- The Northern Sea Route offers a significant reduction in travel time and distance between Europe and Asia compared to the Suez Canal and Cape of Good Hope routes.
- Despite its potential, major global operators like MSC are hesitant to use the route due to difficult navigation conditions, high costs, and ecological concerns.
- The route is predominantly used by Russian and Chinese companies due to better adaptation to its challenges and control over essential services like icebreaking.
The Northern Sea Route, known as the Polar Silk Road, presents a compelling alternative to traditional maritime routes, significantly shortening the journey between Europe and Asia. However, despite its potential benefits, including reduced travel time and lower costs compared to the Suez Canal, major shipping lines remain cautious. The route’s navigation challenges, high cargo insurance costs, and environmental concerns have led to a preference for alternative routes. Consequently, the Northern Sea Route is primarily utilized by Russian and Chinese operators who are better equipped to handle its difficulties, reports trans.info.
Northern sea route
Due to the crisis in the Red Sea, shipping lines are exploring alternative routes to the Suez Canal, with the Northern Sea Route emerging as a viable option. This Arctic corridor, connecting Europe and Asia, offers a travel time that is half as long as the Suez Canal route. However, European operators remain hesitant to fully embrace it.
The Northern Sea Route, also known as the Polar Silk Road, traverses Arctic waters and connects Europe with Asia, passing along the coasts of Russia, Scandinavia, Greenland, and Canada. Since its commercial inception in 2010, the number of ships using this route has grown significantly, from 2.1 million tons of goods in 2010 to 36.2 million tons in 2023.
The route’s appeal lies in its potential for reducing travel distances and costs. For instance, the Rotterdam to Shanghai route is 24% shorter via the Northern Sea Route compared to the Suez Canal, and it reduces distances by over 70% compared to the Cape of Good Hope route.
In the longer term, this route could also benefit European trade with Africa by facilitating goods transportation through European ports.
Despite these advantages, the Northern Sea Route faces limited adoption. At the end of July, MSC, a leading logistics company, announced its decision to avoid the Arctic route. Challenges such as difficult navigation due to ice, weather, and inadequate infrastructure, along with high cargo insurance costs and expensive icebreaking services controlled by Russian monopolies, contribute to this reluctance.
Furthermore, ecological concerns are significant. MSC’s Executive Vice President, Bud Darr, emphasized the environmental impact and the potential strain on Arctic communities reliant on sea transport. In 2022, 22 international shipping companies, representing 43% of the global fleet, pledged to avoid the Northern Sea Route.
The route’s difficulty was highlighted in 2021 when a sudden ice cover trapped around 20 ships. While modern technology has improved navigation, the route remains less appealing to global operators. Consequently, it is primarily used by Russian and Chinese companies that are better equipped to handle the route’s unique challenges.
Did you subscribe to our daily Newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe
Source: trans.info
