218
Arctic Yearbook 2015
fuels and the sulphur emission from shipping, which harms human health and the environment and
contributes to acid deposition. Both rules have different obligations in regional areas: the obligations
are not strong in the Arctic area where the Polar Code applies, but are stronger in the North Sea under
Directive 2012/33/EU which, on the initiative of the EU is categorised as an Emission Control Area
(ECA), whereas the North Atlantic is not an ECA. These obligations regarding the maximum sulphur
content of heavy fuel oil and gas are implemented in Danish law.5
The coexistence of many regulations results in a very patchy regulatory framework to manage air
pollution in the Arctic. But the long-range transport of pollutants is already affecting the region, and
recent studies show that sulphur particles not only have a negative impact but also function as a
transport container for black carbon in the Arctic (Massling et al. 2015).
Interpretation of law and political settings
In addition to the fragmentation of law, difficulties in managing the environment also arise from
differences in the interpretation of law. As indicated with the example of sulphur emission, some
Arctic coastal states share their legal authority with the European Union through the Agreement on
the European Economic Area (1994) or as members of the Union. The migration of different legal
and social norms as well as legal practices across territorial boundaries does have an impact on the
governance system. Even though it is specifically designed to have EEA relevance, Norway has
deemed that the EU Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the
safety of offshore oil and gas operations – the Offshore Directive (European Parliament and Council
2013) – does not apply to its EEZ. Norway argues that the EEA does not extend to the EEZ, and
that the Norwegian security policy is stricter than that of the EU (The Nordic Page 2013). The deadline
for implementation was 19 July 2015.
As an EU member state, Denmark has to transpose EU law in its legislation. The implementation of
the Directive on Safety of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations (2013/30/EU) was carried out in
Denmark by amending several existing Danish acts, including the Environmental Marine Protection
Act.6 A new Section 34b of the Environmental Marine Protection Act rules on the prevention of
major accidents by a public risk management planning. None of these rules cover the marine areas
around Greenland (Basse 2014). Greenland has taken responsibility for offshore activities in the EEZ,
but has not taken responsibility for the protection of the marine environment beyond its territorial
sea. The Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic
stipulates that Greenland is responsible for responding to oil spills at sea wherever they occur, but
only Denmark (and the Faroe Islands) – and not Greenland – has signed this agreement.
More generally, the extent to which EU environmental law covers the EEZ around Greenland should
be thoroughly examined (Pelaudeix in press). This also includes the strategy for the marine environment
which relies on a Directive (2008/56/EC) that establishes a common framework and objectives for
the protection and conservation of the marine environment as this directive has been implemented by
the above-mentioned Environmental Marine Protection Act – but with only the 2004 version covering
Greenland.
Governance of Arctic Offshor