Polar Code

:
Past, Present & Future (?) , ( )
Arctic Ocean Beyond National Jurisdiction, Fairbanks Alaska

July 26, 2011 Victor Santos-Pedro

background and progress to date • Keys to success • Concluding remarks .Overview • Existing Measures in Arctic waters • A tale of two vessels • Polar Code development – Rationale.

Existing Measures in Arctic Waters UNCLOS Article 234 Canada Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act Russian Federation Northern Sea Route Regime Denmark/Greenland Navigation: Rules & Reporting Baltic Rules .

What do th Wh t d these vessels have in common? l h i ? RMS Titanic MS Explorer • B th hit i Both ice. p p p p y • Both prompted important developments in maritime safety: • Titanic → SOLAS • Explorer → Mandatory Polar Code . • Both sank.

etc. MARPOL .Requirements in Central Arctic Ocean Same as for a vessel in open water elsewhere. elsewhere i. .e. SOLAS.

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

regulators Multi-year ice . builders operators and regulators. in many forms and ages – Cold temperatures – Limited infrastructure • Aids to navigation • Pollution response Arctic SAR sectors •H Harmonized. with limited search and rescue capability – Ice.Why a Polar Code? • Polar waters pose particular challenges that th t can b mitigated with appropriate be iti t d ith i t measures: – Remote. builders. common rules will i d l ill provide greater protection world-wide and simplify life for designers.

1024 (26)) Development of mandatory Polar Code added to IMO work plan 2009 2010 Proposals for ice navigator competencies considered Discussion on mandatory requirements began . environmental protection and damage control • Construction aspects refer to draft IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Class Ships 1998 2002 2006 2007 Expansion IACS Council adopts Unified Requirements World-wide distribution of images of “MS Explorer” accident and sinking Guidelines updated and expanded to cover all Polar waters (A. equipment.Steps leading to a Polar Code 1993 Original Guidelines IMO Outside Working Group formed after Helsinki meeting Requirements proposed to IMO for vessel operation in Polar waters Guidelines for ships operating in Arctic ice-covered waters published • Include provisions for construction equipment operations and construction.

remoteness.g. temperatures) (e.g.g. 2. communications issues) (e. specialized training and experience requirements.Progress to Date • Principles guiding Code development: – Risk-based approach in determining scope – Holistic approach to mitigate risks to acceptable levels • • Development and use of an extensive Hazards and Risks list for validating risk mitigation measures p y Hazards and risks provisionally consolidated into four main categories: 1. 3. Environmental conditions High latitude Environmental sensitivity E i t l iti it Human element (e. 3 4.g. slow recovery f ( l from d damage) ) (e. physiological effects of polar conditions) . ice.

reporting.Polar Code structure and components • Structure similar to other recent IMO Codes  General. Part A (required).g. e. as well as application of specific provisions still to be determined . Part C (guidelines) • Construction requirements established by reference to IACS Unified Requirements for Polar Class Ships • All vessels to require a Polar Ship Certificate to operate in Polar waters t • Polar Operation Manual (Permit or Ice Certificate) to contain vessel specific guidance for crew • Additional components. monitoring. Part B (recommended).

Polar Waters Arctic waters Antarctic waters .

Unified Requirements for Polar Class Ships Common set of construction requirements for all IACS members (International A (I t ti l Association of Cl i ti f Classification S i ti ) ifi ti Societies) – Joint effort from class. industry and researchers – Hull design requirements are state-of-the-art scenario and mechanics based: – Design based on plastic structural behaviour – Steel distributed differently – Machinery requirements have similar approach to new Baltic Rules – No power requirements p q . academia.

Keys to success • Agreement upon provisions th t mitigate the risks that a vessel is A t i i that iti t th i k th t li likely to encounter. including: – Harmonization of ship structure and other characteristics through adoption of P l Cl d ti f Polar Classes – Requirements for knowledgeable and experienced crew – Monitoring and enforcement • • • Ability to provide current and accurate ice and weather information Continued development of IACS Unified Requirements based on experience Understanding by operators that remoteness and limitations in infrastructure mean voyages in polar waters require additional planning and preparation .

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

Questions – please! p .

RDIMS 6873915 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful