF_Files\/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf
\nArctic Council. (2009b, April). PAME Summary Report 2006-2009 Activities. Sixth Arctic Council
\nMinisterial Meeting. Troms\u00f8, Norway. http:\/\/arctic-council.org\/
\nArctic Council. (2010, May). Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010 : selected indicators of change. CAFF
\nInternational Secretariat. Akureyri (Iceland). https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/arcticbiodiversity.is\/
\nAslaksen, I., Dallmann, W., Holen, D.L., H\u00f8ydahl, E., Kruse, J., Poppel, B., Stapleton, M. & E.I. Turi
\n(2009, November). Interdependency of subsistence and market economies in the Arctic. In S.
\nGlomsr\u00f8d & I. Aslaksen (Eds.), The Economy of the North 2008. Statistics Norway.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/ssb.no\/english\/subjects\/00\/00\/30\/sa_economy_north\/sa112_en\/sa112_en.pdf
\nBaldursson, R. (2007, March 28). Arctic development and maritime transportation : prospects of the
\nTransarctic Route, impacts and opportunities. Breaking the Ice Conference in Akureyri (Iceland).
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/mfa.is\/media\/Utgafa\/Breaking_The_Ice_Conference_Report.pdf
\nBergman, R. (1999, November). The Shipping industry and the Northern Sea Route. Northern Sea
\nRoute User Conference held in Oslo in November 1999. BIMCO bulletin. Volume 94. No. 6.
\nDecember 1999.
\nBrass, G.W. (2002). Arctic Ocean Climate Change. United States Arctic Research Commission.
\nSpecial Publication No. 02-1. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/arctic.gov\/publications\/arctic_and_climate_change.pdf
\nBrigham, L.W. (2000). The emerging International Polar Navigation Code : bi-polar relevance ? In D.
\nVidas (Ed.), Protecting the Polar Marine Environment : law and policy for pollution prevention.
\nCambridge University Press.
\nBrigham, L.W., Santos-Pedro, V., McDonald, R., Juurmaa, K. & Gudmundsdottir, S. (2006). Arctic
\nmarine shipping assessment of the Arctic Council : responding to changing marine access in the
\nArctic Ocean. Arctic Forum 2006. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/arcus.org\/annual_meetings\/arctic_forum_archive\/2006\/
\nBurnett,M., Dronova, N., Esmark, M., Nelson,S., R\u00f8nning, A. & Spiridonov, V. (2008, April). Illegal
\nfishing in Arctic waters : catch of today, gone tomorrow ? WWF International Arctic Programme,
\nOslo (Norway). https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/wwf.ru\/data\/Barents\/arctic_fishing.pdf
\nCallow, M.E. (2000). Algal biofilms. In L.V. Evans (Ed.), Biofilms : recent advances in their study
\nand control. Harwood Academic Publishers. Amsterdam.
\nCaratini, R. (1990). Dictionnaire des nationalit\u00e9s et des minorit\u00e9s en URSS. Larousse. Paris.
\nCarrell, S. & Van Der Zee, B. (2010, August 31). Greenpeace \u201cshuts down\u201d Arctic oil rig :
\nenvironmental campaigners slip through security boats to scale Cairn Energy oil rig in dawn raid.
\nThe Guardian. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/guardian.co.uk\/environment\/2010\/aug\/31\/greenpeace-oil-rig-arctic
\n61
\nCensus of Marine Life (2010). First Census of Marine Life 2010 : highlights of a decade of discovery.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/coml.org\/pressreleases\/census2010\/PDF\/Highlights-2010-Report-Low-Res.pdf
\nChamp, M.A. (2001, November 8). The status of the treaty to ban TBT in marine antifouling paints
\nand alternatives. Proceedings of the 24th UJNR (US\/Japan) Marine Facilities Panel Meeting in
\nHawaii. National Maritime Research Institute of Japan.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/nmri.go.jp\/main\/cooperation\/ujnr\/24ujnr_paper_us\/Ocean_Engineering_and_Resource\/
\nOERD_Champ.pdf
\nConference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2008, October 9). Decision
\nadopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its ninth
\nmeeting IX\/20 : Marine and coastal biodiversity. Ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
\nthe Convention on Biological Diversity, 19 – 30 May 2008. Bonn, Germany.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/cbd.int\/doc\/decisions\/cop-09\/cop-09-dec-20-en.pdf
\nConservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF). (1996). Circumpolar Protected Areas Network :
\nstrategy and action plan. CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 6. Directorate for Nature
\nManagement. Trondheim. Norway. http:\/\/arcticportal.org\/
\nDe Poorter, M. (2006, April). Non-native species issues challenges of international approach in the
\nAntarctic context. In Final report of the \u201cNon-native Species in the Antarctic\u201d Workshop. Gateway
\nAntarctica, University of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/anta.canterbury.ac.nz\/
\nDet Norske Veritas. (2006, September 19). Port reception facilities in the PAME region. Technical
\nreport No. 2006-1517. http:\/\/arcticportal.org\/
\nDodds, K. (2010). Flag planting and finger pointing : the Law of the Sea, the Arctic and the political
\ngeographies of the outer continental shelf. Political Geography 29 (2010) 63-73. Elsevier.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/sciencedirect.com
\nDonlan, R.M. (2000). Biofilm control in industrial water systems : approaching an old problem in new
\nways. In L.V. Evans (Ed.), Biofilms : recent advances in their study and control. Harwood
\nAcademic Publishers. Amsterdam.
\nDonner, P. (2010). Ballast Water Treatment Ashore Brings More Benefits. In N. Bellefontaine, F.
\nHaag, O. Lind\u00e9n & J. Matheickal (Eds.), Emerging Ballast Water Management Systems :
\nProceedings of the IMO-WMU Research and Development Forum, 26-29 January 2010. Malm\u00f6
\n(Sweden).
\nDoskoch, Y.Y. (2004, December). The North test site : aspects of environmental monitoring. In the
\nInternational Atomic Energy Agency\u2019s publication, Nuclear explosions in the USSR : the North test
\nsite. Reference material (version 4). http:\/\/www-ns.iaea.org\/downloads\/rw\/waste-safety\/north-testsite-final.pdf
\nDowdeswell, J. & Hambrey, M. (2002). The islands of the Arctic. Cambridge University Press.
\nCambridge.
\nDrake, J.M. & Lodge, D.M. (2007, May). Aquatic Invasions : hull fouling is a risk factor for
\nintercontinental species exchange in aquatic ecosystems (2007).
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/vliz.be\/imis\/imis.php?module=ref&refid=143380
\nDupont, J. & Kevorkian, O. (1994). Effet d\u2019un effluent de station d\u2019\u00e9puration sur la survie et l\u2019\u00e9tat
\nphysiologique d\u2019Escherichia coli et Salmonella manhattan en eau de mer. Grand programme qualit\u00e9
\net \u00e9puration des eaux. http:\/\/archimer.ifremer.fr\/doc\/00041\/15208\/12536.pdf
\nEason, C. (2011, May 20). Arctic appeal. Lloyd\u2019s List. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/lloydslist.com\/ll\/sector\/shipoperations\/article370996.ece
\nEkenstierna, L. (2003). Mikrobiologi. Studentlitteratur. Lund.
\nElander, M. & Widstrand, S. (2008, August). Vindar fr\u00e5n Arktis. Prisma. Stockholm.
\nEuropean Parliament. (2008, October 9). Resolution on Arctic governance. P6_TA(2008)0474.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/europarl.europa.eu\/
\nFlemming, H.-C., Wingender, J., Griebe, T. & Mayer, C. (2000). Physico-chemical properties of
\nbiofilms. In L.V. Evans (Ed.), Biofilms : recent advances in their study and control. Harwood
\nAcademic Publishers. Amsterdam.
\nGiltsov, L., Mormoul, N. & Ossipenko, L. (1992). La dramatique histoire des sous-marins nucl\u00e9aires
\nsovi\u00e9tiques : des exploits, des \u00e9checs et des catastrophes cach\u00e9es pendant trente ans. Editions
\nRobert Laffont. Paris.
\n62
\nGlomsr\u00f8d, S., M\u00e4enp\u00e4\u00e4, I., Lindholt, L., McDonald, H. & Goldsmith, S. (2009, November). Arctic
\neconomies within the Arctic nations. In S. Glomsr\u00f8d & I. Aslaksen (Eds.), The Economy of the
\nNorth 2008. Statistics Norway. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/ssb.no\/
\nGollasch, S., David, M., Voigt, M., Dragsund, E., Hewitt, C. & Fukuyo, Y. (2007). Critical review of
\nthe IMO International Convention on the management of ships\u2019 ballast water and sediments.
\nHarmful Algae. Elsevier. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/sciencedirect.com\/
\nGranholm, N., Hald\u00e9n, P., Larsson, R., Lindvall, F., Ljung, B., Neretnicks, K. & Oldberg, I. (2008,
\nJanuary). Arktis : strategiska fr\u00e5gor i en region i f\u00f6r\u00e4ndring. Underlagsrapport nr. FOI-R-2469-SE.
\nTotalf\u00f6rsvarets Forskningsinstitut. Stockholm. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/foi.se\/upload\/pdf\/Foi-R–2469–
\nSEArktis.pdf
\nGreensmith, G.J. (2010). Ballast Water Technology Availability : An Update. In N. Bellefontaine, F.
\nHaag, O. Lind\u00e9n & J. Matheickal (Eds.), Emerging Ballast Water Management Systems :
\nProceedings of the IMO-WMU Research and Development Forum, 26-29 January 2010. Malm\u00f6
\n(Sweden).
\nHall, C.M., James M. & Wilson, S. (2010). Biodiversity, biosecurity and cruising in the Arctic and
\nsub-Arctic. Journal of Heritage Tourism. http:\/\/canterburynz.academia.edu\/CMichaelHall\/Papers\/249275\/Biodiversity_biosecurity_and_cruising_in_the_Arcti
\nc_and_sub-Arctic
\nHallegraeff, G. (1998, July 9). Transport of toxic dinoflagellates via ships’ ballast water :
\nbioeconomic risk assessment and efficacy of possible ballast water management strategies. Marine
\nEcology Progress Series. Volume 168. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/int-res.com\/articles\/meps\/168\/m168p297.pdf
\nHamel, J.-F. & Mercier, A. (2005). Arctic, coastal ecology. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
\ncoastal science. Springer. Dordrecht. The Netherlands.
\nHamilton, W.A. (2000). Microbially influenced corrosion in the context of metal microbe interactions.
\nIn L.V. Evans (Ed.), Biofilms : recent advances in their study and control. Harwood Academic
\nPublishers. Amsterdam.
\nHeimdal, B.R. (1989). Arctic Ocean phytoplankton. In Y. Herman, The Arctic Seas : climatology,
\noceanography, geology and biology. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York.
\nHolmstr\u00f6m, C. & Kjelleberg, S. (2000). Bacterial interactions with marine fouling organisms. In L.V.
\nEvans (Ed.), Biofilms : recent advances in their study and control. Harwood Academic Publishers.
\nAmsterdam.
\nHorner, R.A. (1989). Arctic sea-ice biota. In Y. Herman (Ed.), The Arctic Seas : climatology,
\noceanography, geology and biology. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York.
\nIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2005). Safeguarding the ozone layer and the global
\nclimate system: issues related to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. Summary for
\npolicymakers and technical summary. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/ipcc.ch\/pdf\/special-reports\/sroc\/sroc_full.pdf
\nIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007, November). Climate change 2007 : synthesis
\nreport. Fourth Assessment Report. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/ipcc.ch\/pdf\/assessment-report\/ar4\/syr\/ar4_syr.pdf
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (1991, July 4). Resolution MEPC 50(31) : international
\nguidelines for preventing the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms and pathogens from
\nships\u2019 ballast water and sediment discharges. London.
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (1993, November 4). Resolution A. 774(18) : international
\nguidelines for preventing the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms and pathogens from
\nships\u2019 ballast water and sediment discharges. London.
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (1997a, June 6). Guidance on safety aspects of ballast water
\nexchange at sea (MSC\/Circ.806). London.
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (1997b, November 27). Resolution A. 868(20) : guidelines for
\nthe control and management of ships\u2019 ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic
\norganisms and pathogens. London.
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (1999, June 2). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its
\n71st session (MSC 71\/23). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2002, December 23). Guidelines for ships operating in Arctic
\nice-covered waters. (MSC\/Circ.1056, MEPC\/Circ.399). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\n63
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2003a, April 29). Work programme and budget for the twentythird financial period 2004-2005, part 2 : proposals by the Secretary-General (C 90\/18). London.
\nhttp:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2003b, May 23). Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water :
\nballast water background paper by the Intergovernmental Panel on Harmful Algal Blooms. Edited
\nby Dr. Gustaaf Hallegraeff. Submitted by the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of
\nUNESCO (MEPC 49\/INF.28). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2004a, February 12). International Conference on Ballast
\nWater Management for Ships : opening statement by the Secretary-General (BWM\/CONF\/INF.8).
\nLondon. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2004b, February 16). Adoption of the final act and any
\ninstruments, recommendations and resolutions resulting from the work of the Conference :
\nInternational Convention for the Control and Management of Ships\u2019 Ballast Water and Sediments,
\n2004. Text adopted by the Conference (BWM\/CONF\/36). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2004c, October 11). Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast
\nwater : legal opinion on transitory non-compliance with SOLAS V\/22 when conducting ballast water
\nexchange. Note by the Secretariat (MEPC 52\/WP.3). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2005, July 22). Report of the Marine Environment Protection
\nCommittee on its fifty-third session (MEPC 53\/24\/Add.1). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2006, January 13). Investigating biofouling risks and
\nmanagement options on commercial vessels. Submitted by Australia (MEPC 54\/INF.5). London.
\nhttp:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2007a, June 18). Report to the Maritime Safety Committee and
\nthe Marine Environment Protection Committee (FSI 15\/18). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2007b, July 30). Report of the Marine Environment Protection
\nCommittee on its fifty-sixth session (MEPC 56\/23). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2008a, April 4). Report of the Marine Environment Protection
\nCommittee on its fifty-seventh session (MEPC 57\/21). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2008b, June 10). International Convention for the Control and
\nManagement of ships\u2019 ballast waters and sediments : methodology for information gathering and
\nconduct of work of the GESAMP-BWWG (BWM.2\/Circ.13). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2008c, August 28). International Convention for the control
\nand management of ships\u2019 ballast water and sediments, 2004. Communication received from the
\nAdministration of the United Kingdom on behalf of the contracting parties of the OSPAR and
\nHelsinki Conventions (BWM.2\/Circ.14). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2008d, October 16). Report of the Marine Environment
\nProtection Committee on its fifty-eighth session (MEPC 58\/23). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2009a, June 12). Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on
\nits eighty-sixth session (MSC 86\/26). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2009b, July 22). Development of a mandatory code for ships
\noperating in polar waters. Outcome of the 32nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM
\nXXXII) (DE 53\/18). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2009c, November 20). Development of a mandatory code for
\nships operating in polar waters. Proposed framework for the code for ships operating in polar
\nwaters. Submitted by Canada (DE 53\/18\/2). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2009d, November 20). Proposed mandatory code for ships
\noperating in polar waters. Shipping management issues to be addressed. Submitted by FOEI, IUCN,
\nGreenpeace, IFAW and WWF (DE 53\/18\/3). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2009e, December 2). Guidelines for ships operating in polar
\nwaters (A 26\/Res.1024). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2010a, January 12). Environmental aspects of polar shipping.
\nSubmitted by Norway (MEPC 60\/21\/1). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\n64
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2010b, January 15). Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast
\nwater : outbreak of Salmonella in cattle probably due to infection from ballast water. Submitted by
\nNorway (MEPC 60\/INF.15). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2010c, July 23). Reduction of GHG emissions from ships :
\nmarginal abatement costs and cost-effectiveness of energy-efficiency measures. Submitted by the
\nInstitute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (MEPC 61\/INF.18). London.
\nhttp:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2010d, August 20). Development of a mandatory code for ships
\noperating in polar waters : additional MARPOL provisions for the Polar Code. Submitted by FOEI,
\nIFAW, WWF, Pacific Environment and CSC (DE 54\/13\/8). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2010e, August 20). Development of a mandatory code for ships
\noperating in polar waters : wider environmental provisions for the polar code. Submitted by FOEI,
\nIFAW, WWF, Pacific Environment and CSC (DE 54\/13\/9). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2010f, August 20). Development of a mandatory code for ships
\noperating in polar waters. Environmental aspects of emissions and discharges from shipping during
\nregular operation in polar areas. Submitted by Norway (DE 54\/INF.5). London.
\nhttp:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2010g, December 17). Development of a mandatory code for
\nships operating in polar waters. Draft proposal for an environmental protection chapter for
\ninclusion in the Polar Code. Submitted by Norway (DE 55\/12\/5). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2011a, May 6). Outcome of DE 55 \u2013 Legal opinion on making
\nthe Polar Code mandatory. Note by the Secretariat (MEPC 62\/11\/4\/Add.1). London.
\nhttp:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2011b, July 26). Report of the Marine Environment Protection
\nCommittee on its sixty-second session (MEPC 62\/24\/Add.1). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nInternational Maritime Organization. (2011c, September 28). International Convention for the Control
\nand Management of Ships\u2019 Ballast Water and Sediments : accession by Mongolia and Palau
\n(BWM.1\/Circ.20). London. http:\/\/docs.imo.org\/
\nJoint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP).
\n(1991). Global strategies for marine environment protection. Reports and studies No. 45.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/gesamp.org\/
\nJoint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP).
\n(1997, January). Opportunistic settlers and the problem of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi
\ninvasion in the Black Sea. Reports and studies No. 58. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/gesamp.org\/
\nJoint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP).
\n(2001, January 15). Protecting the oceans from land-based activities : land-based sources and
\nactivities affecting the quality and uses of the marine, coastal and associated freshwater
\nenvironment. Reports and studies No. 71. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/gesamp.org\/
\nJoint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP).
\n(2005). The new GESAMP : science for sustainable oceans. A strategic vision for the
\nIMO\/FAO\/UNESCO-IOC\/WMO\/WHO\/IAEA\/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific
\nAspects of Marine Environmental Protection. IMO. London.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/gesamp.org\/data\/gesamp\/files\/media\/Publications\/GESAMP_The_New_GESAMP__Sci
\nence_for_Sustainable_Oceans\/gallery_1043\/object_1043_large.pdf
\nKannan, K. & Tanabe, S. (2009). Global contamination by organotin compounds. In T. Arai, H.
\nHarino, M. Ohji & W.J. Langston (Eds.), Ecotoxicology of antifouling biocides. Springer. Tokyo.
\nKoivurova, T. (2009, June). Governance of protected areas in the Arctic. Utrecht Law Review.
\nVolume 5, Issue 1. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/utrechtlawreview.org\/
\nKoivurova, T. & Molenaar, E.J. (2009, December). International Governance and Regulation of the
\nMarine Arctic. WWF International Arctic Programme. Oslo.
\nhttp:\/\/wwf.panda.org\/what_we_do\/where_we_work\/arctic\/publications\/?193130\/New-Arctic-needsnew-rules-WWF
\nKosmo, J., Stub, J.L., H\u00f8egh, A., Hansen, G.-K. & Fr\u00f8iland, R. (2007, November 6). Riksrevisjonens
\nunders\u00f8kelse av forvaltningen og kontrollen av fiskeressursene i Barentshavet og Norskehavet : en
\n65
\nparallell revisjon mellom norsk og russisk riksrevisjon.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/riksrevisjonen.no\/SiteCollectionDocuments\/Dokumentbasen\/Dokument3\/2007-
\n2008\/Dokument322007_2008s1195.pdf
\nKraska, J. (2007). The Law of the Sea Convention and the Northwest Passage. The International
\nJournal of Marine and Coastal Law. Vol. 22, No. 2.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/marad.dot.gov\/documents\/ARCTIC_Law_of_the_Sea_Convention_and_NorthWest_Pas
\nsage.pdf
\nKystverket (2004, May). Utredning av konsekvenser av skipstrafikk i omr\u00e5det Lofoten-Barentshavet.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/kystverket.no\/arch\/_img\/9120756.pdf
\nLahvis, G.P., Wells, R.S., Kuehl, D.W., Stewart, J.L., Rhinehart, H.L. & Via, C.S. (1995, May).
\nDecreased lymphocyte responses in free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are
\nassociated with increased concentrations of PCBs and DDT in peripheral blood. Environmental
\nHealth Perspectives. 103 (Suppl. 4) : 67\u201372. http:\/\/ehp03.niehs.nih.gov\/home.action
\nLangston, W.J., Harino, H. & Pope, N.D. (2009). Behaviour of organotins in the coastal environment.
\nIn T. Arai, H. Harino, M. Ohji & W.J. Langston (Eds.), Ecotoxicology of antifouling biocides.
\nSpringer. Tokyo.
\nLewandowski, Z. (2000). Structure and function of biofilms. In L.V. Evans (Ed.), Biofilms : recent
\nadvances in their study and control. Harwood Academic Publishers. Amsterdam.
\nLindholt, L. & Glomsr\u00f8d, S. (2009, November). Future production of petroleum in the Arctic under
\nalternative oil prices. In S. Glomsr\u00f8d & I. Aslaksen (Eds.), The Economy of the North 2008.
\nStatistics Norway. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/ssb.no\/
\nMare, C. (2009). L\u2019Arctique : eldorado polaire menac\u00e9 cherche d\u00e9sesp\u00e9r\u00e9ment r\u00e9gime de protection
\njuridique. Annuaire Fran\u00e7ais de Relations Internationales. Vol. X. Centre Thucydide \u2013 Analyse et
\nrecherche en relations internationales. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/afri-ct.org\/IMG\/pdf\/Article_Mare.pdf
\nMasters, G. & Norgrove, L. (2010, November). Climate change and invasive alien species. CABI.
\nhttp:\/\/195.144.0.240\/Uploads\/File\/CABi%20worldwide\/Invasive%20alien%20species%20working
\n%20paper.pdf
\nMatishov, G., Golubeva, N., Titova, G., Sydnes, A. & Voegele, B. (2004, August). Global
\nInternational Waters Assessment : the Barents Sea. GIWA Regional assessment 11. University of
\nKalmar on behalf of the UNEP. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/unep.org\/
\nMineur, F., Johnson, M.P., Maggs, C.A. & Stegenga, H. (2007). Hull-fouling on commercial ships as
\na vector of macro algal introduction. Marine Biology. Volume 151. Springer-Verlag.
\nhttp:\/\/fn3dn7gc5p.scholar.serialssolutions.com\/
\nMinistry of Economic Development of the Murmansk region. (2010, August 26). Socio-economic
\nstrategy for the Murmansk region till the year 2025. The BarentsInfo.org portal.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/barentsinfo.org\/loader.aspx?id=db2be5c2-8ef4-43da-9b92-3c7a1c08655a
\nMinton, M.S., Verling, E., Miller, A.W. & Ruiz, G.M. (2005). Reducing propagule supply and coastal
\ninvasions via ships : effects of emerging strategies. Frontiers in Ecology. The Ecological Society of
\nAmerica.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/serc.si.edu\/labs\/marine_invasions\/publications\/Minton%20et%20al%202005%20%28Fr
\nontiers%29.pdf
\nMonfort, P., Piclet, G. & Plusquellec, A. (2000). Listeria innocua and Salmonella panama in
\nestuarine water and seawater : a comparative study. Water Research, Vol. 34, No. 3. Elsevier
\nScience. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/sciencedirect.com\/
\nMonfort, P. (2006). Microbiologie et coquillages. IFREMER Concarneau.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/ifremer.fr\/delcc\/pdf\/coquillages_microbiologie.pdf
\nMora, C. & Sale, P.F. (2011, July 28). Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond
\nprotected areas : a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land
\nand sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 434. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/intres.com\/articles\/theme\/m434p251.pdf
\nMurphy, C. & Eason, C. (2011, May 12). China eyes more Arctic business. Lloyd\u2019s List.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/lloydslist.com\/ll\/sector\/ship-operations\/article370359.ece
\nMurray, M.S., Anderson, L., Cherkashov, G., Cuyler, C., Forbes, B., Gascard, J.-C., Haas, C.,
\nSchlosser, P., Shaver, G., Shimada, K., Tjernstr\u00f6m, M., Walsh, J., Wandell, J. & Zhao, Z. (2010).
\n66
\nInternational Study of Arctic Change : Science Plan. ISAC International Program Office,
\nStockholm. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/arcticchange.org\/
\nM\u00e4enp\u00e4\u00e4, I. (2009, November). Comparative analysis of Arctic economies at macro level. In S.
\nGlomsr\u00f8d & I. Aslaksen (Eds.), The Economy of the North 2008. Statistics Norway.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/ssb.no\/english\/subjects\/00\/00\/30\/sa_economy_north\/sa112_en\/sa112_en.pdf
\nNakayama, A., Segner, H. & Kawai, S. (2009). Immunotoxic effects of organotin compounds in
\nteleost fish. In T. Arai, H. Harino, M. Ohji & W.J. Langston (Eds.), Ecotoxicology of antifouling
\nbiocides. Springer. Tokyo.
\nNilsson, A. E. (2011). Varmare klimat sk\u00e4rper kampen om Arktis framtid. Utrikespolitiska institutet.
\nStockholm.
\nParker, B. (2011, September 9). Northern promise : Russia\u2019s Arctic waters return to top of the
\nagenda. Lloyd\u2019s List.
\nPatin, S. (1999). Environmental impact of the offshore oil and gas industry. EcoMonitor Publishing.
\nNew York.
\nPerry, J.J., Staley, J.T. & Lory, S. (2002). Microbial life. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland (USA).
\nQuiniou, C. & Comp\u00e8re, C. (2009). La chimie et la mer : ensemble au service de l\u2019homme. EDP
\nSciences. Les Ulis (France).
\nRailkin, A.I. (2004). Marine biofouling : colonization processes and defenses. CRC Press.
\nRamirez-Llodra, E., Tyler, P.A., Baker, M.C., Bergstad, O.A., Clark, M.R., Escobar, E., Levin, L.,
\nMenot, L., Rowden, A.A., Smith, C.R. & Van Dover, C.L. (2011, August 1). Man and the last great
\nwilderness : human impact on the deep sea.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/plosone.org\/article\/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022588
\nReadman, J.W., Van Hattum, B., Barcelo, D., Albanis, T.A., Riemann, B., Blanck, H., Gustavson, K.,
\nTronczynski, J. & Jacobson, A. (2002, 27 June). Assessment of antifouling agents in coastal
\nenvironments (ACE) : Final Scientific and Technical Report. MAS3-CT98-0178. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/pmlace.org.uk\/
\nRosentrater, L. & Ogden, A.E. (2003, August). Building resilience in Arctic ecosystems. Buying time
\n: a user\u2019s manual for building resistance and resilience to climate change in natural systems. WWF
\nClimate Change Programme. Berlin. http:\/\/assets.panda.org\/downloads\/buyingtime_unfe.pdf
\nSafe, S. (1994). Polychlorinated biphenyls : environmental impact, biochemical and toxic responses,
\nand implications for risk assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology.
\nhttp:\/\/informahealthcare.com\/doi\/abs\/10.3109\/10408449409049308
\nShirihai, H. (2007). A complete guide to Antarctic wildlife. A&C Black Publishers. London.
\nSkaare, J.U., Larsen, H.J., Lie, E., Bernhoft, A., Derocher, A.E., Norstrom, R., Ropstad, E., Lunn,
\nN.F. & Wiig, \u00d8. (2002, December 27). Ecological risk assessment of persistent organic pollutants
\nin the Arctic. Toxicology. Volumes 181-182. Elsevier. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/sciencedirect.com\/
\nSpeer, L. & Laughlin, T.L. (2011, April 7). IUCN\/NRDC Workshop to Identify Areas of Ecological
\nand Biological Significance or Vulnerability in the Arctic Marine Environment (La Jolla, California,
\nNovember 2\u20104, 2010). Workshop Report.
\nhttp:\/\/cmsdata.iucn.org\/downloads\/arctic_workshop_report_2011_2.pdf
\nStoeck, T., Kasper, J., Bunge, J., Leslin, C., Ilyin, V. & Epstein, S. (2007, August). Protistan diversity
\nin the Arctic : a case of paleoclimate shaping modern biodiversity ? Paleoclimate and biodiversity.
\nIssue 8 e728. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/plosone.org\/
\nStroeve, J., Holland, M. M., Meier, W., Scambos, T. & Serreze, M. (2007, May 1). Arctic sea ice
\ndecline : faster than forecast. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/ualberta.ca\/~eec\/Stroeve2007.pdf
\nSuban, V., Vidmar, P. & Perkovic, M. (2010). Ballast Water Replacement with Fresh Water : Why
\nNot ? In N. Bellefontaine, F. Haag, O. Lind\u00e9n & J. Matheickal (Eds.), Emerging Ballast Water
\nManagement Systems : Proceedings of the IMO-WMU Research and Development Forum, 26-29
\nJanuary 2010. Malm\u00f6 (Sweden).
\nSweden\u2019s Department of Foreign Affairs. (2011, May 12). Sveriges strategi f\u00f6r den arktiska regionen.
\nUtrikesdepartementet. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/sweden.gov.se\/
\n67
\nTamelander, J., Riddering, L., Haag, F. & Matheickal, J. (2010). Guidelines for Development of
\nNational Ballast Water Management Strategies. GEF-UNDP-IMO GloBallast Monographs No. 18.
\nhttp:\/\/globallast.imo.org\/Monograph_18_NBWMS_Guidelines_web.pdf
\nTaube, A. (2010). Microwaves + Ultraviolet + Ozone Ballast Water Treatment. In N. Bellefontaine, F.
\nHaag, O. Lind\u00e9n & J. Matheickal (Eds.), Emerging Ballast Water Management Systems :
\nProceedings of the IMO-WMU Research and Development Forum, 26-29 January 2010. Malm\u00f6
\n(Sweden).
\nUnited Nations. (1972, June 16). Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human
\nEnvironment. Stockholm. 5-16 June 1972. (A\/CONF.48\/14\/Rev.1, Annex III). http:\/\/documents-ddsny.un.org\/doc\/UNDOC\/GEN\/NL7\/300\/05\/img\/NL730005.pdf?OpenElement
\nUnited Nations. (1974, December 12). Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. General
\nAssembly. (A\/RES\/29\/3281). https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/un-documents.net
\nUnited Nations. (1982a, October 28). World Charter for Nature. General Assembly. (A\/RES\/37\/7).
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/un-documents.net
\nUnited Nations. (1982b, December 10). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/un.org\/Depts\/los\/convention_agreements\/texts\/unclos\/closindx.htm
\nUnited Nations. (1992a, May 22). Convention on Biological Diversity.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/cbd.int\/convention\/text\/
\nUnited Nations. (1992b, June 14). The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/unescap.org\/esd\/environment\/rio20\/pages\/Download\/Rio_Declaration-E.pdf
\nUnited Nations. (2001, December 20). Receipt of the submission made by the Russian Federation to
\nthe Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. CLCS. 01. 2001.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/un.org\/depts\/los\/clcs_new\/submissions_files\/rus01\/RUS_CLCS_01_2001_LOS_English
\n.pdf
\nUnited Nations. (2006, December 21). Receipt of the submission made by Norway to the Commission
\non the Limits of the Continental Shelf. CLCS. 07. 2006.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/un.org\/depts\/los\/clcs_new\/submissions_files\/nor06\/clcs_07_2006_los_e.pdf
\nUnited Nations. (2009, April 30). Receipt of the submission made by the Republic of Iceland to the
\nCommission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. CLCS. 27. 2009.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/un.org\/depts\/los\/clcs_new\/submissions_files\/isl27_09\/isl_clcs27_2009e.pdf
\nUnited Nations. (2010, December 6). Receipt of the submission made by the Kingdom of Denmark to
\nthe Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. CLCS. 54. 2010.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/un.org\/depts\/los\/clcs_new\/submissions_files\/dnk54_10\/clcs54e.pdf
\nUnited Nations Environment Programme. (1987). The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
\nthe Ozone Layer. http:\/\/ozone.unep.org\/Ratification_status\/montreal_protocol.shtml
\nUnited Nations Environment Programme. (2001, May 22). The Stockholm Convention on Persistent
\nOrganic Pollutants. http:\/\/chm.pops.int\/Convention\/ConventionText\/tabid\/2232\/language\/enUS\/Default.aspx
\nUnited Nations Environment Programme. (2007). Tourism in the polar regions : the sustainability
\nchallenge. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/unep.fr\/shared\/publications\/pdf\/DTIx0938xPA-PolarTourismEN.pdf
\nUnited Nations Environment Programme. (2010, October). Global synthesis : a report from the
\nregional seas conventions and action plans for the marine biodiversity assessment and outlook
\nseries. http:\/\/marinebiodiversityseries.org\/reports\/2-global-synthesis-report.html
\nUnited States Geological Survey. (2008, May). Circum-Arctic resource appraisal : estimates of
\nundiscovered oil and gas north of the Arctic Circle. http:\/\/pubs.usgs.gov\/fs\/2008\/3049\/
\nUnited States National Research Council, Committee on the Bering Sea Ecosystem. (1996). The
\nBering Sea Ecosystem. National Academy Press. Washington.
\nVasilyev, K.G., Dubasov, Y.V., Safronov, V.G., Tkachenko, A.F., Filippovsky, V.I. & Chugunov,
\nV.V. (2004, December) Radioactivity of water in the Barents and Kara Seas. In the International
\nAtomic Energy Agency\u2019s publication, Nuclear explosions in the USSR : the North test site.
\nReference material (version 4). http:\/\/www-ns.iaea.org\/downloads\/rw\/waste-safety\/north-test-sitefinal.pdf
\nVeldhuis, M., Hallers, C.T., Brutel de La Rivi\u00e8re, E., Fuhr, F., Finke, J., Steehouwer, P.P., Van de
\nStar, I. & Van Sloote, C. (2010). Ballast Water Treatment Systems : \u201cOld\u201d and \u201cNew\u201d Ones. In N.
\n68
\nBellefontaine, F. Haag, O. Lind\u00e9n & J. Matheickal (Eds.), Emerging Ballast Water Management
\nSystems : Proceedings of the IMO-WMU Research and Development Forum, 26-29 January 2010.
\nMalm\u00f6 (Sweden).
\nVidas, D. (2000). Protecting the polar marine environment : interplay of regulatory frameworks. In D.
\nVidas (Ed.), Protecting the Polar Marine Environment : law and policy for pollution prevention.
\nCambridge University Press.
\nVolk, W.A., Gebhardt, B.M., Hammarskj\u00f6ld, M.-L. & Kadner, R. (1996). Essentials of medical
\nmicrobiology. Fifth edition. Lippincott-Raven Publishers. Philadelphia.
\nWallentinus, I. & Werner, M. (2008). Fr\u00e4mmande arter i svenska vatten : ska vi bry oss ?
\nInstitutionen f\u00f6r Marin ekologi. G\u00f6teborgs universitet. G\u00f6teborg.
\nWalther, G.R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesank, C., Beebee, T.J.C., Fromentin, J.-M.,
\nHoegh-Guldberg, O. & Bairlein, F. (2002, March 28). Ecological responses to recent climate
\nchange. Nature. Vol. 416. Macmillan Magazines Ltd.
\nhttp:\/\/eebweb.arizona.edu\/courses\/Ecol206\/Walther%20et%20al%20Nature%202002.pdf
\nWorld Organization for Animal Health. (2009). Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals.
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/oie.int\/en\/international-standard-setting\/aquatic-manual\/access-online\/
\nZinn, M., Zimmerman, R.C. & White, D.C. (2000). Environmentally acceptable control of microbial
\nbiofilms. In L.V. Evans (Ed.), Biofilms : recent advances in their study and control. Harwood
\nAcademic Publishers. Amsterdam.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
THE INTRODUCTION OF ALIEN AQUATIC SPECIES BY SHIPS IN THE ARCTIC The role of the Polar Code and other international legal instruments ABSTRACT Maritime transport\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8827,10099,10540,10536,10892,10538,10539,10537,10891],"tags":[10549,10616,10615,7687,10627,8857,10552,10295,10548,10622,8907],"class_list":["post-132331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia-essays","category-buy-essay","category-cheap-essay-writers","category-get-assignments-done","category-page-paper","category-phd-essay-writers","category-research-paper-writing-service-for-any-topic","category-study-bay-essay","category-write-my-assignment-ireland","tag-ai-plagiarism-free-essay-writing-tool","tag-australian-best-tutors","tag-best-trans-tutors","tag-buy-essay-uk","tag-cheap-dissertation-writer","tag-help-with-writing-an-essay","tag-help-write-my-paper-ai-free","tag-homework-for-you","tag-online-essay-writers","tag-phd-essays","tag-write-my-essay-for-me"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132331","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132331"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132331\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":132433,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132331\/revisions\/132433"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}