Arctic shipping routes
The navigability of arctic sea routes depends primarily on the expanse of the floe, since it prevents naval traffic for a part of the year.
[2][3] The Northeast Passage (NEP) is relatively easier owing to lower overall ice extent and open water in the Barents Sea.
Unlike similar latitudes in Alaska or in Canada, this area remains ice-free due to currents of warm water from the Gulf Stream, feeding into the North Atlantic.
[7] As a consequence of this reduction of the ice floe, the number of days of navigability on the NEP and NWP is increased, and routes such as the TSR, that are as of yet inaccessible to regular vessels, may open up.
[5] However, all these projections remain uncertain since global warming is accelerating, and could have unexpected consequences on climatic conditions such as the perturbation of winds and ocean currents.
In combination, they cover territorial claims, economic exploitation, technical shipping requirements, environmental protection, and search and rescue responsibilities.
[3] The commercial interest of the Arctic shipping routes lies in the shorter travel distances they offer between several economic poles, such as Northern Europe and East Asia.
[11] A study by the Asian journal of shipping and logistics concludes that depending on the ice conditions in the Arctic, journeys from Northern Europe to East Asia may not save any time at all.
As such, if the routes are open only 3 months in a year, which implies bad ice conditions, the aforementioned transit could result in a loss of 3 days compared to the one passing through the Suez canal.
[10] However, if the routes are open all year round, which implies perfect ice conditions, the transit could result in a gain of up to 7 days.
[13]It is also important to balance tourism expansion with environmental protection, e.g. by extending the regulations of the Polar code to tourist ships.
For example, Sibul and Jin proposed a methodology[11][15] for estimating costs taking into account the influence of ice in accordance with the requirements of the Northern Sea Route Administration.
[8][17] The economic viability of the Arctic routes does not only depend on their time efficiency; as a review commissioned by the UK government points out, there are many costs to be considered.
The UK Government Office for Science lists three causes of increased risk:[18] Additionally, further technical and technological advancements are required to provide specialised vessels adapted to extreme weather conditions with high reliability and at a low cost.
Most importantly, transiting ships will lose their right of innocent passage if parts of the NSR are claimed to be internal waters (see more under Arctic cooperation and politics).
[19] Infrastructure is crucial for the economic development of the Arctic, but they present difficult challenges due to the harsh environmental conditions and remote locations.
Some regions, like Svalbard, are transitioning to renewable energy sources, with the Norwegian government investing in wind and solar power.
[3] The agreement emphasizes the necessity of international collaboration to overcome the unique challenges posed by Arctic conditions, such as extreme weather and vast, remote areas.
As shipping routes expand due to melting ice, this treaty plays a vital role in ensuring safety in the region.
