WWF Arctic Council Conservation Scorecard

Shipping

© WWF / Clive Tesar

Arctic shipping – both destinational and transit – has increased significantly during the past decade. This trend is projected to continue due to increased demand for resources and shortened routes as Arctic shipping lanes become free of ice for longer periods. Both factors increase the risk of major environmental impacts.

Findings

Most Arctic countries have not implemented measures to reduce air emissions from Arctic marine shipping.

Recommendations

Arctic countries

Arctic Council

Detailed ratings

C Canada

  • Protection for Areas of Heightened Ecological and Cultural Significance
  • 2/4
  • Protection from Invasive Species 
  • 2/2
  • Reducing Air Emissions from Shipping
  • 0/4
  • Arctic Marine Traffic System
  • 1/1
  • Total score
  • 5/11

All ratings for Canada See detailed scoring criteria

C Kingdom of Denmark

  • Protection for Areas of Heightened Ecological and Cultural Significance
  • 2/4
  • Protection from Invasive Species 
  • 2/2
  • Reducing Air Emissions from Shipping
  • 0/4
  • Arctic Marine Traffic System
  • 1/1
  • Total score
  • 5/11

All ratings for Kingdom of Denmark See detailed scoring criteria

C Finland

  • Protection for Areas of Heightened Ecological and Cultural Significance
  • N/A
  • Protection from Invasive Species 
  • 2/2
  • Reducing Air Emissions from Shipping
  • 0/2
  • Arctic Marine Traffic System
  • N/A
  • Total score
  • 2/4

All ratings for Finland See detailed scoring criteria

D Iceland

  • Protection for Areas of Heightened Ecological and Cultural Significance
  • 0/4
  • Protection from Invasive Species 
  • 1/2
  • Reducing Air Emissions from Shipping
  • 1/4
  • Arctic Marine Traffic System
  • 1/1
  • Total score
  • 3/11

All ratings for Iceland See detailed scoring criteria

D Norway

  • Protection for Areas of Heightened Ecological and Cultural Significance
  • 1/4
  • Protection from Invasive Species 
  • 2/2
  • Reducing Air Emissions from Shipping
  • 0/4
  • Arctic Marine Traffic System
  • 1/1
  • Total score
  • 4/11

All ratings for Norway See detailed scoring criteria

D Russia

  • Protection for Areas of Heightened Ecological and Cultural Significance
  • 1/4
  • Protection from Invasive Species 
  • 1/2
  • Reducing Air Emissions from Shipping
  • 0/4
  • Arctic Marine Traffic System
  • 1/1
  • Total score
  • 3/11

All ratings for Russia See detailed scoring criteria

C Sweden

  • Protection for Areas of Heightened Ecological and Cultural Significance
  • N/A
  • Protection from Invasive Species 
  • 2/2
  • Reducing Air Emissions from Shipping
  • 0/2
  • Arctic Marine Traffic System
  • N/A
  • Total score
  • 2/4

All ratings for Sweden See detailed scoring criteria

D United States

  • Protection for Areas of Heightened Ecological and Cultural Significance
  • 0/4
  • Protection from Invasive Species 
  • 1/2
  • Reducing Air Emissions from Shipping
  • 1/4
  • Arctic Marine Traffic System
  • 1/1
  • Total score
  • 3/11

All ratings for United States See detailed scoring criteria

A Arctic Council

  • Completion of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment
  • 2/2
  • Implementing AMSA Policy Recommendations
  • 10/10
  • Total Score
  • 12/12

All ratings for Arctic Council See detailed scoring criteria

How these indicators are scored

National

Indicator 1: Areas of Heightened Ecological and Cultural Significance

Criterion 1:

  • State implemented protection measures from the impacts of Arctic marine shipping for some areas of heightened ecological significance
  • State implemented protection measures from the impacts of Arctic marine shipping for all areas of heightened ecological significance

Criterion 2:

  • State implemented protection measures from the impacts of Arctic marine shipping for some areas of heightened cultural significance
  • State implemented protection measures from the impacts of Arctic marine shipping for all areas of heightened cultural significance

Indicator 2: Protection from Invasive Species

Criterion 1: State ratified the Ballast Water Management Convention (BWMC)

Criterion 2: State established legislation or regulations for invasive species prevention and management for Arctic waters

Indicator 3: Reducing Air Emissions from Shipping

Criterion 1: State has national regulations aiming to reduce Arctic shipping air emissions

Criterion 2: State has regulatory requirements, including economic incentives (e.g. tax breaks) to switch technologies or adopt practices (e.g. scrubbers, Liquefied Natural Gas, slow steaming, etc.)

Criterion 3: State has sulfur and nitrogen emission control areas and/or emissions restrictions for all Arctic waters

Criterion 4: State ban Heavy Fuel Oil use for all Arctic waters

Indicator 4: Arctic Marine Traffic System

Criterion 1: State has national marine monitoring traffic systems which cover Arctic waters

Arctic Council

Indicator 1: Completion of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment

Criterion 1: Arctic Council completed the AMSA report for the Sixth Ministerial Meeting.

Criterion 2: AMSA report included necessary information on traditional uses of the offshore by Arctic Indigenous peoples

Indicator 2: Implementing AMSA Policy Recommendations

Criterion 1:

Identified and approved follow-up action

  • I(C) Uniformity of Arctic Shipping Governance
  • I(D) Strengthening Passenger Ship Safety in Arctic Waters
  • I(E) Arctic Search and Rescue (SAR) Instrument
  • II(A) Survey of Arctic Indigenous Marine Use
  • II(B) Engagement with Arctic Communities
  • II(H) Reducing Air Emissions
  • III(A) Addressing the Infrastructure Deficit
  • III(B) Arctic Marine Traffic System
  • III(C) Circumpolar Environmental Response Capacity

Criterion 2: Monitoring the progress of the implementation of the AMSA recommendations