As industrial activity and shipping traffic grow, we need firm regulations to protect Arctic waters

The probability of a major oil accident in Arctic seas is increasing alongside the ongoing growth in maritime traffic. As JARNO VANHATALO writes, there is a pressing need to understand the risks that oil spills pose to these unique and sensitive areas—and for solutions to prevent accidents and mitigate their consequences.

As Arctic sea ice melts, the number of ships navigating the area is multiplying. From 2013 to 2019, the number swelled by 25 per cent, and the total distance sailed rose by 75 per cent. Similarly, oil and gas exploration and transportation activities are intensifying and can also have serious impacts on the Arctic’s fragile marine and coastal environments. Oil spills can harm Arctic biota both physically (from smothering) and chemically (from toxicity).

The Arctic Council has stated that preventing oil spills must be a top priority. Two key approaches are designing ships to handle harsh Arctic conditions safely, and planning operations to avoid areas where accidents have a higher likelihood of happening. However, given that the probability of an accident is never zero, companies should also consider the potential ecological consequences of an accident when planning the seasons and locations for their proposed operations.

Gathering information to manage risk

Ecological risk assessments can help companies mitigate risks. If two routes have equal accident probability, the company should choose the one where the ecological consequences would be less severe if an accident were to take place.

The potential ecological consequences of an accident can vary considerably across locations and seasons. In addition, the risks for particular species are higher in certain locations and at specific times of the year. For example, according to our results, among marine mammals, polar bear and seal populations are most vulnerable to the acute effects of an oil spill in spring, when their pups’ exposure potential and sensitivity to oil are high and spilled oil spreads well because ice cover is not continuous. On the other hand, walrus populations are more vulnerable in summer. Polar bears and seals also tend to inhabit different geographic areas than walrus.

In addition, different types of oil will cause a range of ecological risks and impacts. For example, even though all types can do significant harm to Arctic marine ecosystems, heavy fuel oil is understood to cause the most severe consequences.

Fortunately, despite the near-Arctic Exxon Valdez oil spill in the south coast of Alaska in 1989, no major spills have yet occurred in truly Arctic marine areas. While this is excellent news (so far), it creates challenges for ecological risk assessors: while we have a good understanding of the types of risks posed by Arctic marine traffic, we don’t have a comprehensive appreciation of their likely scale, mainly because we lack firsthand experience and data about the impacts of oil spills. Basic data on Arctic marine ecosystems are scarce as well.

The upshot is that when it comes to the risk of ecological disaster, ships sail under high uncertainty in the Arctic today.

The absence of data from actual Arctic oil spills is a challenge that I would love to keep facing. But I would welcome more data on Arctic ecosystems to support our risk assessment work.

Ultimately, given that scientists do not yet have a full understanding of the scale of the risks, my view is that regulations on Arctic activities should be firm and precautionary.