Arctic Yearbook 2015 - Page 218

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