Infrastructure and technical issues

The scope of infrastructure may be defined either broadly or in a more restricted way, depending on the aim of the examination. In the AMSA, infrastructure is understood very broadly “to address all major aspects of marine shipping, including vessels and crews, the systems needed to gather and supply accu- rate and timely information for safe navigation and operations, the personnel and resources needed to respond to a variety of potential emergencies, port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and the shoreside facilities needed to provide supplies and logistics in support of marine shipping and emergen- cy response” (AMSA 2009, 157). Defined this way, the number of infrastructure-related questions is great, and many such questions have already been discussed in earlier sections. Hence the currently applied definition of infrastructure is narrower, and the focus is on the structural and technological framework in which all marine-related activities have to be performed.

With regard to mapping and hydrography, Arctic waters are not very well charted. This is mainly due to the inevitable limitations of historical survey methods, as the accuracy of charting has in part been based on the amount of marine traffic. The high costs and the volatility of conditions have kept the number of Arctic voyages very limited, resulting in partial and incomplete hydrographical data. Such

Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 41/2014 71

low level of coverage and quality gives rise to an unfulfilled demand, especially as the amount of mari- time activities is likely to increase notably. (AMSA 2009.)

Navigational aids as well as safety and navigation information broadcasts are necessary for the ex-

istence and development of safe and effective maritime activities. Arctic waters comprise an area which is not served by any single broadcasting system, but Arctic mariners have to rely on a patchwork of

different systems. Nowadays, ships usually use combination of satellite positioning and traditional navi-

gation techniques, and the communications provide services sufficient enough for the lower Arctic, whereas the high Arctic is in the fringe and occasionally out of reach. (AMSA 2009.)

The analogue radio facsimile broadcast is the historical standard for communicating weather, wave

and ice information to the ships at sea, and despite the world-wide rise of digital communications its role as an important source of information in the Arctic is unquestionable. Even today, several radio stations around the Arctic broadcast analysis and forecast charts for sea ice, icebergs, sea state and weather, as well as provide vessel traffic services and general marine communications. Nevertheless, most modern ships are equipped with satellite digital communications equipment, relying on geostation- ary INMARSAT satellites. However, such satellites do not provide service northward of about 80 º N latitude, whereas the IRIDIUM constellation of 66 polar orbiting satellites provides worldwide cover- age, including the Arctic. The data transfer rates with IRIDIUM are however very low (less than 9.6 kb/s), decreasing the feasibility of communicating ice charts and satellite images to ships in the Arctic. (AMSA 2009.)

In addition to the above-mentioned requirements for vessels and their standard of equipment, the conditions in the Arctic waters demand very much from the crew. The professional skills of the mari-

ners are tested in everyday situations, as the Arctic offers significant navigational challenges. However,

the training of the skilful officers has mostly been on-the-job, with relatively little formal education. In future, the need for ice navigators increases, as well as the insistence on regulated qualification. For example, IMO’s guidelines recommend more formal training focusing on Arctic-related issues in con- junction with simulations of possible emergency situations. (AMSA 2009.)

The remoteness and challenging conditions of the Arctic waters gives rise to extra concern related to the search and rescue (SAR) and spill response capabilities. Furthermore, as the amount of Arctic marine activities increases, it is clear that the statistical probability of serious incidents also rises. The limited number of appropriate equipment and experienced personnel in conjunction with the sensitivity of the Arctic ecosystem underlines the importance of determined and rapid response. Processing and distributing the relevant information as fast as possible comprises the cornerstone of efficient incident management, especially in the remote locations of the Arctic. Thus the functional cooperation of differ- ent state authorities and commercial operators is of crucial importance. (AMSA 2009.)

There have been both bilateral and regional SAR agreements between Arctic States for providing the needed response in certain Arctic areas earlier, but no Arctic-wide agreement existed until 2011. The agreement was established with the contribution of the Arctic Council, and its main objective is to

strengthen aeronautical and maritime search and rescue cooperation and coordination in the Arctic.

According to the agreement, the Arctic is divided into specific search and rescue areas, and each of the Arctic Council member states has responsibility for its indicated area (see Fig. 22 for details). (Østreng et al. 2013.)

Nevertheless, the current SAR infrastructure in the Arctic is in general very limited and, in addition,

regional variability is great. This results in some areas of Arctic waters being practically isolated with

regard to incident response capabilities. Around the Arctic, there are fixed wing aircrafts and helicopters as well as icebreakers and seasonal patrol vessels utilizable for SAR, but long distances, weather and other operating conditions may inhibit their efficient usage. The insufficient shoreside infrastructure needed to provide basic logistics and support functions for SAR missions also hinders taking action. (AMSA 2009.)

In addition to the lack of SAR related shoreside infrastructure, the overall level of port services in the Arctic is rather low. There are few deepwater ports and places of refuge available, and facilities for ship-generated waste or towing services may be inadequate. Such shortages directly influence the level

of risk associated with shipping in the Arctic, and thus affect the development of marine insurance rates. (AMSA 2009.)

72 Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 41/2014

All in all, places of refuge are essential for executing safe maritime activities, as they are the loca- tions in which “a ship in need of assistance can take action to enable it to stabilize its condition and re- duce the hazards to navigation, and to protect human life and the environment” (AMSA 2009, 179). Hence the vagueness concerning the Arctic shoreside infrastructure poses a major hindrance to the

appropriate utilization of Arctic waters. The situation is particularly uncertain among the northern coast

of Russia, where even more than half of the existing 50 ports on the Northern Sea Route are out of oper- ation (Østreng et al. 2013). Apart from the several well-equipped deepwater ports along the NSR, there are notable obscurities in the statuses of existing ports at present, concerning especially the openness to foreign vessels as well as the availability and the quality of services (Østreng et al. 2013).

Spills of oil and other hazardous materials comprise a question of additional concern in the Arctic,

since the long distances and the presence of sea ice significantly hinder executing appropriate measures on the one hand, and because the Arctic environment is especially vulnerable on the other. Additionally, the cold temperatures (that are very common in the Arctic) slow down the rate of biological degrada-

tion of oil, leading to increased durations and more extensive areas of exposure. Thus even an incident

of moderate degree may in the Arctic conditions result easily in a vast ecological disaster. (Østreng et al. 2013.)