[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Enhancement Effect of Phragmites australis Roots on Soil Shear Strength in the Yellow River Delta
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Exogenous Jasmonates on Plant Adaptation to Cold Stress: A Comprehensive Study Based on a Systematic Review with a Focus on Sustainability
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 23
10.3390/su162310656
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

International Regulatory Framework for Black Carbon Emissions from Arctic Shipping: Current Situation, Problems, and Development

by
Xin Yang
1,*,
Ziqing Zhang
1,
Zhiyuan Cui
2 and
Siyang Cai
3
1
School of Humanities and Law, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, China
2
Law School, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
3
College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116044, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(23), 10656; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310656
Submission received: 16 October 2024 / Revised: 28 November 2024 / Accepted: 28 November 2024 / Published: 5 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Deep Earth and Deep Sea Engineering: Challenges, Theory and Advance Technologies)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Black carbon, a short-lived climate forcer, has the dual impact of intensifying global warming and polluting the atmosphere. The further opening of Arctic shipping routes has resulted in a severe issue of black carbon emissions in this fragile region. The use of fuel, especially heavy fuel oil, in international shipping has generated enormous black carbon emissions, posing a serious threat to the climate in the Arctic and beyond. As the international community continues to pay attention to air pollution control and greenhouse gas emissions reduction, the need for effective global governance of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping has become increasingly evident. This issue has emerged as a critical part of the broader effort to address ocean and climate governance through the lens of international law. Despite the efforts made by both the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Arctic Council (AC) to reduce black carbon emissions, the current international legal framework remains fragmented, with weak enforcement mechanisms and limited capacity for coordinated governance. The findings of this research underscore the importance of strengthening international legal instruments aimed at reducing black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping. In particular, there is a pressing need for the development of a dedicated international treaty with enhanced binding force to mitigate the ecological degradation in the Arctic, address global warming, and realize sustainable development goals.

1. Introduction

Accelerating global warming has led to the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice and the retreat of ice shelves and even threatened the entire Arctic ice cap. The reduction in sea ice has made the Arctic more accessible for maritime transportation, leading to a rise in shipping activities and further opening of Arctic shipping lanes. At the same time, black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping have been growing, presenting a serious threat to the climate and ecosystems in the region. Moreover, Arctic warming in turn exacerbates global warming, creating a feedback loop that further intensifies climate change. In this context, black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping are intensifying global warming.

1.1. Black Carbon and Its Climate Impact

Black carbon, also known as black carbon aerosol, is an important component of carbonaceous aerosols. It is a particulate pollutant emitted from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biofuels [1], and subsequently released into the atmosphere, where it generates a significant and adverse impact on climate change. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) defines black carbon as a unique carbonaceous material with multiple physical properties [2], produced by combustion and emitted directly into the atmosphere. Black carbon is an important component of greenhouse gases and is widely found in nature. It enters sediments such as soil and sea ice through deposition. Compared with other greenhouse gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide (CO2), black carbon has a broader absorption spectrum, meaning that it absorbs solar, surface, and atmospheric radiation, affecting the energy balance of the Earth–atmosphere system and consequently, the global climate [3]. As a short-lived climate forcer, black carbon has a dual nature in its ecological impact.
First, the dual nature of black carbon. Black carbon is CO2 that cannot be fixed or utilized, remains in the atmosphere, and has the dual attributes of a greenhouse gas and an atmospheric pollutant. As a substance with greenhouse effects, black carbon is suspended in the air, absorbing heat and thereby acting as a significant driver of temperature rise. The impact of black carbon on global warming is 460–1500 times [4] that of CO2. At the same time, as an inhalable atmospheric pollutant, black carbon severely jeopardizes its surrounding environment and human health. Black carbon is an adsorbent, attracting other pollutants to its surface. Carrying these adsorbed toxic substances, black carbon enters the human body through respiration, triggering diseases such as respiratory asthma, cardiovascular disease, tuberculosis, and cancer, thus endangering human health [5]. Climate change and air protection policies are interconnected when it comes to the black carbon issue, with evident interconnected characteristics. Reducing black carbon emissions is conducive to climate change mitigation and air quality improvement [6].
Second, the short-lived nature of black carbon. Black carbon is a short-lived climate forcer with a shorter lifespan in the environment compared to other greenhouse gases. It remains in the air for a very short period of time, only a few weeks or even a few days. This means that taking necessary and effective measures to reduce black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping could have an immediate effect on mitigating Arctic warming. As noted in the Fifth Assessment Report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2014, although black carbon emitted from the combustion of diesel and marine petroleum fuels has a lifespan of only a few days to a few weeks, its direct or indirect radiative effects and regional impact are more evident than that of CO2. This makes black carbon emission reduction a key strategy for mitigating climate warming [7]. In other words, curbing black carbon emissions may be the fastest way to slow global warming [8].

1.2. An Important Cause of Arctic Black Carbon Emissions: Maritime Transport

1.2.1. Melting Sea Ice Leads to the Rapid Growth of Arctic Shipping Lanes

Global climate change has led to the melting of sea ice, which, in turn, enhances the navigability of Arctic waters. Once completely melted, Arctic waters will be navigable year-round. On the Russian side of the Arctic Ocean, cargo ships have already travelled through the Northern Sea Route that connects the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans at a shorter distance than the Suez Canal [9]. Currently, there are mainly three shipping lanes for Arctic ships, namely the Northeast Passage, the Northwest Passage, and the Central Passage, with the former two primarily in operation [10]. At present, the throughput of the major Arctic shipping routes is substantial, and the improvements in their navigational capacity are mainly reflected in the two following aspects:
First, the growing number of Arctic ships and their increasing sailing distances. According to a report released by the Arctic Council, both the number and the distance of Arctic maritime transportation have continuously increased from 2013 to 2023, with the number of operating vessels rising by 37% and the total shipping distance increasing by 110%, among which fishing vessels were the largest contributor to the growth in sailing distance [11].
The increase in vessels is closely related to the decreasing amount and area of Arctic sea ice. Satellite observations and analysis reveal that the total ice coverage in the Arctic was 6 million square miles (15.65 million square kilometers) in March 2024, a decrease of 247,000 square miles (640,000 square kilometers) from the average maximum ice coverage between 1981 and 2010 [12]. In addition, climate change will fuel sea ice melting. It is estimated that the navigable period of the Northeast Arctic Passage will increase from the current three months to more than six months by 2030, and year-round by 2040 [13].
Second, there is an increase in cargo volume for Arctic shipping. AIS data show that the total traffic volume on the Northern Sea Route rose from 10,535 million tons in 2017 to 34,034 million tons in 2022 and is expected to reach 110 billion tons by 2030 [14].

1.2.2. Substantial Black Carbon Emissions from the Use of Heavy Fuel Oils in Shipping

The increase in Arctic shipping, especially the rise in black carbon emissions, has attracted the international community’s attention to its environmental impact [15]. The combustion of fossil fuels, particularly heavy fuel oil, during shipping will result in the emission of black carbon and other toxic gases. The use of Arctic shipping lanes will inevitably release these pollutants into the sensitive Arctic environment [16]. Black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping significantly speed up Arctic ice melting. The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) of the Arctic Council has pointed out that the use of heavy fuel oil will lead to black carbon emissions, resulting in intense warming effects at high latitudes. AMAP has predicted that “maritime transportation contributes to approximately 5 percent of black carbon emissions in the Arctic in 2015, but this could be doubled by 2030 and quadrupled by 2050 [17]” According to a proposal by the Clean Sealift Coalition (CSC) to the IIMO’s Bulk Liquids and Gases Sub-Committee 15 (BLG15), general cargo, bulk carriers, passenger ships, cruise ships, and container ships accumulatively accounted for 95% of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping in 2004, with container ships being the largest contributor. In the Antarctic, the use of heavy fuel oil in shipping has long been banned [18], but this process has been delayed in the Arctic.

1.3. Ecological Threats of Black Carbon Emissions from Arctic Shipping

Black carbon emissions from maritime transportation pose an ecological threat to the fragile Arctic environment and escalate global warming. Situated at high northern latitudes, the Arctic region remains cold throughout the year. Most of its land is characterized by permafrost zones or ice sheets, while most of its waters are covered by sea ice almost all year round. Due to this relatively isolated geographical environment, the Arctic has maintained its primitive environmental system, and the ecosystems in the region are particularly vulnerable to external threats. Prone to the impact of climate change, the Arctic is warming at a rate faster than any part of the Earth, with temperatures rising at twice the global average in recent decades [19].
It is estimated that black carbon accounts for 20–25% of Arctic warming [20]. Although black carbon emissions from Arctic ships represent only a small fraction of global maritime shipping emissions, their regional impact is disproportionately significant, since black carbon absorbs more radiation, thus reducing seawater reflectivity, generating radiative forcing that accelerates ice melt and temperature rise. As sea ice melts, darker ocean and land surfaces are exposed, resulting in decreased reflectivity and increased sunlight absorption, thus creating a positive feedback loop [21]. Therefore, the increased black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping will further accelerate warming in the Arctic.
In addition to environmental impacts, black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping also violate the human rights of indigenous peoples in the region. The 2019 Report by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) examined the vulnerability and adaptability of climate change from the perspective of human rights, emphasizing the importance of analyzing power imbalances and addressing the root cause of inequality and discrimination, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable groups. In terms of climate change prevention and response, the report stated that a human rights-centered approach could enhance the empowerment of individuals and communities, who should be seen as active reformers rather than passive victims [22]. It is for this reason that they should be drivers of environmental, social, and economic sustainable development in the region. Climate change is also altering the living conditions of the approximately 4 million people in the Arctic, about 10% of whom are indigenous, with traditional practices such as hunting, fishing, and herding increasingly threatened by changing weather patterns [23].
Legal challenges have also arisen concerning black carbon emissions in the Arctic. In the Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (RED OIL) v. U.S. EPA case in 2013, environmental organizations challenged two air quality permits issued by the U.S. EPA for drilling operations in the Arctic Ocean, arguing that greenhouse gas and black carbon emissions from these vessels would exacerbate the melting of snow and sea ice, thus harming the indigenous communities [24]. Another example involves the Arctic Athabaskan Peoples, who have lived in the Arctic regions of Canada and the U.S. for over 1000 years. In 2013, they filed a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, claiming that drastic climate changes caused by global warming had disrupted their life, livelihoods, and culture [25]. They sought a declaratory judgment that Canada’s black carbon emissions violate the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and called for an established plan to mitigate black carbon impacts on the Arctic [26]. Climate impacts also affect the Inuit [27]. Even though black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping have already infringed on the human rights of indigenous peoples, this issue continues to be overlooked in international governance. Russia took this into account when designing the use of the Romanov, which is powered by two reactors. It will be overhauled twice in three operating cycles every 12 years, which will extend its service life on the one hand and reduce carbon emissions on the other. After the Romanov retires, no related waste will be left in the Arctic.

2. Literature Review and Research Questions

2.1. Research Status Quo

2.1.1. Research on the Necessity for International Governance of Black Carbon Emission from Arctic Shipping

First, as a short-lived climate pollutant, black carbon is highly efficient in warming, with rapid emission reduction effects. Scholars argued that reducing black carbon emissions was an effective and immediate response to the challenges posed by Arctic climate change. Second, the academic community has realized the dual nature of black carbon and advocated for a unique governance model. Black carbon is both an atmospheric pollutant and an important greenhouse gas, which should be considered a key factor in linking climate response with air pollution control. Under the context of black carbon, there lay evident potential in the interconnectedness and coordination between policies for climate change and air protection. Third, scholars have acknowledged the climate impacts of black carbon emissions from Arctic ships. Emissions from Arctic ships had significantly accelerated the melting of Arctic sea ice and Arctic shipping was highly reliant on heavy fuel oils, resulting in black carbon pollution. Fourth, the unique location and natural conditions of the Arctic complicate the influence and governance of black carbon emissions in the region. The study indicates that the Arctic is particularly vulnerable to climate change. While Arctic was sensitive to climate change and that cutting black carbon emissions was highly relevant to the region.

2.1.2. Research on International Governance Approaches to Black Carbon in Arctic Shipping

Firstly, academic research shows that the current governance of Arctic maritime shipping is fragmented. Most scholars agree that the existing governance rules are complicated and fragmented. However, there are two opposing views on how to address this issue. One view is that establishing a comprehensive legal framework was not advisable, while another holds that coordinated global action was necessary. Similarly, upported the idea of developing a systematic, comprehensive, coordinated, and integrated “Agreement on Reducing Black Carbon Emissions from Arctic Shipping”, viewing it as the institutional foundation for the international governance of Arctic black carbon emissions. Secondly, academic research reveals the irreplaceable role of international organizations in black carbon governance from Arctic shipping, with broad consensus being reached among scholars. However, many scholars have observed that competition among international organizations complicates the landscape of black carbon governance in the Arctic. Some scholars noted that the uncertain and contentious relationship between the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) further complicated black carbon governance in Arctic shipping. Another part argued that UNEP’s active engagement in the CCAC could enhance the political credibility of governance initiatives targeting black carbon emissions in Arctic shipping.

2.2. Research Trends and Reviews

Scientific research on black carbon originated from studies of its environmental impacts, with findings beginning to surge in the 1970s. In the early stages, research was primarily confined to the natural sciences, with a focus on the properties of black carbon, monitoring methods, and its climatic effects. However, as global climate change became increasingly prominent, research on black carbon also deepened, with scholars exploring its properties as a factor in climate change. At the same time, the international community started to recognize the uniqueness and complexity of black carbon emissions in the Arctic and shifted research perspectives to international law. In this context, black carbon studies are increasingly linked to maritime shipping, with the focus shifting towards the international legal norms governing maritime black carbon emissions in the Arctic. International organizations have also promoted research in this area, marking a new stage in the study of Arctic black carbon emissions studies. Currently, as the Arctic Council plays an increasingly prominent role in Arctic climate governance, unprecedented attention is being paid to the black carbon emissions from Arctic ships. The pressing need to meet the climate goals set in the Paris Agreement has led scholars to recognize the marginal effect of black carbon in global climate response. They have come to realize that black carbon governance is the “low-hanging Fruit” in the broader climate response. Consequently, this issue has attracted widespread scholarly interest.
Despite the wide scope of research on Arctic shipping’s black carbon emission governance and the abundant findings yielded, there is still room for further exploration. First, there are limited studies focusing on the shipping industry, whose interests often conflict with Arctic black carbon emission governance. Second, potential solutions for this issue have yet to be proposed. Thirdly, studies on the engagement of non-Arctic countries in the governance of Arctic shipping’s black carbon emissions are rather limited.

2.3. Research Questions

In light of the current progress and gaps in academic research, this paper focuses on the three following research questions:
  • Question 1: What is the current status of international regulations on black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping? What are the main international legal instruments that shape the governance framework, and what roles do they play in this area?
  • Question 2: What are the current challenges hindering the international regulation of black carbon emissions from Arctic ships, and what caused these challenges?
  • Question 3: What are the prospects for the international regulation of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping, and in which aspects can improvements be made?

3. Materials and Methods

This study collected findings related to the international regulation of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping from both public databases and the academic literature. In particular, two important legal databases, HeinOnline and Westlaw Next, were consulted. HeinOnline is a comprehensive legal database that includes over 2500 core law journals worldwide, with full coverage of all top 500 core legal journals and almost all top 20 core journals across legal disciplines. It also indexes more than 100 SCI-accessible legal journals and over 400 peer-reviewed journals, covering nearly 100 countries and regions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Commonwealth nations, Europe, Asia, North America, and Africa. Westlaw Next, on the other hand, is a next-generation, one-stop legal retrieval platform for legal professionals. Developed by Thomson Reuters, this platform provides a wide array of legal materials worldwide, including international treaties, regional agreements, as well as case and statutes from the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Hong Kong, and the EU. Additionally, it includes over 5000 legal periodicals and newsletters, including more than 90% of the core American legal journals, nearly 4000 law-related monographs, and news across legal, financial, and political domains provided by Reuters. Other legal developments across the world are also available and updated on a real-time basis on the platform. Leveraging the international statutes and theoretical studies obtained from these two databases, a comprehensive examination of the international regulatory framework for black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping was conducted.
A literature analysis, comparative research, an interdisciplinary approach, and legal interpretation were employed to study the current status, problems, and solutions of international regulation of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping.
First, a literature review. Some studies have explored the international regulatory framework for black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping. Focusing on this issue, this paper categorizes and summarizes relevant research findings and establishes a theoretical foundation to guide analysis. Building on the research literature from various sources, this paper analyzes predicaments facing international law in addressing black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping, proposing targeted recommendations to strengthen international law for reducing black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping.
Second, comparative research. On the one hand, this paper compares and analyzes the applicability of the current international hard law framework and soft law framework to black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping, identifying the pros and cons of the current legal framework for reducing Arctic black emissions and highlighting their complementarity. On the other hand, this paper discusses the problems in the legislation and practices of international law in black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping and evaluates the emission reduction experiences derived from the comparative analysis.
Third, interdisciplinary research. The complexity of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping determines that scientific research in this area is particularly challenging. During the writing process, multiple studies in the natural sciences on Arctic maritime black carbon emissions were consulted, which allowed the authors to outline the unique impacts of black carbon emissions on the Arctic’s ecosystem and climate change and thus provide a scientific basis to guide improvements in international legislation on this issue.
Fourth, legal interpretation. This method primarily involves the interpretation of the definition of black carbon in international conventions and regional agreements, demonstrating the necessity of optimizing regulatory frameworks for black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping within the framework of international law.

4. Results

Building upon the foundational concepts and theories previously outlined, this section delves into the analysis of regulations governing black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping, approaching the subject from three distinct perspectives: international maritime legislation, international frameworks for the prevention and control of atmospheric pollution, and international legislation pertaining to climate change adaptation. To achieve this, a selection of conventions, plans, and documents were scrutinized.

4.1. International Maritime Laws

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), an intergovernmental cooperative entity within the United Nations, serves as the regulatory body for international trade shipping. Its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), specifically established to tackle shipping-related environmental challenges, has made noteworthy contributions to mitigating adverse environmental impacts stemming from shipping activities. This has been achieved through its relentless efforts and the enactment of a series of conventions aimed at addressing marine pollution and oil spills.
In comparison to other sources of fossil fuel combustion, ships generate a higher amount of particulate matter and black carbon per unit of fuel burned, owing to the varying quality of fuels consumed, notably the prevalent use of heavy fuel oil. As global shipping activities intensify and Arctic shipping routes expand further, black carbon emissions from shipping have increasingly come under the scrutiny of the IMO. The IMO has extensively deliberated on black carbon, both separately and as a constituent of particulate matter [28]. Despite the relatively sluggish pace of rulemaking, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO has nonetheless accomplished notable milestones in mitigating shipping-related black carbon emissions. For instance, in 2015, the IMO approved a definition for black carbon and made progress in its measurement. With the issue gaining more prominence, the IMO’s discussions on black carbon have progressively steered towards control measures, particularly the enhancement of regulatory frameworks. In the context of reducing shipping black carbon emissions, the most pertinent conventions are the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code).

4.1.1. MARPOL Annex VI

In 1973, the IMO enacted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973, known as MARPOL [29]. Subsequently, in 2011, the IMO ratified amendments to Annex VI of MARPOL, as proposed by the European Union [30]. These amendments focused on ship energy efficiency regulations and incorporated requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from new ships. Consequently, they formed the first global accord on ship-related greenhouse gas emissions, which took effect in 2013 and applies to all ships of 400 gross tonnage and above constructed subsequent to that date.
The amendments to Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships primarily stipulate that ships must enhance their energy efficiency in the near term to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of cutting carbon intensity across all ships by 40% in 2030, compared to the 2008 baseline. All ships are obliged to assess two ratings according to the amendments: the Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) for evaluating their ship energy efficiency, and the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) for annual operations, inclusive of the corresponding CII rating. Carbon intensity establishes a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and the distance of cargo transported.
The issue of whether black carbon emissions from shipping constitute a problem, and if so, whether they ought to be regulated remains unresolved. In 2010, black carbon was distinctly added to the agenda of the MEPC. Norway, Sweden, and the United States presented a report at the 60th session of the MEPC (MEPC60), highlighting that shipping was one of the main sources of black carbon emissions in the Arctic. With the ongoing melting of the Arctic ice, Arctic shipping volumes are expected to increase significantly. Consequently, it is imperative for the IMO to take measures to tackle this concern. To bolster their argument, Norway, Sweden, and the United States elaborated on the substantial impact of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping on climate change in the region and outlined preliminary options for mitigating the anticipated effects. Nevertheless, after presenting the proposal to the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG), no regulatory measures were proposed by BLG to reduce black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping. Hence, the IMO’s further action on managing black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping is awaited.
In summary, while MARPOL is applicable to climate and environmental protection efforts in the Arctic region, it fails to establish definitive standards and requirements for black carbon emissions stemming from shipping activities in the Arctic. Consequently, at present, black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping are not subject to direct regulation under the conventions established by the IMO.

4.1.2. International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) [31]

During the 57th session of the IMO Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE57), held on 18–22 March 2013, a Polar Code Working Group proposed by Norway was formed to deliberate on a pivotal issue: the formulation of the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters, also known as the Polar Code. The session examined a joint proposal titled “Ship Black Carbon Emissions in Polar Waters”, submitted by various NGOs, including the Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC), which aimed to mitigate black carbon emissions from shipping activities across all polar regions and to advocate for the incorporation of pertinent content being deliberated by the BLG and MEPC into the Polar Code. The report prepared by the correspondence group on the “Impact of International Shipping Black Carbon Emissions on the Arctic”, along with the definition of black carbon, was deliberated at the first session of the Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR1), held on 3–7 February 2014. The definition of black carbon was ultimately approved at the 68th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC68) following extensive discussions, held on 11–15 May 2015.
However, during the development of the Polar Code, the issue of black carbon was merely brought up and proposed for inclusion into the regulations, but unfortunately, it did not make its way into the final provisions. Specifically, the contracting parties chose to implement the Polar Code through existing IMO instruments instead of drafting a new convention, thereby restricting environmental protection measures to those outlined in the MARPOL Convention. While the chapters in Part II of the Polar Code mirror the first five Annexes of the MARPOL Convention, there is a notable absence of an effective response to Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The oversight of the use of heavy fuel oil in ships has given rise to the perception that the Polar Code is insufficient in tackling polar shipping and environmental protection challenges [32]. The Polar Code solely prohibits the utilization of heavy fuel oil within the Antarctic region, excluding the Arctic, which consequently leads to a scarcity of regulatory oversight in the latter [33]. Additionally, the regulation of ships under this code is not exhaustive, as it fails to encompass oversight of fishing vessels, pleasure crafts, and mobile offshore drilling units [34]. Furthermore, the Polar Code encounters challenges due to conflicting interests. These conflicts, both among countries and within international organizations, have been pivotal in the postponement of regulations concerning black carbon emissions from polar shipping. The future implementation of regulations aimed at reducing black carbon emissions from polar shipping will heavily rely on the coordination and progress driven by international organizations, such as the International Maritime Organization [35]. It is noteworthy that the Marine Environment Protection Committee is actively working towards addressing the use of heavy fuel oil in Arctic ships and the issue of black carbon emissions, endeavoring to expand and update the Polar Code accordingly [36].

4.2. International Legal Instruments Pertaining to Air Pollution

4.2.1. Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication, and Ground-Level Ozone (Gothenburg Protocol) [37]

With a primary emphasis on air quality, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) extends its reach to Europe, North America, Central Asia, and West Asia [38]. The 2012 Amendment to the Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication, and Ground-Level Ozone (Gothenburg Protocol) incorporated specific targets for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and this amendment officially came into force in 2019 [39].
The revised Gothenburg Protocol stands as the pioneering binding agreement that incorporates commitments to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter. Additionally, the parties have made a groundbreaking move in international air pollution policy by explicitly recognizing black carbon, a short-lived climate pollutant, as a constituent of specific substances [40]. Consequently, the implementation of the Gothenburg Protocol to mitigate black carbon emissions represents a crucial stride in alleviating air pollution while fostering climate co-benefits. It is noteworthy that the reporting of black carbon emissions under the Gothenburg Protocol amendment is voluntary for the parties involved. According to the 2022 review report of the amendment, data from 27 EU Member States revealed a significant reduction in black carbon emissions by half from 1990 to 2018. Similarly, Canada has witnessed a 22% decrease in emissions since 2013, and the United States has achieved a 48% reduction between 2011 and 2017 [41]. Although the Report on the review of the Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication, and Ground-level Ozone, as amended in 2012, acknowledges the significance of black carbon in the Arctic region and the potential for emissions reductions within the shipping industry [41], it is regrettable that the current achievements in black carbon emission reduction are predominantly attributed to advancements in residential fuel use, with minimal involvement from industries such as shipping.
It is evident that the amended Gothenburg Protocol, with its legally binding nature, has achieved notable success and holds significant potential in the reduction in black carbon emissions. However, several uncertainties still persist regarding the protocol. Firstly, a considerable number of members of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution have yet to ratify the Gothenburg Protocol. Secondly, the 2022 Review Report revealed that the majority of the 34 parties had failed to meet their overall emission reduction commitments for pollutants, casting doubt on the achievement of the 2030 emission reduction targets stipulated in the amendment [41]. Furthermore, for longer-term emission reduction targets, particularly those specific to black carbon reduction, the amended Gothenburg Protocol does not provide a definitive timeline [42]. Lastly, the black carbon reduction efforts under the Gothenburg Protocol have primarily been confined within the jurisdictions of the parties, lacking specific requirements and implementation plans for black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping. Consequently, it is not deemed as the optimal framework for addressing black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping.

4.2.2. Framework for Enhanced Action on Black Carbon and Methane Emission Reductions

As the foremost regional organization tackling Arctic issues, the Arctic Council has consistently devoted attention to the problem of black carbon in the Arctic and carried out substantial concrete efforts. For instance, in 2013, it established the Task Force for Action on Black Carbon and Methane [43], tasked with “developing arrangements on actions to achieve enhanced black carbon and methane emission reductions in the Arctic”. Additionally, the Arctic Council has been diligent in fostering and disseminating scientific and technological research on black carbon in the Arctic.
In terms of regulating black carbon emissions in the Arctic, the Arctic Council’s most notable achievement is the Framework for Action on Enhanced Black Carbon and Methane Emissions Reductions, which was endorsed at the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in 2015. This framework is designed to expedite the reduction in black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping through the development and implementation of national actions, action plans, and mitigation strategies. It encompasses a two-year iterative process under the guidance of the Expert Group on Black Carbon and Methane, accompanied by periodic assessments of the progress made. In May 2017, after presenting the first progress report to the expert group, the Arctic Council’s 10th Ministerial Meeting approved an ambitious collective target to cut black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping by 25% to 33% below 2013 levels by the year 2025 [44].
The Framework for Enhanced Black Carbon and Methane Emissions Reductions represents a pioneering initiative, marking the first occasion where Arctic countries have collectively established climate mitigation targets under a unified vision. Furthermore, it signifies the first time that black carbon has been prioritized as a key focus area within national climate change mitigation strategies. This underscores a commitment by Arctic countries to assume special responsibility for addressing black carbon emissions that impact the Arctic region. Notably, the framework’s scope extends beyond Arctic Council member states to include Arctic Council observers, while also highlighting the role of transportation as well as oil and gas sectors in reducing black carbon emissions.
However, the Arctic Council has always been described as a “soft law body” [45], specializing in the production of informal documents like guidelines, assessments, and recommendations, rather than in crafting binding international legal instruments [46]. The Framework for Enhanced Black Carbon and Methane Emissions Reductions it has developed fits well within this paradigm, essentially embodying the nature of soft law. The collective targets outlined in the framework lack binding force and serve more as an aspirational benchmark or a political consensus among Arctic countries [47], which consequently diminishes the impetus to realize the long-term vision. Even if the constraints were to be enforced, the rules formulated by the Arctic Council would solely be binding among its member states, with its influence potentially extending to observer states but certainly not encompassing countries outside of this scope.

4.3. Legal Instruments on Climate Change

4.3.1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was adopted in 1992 and became effective in 1994, offers a comprehensive framework for global cooperation and action on climate change [48]. The objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the climate system [49]. It acknowledges the common concern over climate change and the shared responsibility of both developed and developing countries (see Table 1), categorizing nations into distinct groups based on their level of development and establishing fundamental emission reduction frameworks tailored to each [50]. As a framework treaty, the scope of UNFCCC is too broad, lacking specific details and targeted measures, with no defined timelines or emission targets. Currently, it does not restrict black carbon emissions or classify black carbon as a GHG. However, its framework lays down principles and mechanisms that serve as a guide for addressing black carbon emissions and pave the way for future international legal instruments. Notably, the UNFCCC embraces the precautionary principle, which encourages parties to take proactive steps to “anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects”. This principle asserts that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing the adoption of measures”. The expanding scientific understanding of black carbon’s role in human-induced climate interference, coupled with the precautionary principle embedded in the UNFCCC, provides a rationale for incorporating black carbon into subsequent climate change agreements. In accordance with the UNFCCC’s principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, the imposition of obligations for black carbon emission reductions among countries in future agreements should embody this principle.
The UNFCCC has not devoted sufficient focus to Arctic climate issues, and in practical terms, integrating the preservation of polar regions into its framework is of “utmost importance”. The Arctic Council has declared its intention to “escalate its efforts on climate change within the context of sustainable development in the Arctic”. The UNFCCC Secretariat has underscored the imperative of “attaining unprecedented levels of cooperation, encompassing regional collaboration”, through entities like the Arctic Council [23]. Consequently, tackling the issue of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping within the UNFCCC mechanism entails not only functional rivalry and collaboration between the Arctic Council and the International Maritime Organization but also pertains to the potential for the Arctic Council’s engagement within the UNFCCC framework and their cooperation.

4.3.2. Kyoto Protocol [51]

In contrast to the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol outlines more precise emission reduction targets and establishes an array of mechanisms to guarantee their attainment, notably the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The reduction targets outlined in the protocol apply to a suite of six greenhouse gases, including methane and hydrofluorocarbons, which are both short-lived greenhouse gases. Regrettably, black carbon, another kind of short-lived greenhouse gas, has been excluded from these targets.
The Kyoto Protocol does not impose mandatory emission reduction requirements on developing country parties (see Table 1). For developed countries, however, the protocol sets explicit greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Despite black carbon not being categorized as a greenhouse gas under the Kyoto Protocol, developed countries frequently bolster their control over black carbon emissions through domestic legislation, as demonstrated by the United States and the European Union. Given that a substantial proportion of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping comes from developing countries, the absence of emission reduction obligations for these countries hinders efforts to control black carbon emissions and mitigate global warming. Therefore, the Kyoto Protocol is not regarded as an effective instrument for reducing methane and fluorinated hydrocarbon emissions in the Arctic or globally, and even less so for black carbon emissions reduction.

4.3.3. Paris Agreement [23]

Compared to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement sets more explicit and rational emission targets and obligations, while also providing greater governance space for mitigating black carbon emissions. In addition to upholding the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in the Kyoto Protocol, the most significant flexibility mechanism in the Paris Agreement is the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) principle, under which parties independently determine and periodically update their NDCs, granting each country extensive discretion regarding the scope and content of its contributions, including emission types. In this way, the mitigation approach based on NDCs creates enough space for various mitigation methods [52]. In other words, although the Paris Agreement, like the Kyoto Protocol, does not set mandatory reduction obligations for black carbon emissions, contracting states can proactively set emission reduction targets in their NDCs, thus forming mitigation actions driven by states.
Since the Paris Agreement came into effect, all contracting states have submitted their NDC commitments, most of which focus on CO2 reduction. All Arctic nations have included methane—a short-lived greenhouse gas—in their first or upcoming NDCs, demonstrating their emphasis on short-lived greenhouse gas management. Across the world, an increasing number of non-Arctic countries are gradually incorporating short-lived greenhouse gases into their NDCs [53]. It is encouraging to see certain countries have explicitly included black carbon emissions in their NDCs, indicating that the mitigation framework in the Paris Agreement plays a role in strengthening global actions on black carbon reduction [54].
Therefore, although black carbon reduction is not explicitly included in it, the Paris Agreement provides mitigation opportunities through its flexible mechanism, contributing to black carbon reduction in Arctic shipping (see Table 1). Nonetheless, the limitations of the Paris Agreement must be acknowledged. The positive impact on black carbon reduction is achieved through the NDCs; in other words, whether black carbon is included in a country’s NDCs depends on each nation’s voluntary decision, rather than on a binding obligation. Only if a country chooses to include black carbon reduction within its NDC targets does it become an obligation for that country; otherwise, it cannot be mandated to undertake black carbon reduction responsibilities
Table 1. Relevant legal documents and views.
Table 1. Relevant legal documents and views.
LawPoint of View
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973Requirements for greenhouse gas emission reductions on newly built ships were first included; applies two rating indicators to ships.
International Code for Ships Operating in Polar WatersInitial definition of black carbon; lack of specific measures to address the issue of black carbon.
Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level OzoneWide range of applications; includes black carbon as a component of the substance specific short-lived climate pollutant.
Implementation Plan For The 2022 National Strategy For The Arctic RegionEstablishes a Task Force for Action on Black Carbon and Methane; adopts the Framework for Enhanced Action on Black Carbon and Methane Emissions Reduction
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeProvides a framework for action and cooperation on global climate change; establishes a common but differentiated framework for emission reductions
Kyoto ProtocolEstablishes a series of mechanisms to ensure the achievement of emission reduction targets.
Paris AgreementProvides more room for governance to mitigate black carbon emissions; establishes the principle of national voluntary contributions

5. Discussion

A series of international conventions and legal instruments has been introduced to manage black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping. However, the lack of a unified international agreement and the reliance on non-binding soft law have led to the limited effectiveness of these efforts. Section 5 focuses on the challenges in the international governance of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping and outlines various pathways for improving the international governance framework. First, we should advance the establishment of a unified international legal framework, the Agreement on Reducing Black Carbon from Arctic Shipping, as the foundation for the global regime in this area. By consolidating various scenarios and clarifying relationships between international organizations, a central platform for collaboration in drafting agreements can be established, addressing issues of fragmentation and competitive overlaps among these bodies. This approach would support the creation of an international agreement with a clear, focused mandate and well-defined governance objectives, overcoming the limitations of fragmented international governance and the weaknesses associated with non-binding soft law. Second, we should foster international collaboration in conducting governance, especially between states and international organizations to create a cooperation mechanism for oversight and leverage the observer system. It is essential to expand participation and involvement of non-intergovernmental international organizations and non-Arctic nations. Finally, we should promote holistic governance instead of solely focusing on climate change or atmospheric protection.

5.1. Lack of a Unified International Agreement on the Management of Black Carbon Emissions from Arctic Shipping

The governance of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping suffers from a lack of a unified international agreement, manifesting in two aspects. First, current international treaties rarely explicitly address the issue of black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping, and there is no dedicated international law. Through analyzing existing international conventions and regional agreements, such as UNFCCC, MARPOL, and the Polar Code, it becomes evident that, while maritime pollution is regulated, none specifically target black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping. Second, the governance framework for black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping is highly fragmented, reflecting a complex patchwork of international instruments and organizations [22]. Currently, the primary drivers of the work are international bodies like the Arctic Council, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and the United Nations. The regulatory approaches adopted by these bodies include a mix of international treaties, framework agreements, and voluntary initiatives, spanning both global and regional platforms. These tools also intersect across multiple areas, including climate change, air pollution, and international shipping. This fragmented governance introduces both complexity and challenges. While international legal scholars increasingly view the fragmentation of international rules as a neutral phenomenon that does not necessarily impede solutions to global issues [55], challenges arise when overlapping mandates and governance rules lead to conflicts. For black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping, while there may be no apparent conflict at the principle level, overlaps and potential conflicts within specific regulatory frameworks objectively exist, even though it is not easy to assess the precise impacts of these overlaps. For instance, the particulate matter reduction targets under the Gothenburg Protocol partially overlap with the regional black carbon reduction goals led by the Arctic Council. Despite ongoing efforts to coordinate among various governance tools and organizations, a unified coordination platform and an effective supervisory body have yet to be established, which continues to hinder effective governance for black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping [55].
Although international organizations have long been involved in addressing black carbon emissions from Arctic shipping, no binding, unified legal instrument has yet been adopted by the international community. Thus far, international efforts have merely established a technical definition for black carbon.

5.2. Lack of Binding Force in Soft-Law Governance for Arctic Shipping Black Carbon Emissions

Climate and environmental governance in the Arctic region rely heavily on soft law mechanisms, primarily in the form of non-binding declarations and statements issued by various international organizations in different forums. Most cooperative efforts in the Arctic adhere to these declarations and statements, resulting in a complex and often inconsistent application of soft law, which significantly undermines its legal standing. Despite considerable efforts by the Arctic Council and the IMO to advance legal frameworks in the region, many agreements and systems remain non-binding and merely serve as frameworks. For example, the Gothenburg Protocol Amendment on black carbon emissions reductions is voluntary and non-mandatory, employing ambiguous language such as “should” or “to the extent they consider appropriate”, allowing member states to opt into the obligations at their discretion. Similarly, the Arctic Council’s Framework for Action on Enhanced Black Carbon and Methane Emissions Reductions addresses black carbon reduction in the Arctic but merely expresses the member states’ commitment without imposing binding obligations. Additionally, while the Gothenburg Protocol Amendment and the Arctic Council’s Framework include black carbon within their scope of regulation, they remain non-binding framework agreements that do not impose enforceable obligations on member states.

5.3. Lack of Coordinated Governance by International Organizations on Arctic Shipping Black Carbon Emissions

Black carbon is both an air pollutant and a greenhouse gas. In the specific context of the Arctic, however, there is no coordination between climate change and environmental protection policies concerning black carbon emission reduction. If black carbon was acknowledged as a connecting factor between climate change and environmental protection policies, with its relevance to the Arctic clearly recognized, it could significantly enhance international organizations’ ability to govern black carbon emissions effectively. However, existing legislative gaps limit the potential for coordinated governance. For example, EU legislation does not yet recognize the importance of black carbon as both an air pollutant and a climate forcer, only considering carbon dioxide as a key climate forcer and without clearly defining what black carbon is.
In terms of its sources and mitigation measures, black carbon shares similar characteristics with atmospheric pollutants and greenhouse gases. Both result from the incomplete combustion of fuel in ship engines and boilers, and their emissions can be reduced through technological improvements and operational management measures [55]. Therefore, the governance of Arctic shipping black carbon emissions could be integrated with the control of both air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions for more effective, coordinated management.

5.4. Pathways for Improving International Regulation of Arctic Shipping Black Carbon Emissions

Given the direct and significant impact of Arctic shipping black carbon emissions on Arctic climate change, international organizations must seek solutions through dedicated legislation and enforcement measures. Only targeted emissions’ reduction measures can achieve effective governance outcomes.

5.4.1. Establishing Arctic Shipping Black Carbon Emission Reduction Agreement

First, conditional commitments shall be made by member states. In the Arctic Shipping Black Carbon Emission Reduction Agreement, it is essential to establish conditional, reciprocal commitments among member countries. This approach will require that member states make greater obligatory commitments within the bounds of cooperative benefits. However, the possibility of extensive obligations might deter some countries from joining. To counter this, the agreement should explicitly outline the benefits of participation to attract broader membership: First, free passage in the Arctic: member states’ vessels have the right to free navigation within Arctic waters. Second, access to technology transfer: participating countries gain opportunities for ship-related technology transfer, granting them the right to request relevant technologies to facilitate Arctic navigation. Third, negotiated rights and obligations: under the supervision of the IMO, member states could negotiate their respective rights and obligations within the cooperative framework.
Second, the scope of applicability and ship types must be clearly defined. Upon joining the agreement, vessel owners and operators from member states will gain the benefit of obtaining an international license for Arctic operations. As an industry initiative aimed at combating climate change, global maritime shipping’s black carbon reduction initiative should center on the IMO, enabling cooperation among shipowners, operators, flag states, Arctic Council member and observer states, international organizations, as well as other governmental and non-governmental entities involved in IMO activities. The agreement shall apply to all types of ships engaged in international maritime trade.
Finally, a regulatory and enforcement framework should be established. Although the agreement operates under a club model that allows voluntary participation, once a country joins, it shall be bound by the agreement’s regulations. Therefore, it is essential to establish a robust regulatory and enforcement system. The IMO, in collaboration with other international organizations, should take the lead in developing an integrated governance framework to oversee compliance.

5.4.2. Establishing Legally Binding International Framework

Given that governance of Arctic shipping black carbon emissions predominantly relies on soft law mechanisms, it is essential to establish a legally binding framework. In terms of structure, a dual system incorporating both soft and hard law should be adopted. While maintaining the current legal framework, efforts should be directed toward refining domestic climate and environmental protection laws within each country, enhancing bilateral agreements possessing characteristics of international law, and fostering collaboration between Arctic and non-Arctic countries. This combined approach aims to create a more cohesive system for the protection and governance of the Arctic climate and environment. In terms of enforcement, international organizations should work to elevate the enforceability of hard law within the Arctic region and promote a smoother transition from soft to hard law regulations. Member states should also consider Arctic Council initiatives on climate and environmental protection as binding legal instruments and implement them.

5.4.3. Upholding Collaborative Governance of Arctic Shipping Black Carbon Emissions

An analysis of current international legal instruments reveals that the legal framework for black carbon emission reduction from international shipping primarily draws upon laws relevant to maritime, air pollution, and climate change. Current difficulties in developing international law in this area lie in the following three aspects:
First, the dual nature of black carbon as both a greenhouse gas and an air pollutant has been overlooked, leading to suboptimal governance outcomes when addressed separately within air pollution control and climate change frameworks. In climate-related framework, black carbon has not been explicitly categorized as a greenhouse gas and is therefore absent from the emission reduction frameworks of major agreements like the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement. While in the Annex VI of MARPOL, black carbon is not included as an air pollutant. However, black carbon shares characteristics with other air pollutants and greenhouse gases in terms of its sources, formation, and mitigation measures. Like other pollutants, black carbon emissions from ships result from the incomplete combustion of fuel in ship engines and boilers, and emissions can be reduced through technological upgrades and operational management. Consequently, Arctic shipping black carbon emissions could be effectively managed in tandem with shipborne greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions.
Second, overlapping roles and potential functional conflicts arise due to the fact that multiple international organizations are involved in regulating Arctic shipping black carbon emissions. Effective cooperation and alignment among these organizations are essential to ensure that the international legal instruments they develop are coordinated and compatible. Therefore, collaborative legal efforts among international organizations should be promoted to foster a cohesive and harmonized regulatory framework for black carbon emission control in the Arctic.
Third, Arctic shipping black carbon emissions not only impact the regional ecological environment and interests, but they also play a critical role in achieving global climate objectives due to their indirect and long-term effects. Therefore, addressing black carbon reduction in the Arctic requires active involvement and contributions from both Arctic and non-Arctic nations. Hence, to ensure effective regulation and compliance with international legal instruments on Arctic shipping black carbon emissions, strengthened collaboration between Arctic and non-Arctic states is essential for achieving meaningful governance outcomes.

6. Conclusions

This study found that the current international legal regime on Arctic shipping black carbon emissions was insufficient to address the threats posed by these emissions to the Arctic environment, global climate warming, and the sustainable development goals of the international community, through examining relevant provisions on black carbon emissions across international treaties and agreements in the fields of maritime affairs, air pollution prevention, and climate change, with a particular focus on their applicability to Arctic shipping black carbon emissions. Additionally, the study explored the roles of key international organizations, such as the IMO and the Arctic Council, in regulating Arctic shipping black carbon emissions and revealed significant regulatory challenges, including fragmented international rules, the absence of dedicated international treaties, limited binding forces, and a lack of coordinated mechanisms. Therefore, it is critical to strengthen the international regulatory framework on Arctic shipping black carbon emissions by improving international laws, increasing their enforceability, and enhancing collaborative governance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, X.Y.; data curation, Z.Z.; supervision, project administration, Z.C.; visualization, S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Klimont, Z.; Kupiainen, K.; Heyes, C.; Purohit, P.; Cofala, J.; Rafaj, P.; Borken-Kleefeld, J.; Schöpp, W. Global Anthropogenic Emissions of Particulate Matter Including Black Carbon. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2017, 17, 8681–8723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bond, T.C.; Doherty, S.J.; Fahey, D.W.; Forster, P.M.; Berntsen, T.; DeAngelo, B.J.; Flanner, M.G.; Ghan, S.; Kärcher, B.; Koch, D.; et al. Bounding the Role of Black Carbon in the Climate System: A Scientific Assessment. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 5380–5552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 131–217. ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1. [Google Scholar]
  4. Climate & Clean Air Coalition. Black Carbon. 2024. Available online: https://www.ccacoalition.org/short-lived-climate-pollutants/black-carbon (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  5. Nanda, A. India’s Environmental Trump Card: How Reducing Black Carbon through Common but Differentiated Responsibilities Can Curb Climate Change. Denver J. Int. Law Pol. 2011, 39, 523–552. [Google Scholar]
  6. Romppanen, S. Arctic Climate Governance via EU Law on Black Carbon? Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 2018, 27, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; ISBN 978-92-9169-143-2.
  8. Morello, L. Cutting Black Carbon and Methane Promises Immediate Climate Change Impacts. 2011. Available online: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cutting-black-carbon-methane-immediate-climate-change/ (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  9. Guy, E.; Lasserre, F. Commercial Shipping in the Arctic: New Perspectives, Challenges and Regulations. Polar Rec. 2016, 52, 294–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guynup, S. The New Arctic: Amid Record Heat, Ecosystems Morph and Wildlife Struggle. 2024. Available online: https://news.mongabay.com/2024/02/the-new-arctic-amid-record-heat-ecosystems-morph-and-wildlife-struggle/ (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  11. cnBeta. Arctic Sea Ice Is Expected to Continue to Recede Worriedly in 2024. 2024. Available online: http://www.cnbeta.com.tw/articles/science/1425198.htm (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  12. Li, Y. Discussion on Future Arctic Shipping Mode. Ship Boat 2023, 34, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. CHNL. NSR Shipping Traffic in 2022. 2023. Available online: https://arctic-lio.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/NSR-2022-short-report.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  14. Browse, J.; Carslaw, K.S.; Schmidt, A.; Corbett, J.J. Impact of Future Arctic Shipping on High-latitude Black Carbon Deposition. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2013, 40, 4459–4463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schofield, C. Over the Top—Retreating Sea Ice and the Prospects for Rising Navigation in the Arctic. Int. Z. 2012, 8, 9. [Google Scholar]
  16. Amap. Summary for Policy-Makers: Arctic Climate Issues 2015. 2015. Available online: https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/summary-for-policy-makers-arctic-climate-issues-2015/1196 (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  17. Hasebe, M. New Developments and Challenges in Arctic Navigation and the Polar Code. Rev. Belge Droit Int. 2018, 20, 342–359. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ramanathan, V.; Carmichael, G. Global and Regional Climate Changes Due to Black Carbon. Nat. Geosci. 2008, 1, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Long-Term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility Pages 1029 to 1076. In Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Ed.) Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 1029–1136. ISBN 978-1-107-05799-9. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nicol, H.N.; Heininen, L. Human Security, the Arctic Council and Climate Change: Competition or Co-Existence? Polar Rec. 2014, 50, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Quinn, P.K.; Bates, T.S.; Baum, E.; Doubleday, N.; Fiore, A.M.; Flanner, M.; Fridlind, A.; Garrett, T.J.; Koch, D.; Menon, S.; et al. Short-Lived Pollutants in the Arctic: Their Climate Impact and Possible Mitigation Strategies. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2008, 8, 1723–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. DiMento, J.F.C.; Schrottenbaum, C.; Taylor, E. Environmental Governance of the Arctic: Next Steps—Diverse, Compatible, Needed. Yearb. Polar Law Online 2019, 10, 215–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Arctic Athabaskan Council. Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Seeking Relief from Violations of the Rights of Arctic Athabaskan Peoples Resulting from Rapid Arctic Warming and Melting Caused by Emissions of Black Carbon by Canada. Submitted on Behalf of All Arctic Athabaskan Peoples of the Arctic Regions of Canada and the United States. 2013. Available online: https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2013/20130423_5082_petition.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2024).
  24. de la Rosa Jaimes, V. The Arctic Athabaskan Petition: Where Accelerated Arctic Warming Meets Human Rights. Calif. West. Int. Law J. 2015, 45, 231–260. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hassol, S.J.; Zijderveld, J. Impacts of a Warming Arctic Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Als de Noordpool Warmer Wordt Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Veen Magazines: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; ISBN 978-90-76988-75-7. [Google Scholar]
  26. International Maritime Organization. Investigation of Appropriate Control Measures (Abatement Technologies) to Reduce Black Carbon Emissions from International Shipping. 2015. Available online: https://www.uncclearn.org/resources/library/investigation-of-appropriate-control-measures-abatement-technologies-to-reduce-black-carbon-emissions-from-international-shipping/ (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  27. International Maritime Organization. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). 1983. Available online: https://www.imo.org/en/about/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  28. Boone, L. Reducing Air Pollution from Marine Vessels to Mitigate Arctic Warming: Is It Time to Target Black Carbon? Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 2012, 6, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Deggim, H. The International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code). In Sustainable Shipping in a Changing Arctic; Hildebrand, L.P., Brigham, L.W., Johansson, T.M., Eds.; WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 7, pp. 15–35. ISBN 978-3-319-78424-3. [Google Scholar]
  30. WWF Arctic. Briefing About the Polar Code: Gaps and Challenges. 2022. Available online: https://www.arcticwwf.org/newsroom/news/webinar-briefing-about-the-polar-code-gaps-and-challenges/ (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  31. Bai, J. The Imo Polar Code: The Emerging Rules of Arctic Shipping Governance. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 2015, 30, 674–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Anderson, H.E. Polar Shipping, the Forthcoming Polar Code and Implications for the Polar Environments. J. Marit. Law Commer. 2012, 43, 59–84. [Google Scholar]
  33. Korkut, E.; Fowler, L.B. An Overview of Arctic Legal Regime Regarding the Protection of the Marine Environment and Some Suggestions. J. Territ. Marit. Stud. 2019, 6, 64–84. [Google Scholar]
  34. WWF Arctic. Review of Perceived Gaps and Challenges in the Implementation of the Polar Code. 2022. Available online: https://www.arcticwwf.org/newsroom/reports/review-of-perceived-gaps-and-challenges-in-the-implementation-of-the-polar-code/ (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  35. United Nations. The 1999 Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone. 1999. Available online: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-1-h&chapter=27&clang=_en (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  36. United Nations. Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. 1979. Available online: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-1&chapter=27&clang=_en (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  37. UNECE. Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone. 2017. Available online: https://unece.org/environment-policy/air/protocol-abate-acidification-eutrophication-and-ground-level-ozone (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  38. UNECE. Parties to UNECE Air Pollution Convention Approve New Emission Reduction Commitments for Main Air Pollutants by 2020. 2012. Available online: https://unece.org/press/parties-unece-air-pollution-convention-approve-new-emission-reduction-commitments-main-air (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  39. UNECE. Report on the Review of the Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone, as Amended in 2012. 2022. Available online: https://unece.org/environment/documents/2022/09/working-documents/report-review-protocol-abate-acidification (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  40. Arctic Council. Kiruna Declaration (2013). 2013. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11374/93 (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  41. Arctic Council. Fairbanks Declaration (2017). 2017. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11374/1910 (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  42. Koivurova, T.; Kankaanpää, P.; Stępień, A. Innovative Environmental Protection: Lessons from the Arctic. J. Environ. Law 2015, 27, 285–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Arctic Council. The Arctic Council: A Backgrounder. 2017. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11374/2076 (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  44. Yamineva, Y.; Kulovesi, K. Keeping the Arctic White: The Legal and Governance Landscape for Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants in the Arctic Region. Transnatl. Environ. Law 2018, 7, 201–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. UNFCCC. UN Climate Change Conference Baku. 2024. Available online: https://unfccc.int/cop29 (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  46. Sands, P. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 1992, 1, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. UNFCCC. Parties & Observers. 2024. Available online: https://unfccc.int/parties-observers (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  48. Coates, K.; Holroyd, C. Non-Arctic States and Their Stake in Arctic Sustainability. In Governing Arctic Change; Keil, K., Knecht, S., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2017; pp. 207–228. ISBN 978-1-137-50883-6. [Google Scholar]
  49. UNFCCC. Arctic Council Contribution to the Impact of the Paris Agreement. 2016. Available online: https://unfccc.int/news/arctic-council-contribution-to-the-impact-of-the-paris-agreement (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  50. UNFCCC. The Kyoto Protocol. 1997. Available online: https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=xxvii-7-a&chapter=27&clang=_en (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  51. Van Asselt, H.; Kulovesi, K. Seizing the Opportunity: Tackling Fossil Fuel Subsidies under the UNFCCC. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2017, 17, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Climate & Clean Air Coalition. 15 Countries Address SLCPs and Air-Pollution as Part of Their INDCs. 2016. Available online: https://www.ccacoalition.org/news/15-countries-address-slcps-and-air-pollution-part-their-indcs (accessed on 27 November 2024).
  53. Brewer, T.L. Global Economic Policy and Institutions. Arctic Black Carbon from Shipping: A Club Approach to Climate-and-Trade Governance. 2015. Available online: https://www.tralac.org/images/docs/8621/arctic-black-carbon-from-shipping-brewer-ictsd-series-on-climate-change-architecture-october-2015.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2024).
  54. Van Asselt, H.; Zelli, F. Connect the Dots: Managing the Fragmentation of Global Climate Governance. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 2014, 16, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yuan, X.; Tong, K. Exploration and analysis of the legal regulations on the joint control of atmospheric emissions from ships and ships between China and China. Res. China’s Marit. Commer. Law 2017, 2, 30–40. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Cui, Z.; Cai, S. International Regulatory Framework for Black Carbon Emissions from Arctic Shipping: Current Situation, Problems, and Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310656

AMA Style

Yang X, Zhang Z, Cui Z, Cai S. International Regulatory Framework for Black Carbon Emissions from Arctic Shipping: Current Situation, Problems, and Development. Sustainability. 2024; 16(23):10656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310656

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Xin, Ziqing Zhang, Zhiyuan Cui, and Siyang Cai. 2024. "International Regulatory Framework for Black Carbon Emissions from Arctic Shipping: Current Situation, Problems, and Development" Sustainability 16, no. 23: 10656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310656

APA Style

Yang, X., Zhang, Z., Cui, Z., & Cai, S. (2024). International Regulatory Framework for Black Carbon Emissions from Arctic Shipping: Current Situation, Problems, and Development. Sustainability, 16(23), 10656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310656

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop