Africa’s Blue Economy: The Red Code AlarmMay 16, 2022Miscellaneous / NewsAfrica’s blue economy Climate change, overfishing, and exhaustive ocean practices in several economic sectors threaten marine biodiversity. Africa’s Blue Economy: The Red Code Alarm explains Africa’s blue economy strategy and its actions to secure a sustainable future for Africa’s seas. Africa’s blue economy can be a crucial contributor to the regional and global economy and has the potential to grow further. However, the sector faces several challenges in achieving sustainable growth. This article provides an overview of the blue economy and its key drivers, some of the challenges it is facing, and suggestions for new sustainable strategies that could be implemented to improve the development of this sector. A Contextual Summary of the African Maritime Environment Coastal and marine resources are central to providing food, energy, and jobs to millions of people; however, Africa’s maritime industry faces many challenges, including climate change and illegal fishing practices. Climate change affects the availability of marine resources and makes it harder for vessels to navigate. At the same time, illegal fishing has caused the depletion of many stocks and the degradation of critical marine habitats. These problems are putting Africa’s maritime industry at risk, and there’s a need for concerted actions to address them. Red Code Alarm and Climate Change In his reference to the 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, “it is clear to all who want to listen that the planet is facing a climate crisis.” He elaborated that this is “a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening and the evidence is irrefutable”. By extension, the climate crisis creates an ocean crisis, directly increasing the risks for marine biodiversity. The Consequences of Illegal Fishing Practices There are many harmful consequences of illegal fishing practices, including depletion of fish stocks, loss of habitat, pollution, and the displacement of marine life. Illegal fishing also contributes to global warming, as fishing vessels generate large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Africa’s Blue Economy Strategy Explained In the African context, the Blue Economy includes oceans, seas, coasts, lakes, rivers, and subsurface water. It encompasses both aquatic and marine spaces. Fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, transportation, shipbuilding, energy, bioprospecting underwater mining, and other related operations are just a few of the sectors that it supports. The key obstacles that a Blue Economy strategy might help overcome include increasing knowledge and raising awareness of climate change, environmental stewardship, and promoting environment-friendly business practices. What Does the Blue Economy Hope To Achieve? The Blue Economy provides an opportunity for strengthened partnerships that can assist coastal communities to become an inclusive part of economic development. It can lead to the expansion of progress and peace and foster a climate of prosperity across the African continent. What Can We Expect From Africa’s Blue Economy ? Cultural and other societal elements have an impact on our lived experience of the economy. Therefore, the successful transition to a blue economy for Africa, could imply the following actions: Agenda setting, awareness, and sensitizationCoordination in formulating the Blue Economy policyBuilding national ownership of the Blue Economy policy formulation processSector identification and prioritizationDesigning the Blue Economy policyPolicy ImplementationMonitoring and Evaluation Africa’s maritime industry faces several challenges that have a direct bearing on its ability to thrive and grow. From the effects of climate change to the rampant illegal fishing practices, there is always something standing in the way of progress. However, through collective efforts and concerted action, Africa’s maritime industry can overcome these challenges and usher in a new era of prosperity for all. Like this:Like Loading...... Drones and Maritime SurveillanceMay 4, 2022Miscellaneous / NewsFrance’s EEZ, 10,2 million km² (3,94 million sq mi), is the second largest maritime area in the world after the United States. 97% of the French EEZ is related to its overseas departments and communities, the metropolitan EEZ representing only 370,000 km² (143,000 sq mi.). In order to monitor this immense overseas EEZ, a significant number of patrol vessels is necessary. While the French Navy is technologically credible, it is hindered by a modest number of naval platforms. Maritime Surveillance Currently, the French Navy has four Overseas Support and Assistance Ships (BSAOM), three Antilles-Guyana Patrol Boats (PAG) and six Surveillance Frigates (FS) dedicated to the surveillance of overseas marine territories. It means only 13 vessels are monitoring an area of 9,8 million km² (3,8 million sq mi.), each vessel being responsible for an area the size of Chile. It is true that six Overseas Patrol Vessels (POM) are to be delivered between 2022 and 2025, but by the end of the decade, the six Surveillance Frigates built in the early 1990s will probably be decommissioned. Based on this observation, the recent report by the Senate Delegation for overseas recommends coupling the delivery of the POMs with the commissioning of surface drones to monitor the EEZ. Drones Opportunities The use of drones to complement conventional forces would indeed allow a significant increase in capabilities…but they still need to be developed. The French Defense Industry is in the early stages of surface drones development. During the 2021 Naval Innovation Days, the company Naval Group presented a submarine drone but no autonomous surface system. Surface drones could provide a permanent and in-depth surveillance network. They could be used either as a complement to conventional forces to reinforce an existing surveillance system and possibly create a saturation effect, or as a substitute for conventional forces for DDD (Dull, Dirty, Dangerous) missions. Indeed, this 3D rule illustrates the comparative advantage of the drone compared to a manned system: it will be able to carry out repetitive and tedious tasks over time (dull), in an unpleasant or painful environment (dirty), even hostile (dangerous). The Israelis claim to be the first to have implemented an armed surface drone. Since then, the Americans and Chinese have made progress and caught up. China and USA Moving Forward A US DoD report presented to Congress in February 2022 proposed to develop a fleet made up of one third large ships (aircraft carriers, frigates), one third smaller ships and one third medium/large unmanned surface vehicles (MUSV/LUSV). The MUSVs (Sea Hunter type) would be used mainly to carry sensors (radar, sonar, electronic warfare, etc.) and weapons designed to combat swarms of enemy drones. The LUSVs (Overlord program) would provide additional mass and, in particular, sufficient weapons. They would be used in long-term operations, and specifically focused on high-intensity naval combat. As for China, it seems to be developing mainly small USVs, intended for export (JARI – 12m or Marine Lizard – 15m) and presented at the main arms shows. Some open sources also exposed larger models, which seem to be developed specifically for the PLA Navy. Beijing barely communicates on those. Indeed, China needs increased maritime surveillance capabilities in the “nine-dash line” area, particularly around the disputed islands in the South China Sea. The Future of Maritime Surveillance Finally, if surface drones can be used to reinforce the surveillance network, to combat illegal activities (IUU, smuggling….) on the world’s seas.They could also strengthen the offensive and defensive capabilities of a naval task force: extension of the radar detection range, multi-static anti-submarine warfare, coordinated anti-aircraft network to counter a saturating attack, etc. Although these tools are not fully mature yet, and their lethal effectiveness in armed operations remains to be demonstrated, they have solid assets to reinforce the surveillance of maritime spaces. European countries must rapidly strengthen their R&D in surface drones, in order to maintain their strategic autonomy. Like this:Like Loading...... French Concept of State Action at SeaApril 11, 2022Miscellaneous / NewsAlthough France has the second biggest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the world (3.9 million sq mi), it does not have a Coast Guard to protect it. Like in many other domains, France has instead developed a specific concept to coordinate the action of the many administrations acting in the maritime domain: “l’Action de l’État en Mer”) or “the State Action at Sea” (SAS). What is the State Action at Sea? SAS describes a comprehensive approach of all government-led maritime operations, with the exception of the defense missions. It covers over 45 missions, organized in 10 categories, which address an exhaustive panel of issues: from sovereignty and protection of national interests, to combatting illegal activities, ensuring the safety of people and goods, or protecting the environment. When EEZ were created in 1976, France had to tailor an organization in order to protect French interests at sea. Instead of creating a specific Coast Guard corps, France chose to rely on a unique maritime authority, and the versatility of assets belonging to the different administrations operating at sea. Governance and organization In mainland France, the Maritime Prefects, three Navy vice-admirals, have the delegation of the Prime Minister’s authority for SAS within their respective maritime domain. In the Overseas Territories, a government’s delegate for SAS acts on behalf of the Prime Minister, with the support of the local maritime commander (a Navy officer). The General Secretary for the Sea organizes and coordinates this structure, under the authority of the Prime Minister. He chairs the Director Comity of the Coast Guard Function, which ensures the coordination and sharing of all the maritime assets of the different administrations operating at sea and along the coastline. There are eight of these: the French Navy, including the Maritime Gendarmerie, the Customs, the Maritime Affairs, the Gendarmerie, the Directorate-General of the Overseas, the Border Police and Civilian Protection. What are the missions? One of the main concerns of the French government’s policy for SAS is combatting illegal migration in the Channel, in the Mediterranean and around Mayotte (due to Comorian migrants). It is a complicated task, between law enforcement and safety of life at sea. Additionally, the BREXIT has raised tensions with the UK in the Channel on that matter. Drug enforcement, especially in the West Indies and in the Mediterranean sea, is also an important topic. Although the seizures were massive in the late years, they remain relatively minor compared to the estimated global volume of the traffic. Illegal fishing is another issue withing SAS framework. As an example, Fisheries Protection off the French Guiana faces an endemic illegal activity by Brazilian fishermen, with a high level of violence. Current and future challenges On a larger scale, the pillaging of Argentinian’s and Equatorian’s fishery resources by Chinese fishing armada raises the question of the protection of the vast French EEZ. While only the French Navy is able to operate in the high sea, its current downsizing due to previous budget cuts and delayed renewal programs, rises as a serious concern. AIS tracks around French Polynesia EEZ (red line) Former and current Chiefs of Staff of the French Navy have launched an ambitious program to equip all warships with UAVs in order to increase the capacity of control of maritime assets by ten times. However, these new means are not expected before several years. Moreover, the necessary protection of the maritime environment is likely to collide with increasing industrial activities (offshore wind turbines, mineral exploitation…) in an already engorged space, due to maritime traffic, fishery and military activities. This will challenge the limited number of French assets available for SAS tasks, while tensions keep rising on sovereignty issues and delimitation of disputed maritime areas. Perspectives for the State Action at Sea In a report published in 2019, the French National Court of Audits noted the lack of coordination between the different entities involved in the SAS. After the resignation of Catherine Chabaud, Delegate for the Sea and the Littoral, a Ministry of the Sea was finally created in July 2020. However, without any authority over the other ministries involved in the maritime domain (such as the Economics or Transportation), it is likely to remain an empty shell. In its plan for 2030, the French government underlined the tremendous prospects offered by France’s EEZ, which could increase even more in the coming years with the extension of the Continental shelf. Shall this new positioning of France as a major maritime nation of the 21st century become a reality, massive investments in the SAS, both in action and coordination capacities, will be needed. Like this:Like Loading...... Insidious Seabed WarfareApril 7, 2022Miscellaneous / NewsUnderwater cables are a major challenge. Cutting off a country’s communications does not seem very difficult considering the various incidents already recorded. But protecting such vital infrastructures is very difficult and costly. Seabed Warfare, this is the kind of threat Western countries will need to deal with in a very near future. Seabed warfare In recent years, many events have fueled the idea that an insidious submarine war could start soon. Indeed, the increase in the number of incidents on submarine infrastructures as well as the presentation of sea-bed-intervention submarines and Underwater Unarmed Vehicles (UUVs) are strong arguments accrediting this thesis. In November 2021 and January 2022, two Norwegian agencies reported incidents on underwater cables. In the first case, a scientific cable was torn off and displaced. The segments have not been fully retrieved yet. In the second case, a communication cable was cut, altering the resilience level of the telecommunication service which it supported. A report by the International Cable Protection Committee states that out of 2,500 events registered between 1959 and 2006, 66% of cable damage was caused by human activity (anchoring and fishing), 13% by natural events and 21% remains of unknown origin (based on data from Tyco Telecommunications (US) Inc.). These different examples highlight the great vulnerability of submarine cables, whether they are used for data transport, power supply or scientific purposes, and the difficulty in establishing responsibilities. Today, roughly 99% of the world’s data traffic travels through submarine cables. The most powerful countries already in the game Moreover, these cables are vulnerable to sabotaging, or spying .The United States created a new means of action during the Spanish-American War of 1898, by cutting several maritime telecommunication cables, isolating Spain from its areas of operation, and thus gaining an important strategic advantage. In the sixties, the United States resumed spying on the submarine cables communications, and it seems that these operations are still going on today. Other major nations are involved in this business: Russia and China’s deep-sea capacities and activities leave little doubt as to their objectives. Whether it is the Russian Losharik submarine or the Chinese HSU-001, these two countries are demonstrating their will to carry out actions in the deep sea, to assert their interests or hinder their rivals. Since 2015 at least, NATO and the United States have shown concern about the activities (potentially cable mapping) carried out by the Russian ship Yandra as well as the Russian submarine fleet. NATO seems to fear that these units could foreshadow destabilizing actions, to undermine the interests of NATO and its partners. However, protecting 1.3 million kilometers of cables represents an unprecedented challenge for nations. To prepare for this future type of action, several Western countries have taken actions. In 2016, the US Navy published an updated version of Undersea Warfare S&T Strategic, detailing scientific and technical objectives to align R&D with the needs in the field. In the United Kingdom, the First Sea Lord announced in his 2020 New Year’s speech that two Ocean Surveillance ships would be built “to help with data collection and protect critical national infrastructure and undersea cables.” In February 2022, the French Minister of Defence presented her country’s Seabed warfare strategy. The French plan is quite interesting, giving insights on the different strategic competitors in the field, the ambitions of Paris as well as a roadmap to achieve these objectives. Though it is long-term global plan, it does not detail the means that will be implemented to prevent and counter acts of sabotage or espionage. In a nutshell, cutting off a country’s communications does not seem very difficult considering the various incidents already recorded. On the other hand, protecting such vital infrastructures as underwater cables is very difficult and costly. In a post-covid context, which has weakened many countries, one may wonder whether the various Western strategies will be funded up to their ambitions. One thing is certain however: to do nothing to protect underwater cables is not an option! Like this:Like Loading...... One Ocean Summit, a Chance for the FutureMarch 31, 2022Miscellaneous / NewsShould the ocean, which is such an incredible treasure, be made a sanctuary? This is the dilemma that led France to organize the One Ocean Summit, from February 9 to 11, 2022 in Brest. While the issue of seabed mining was central, it should not overshadow other issues such as plastic pollution, overfishing, and damage caused to the biodiversity. What is the One Ocean Summit? The One Planet movement (a branch of the One Ocean Summit) was created to keep the “fight against climate disruption” and the “protection of nature” at the highest political level. Launched in December 2017 as a joint initiative of France, the UN and the World Bank, I was based on a clear observation: preserving the planet requires more concrete commitments and a joint effort of all actors, public and private. The movement is therefore part of an international dynamic. Who participated in the Brest meeting? In addition to Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, and Charles Michel, President of the European Council, 41 nations from all continents were represented. Amongst them: China, France, the United States, Tunisia, Colombia, and so on… Alongside political decision-makers, business leaders and civil society actors participated in this global event. French President Emmanuel Macron poses with heads of state during the One Ocean Summit in Brest on February 11, 2022. LUDOVIC MARIN / AFP What was the outcome? Thirteen commitments were taken by the end of the summit, structured around four main themes: 1. Protecting the biodiversity and resources of our oceans. 2. Joining forces with the ocean in the face of climate change. 3. Putting an end to plastic pollution of the oceans. 4. Placing the ocean at the heart of the international political agenda. The most symbolic commitments are the following: – An international agreement against plastic pollution: a dozen countries, including the United States and the entire European Union support the launch of negotiations under the aegis of the UN. In addition, India and France have committed to eliminating pollution from single-use plastics. – The mapping of 80% of the seabed by 2030, under the aegis of UNESCO. – a commitment to fight illegal fishing: 14 countries will strengthen the fight against illegal fishing, especially by mobilizing their State Navy for surveillance missions such as those conducted by France in its EEZ. France also took national engagements, such as the extension of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands or the diminution, within 10 years, of all littoral that pose a risk of plastic waste discharge at sea. What are the challenges for France? Since the success of the COP21 in Paris, back in 2015, France has led the fight for environmental preservation. Today, the success of the One Ocean Summit also resonates in the context of its Presidency of the UE. France’s credibility and legitimacy on the subject of the oceans protection stems from two factors: Paris has the second largest EEZ in the world, and has developed a specific doctrine to take care of it, the State Action at Sea, mostly based on the French Navy’s assets. At the end of the summit, France and Costa Rica committed to organizing the next One Ocean Summit in 2024. Like this:Like Loading...... Maritime Security Issues in Adriatic SeaMarch 29, 2022Miscellaneous / NewsMaritime security in the Adriatic Sea is a major challenge for coastal regions to ensure the protection of national maritime interests. Indeed, this arm of the Mediterranean Sea is a strategic region that attracts a multitude of activities. An illegal part of this business have developed, creating threats in the area. The Adriatic Sea, located between the Italian and Balkan peninsulas, is connected to the Ionian Sea by the Strait of Otranto. Due to the particularity of its geographical situation, many issues related to the use of the maritime territory arise, particularly in the field of security. CURRENT SITUATION The area attracts a multitude of different maritime flows. Some of them are vital for the region especially maritime transport, fishing, oil and gas extraction or tourism. Maritime trade is a key factor for the region: 19 ports are handling over a million tons of cargo each year to fuel neighbouring countries and more broadly Europe. The largest freight port is Trieste (Italy), whilst Split (Croatia) handles the largest number of passengers. However, significant infrastructure deficits remain important in the region, resulting in a lack of accessibility. Tourism is a major economic activity along the Adriatic coast, especially for Croatia and Italy. The growing number of yachts and large cruise vessels sailing and calling the Adriatic waters represents a challenge for both navigation safety and security that neighbouring countries need to address. Fishing has also a strong importance for both self-national consumption and export. Italy and Croatia are the main contributors to total catches. Regulation in the area mainly concerns demersal and small pelagic species. Some “fisheries restricted areas” have been settled to preserve resources natural habitats, species and deep-sea resources. The Adriatic and Ionian Sea basins represent the second area for hydrocarbon installations in Europe (gas and oil). Several countries have already started to exploit these resources. Offshore activities are expected to grow, conflicting with the tourism development and posing a major threat to the environment protection. Finally, the increase of maritime traffic leads to a real risk of accident, thus of pollution. To prevent such events, surveillance and coordination capacities need to be strengthened. Alongside these legal activities, illegal ones have developed, creating other threats in the area. Immigration: in 2018, over 117.000 migrants arrived in Europe by the Mediterranean Sea. Migrants are mainly turning to Albania trying to reach Western Europe by land, but also via the Adriatic Sea. The number of migrants trying to cross Albania in 2020 tripled compared to 2019. Smugglers send the migrants at sea through leisure crafts or small boats frequently stolen, leading to a growing number of losses at sea. Trafficking: the Adriatic Sea is a strategic area for traffic networks and a major maritime connection on the “Balkan route” linking Afghanistan to western and central Europe. Cross-border criminal activities include drug trade, cigarette, firearms or counterfeit medicines smuggling. STATES ORGANISATION Maritime borders tend to overlap, requiring coastal states to work together for their individual and mutual interests. As a result, they put in place several strategies at various scales. Leveraging first on national forces, the Adriatic Sea bordering countries have set up maritime surveillance organizations, to carry out protection of national maritime interests. These include Navies but also Coast Guards (Italy & Croatia) or the maritime law enforcement force (Albania). In addition, to meet specific maritime security needs, coastal States have established bilateral or regional agreements. Among these, the Italian-Yugoslav agreement on cooperation for the protection against pollution of the Adriatic Sea and coastal areas signed in 1974, which led to the creation of a Joint Commission (Italy – Slovenia – Croatia – Montenegro). At European level, one can notice the Adriatic Ionian Initiative, established in 2000, organizing the cooperation between EU members situated along the Adriatic and Ionian Seas for the entire region’s development and security. The EU is also deplying troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Operation Althea (formally the European Union Force Bosnia and Herzegovina EUFOR). This peace enforcement mission, composed of 600 troops, has seen its capabilities recently reinforced by the French Carrier Strike Group and its fighter aircrafts Rafale, which spent a month in the Adriatic Sea supporting EUFOR among other tasks. More recently, FRONTEX has become a key player, coordinating Europe efforts to secure its borders in the Adriatic Sea. In 2019, the Agency signed an agreement for the first time with a non-EU country, Albania, followed later by Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, to help local authorities fight organized crime. PERSPECTIVES The Adriatic Sea is an area full of resources that requires a better coordination to ensure its maritime safety. The INTESA project works on this purpose. It creates a network between Italian and Croatian administrations, and a link with major ports of the Adriatic Sea in order to make a more efficient and safer maritime transport system in this area. The project aims three objectives: strengthening maritime safety and security; developping a resilient transport maritime network; and creating a competitive Port System. Like this:Like Loading...... Suez Canal ExpansionMarch 25, 2022Miscellaneous / NewsSuez Canal The Suez Canal originally opened in 1869 and was the most extensive maritime engineering feat of its day. It immediately became one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, primarily because it reduced the route between Britain and India—one of the most important trading routes of the day—by over 4,500 miles. Cutting through Egypt from Port Said in the north and Suez in the south, the canal remains a bustling shipping lane, connecting Europe to its trading partners in Asia. Why Is The Suez Canal Being Expanded? When it first opened in 1869, the Suez Canal consisted of a channel 26 feet deep, 72 feet wide at the bottom, and 200 to 300 feet wide at the surface. Over the next quarter of a century, over 3,000 ships became grounded, and the first expansion project was therefore commissioned in 1876, widening the canal and adding more passing bays. Over the following 140 years, additional expansions were made, new passing bays were added, and works to counter erosion were completed, continually improving the canal and increasing its importance as a maritime route. The Egyptian government conducted the latest expansion in 2015, and it was thought that this would keep the channel flowing freely for many decades to come. However, the advent of new “supercontainer”ships carrying goods from Asia into Europe had not entirely been planned for. On 23 March 2021, the container ship Ever Given was thrown off course by a dust storm and beached, blocking the canal. Economists at Lloyds List estimated that the global economy lost $400 million for every hour that the container ship blocked the channel. It remained lodged for six days, further straining an already stretched global supply chain. Immediately after this, the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) announced that further expansion of the Suez Canal would be initiated. Accordingly, in July 2021, work began, with an estimated 24-month timescale and completion date of July 2023. What Is Involved In The Suez Canal Expansion? The Ever Given became lodged in the 30km southern portion of the canal, and this area is being widened 130 feet to the east and deepened from 66 feet to 72 feet. The Chairman of the SCA, Osama Rabie, said in May 2021 that “This will improve ship navigation by 28% in this difficult part of the canal.” The project has also brought forward plans for a second channel which will increase the capacity of the canal by six ships. Environmental Impacts The grounding of the Ever Given served to highlight the ever-increasing impact of shipping on the environment in general and the seas around the Suez Canal to the north and south of Egypt specifically. The levels of pollution from fuel spilled and emissions were already high, and the increased shipping capacity will exacerbate this. This is shown clearly by the increasing size of container ships; in 2007, the largest container ship in the world could carry 8,000 containers, and the Ever Given had a capacity of 20,000. An additional environmental consideration is the transmission of invasive species between the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Suez. For example, Rabbitfish Siganus luridus (the dusky spinefoot) is native to the Indian and Pacific Oceans. However, after the Suez Canal opened in 1869, this species entered the eastern Mediterranean and was found in Greek waters by 1964. With climate change warming the Mediterranean Sea and the extra capacity in the Suez Canal, the trend of tropical fish such as this one displacing native species will only increase. Like this:Like Loading...... Freedom of Navigation in the East Med SeaMarch 22, 2022Miscellaneous / Newsfreedom navigation The concept of “lawfare” has been defined by US General Dunlap as “the strategy of using or misusing law as a substitute for international military measures to achieve an operational objective”. In the maritime field, it implies the misinterpretation and misapplication of international law of the sea and especially the principle of freedom of navigation. In the last decades, the Eastern Mediterranean Sea has been a center of real conflicts and tensions, which had for consequence the misapplication of the rule of law in order to serve national interest. How States’ practices jeopardize the primacy of the principle of Freedom of Navigation and which remedies exist to ensure its rightful application linked to the international order? The prominence of the principle of freedom of navigation in the Law of the Sea Initially defined by international customary law, the principle of freedom of navigation and the right of innocent passage were codified in 1984 in the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Every vessel, regardless its flag and its nature, is free to sail the high sea and the economic exclusive zone (EEZ). The principle of innocent passage within territorial waters enables to conciliate between the principle of Freedom of Navigation and coastal State Sovereignty. The misuse of the Law of the Sea for national interests The Eastern Mediterranean Sea is the stage of multiple maritime boundaries overlaps. National interpretations, misuses of International Law and the lack of bilateral agreements lead to increasing diplomatic and maritime tensions within the area. Two types of practices can be highlighted. First, the distortion of the Law of the Sea in order to extend national maritime domain. Secondly, the alteration of the legal framework applicable to a specific maritime area. In 1973, Libya former Head of State, Colonel Gaddafi, unilaterally declared the Gulf of Sidra as internal waters and thus under Libya full sovereignty. This decision did not only enabled the extension of the country maritime boundaries, it also subjected the entrance in the Gulf to national authorization. Libyan authorities warned that any vessel crossing the so-called “line of death” without prior authorization would be destroyed. Despite the political evolution in Libya, this maritime boundary is still in place in 2022 even though it is a breach of the principle of navigation and the right of innocent passage as defined by customary international law and UNCLOS (art 17, 57 and 87). More recently, Turkish government proclaimed its rights over the continental shelf in the Aegean Sea, in opposition to Greek and Cypriot claims. Despite not being a contracting State of UNCLOS, Ankara’s decision is in conflict with customary international law, which provides that the continental shelf delimitation should be “the object of agreement between the States concerned”. Moreover, in several occasions, Turkish warships while escorting research vessels in an unbounded EEZ, conducted “shadow operations” on foreign vessels. This behavior reflects a will to hamper the exercise of Freedom of Navigation for vessels transiting in this area in contradiction with customary international law and UNCLOS. The exercise of Freedom of Navigation as a safeguard The best remedy to ensure the application of the principle of navigation is to keep sailing within the contested areas. Such practices will not only demonstrate the non-recognition of the maritime boundaries unilaterally settled but will also assert the primacy of international Law of the Sea. As a mean to face increasing tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been deploying warship through the operation Sea Guardian. Its purpose is to maintain maritime safety and security within the area, but also to conduct Freedom of Navigation Operations if necessary. The US Navy FONOPS program established since 1979 enables the deployment of assets within contested maritime boundaries. In the 1980’s, following the qualification of the Gulf of Sidra as internal waters, US navy Carrier Strike Groups were sent to ensure the application of principle of navigation within the area. As an example, the French Navy amongst others promotes the principle of Freedom of Navigation through the deployment of its fleet in every ocean and sea. In January 2022, French frigates Provence and Auvergne have been deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea as a display of France‘s will to exercise and highlight this freedom. These deployments have a determined purpose, to demonstrate the primacy and the importance of the rightful application of the Law of the Sea main provisions: the right for every vessel to exercise their right of innocent passage and to navigate within the high sea including EEZ. Like this:Like Loading...... Montreux Convention and Canal Istanbul : A Turkish financial and geopolitical bet?March 17, 2022Miscellaneous / NewsThe outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine on the 24th of February 2022 shed light on the strategic role of the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, as well as the Montreux Convention which governs navigation through the Turkish straits. The purpose of the Montreux Convention of 1936 is to regulate transit and navigation from the Aegean Sea to the Black Sea. Its ratification, after centuries of instability, enabled the establishment of a legal and geopolitical status-quo. Despite being considered as the guardian of the Convention, Turkey has officially launched on the 26th of June 2021, the digging operation of a ten billion dollars national project called “Canal Istanbul”. Described as an alternative to the Bosporus strait, it will connect the Marmara Sea to the Black Sea, which raised environmental, economic, political concerns among the national and international community. Announced as operational by 2023, President Erdogan declared that challenging the Montreux Convention was always possible. The Turkish government might seek to implement a new legal framework to the canal to boost national economy at the risk of destabilizing even more the current legal and geopolitical environment of this region. An uncertain balance between financial goals and international law’s requirements? The Convention ensures the application of the principle of freedom of navigation through the Turkish Straits while regulating access to vessels regarding their nature (civilian or warships), flag, and gross tonnage. Designated as a major strategic waterways, it is estimated that approximatively 55 000 vessels are sailing through the Turkish straits each year. As the Convention does not entitle Turkey to introduce new transit fee, the “Canal Istanbul” new regulation could establish a toll, which could generate substantial benefits. Indeed, Ankara expects “Canal Istanbul” to be profitable within a decade. However, in order to persuade vessels to navigate through the canal, national authorities might try to enact restrictive transit measures in the Bosporus Strait (environmental, safety, navigation). Were they to hamper navigation, it could be considered as a violation of the principle of freedom of navigation established by the Montreux Convention. The implementation of a new legal framework for “Canal Istanbul” might lead to legal uncertainty. Two different sets of rules could apply to the same area. Besides, will the Canal be subjected to the Convention or to Turkish national law? Would the Canal be considered as part of Turkey internal waters or as an International Canal and thus subjected to a specific treaty? Should the Montreux Convention be applied, amended or should a new Treaty regarding navigation between the Marmara Sea and the Black Sea be enacted? A quest for profitability at the expense of political and strategical stability? The Montreux Convention enabled the creation of a geopolitical status-quo, especially between NATO countries and Russia. On one hand, it helps controlling the deployment of Russian naval forces to the Mediterranean or Black Sea in peacetime while guarantying the transit of the Alliance’s navies in the Black Sea. On the other hand, in order to protect the Russian bastion, the Convention restricts to 21 days the deployment in the Black Sea of non-neighbouring states’ warships. In wartime, Turkey has an almost discretionary decision-making power concerning the passage of foreign warships.“Canal Istanbul” construction could disrupt this status-quo, which remains necessary to a region subject to exponential tensions. This project demonstrates Turkey’s influence in the region as the Guardian of the Montreux Convention, but it also highlights its weakness. Indeed, if it is decided to abandon the text, it could open the gate to the straits’ internationalization as prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea despite Turkey is not a party. Therefore, the Country could lose a significant influence over the waterway. Should Ankara decide to challenge the Convention, it would be an opportunity for NATO to suggest the removal of navigation restrictions on warships. Such historical change could be fueled by Western countries promise to navigate through “Canal Istanbul” in order to allow Turkey to monetize what is already called its “crazy project”. Like this:Like Loading...... How Russian Military Activity Threatens Maritime TradeMarch 15, 2022Miscellaneous / NewsRussian military activity in Black Sea, a threat to shipping industry The Ukraine Crisis and the activity of the Russian Military in Black sea posed a serious threat to maritime trade in the region. Due to several attacks on civilian cargo and according to the Montreux Convention, Turkey government decided to closed Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits to warships. The increase of security risks for civilian ships It has been only two weeks since Russian troops have crossed the Ukrainian border but the impact on international maritime flows can already be measured. By ordering a naval blocus on each single Ukrainian port in the Black Sea (Odessa, Pivdennyi, Mylolaiv and Chornomorsk) and in the Sea of Azov (Marioupol), Russia ensnared merchant shipping and brought turmoil in a region that appears to be one of the major sources of the world’s commodities and oil. Premium insurers have increased their fees to cover vessels sailing in the area – and some simply refuse to do so. As a matter of fact, it seems that security cannot be guaranteed anymore for any civilian ship transiting through the Black Sea, regarding the maritime incidents reports over the last few days. No less than ten events occurred from the 24th of February, when a Moldavian ship was completely destroyed by a rocket in the Ukrainian territorial waters. A Turkish vessel got hit the same day near Odessa, as well as a Panama-flagged ship and even two Russian cargos. On February 27th, a Russian navy missile hit a Bangladeshi vessel anchored near Oktyabrsk, killing one crewmember, while two merchant ships have been diverted by the Russian Navy – some sources report that an Estonian-owned cargo was used as a shield for amphibious activities, before the ship hit a mine off Ukraine coast. Even if it seems unlikely for civilian vessels to be targeted willfully, the risk of miscalculation increases dramatically due to the large amount of Russian military ships in the area The impact of the Ukraine war on maritime trade The effects of the on-going situation on global supply-chain flows are starting to be noticed all around the world with delays, detention of cargos by customs authorities and unpredictable operational impacts. As a result, most major maritime companies, such as CMA CGM or Maersk, have announced stopping shipping to Russian ports – a will to guarantee the safety of their crew and vessels, and perhaps to be part of the international sanctions targeting Russia. “The imbalance of goods, equipment and the financial flows are significantly affecting our planning of a stable and sustainable operation of our network to and from Russia”, the Danish container-shipping giant says. The withdrawal from the area has a serious impact on the global shipping industry, as the maritime freight in the area collapsed. Turkey has a major role in managing security risks caused by such a military concentration in the area, by closing off the Bosphorus and Dardanelles strategic straits to warships from any country, whether or not they border the Black Sea. “All governments, riparian and non-riparian, were warned not to send warships across the straits”, Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlüt Çavusoglu said. The Montreux Convention of 1936 allows Turkey to restrict passage of warships from warring states, even though the country is not considered a belligerent in this conflict. A point that Turkish authorities highlighted: “if the warship is returning to its base in the Black Sea, the passage is not closed. We adhere to the Montreux rules”. Indeed the article 19 of the convention contains an exception for vessels away from their bases: according to the treaty, those warships may return through the passage. However, this decision limits Russia’s ability to move ships into the Black Sea from its other fleets, which could cause logistics challenges for Moscow. Like this:Like Loading...... news Drug Trafficking Human Trafficking Illegal Exploitation of Natural Ressources Miscellaneous Piracy Smuggling of Illicit Goods Weapons Trafficking REPORTS & GUIDES Reports Glossary International Treaties MTC BLOG About us Contact Us Legal Notice & Privacy Policy Social Media Facebook Twitter Like this:Like Loading...
