Major shipping companies have reaffirmed their commitment to avoid the Northern Sea Route (NSR) amid renewed debates on the merits of using the route on the back of recent events that continue to disrupt the global supply chain.
Russia recently seized on the Suez Canal blockage to push the use of Arctic routes in container shipping to serve as a reliable alternative as the impact of the week-long incident at the major waterway is expected to drag on “for months.”
The NSR has been touted as a potential rival to the Suez Canal, and although operations there remain limited, some shipping lines have earlier begun testing the feasibility of the route, which would dramatically slash transit time between Asia and Europe.
But some lines maintained that they won’t be using the Arctic route citing environmental concerns.
MSC said an expansion of Arctic shipping could increase the emissions of so-called “black carbon” which can settle on land or ice, that could “compromise air quality and accelerate the shrinkage of Arctic sea ice.”
“As a responsible company, this was an obvious decision for us,” MSC CEO Soren Toft said. “MSC will not seek to cut through the melting ice of the Arctic to find a new route for commercial shipping and I consider this a position the whole shipping industry must adopt. Some of our peers have already made the same commitment to put the preservation of the Arctic environment ahead of profits.”
“The Northern Sea Route is neither a quick fix for the current market challenges nor a viable long-term strategy,” he added.
MSC went on to say that “risks such as navigation incidents, fuel spills, air quality and altering the ecological balance/biodiversity of the marine habitat beneath the surface of the sea also outweigh any commercial opportunities to make a shortcut between North America or Europe and eastern Russia or Asia.”
Maersk: NSR “not commercially viable”
A Maersk spokesperson told Asia Cargo News that after testing the feasibility of using the Arctic routes for container shipping, it decided to not pursue it.
“The world is increasingly seeing the severe consequences of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Ice melting in the Arctic is an example of this. We fully recognize the environmental challenges from sailing on the Northern Sea Route. Maersk will always seek to minimize the negative impact on the environment of our operations, with special attention to any sensitive environment,” the spokesperson said.
“In 2018 Maersk conducted a safe trial voyage on the Northern Sea Route to gain operational experience in a new area and to test vessel systems on ice class container vessels,” the statement from Maersk said. “We found that the Northern Sea Route is not a commercially viable alternative to our current routes. Based on the above, we have no plans to pursue the Northern Sea Route.”
“The blockage of the Suez Canal would have ripple effects on global supply chains. The focus of our work is finding alternatives that help customers get their goods as soon as possible and rebuild a stable network to support them,” the Danish shipping company added.
Hong Kong-based OOCL will also not be utilizing the Northern Sea Route.
“The industry has been in wide discussions on the Arctic route over the years. Currently, OOCL has no plans to explore the route,” OOCL said in a corporate statement sent to Asia Cargo News.
Russia pushes use of Arctic routes after Suez jam
The Kremlin has doubled down on its long-time push to develop the Arctic route after an ultra-large containership became wedged in the Suez Canal at the end of March, barring the passage of more than 300 ships at either end of the canal.
Nikolai Korchunov, Moscow’s point person for international Arctic cooperation said the Suez Canal jam underscored the importance of the Arctic route.
“The appeal of the Northern Sea Route will grow both in the short- and long-term. It has no alternative,” Korchunov told Russian news agency, Interfax.
"Obviously it’s necessary to think about how to efficiently manage transportation risks and develop alternative routes to the Suez Canal, first and foremost the Northern Sea Route," he added.
The NSR has seen increased traffic on the route as melting ice sheets, which have for decades made it difficult to sail through the rough ice conditions, have now opened up the previously inaccessible Arctic routes, facilitating faster journey time between Europe and Asia by 15 days compared to transits using the Suez Canal.
Russia has invested heavily to develop the route as it channeled large sums into a fleet of icebreakers and ice-class tankers.
The NSR is one of the several Arctic shipping channels that lies within Russia’s exclusive economic zone. Moscow considers the route a likely commercial shipping lane, one which the country is already utilizing during warmer seasons to transport its energy exports.
Transits through the Arctic usually end in November.
As shipping companies continue to cite the possible environmental impact of commercially utilizing the Arctic for navigation, Russia earlier maintained that it is “in full compliance with international law,” and will “do whatever is needed to provide security for marine traffic and gentle care of the very vulnerable ecosystem in the region.”
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) said it has responded to greater use of Arctic routes through development and adoption of the mandatory Polar Code, which provides additional requirements for ships trading in the polar regions aimed to protect the polar environment.
“IMO has a remit to ensure safety of shipping and prevention of pollution from ships and there are multiple discussions and decisions on ships routing that takes place,” Namrata Nadkarni, a media and communications officer at the IMO in London, told Asia Cargo News.
“While we do not have a say over the routing of vessels, which is a commercial decision, the IMO regulatory framework works to ensure ships are safe and the environment is protected.”
She noted that the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) also approved draft amendments to MARPOL (The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Annex I to introduce a prohibition on the use and carriage for use as fuel of heavy fuel oil (HFO) by ships in Arctic waters on and after July 1, 2024.
Currently, a MARPOL regulation prohibits the use or carriage of heavy grade oils on ships in the Antarctic; and under the Polar Code, ships are encouraged not to use or carry such oil in the Arctic. The mandatory regulation in MARPOL will enhance protection of the environment in Arctic waters, she added.
Charlee C. Delavin
