The online platform for Taylor & Francis Group content

Cookies Notification

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more.
Advanced and citation search

Polar Geography

Volume 37, Issue 4, 2014

Translator disclaimer
Commercial Arctic shipping through the Northeast Passage: routes, resources, governance, technology, and infrastructure
Original Articles

Commercial Arctic shipping through the Northeast Passage: routes, resources, governance, technology, and infrastructure

© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.
Additional license information

Abstract

The Russian and Norwegian Arctic are gaining notoriety as an alternative maritime route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and as sources of natural resources. The renewed interest in the Northeast Passage or the Northern Sea Route is fueled by a recession of Arctic sea ice coupled with the discovery of new natural resources at a time when emerging and global markets are in growing demand for them. Driven by the expectation of potential future economic importance of the region, political interest and governance has been rapidly developing, mostly within the Arctic Council. However, this paper argues that optimism regarding the potential of Arctic routes as an alternative to the Suez Canal is overstated. The route involves many challenges: jurisdictional disputes create political uncertainties; shallow waters limit ship size; lack of modern deepwater ports and search and rescue (SAR) capabilities requires ships to have higher standards of autonomy and safety; harsh weather conditions and free-floating ice make navigation more difficult and schedules more variable; and more expensive ship construction and operation costs lessen the economic viability of the route. Technological advances and infrastructure investments may ameliorate navigational challenges, enabling increased shipping of natural resources from the Arctic to global markets.

Related articles

View all related articles
 

Details

  • Received: 11 Jun 2014
  • Accepted: 11 Sep 2014
  • Published online: 16 Oct 2014

Author affiliations

  • a The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 160 Packard Ave, Medford, MA 02155, USA
  • b Department of Geography, University of Connecticut, 215 Glenbrook Road, U-4148, Storrs, CT 06269-4148, USA
  • c Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Bergen, Norway
  • d The Institute of Oceanology Polish Academy of Sciences, Sopot, Poland
  • e Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing, China
  • f Gazprom, Moscow, Russia
  • g UiT – The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
  • h Atmospheric Science Unit, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
  • i Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, The Arctic Institute, Potsdam, Germany
  • j Sweden and Finnish Meteorological Institute, Lund University, Helsinki, Finland
  • k Centre for the Study of Geopolitics, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
  • l School of Law, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
  • m State University of Aerospace Instrumentation, St. Petersburg, Russia
  • n Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway
  • o Department of History, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
  • p Nordland Research Institute, Bodø, Norway
  • q Nansen Environmental Research Centre India, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Cochin, India
  • r The Arctic Institute, Washington, DC, USA
  • s Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Russian Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring, St. Petersburg, Russia
  • t K.G. Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea, UiT – The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
  • u The Global Climate Forum, Berlin, Germany
  • v StormGeo, Aberdeen, UK

Article metrics

Librarians

Taylor & Francis Group