CHAPTER 4

Legal Issues and Legal Framework with Regard to Climate Change in the Context of the Maritime Industry in South Asia

Shivani Raswan Pathania and Huong Ha

Introduction

The seas of South Asia have become the central focal point for international concerns because of the increasing number of environmental issues affecting the maritime environment. The consequences of environmental degradation are the results of a tendency of continuously exploiting the natural resources and compromising environmental sustainability (Larkin, Smith, and Wrobel 2016). Sustaining the seas in this dynamic world while attempting to ensure the avoidance of issues of sovereignty and states’ rights remains as a critical component of durable international governance in the maritime industry. Current global challenges, especially those due to climate change, have severe consequences on mankind, the fisheries, and coastal tourism which threaten the established order of international maritime governance.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), established under the charter of the United Nations (UN) in 1948, is the founding body for handling all maritime matters (Buky 2009). The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has provided a clear direction and an umbrella for the regulatory framework for maritime governance with an increasing focus on climate change (United Nations 1982). This has been ratified by a number of South Asian member states of the UN (India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bangladesh, Iran, and Pakistan), though the ratification process is still slow and progressing. In fact, having the responsibility for creating a common regulatory framework, for shipping, IMO has contributed to 59 conventions and protocols. Resultantly, these conventions have laid down a regulatory framework for the safe operations and interaction of commercial shipping vessels with the ports they visit.

This chapter discusses the legal framework, including the UNCLOS, for responding to climate change. It focuses on the development of mitigation and adaptation measures to address climate change-related issues (International Institute for Sustainable Development 2016). Thus, this chapter aims to address the following questions in the context of the maritime industry:

To clarify terms, mitigation herein is considered as any induced efforts of the international communities to prevent and deal with the threat posed by climate change (Kahn Ribeiro et al. 2007). On the other hand, adaptation includes the success of all efforts to reduce the adverse effect of climate change on the atmosphere (Burton, Diringer, and Smith 2014).

The chapter is structured into three main parts: (i) an introduction of the issues and challenges faced by the maritime industry, (ii) the legal framework relating to climate change mitigation and adaptation governing the maritime industry, and (iii) the effectiveness of the current legal framework, that is, the contributions of UNCLOS and its role in the preservation of an order and effective international legal system in the maritime industry.

A significant aspect of the chapter is to suggest some measures to strengthen the legal framework for the maritime industry. Undoubtedly, the real threat posed by the warmer oceans and rising sea levels presents one of the biggest challenges to the international maritime industry. The root causes of such an irreparable loss are the emission of too much carbon dioxide (CO₂) and sulphur dioxide (SO₂) from the ever-on engines of the ships and other sources of emissions (Ming et al. 2014). Though there is an international legal regime to deal with this threat, new treaties and conventions are imperative in the battle with climate change to ensure the smooth remedy to a rapidly changing maritime domain.

Issues and Challenges Faced by the Maritime Industry

Asia is the largest continent and with the most population on the earth and spread over different climatic zones. The region is facing significant climatic challenges in its efforts to preserve natural resources. This region is more prone to natural hazards, and there is an increase in the frequency and intensity of unexpected weather conditions, such as tropical cyclones, heat waves, rainfall, prolonged dry spills, thunder storms, snow avalanches in the region (Beker 2008; Amirtahmasebi 2016).

The increasing volume of the shipping through the coastal areas has led to a high level of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) which contributes to 3 percent of all global emissions. CO₂ emissions from shipping has been increased by more than 90 percent since 1990, and the amount of carbon emissions due to shipping activities is expected to triple by 2050 (Dings 2015). This contributes to 18 percent of the 2°C carbon budget by 2050 (Dings 2015). The increase in the temperature is one of the factors contributing to global warming and to the melting of glaciers in the Arctic region. Consequently, the melting of the polar icecaps increases sea levels and the merging of continental boundaries in coastal states.

Another major threat to the maritime environment is from contamination by untreated sewage, discharge of oils, pesticides, hazardous wastes and industrial effluents, and other sea-based activities (UNEP CAR/RCU (2014–2015). The massive shipping accidents in the middle of the sea also threaten the marine life and livelihoods of coastal states. Marine pollution is the major threat to the coastal states of the South Asian countries. This is endangering the regional fishing industry, fragile marine habitats, and coastal tourism (UNEP CAR/RCU (2014–2015). The oil pollution from the ships coming for bunkering in some of the South Asian states, such as India and Bangladesh, is a great challenge (Rekadwad and Khobragade 2016). Among the other causes of the oil pollution may be tank cleaning and the unlawful discharge of bilge water and sludge (UNFCCC 2006). The ship traffic in these areas, especially in the Bay of Bengal, also contributes to the operational discharges. The lack of effective monitoring and surveillance, and the tendency of some ship masters to pump bilge water or clean ships’ tanks are some additional concerns in the deep waters of South Asia.

An important problem confronting the countries in South Asia is that some of the countries, such as countries in the Middle East, are the major producers of oil and petroleum (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries 2015). Therefore, the danger is always from seepage as well as accidents during production and transport of oil. Oil pollution is recognized as a major problem in the marine environment, which really needs more international attention (Rekadwad and Khobragade 2016; Thorsell and Leschine 2016). The massive oil usually spills near to the shorelines, but there is not enough time for the cleaning process to totally clear the oil spill. Resultantly, the thick layer of sticky oil is deposited on the surface and any solid that comes in contact with the spilled oil. With such a contamination the plant and rare marine species are exposed to an increased danger of extinction. The total impact on the environment, particularly in South Asian countries, is actually difficult to assess because there are limited and fragmented surveys and research on this area (Kelly and Adger 2000; UNEP 2010).

Significantly, many countries in this South Asia region, such as Nepal, have no adequate resources to tackle the challenges posed by marine pollution and climate change. These developing countries are more vulnerable to the impact of climate change than other developed countries because they have very few resources to adapt to climate change technologically, socially, and financially (United Nations 2007). Such countries need constant assistance and support from the international community to adapt to climate change in terms of national planning and implementation for sustainable development as well as adoption of green techniques.

Overall, the greatest challenge in front of international community is warmer oceans and rising sea levels (Mimura 2013). The focus mainly is on the Arctic which leads to the problem of the water of the world at large. There are actually insufficient bilateral and multilateral conventions in this regard to regulate navigational and exploration rights in the Artic (Keskitalo, Koivurova, and Bankes 2009). Another important issue is the ingress and egress of the ships through this area. Emission of too much hazardous gases leads to melting of the glaciers, resultantly to rising sea levels (Mimura 2013).

Legal Framework Governing the Maritime Industry

In order to respond to international major disasters, climatic changes and marine pollution, countries moved toward internationalization of the law. First, they have tried to harmonize national regulations through various bilateral and multilateral treaties, protocols, agreements, meetings, and negotiations among the leading nations and leading maritime organizations (Rogers 2013). Some of these organizations operated and committed to the tasks for some time and then vanished or were incorporated into other. Subsequently, countries were forced to establish international arraignments and universal rules. Finally, some intergovernmental organizations took over the task “in order to encourage the adoption of international instruments to regulate safety at sea and prevention of pollution from ships” (Rogers 2013, p. 3).

Undoubtedly, UNCLOS is the foundational convention of the maritime industry. So far, no amendment in the UNCLOS was made given evolving dangers from climate change. The extreme and unpredictable weather conditions and the power of the sea itself seemed to be so mighty that for several years, people have thought that nothing could be done to make shipping safer and pollution free (International Maritime Organization 2015a).

Regardless of safety regulations, the UNCLOS is the foundation of which all other arrangements and conventions must adhere to its relevant clauses. There is a very important agenda placed in front of the international communities with regard to climate change-related issues, for example, global warming (Martens and Rotmans 2000). Climate change further poses various conflict scenarios in the maritime industry. Another growing threat to the maritime ecosystem is the oil pollution from ships, especially when the Artic Sea is opened to commercial navigation which means more ships will pass by and more emissions will be released into the seas (The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited 2013; Chang et al. 2014). Another issue is the effect of the sea level rise on maritime borders and national territories (Young 2000; Buky 2009). In a nutshell, the threat from climate change is complex in nature, which necessitates the international agreement for the maintenance of integrated and consistent regime in the maritime industry.

In terms of law administration, IMO’s functions as envisaged in the 1948 Convention are an outcome of the various reviews, revisions, and development in the legal framework for governing the maritime industry.

Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 (OILPOL 1954)

The International Convention recognized the possibility of oil pollution which affects the marine environment in the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 (OILPOL 1954) (International Maritime Organization 2015b). The OILPOL 1954 disallows the discard of oily waste “within a certain distance from land and in ‘special areas’ where the danger to the environment was especially acute” (Gunasekera 2010, p. 23). In 1962, the limits were reviewed and revised in a conference organized by the IMO. In 1965, a subcommittee was established by the IMO and its Maritime Safety Committee to handle issues related to oil pollution (Gunasekera 2010).

1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)

Annexure I of the 1973 MARPOL Convention included many clauses from the OILPOL 1954 regarding oil control. Other annexures covered various areas, ranging from chemicals, harmful substances, sewage, garbage discard, and so on (International Maritime Organization 2015a). Annexure I of the MARPOL improved the scope and the scale of the OILPOL. For example, it requires the recipients to continuously monitor oily water discharges and provide rectification in case there are any oil leaking incidents.

Annexure I states the requirements for national governments to comply with regarding provision of shore reception and oil treatment facilities at ports and oil refilled stations. According to Annexure I, more stringent discharge standards are required for a number of special areas, where oil incidents have occurred or may occur, such as the Red Sea and Gulf, the Baltic Seas, and the Mediterranean. Among the important items included in Annexure I is Regulation 13 which enforces that ballast tanks on new tankers with more than 70,000 deadweight tons (dwt) must be segregated to avoid the ballast tanks to be contaminated by oil carriers (International Maritime Organization 2015a).

1978 Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention

This conference adopted one of the protocols in the 1973 MARPOL Convention. This aims to regulate tankers in a manner which can reduce the likelihood of them to pollute the seas. Previously, only tankers with more than 70,000 dwt need to segregate ballast tanks. However, the 1978 Protocol requires “all new crude oil tankers of 20,000 dwt and above, and all new product carriers of 30,000 dwt and above” to have segregated ballast tanks (International Maritime Organization 2015b, pp. 24−25). The SOLAS (1978 Protocol to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea) also includes additional measures to enhance the safety of tankers. Some other requirements regarding “steering gear for tankers; stricter requirements for carrying of radar and. Collision avoidance aids”; and stricter conditions for certification are also included in the SOLAS.

Both the 1978 MARPOL and SOLAS Protocols are key enhancements to raise the benchmark and international standards for construction and equipment of tankers to avoid pollution incidents (International Maritime Organization 2015b).

Carriage of Chemicals by Ship

Regulations for carriage of chemicals by ships are included in the SOLAS and the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships (this was modified by the MARPOL 1973/1978). According to these Protocols, chemical tankers manufactured after July 1, 1986 must comply with the terms in the International Bulk Chemical Code (IBC Code), that is, to adhere to the requirements of design and construction of ships used to carry hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals (Hänninen and Rytkönen 2006).

Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships

Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships regulations are included in Annexure V of the MARPOL 1973/78. Steamship Insurance Management Services Ltd. (2014) explains that waste and garbage from ships can cause as much marine pollution as oil or chemical spills. One of the most dangerous harms to marine life is plastic. “Fish and marine mammals can in some cases mistake plastics for food and they can also become trapped in plastic ropes, nets, bags and other items–even such innocuous items as the plastic rings used to hold cans of beer and drinks together” (International Maritime Organization 2015c, p. 2). Obviously, a great amount of garbage and waste on beaches come from people, who are tourists, fishermen, or even local residents, litter on the beaches. Yet, it was found that in some particular areas, garbage comes from passing ships since many people conveniently think that the seas can swallow anything being thrown to them (International Maritime Organization 2015c).

Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships

Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships regulations can be found in Annexure IV of the MARPOL. Raw sewage together with rubbish which is discharged into the sea can cause health hazard and water pollution. As explained by Mitropoulos (2010), “sewage can also lead to oxygen depletion and can be an obvious visual pollution in coastal areas—a major problem for countries” relying on tourism industry (p. 15). Sewage discharged into the seas comes from both land and ships which contribute to marine pollution. Annexure IV of the MARPOL regulates the equipment and systems of the ships with regard to the sewage discharge. It also introduces a sample of the “International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate” which is supposed to issue by national shipping authorities to ships passing by their jurisdiction (Mitropoulos 2010).

Reception Facilities

The IMO has acknowledged that the availability of reception facilities is essential for the effective implementation of the MARPOL and other conventions. Thus, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has promoted the MARPOL to member countries and encourages them to discharge their duty regarding provision of proper reception facilities for ships. It is observed that “the policy of ‘zero tolerance of illegal discharges from ships’ could only be effectively enforced when there were adequate reception facilities in ports” (International Maritime Organization 2015d, p. 2). Such facilities will contribute to reduce waste and hazardous substances to be released freely to the seas.

Prevention of Emission of Obnoxious Gases

Annexure VI of the MARPOL regulates the use and carry of sulphur and control of sulphur emissions. In 2008, the IMO has revised the requirements in Annexure VI on the sulphur content contained in marine fuels. Various options have been proposed to ship owners in order to help them comply with the international regulations. Ship owners can choose to use marine diesels or LNG-fuelled carriers or to fit engines with scrubbers or use green technologies in order to reduce the amount of sulphur emissions (Saul and Chestney 2014).

Undoubtedly, the MARPOL also provides an effective framework to deal with the situations of oil spills. The main problem faced by the developing South Asian countries is corruption and bureaucracy. The government needs to make effective domestic legislation to ensure the national standards adhere to the international standards set by MARPOL. For example, in India, the government needs to comply with the basic standard requirements with the close cooperation of the major oil companies and private companies to meet with the requirements for the reception facilities at the ports. National ports need to comply with the international standards to provide the basic reception facilities to deal with the garbage from the ships that dock in the respective ports. This is an effective step toward the control of marine pollution. However, the developing states are reluctant to comply with these regulations.

Effectiveness of the Current Legal Framework

The aforesaid measures undertaken by the international communities around the world are undoubtedly and significantly aimed at ensuring the prevention of harm to the climate. The awareness regarding the prevention of marine pollution among the shipping interests and countries is somewhere given to them by virtue of effective international regulations, principles, and conventions, to which they themselves are collectively responsible for (Boyle 2000; Brunner and Lynch 2010). Though these measures are not backed by stringent legal sanctions but noncompliance will result in possible sanctions from the other countries (Doelle 2009). The international criticism and some kinds of sanctions against the noncompliant countries suffice for the effective implementation of the international measures. Hence, the call among the nations is coordinated efforts, mitigation, adaptation, and cooperation.

Recently, international shipping has agreed to become the first industry to implement the global CO₂ reduction strategy. The IMO has approved the establishment of an Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) (Office of Transportation and Air Quality 2011). This requires the new ships to adopt a minimum standard of energy efficiency. Though this cannot be considered as a solution because the implementation will take many years to be effective, some of the South Asian nations such as India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan opposed the measures though they were considered to be ineligible to vote, as they are not the parties to Annexure MARPOL VI. Therefore, there was a worldwide implication of adoption of this new standard. Ships built in 2013 will have to meet the minimum standard of energy efficiency, with different standards to the different classes of ships. However, it will take years to get the EEDI start to attain the widespread recognition.

Besides the above-mentioned measures, slow steaming is another measure whereby the speed of the ship is reduced. This is introduced so that ships’ engines will not operate at full power, and consequently will use up less fuel and emit less CO₂. The purpose of mandatory speed limits is to generate massive reductions in CO₂ emissions from shipping and to help in tackling air pollution from the ships in coastal and port states (Sanguri 2012).

Climate change and environment degradation has emerged as one of the main agenda items which need urgent attention of international organizations, such as the World Bank, regarding the funding of developing nations which actually are more vulnerable to the challenges. The current systems to manage solid waste on inhabited islands, such as Maldives, are insufficient. Therefore, the World Bank has financed projects which can effectively manage environmental risks to protect the fragile coral reefs and other marine ecosystems (World Bank 2010). The main task of these particular projects is to manage the solid waste in the waters, capacity building for the environment, and the provision of technical support for assessment, monitoring, protection, and management of limited natural resources (Regulation 12, MARPOL IV).

The UNCLOS and the MARPOL remain the main instrument through which maritime regulations are laid down. It also codifies the procedure to be followed for overcoming the disputes and conflicts of law. There is no such provision in the UNCLOS, which prohibits the nations from formulating any new multilateral treaties and conventions to adopt or deal with climate change. Nevertheless, the essential element in the international maritime legal regime requires the stability of the governance and more specifically the international legal regime. Substantial amendments to the UNCLOS or an effective multilateral treaty is required to address any climate change disputes among parties, especially with regard to the issues of substantial rise in sea level. The main reason to look forward to the revision of the UNCLOS is to deal with the complex negotiations with the countries where there is a conflict of law.

In all the maritime matters, the UNCLOS provides a legal framework defining the rights, sovereignty, and liabilities by nations, and it is also the major codified framework of the international maritime industry. However, it appears to be lagging behind under the complex unforeseen challenges of climate change coming forth. Thus, the UNCLOS appears to be inadequate to address complex and unforeseen challenges.

In 2011, the MEPC has enforced international ships to adopt energy efficiency measures which were included in chapter 4 in “Annexure VI of the MARPOL Convention” which introduces “a mandatory EEDI for new ships and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships,” and an International Energy Efficiency Certificate was also introduced (Karim 2013, pp. 3–4).

Many Asian economies have participated in the policy-making processes. Some countries, such as Bangladesh, Japan, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore have been in favor of the new amendment of the MARPOL Convention (Karim 2015). However, other countries, such as China, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia have showed concerns about the newly enforced regulation and voted against it (Karim 2013). India has also raised its concerns though it did not have any voting rights due to the fact that it was not a party to Annexure VI of the MARPOL (Karim 2015). The protesting countries argued that the amendments should not be imposed on all countries with different economic conditions because they have seriously affected the “Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility, which has always been the cornerstone of international climate change law discourse” (Karim 2013, p. 4). It should be noted that some Asian countries played a key role in the negotiation process of the obligations. For instance, the two emerging economies, China and India, played an active role in negotiating the interest of developing countries in negotiations relating to climate change (Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2011; Karim 2015). Saudi Arabia played the key role as the leader of oil exporting countries (Directorate General for Internal Policies, European Union 2013); whereas Japan was the only negotiator in a developed country in Asia in the process (Karim 2013). Many less developed countries in Asia, which have been much affected by climate change, did not have much say in the negotiations (Karim 2015).

Overall, international conventions and maritime law have been applied to all countries. However, different countries may have different mechanisms to enforce law. Also, different countries may have their own national policies and regulations regarding climate change in the context of the maritime industry as proposed by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2013) that national “adaptation strategies to enhance the resilience of maritime transport systems may vary,” that is, countries may adopt different mechanism, including “retreat/relocate, protect and/or accommodate” (p. 14). For example, in January 2016, China introduced “its own emission control zones outside of the IMO framework, surrounding some of its largest ports in the Pearl River Delta, Yangtze River Delta and Bohai Sea” (Lajoie 2016). The Netherlands has tried to “promote quality shipping in conformity with international market trends”; whereas Sweden has used “the inflexibility of the demand for port calls to introduce environmental charges linked to the emission of sulphur and nitrogen oxides” (Michaelowa and Krause 2000, p. 134).

The Way Forward

This chapter has discussed (i) the challenges posed by climate change to the maritime industry, (ii) some key conventions and protocols regulating the maritime industry at the international level, and (iii) the effectiveness of such conventions and protocols.

The threat from climate change is problematic because there is no international consensus regarding how to minimize it. UNCLOS does not lay down how to deal with situations such as rapid change in sea level. The world’s economies are preoccupied with the ongoing threat from the climate change; however, it is very important that new arrangements, agreements, and conventions need to be established to ensure a smooth adaptation within a rapidly changing maritime regime. It is essential to remember that these conventions are not made for the sake of making them and in fact, their true implementation is also the necessity of the day.

Besides the review and revision of the UNCLOS and the IMO provisions, the developing nations, especially in South Asia, require a range of technical, operational, and regulatory measures to reverse the trend including the EEDI as well as market-based instruments such as instrument trading. The EEDI has long-term benefits if they are applied as soon as they are introduced. There should be less resistance from the countries for its effective implementation at the earliest possible date. There is a call for stronger international cooperation and coordination to deal with the problem of climate change and the laws and regulations need to reflect the dire importance of the situation.

References

Amirtahmasebi, R. 2016. Mother Nature and South Asian Cities. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group. http://blogs.worldbank.org/endpovertyinsouthasia/mother-nature-and-south-asian-cities

Beker, M. 2008. “International Law of the Sea.” The International Lawyer 42, no. 2, pp. 797–810.

Boyle, A. 2000. “Globalisation and Regionalism in the Protection of the Marine Environment.” In Protecting the Polar Marine Environment, ed. D. Vidas, 19–33. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brunner, R., and A. Lynch. 2010. Adaptive Governance and Climate Change. Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society Publication.

Buky, M. 2009. “Terrorism, Piracy and Climate Change: Challenges to International Maritime Governance.” Social Alternatives 28, no. 2, pp. 13–17.

Burton, I., E. Diringer, and J. Smith. 2014. Adaptation to Climate Change: International Policy Options. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Chang, S.E., J. Stone, K. Demes, and M. Piscitelli. 2014. “Consequences of Oil Spills: A Review and Framework for Informing Planning.” Ecology and Society 19, no. 2, p. 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06406-190226

Dings, J., ed. 2015. “Transport White Paper: Efficient, Electric, Priced and International.” Speech delivered at the European Parliament Transport Committee’s Hearing on the White Paper Transport. Brussels.

Directorate General for Internal Policies, European Union. 2013. The Development of Climate Negotiations in View of Warsaw (COP 19). Brussels: European Union.

Doelle, M. 2009. “The Climate Change Regime and the Arctic Region.” Climate Governance in the Arctic Environment & Policy 50, no. 2, pp. 27–50.

Gunasekera, D.M. 2010. Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage. Hamburg: Peter Lang.

Hänninen, S., and J. Rytkönen. 2006. Transportation of Liquid Bulk Chemicals by Tankers in the Baltic Sea. Otakaari: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.

IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). 2016. “Summary of the First Session of the Preparatory Committee on Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.” Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) 25, no. 6, pp. 1–21.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2015a. History of Safety at Sea. London: International Maritime Organization.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2015b. Context. London: International Maritime Organization.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2015c. Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships. London: International Maritime Organization.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2015d. Reception Facilities. London: International Maritime Organization.

Kahn Ribeiro, S., S. Kobayashi, M. Beuthe, J. Gasca, D. Greene, D.S. Lee, Y. Muromachi, P.J. Newton, S. Plotkin, D. Sperling, R. Wit, and P.J. Zhou. 2007. “Transport and its infrastructure.” In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Karim, M.S. 2013. “IMO Technical and Operational Measures for Reduction of Emissions of Greenhouse Gas from Ships: Perspectives of Asian Countries.” Working Paper Series No.032. Singapore: Asia Law Institute.

Karim, M.S. 2015. Prevention of Pollution of the Marine Environment from Vessels: The Potential and Limits of the International Maritime Organization. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Kelly, P.M., and W.N. Adger. 2000. “Theory and Practice in Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change and Facilitating Adaptation.” Climatic Change 47, no. 4, pp. 325–52.

Keskitalo, C., T. Koivurova, and N. Bankes. 2009. “Climate Governance in the Arctic: Introduction and Theoretical Framework.” Climate Governance in the Arctic Environment & Policy 50, no. 1, pp. 1–23.

Lajoie, M. 2016. “Shipping’s Dirty Secrets.” China Daily Asia, May 19.

Larkin, A., T. Smith, and P. Wrobel. 2016. “Shipping in Changing Climates.” Marine Policy 75, 188–90. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.05.033

Martens, P., and J. Rotmans. 2000. Climate Change: An Integrated Perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Michaelowa, A., and K. Krause. May/June 2000. “International Maritime Transport and Climate Policy.” Intereconomics 35, no. 3, pp. 127–36.

Michaelowa, K., and A. Michaelowa. 2011. India in the International Climate Negotiations: From Traditional Nay-Sayer to Dynamic Broker. Zurich: Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS), University of Zurich.

Ming, T., R. de Richter, W. Liu, and S. Caillol. March 2014. “Fighting Global Warming by Climate Engineering: Is the Earth Radiation Management and the Solar Radiation Management Any Option for Fighting Climate Change?” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31, pp. 792–834.

Mimura, N. 2013. “Sea-Level Rise Caused by Climate Change and its Implications for Society.” Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B Physical and Biological Sciences 89, no. 7, pp. 281–301.

Mitropoulos, E.E. 2010. “IMO: 60 Years in the Service of Shipping.” In Serving the Rule of International Maritime Law: Essays in Honour of Professor David Joseph Attard, ed. A.N.M. Gutiérrez, 7–21. Oxon: Routledge.

Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2011. Adoption of an Energy Efficiency Design Index for International Shipping. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). 2015. OPEC Share of World Crude Oil Reserves, 2014. Vienna, Austria: Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Rekadwad, B.N., and C.N. Khobragade. December 2016. “Is the Increase in Oil Pollution a Possibility of the Presence of Diverse Microorganisms? An Experimental Dataset on Oil Prevalent Areas of Goa, India.” Data in Brief 9, pp. 8–12.

Rogers, A. 2013. “The Evolution of SOLAS.” Shipping & Marine: The Magazine for Maritime Management 1, online. Norwich: Schofield Publishing Ltd.

Sanguri, M. 2012. The Guide to Slow Steaming on the Ships, 18–28. Mumbai, India: Marine Insight Publishers.

Saul, J., and N. Chestney. 2014. “Europe Set for Compliance Chaos with New Ship Fuel Sulphur Rules.” Reuters, June 20.

Steamship Insurance Management Services Ltd. 2014. Noxious Liquids in Bulk, Vegetable Oils and Amendments to the IBC Code. London: Steamship Insurance Management Services Ltd.

The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited. 2013. Handbook, 24–32. London: The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited.

Thorsell, D.E., and T.M. Leschine. October 2016. “An Evaluation of Oil Pollution Prevention Strategies in the Arctic: A comparison of Canadian and U.S. approaches.” Marine Policy 72, pp. 255–62.

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2006. Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries. Bonn, Germany: UNFCCC Secretariat.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2010. “Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials.” In A Report of the Working Group on the Environmental Impacts of Products and Materials to the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management, eds. E. Hertwich, E. van der Voet, S. Suh, A. Tukker, M. Huijbregts, P. Kazmierczyk, M. Lenzen, J. McNeely, and Y. Moriguchi. Paris: UNEP.

UNEP CAR/RCU. 2014–2015. Wastewater, Sewage and Sanitation. Jamaica: UNEP CAR/RCU.

United Nations. 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). New York, NY: United Nations.

United Nations. 2007. Least Developed Countries Most Vulnerable to Climate Change—UN Official. New York, NY: United Nations.http://un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=23080

UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2013. Recent Developments and Trends in International Maritime Transport Affecting Trade of Developing Countries. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

World Bank. 2010. World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Young, O. August 27–29, 2000. “The Structure of Arctic Cooperation: Solving Problems/Seizing Opportunities.” Paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the Fourth Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi.

Further Reading

Bueger, C. 2015. “What is Maritime Security?” Marine Policy 53, pp. 159–64.

Gormley, K.S.G., A.D. Hull, J.S. Porter, M.C. Bell, and W.G. Sanderson. 2015. “Adaptive Management, International Co-Operation and Planning for Marine Conservation Hotspots in a Changing Climate.” Marine Policy 53, pp. 54–66.

Lemmen, D.S., F.J. Warren, T.S. James, and C.S.L.M. Clarke, eds. 2016. Canada’s Marine Coasts in a Changing Climate. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

MacLachlan, S. 2016. Carbon Emissions All at Sea: Why was Shipping Left Out of the Paris Climate Agreement? OECD Insights Debate the Issues. Paris: OECD.

Rutherford, V.E., J.M. Hills, and M. Le Tissier. 2016. “Comparative Analysis of Adaptation Strategies for Coastal Climate Change in North West Europe.” Marine Policy (inpress), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.07.005i