Science Based Regulation of Arctic Energy Installations (SciBAr Installations)

这笔赠款将促进由学者和利益攸关方组成的跨学科网络的发展，旨在对北极近海能源设施对环境、行业、当地社区和其他利益攸关方的威胁和影响的治理和监管进行360度审查。该网络将审查物理科学、技术和工程必须并能够在多大程度上影响监管和治理，以确保北极活动的可持续性。随着北冰洋海冰融化，人们有机会利用近海设施开采石油和天然气，或通过风力或海浪发电或海洋热能转换产生可再生能源。鉴于北极的活动水平相对较低，并考虑到所有类型的设施都会出现一些类似的问题，该网络将平等地关注所有类型的设施，而不考虑用途。世界其他地方备受瞩目的事故，如2010年的深水地平线井喷事件，突显了这些活动带来的危害风险。这些风险包括污染或栖息地变化对环境的风险，以及对当地社区获得生计的方式的干扰，例如通过捕鱼或旅游业。在北极，风险尤其明显，因为该物种发现了高度适应寒冷的专门化物种，独特的生态系统，以及我们对这些物种和生态系统的了解甚至比一般海洋更有限。此外，由于将安装装置的冰雪环境偏远且无法进入，工人的健康和安全风险极大。能源行业还面临风险，例如在快速变化的监管背景下运营，就像美国所看到的那样，总统令自2015年以来迅速改变了监管背景，至今仍在继续。国际和国家两级监管和治理的更大确定性将使所有利益攸关方受益，更详细的监管将基于考虑到北极背景的健全科学设计。然而，我们没有这样的全球条约，而是我们有这样的全球条约，如1982年《联合国海洋法公约》(UNCLOS)，这些条约旨在适用于从加勒比海到北极的所有海洋区域，而不详细规定在北极发现的具体挑战，例如解决冰封地区的石油泄漏问题。我们也有一些专门针对北极的条约，但它们的重点是狭窄的，例如，涉及渔业，而不是所有的北极活动。虽然北极理事会为制定针对北极制定的不具约束力的政策和行动纲领提供了一个论坛，但它所采取的措施通常是不可执行的。虽然它最近促进了两项条约的制定，但不能保证未来会有更具约束力的法律，甚至不能保证它们会解决海上能源设施的监管问题。这个网络的建立是为了研究和测试基于有关北极环境的科学证据的最佳监管设计，并为未来实施此类监管建立最佳治理系统的模型。它的出发点是绘制出目前对北极海上能源设施的威胁和影响的理解。将通过有针对性地邀请特定学者、利益攸关方、政策制定者和监管者参加该网络，并举办两个旨在发展该网络的讲习班来发展该网络。将建立一个网页，以便利网络参与者之间的持续交流和更广泛地传播研究结果。该网络未来工作的主要影响将是通过更强有力的治理系统提供基于证据的监管。

This grant will facilitate development of a transdiciplinary network of academics and stakeholders designed to provide a 360 degree review of the governance and regulation of threats and impacts to the environment, industry, local communities and other stakeholders associated with offshore energy installations in the Arctic. The network will examine the degree to which the physical sciences, technology and engineering must and can influence regulation and governance to ensure sustainability of Arctic activities. As Arctic sea ice melts opportunities open up to use offshore installations in the extraction of oil and gas or to generate renewable energy through wind or wave power, or ocean thermal energy conversion. Given the relatively low level of activity in the Arctic and given that some similar issues arise with all types of installation, the network will focus equally on all types of installation regardless of purpose. High profile accidents elsewhere in the world, such as the Deepwater Horizon blow-out in 2010, highlight the risks of harm that these activities bring with them. These include, risks to the environment through pollution or habitat changes and to local communities of interference with the ways in which they secure their livelihoods e.g. through fishing or tourism. In the Arctic the risks are particularly pronounced because the species found there are highly cold adapted and specialized species, the ecosystems unique and our understanding of these species and ecosystems even more limited than it is in relation to the oceans more generally. In addition extreme health and safety risks for workers arise due to the remoteness and inaccessibility of the ice-laden environment in which installations will be placed. The energy industry also faces risks, such as, of operating in a rapidly changing regulatory context as seen in the USA where Presidential orders have changed the regulatory context rapidly since 2015 and continuing today.Greater certainty in regulation and governance at the international and national levels would benefit all stakeholders as would more detailed regulations based upon sound science designed with the Arctic context in mind. We do not, however, have this, instead we have, global treaties such as the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), which are designed to be applicable in all areas of the oceans from the Caribbean to the Arctic and do not regulate in any detail the specific challenges found in the Arctic such as addressing an oil spill in an icebound area. We also have some Arctic specific treaties, but their focus is narrow, addressing, for example, fisheries rather than all Arctic activities. While the Arctic Council provides a forum for the development of non-binding policies and programmes of action designed for the Arctic, the measures it adopts are generally unenforceable. And while it has recently facilitated the development of 2 treaties, there is no guarantee of more binding laws to come, or indeed that they would address regulation of offshore energy installations.This network is being established to research and test the design of best regulation based on scientific evidence regarding the Arctic environment and to model best governance systems for the delivery of such regulation in the future. Its starting point is to map the current understanding of threats and impacts from and to offshore energy installations in the Arctic. The network will be developed through targeted invitations to specific academics, stakeholders, policy makers and regulators to participate in the network and in two workshops designed to develop that network. A web page will be established to facilitate ongoing communications between the network participants and distribution of findings of research more generally. The key impacts from future work of the network will be evidence-based regulation delivered through stronger governance systems.