EU Shuns Arctic Shipping as China and Russia Push Northern Sea Route

Its opposition to the commercialisation of Arctic transit comes amid rising anxiety over Beijing and Moscow’s closer polar collaboration

· The European Union remains opposed to the commercialisation of Arctic transit routes, even as China and Russia increase cooperation on shipping along the Northern Sea Route.

· Europe is concerned that greater use of the route could:

o Strengthen Russia's control over Arctic shipping

o Deepen China–Russia strategic cooperation

o Increase environmental damage to fragile Arctic ecosystems

o Create major navigational and safety risks

· The issue is expected to feature prominently in the EU's updated Arctic policy, due later this year.

· The European Parliament has warned that expanding China–Russia cooperation in energy, infrastructure and polar shipping could create a geopolitical axis centred on resource exploitation and restricted access.

· A major dispute continues between the EU and Russia over the legal status of the Northern Sea Route (NSR).

· Russia claims special jurisdiction over the NSR under Article 234 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), allowing it to impose environmental and navigational regulations in ice-covered waters.

· The EU disputes Russia's position, arguing that shrinking Arctic sea ice weakens Moscow's legal basis for extensive control and that some Russian transit restrictions violate international navigation principles.

· European policymakers are concerned that regular commercial use of the route could generate revenue through Russian permits, icebreaker services, pilotage and infrastructure, indirectly supporting Russian state interests.

· Major European shipping companies continue to avoid the Arctic route. Maersk and MSC have stated that they do not see the Northern Sea Route as a viable alternative to conventional global shipping routes.

· Their main concerns include:

o Extreme and unpredictable weather

o Ice navigation risks

o Dependence on Russian icebreaker escorts

o High insurance costs

o Need for specialised ice-class vessels

o Limited emergency and repair infrastructure

o Environmental and reputational risks

· In 2019, MSC, Maersk, CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd joined a voluntary commitment not to use Arctic shipping routes. China's COSCO did not join the initiative.

· The Arctic is warming approximately four times faster than the rest of the world, increasing environmental pressure while also creating changing and unpredictable navigational conditions.

· Despite shorter transit distances and the ability to avoid traditional geopolitical chokepoints, analysts question the commercial viability of the Northern Sea Route because operational and insurance costs can offset potential fuel and time savings.

· Arctic shipping has a significantly higher risk profile than conventional routes, with machinery damage and failures accounting for a major share of reported incidents.

· Limited infrastructure—including shortages of repair facilities, tugs and port services—further increases operational risks in the Arctic.

· The IMO Polar Code provides the international regulatory framework for ships operating in polar waters, but insurers are increasingly demanding stricter vessel, crew and voyage-planning requirements.

· Europe is seeking to maintain influence over Arctic shipping not by competing directly with Russia for control of the route, but by using its leverage over:

o European ports

o Insurance and financial services

o Sanctions screening

o Environmental standards

o Maritime safety regulations

· Denmark, supported by France, Germany and the Solomon Islands, has proposed stricter IMO measures requiring cleaner fuels for Arctic shipping to reduce black carbon emissions.

· Overall, Europe views the Arctic route as more than a commercial shipping issue—it is increasingly linked to geopolitical competition, environmental protection, sanctions and concerns over the expanding China–Russia partnership.

· Chinese analysts, however, argue that the Northern Sea Route should be viewed as an international public good and that European environmental and safety standards should improve governance rather than obstruct its development.

[ABS News Service/05.09.2026]

As Beijing and Moscow double down on the Arctic shipping route, Europe is hitting the brakes.

Despite being the main destination for goods along the route and accounting for most of the world’s shipping giants, Europe opposes the commercialisation of Arctic transits, wary of fragile polar ecosystems and navigational risks amid rising anxiety over Russia and China’s closer polar collaboration.

“In Europe, cooperation between China and Russia on container shipping is often viewed as another example of deepened collaboration between the two countries in the Arctic since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022,” according to Patrik Andersson, an analyst at the Swedish National China Centre at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs.

Andersson said the collaboration fitted into a broader partnership, which in recent years had expanded to include joint military drills in Arctic-adjacent areas, coastguard cooperation in the Arctic Ocean and joint projects in the mining and energy sectors.

Europe’s concerns are reflected in an updated EU Arctic policy that is expected to be issued later this year.

In recommendations for the policy released late last year, the European Parliament warned that expansion of Sino-Russian ties in energy, infrastructure and polar shipping “risks consolidating a geopolitical axis of resource exploitation and restricted access”.

The recommendations proposed condemning Russia’s restrictions on freedom of navigation on the Northern Sea Route, which runs along Russia’s Arctic coast from near the Barents Sea to the Bering Strait.

The position underscores a long-standing rift between Brussels and Moscow over the route’s legal status.

Moscow has long claimed special jurisdiction over the Northern Sea Route – a major segment of the Northeast Passage – invoking Article 234 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), also known as “the Ice Clause”, to enforce strict “non-discriminatory” environmental and navigational regulations “over ice-covered areas” in its exclusive economic zone.

However, the European Union has pushed back, arguing that shrinking sea ice owing to climate change undermines Russia’s legal basis to invoke the Ice Clause for control. The EU further contends that Moscow’s transit restrictions and bans on foreign military vessels are discriminatory and clearly violate Unclos.

In its recommendations, the European Parliament called for applying international law to counter efforts that either legitimise contested shipping corridors or project geopolitical influence under the guise of scientific or economic cooperation.

Europe is concerned that commercialising the route could cement Russia’s control and development of the Arctic.

Echoing these concerns, Karen van Loon, a research fellow in the security and defence programme at the Clingendael Institute, a Dutch think tank, noted that payment for use of the route directly fed into Russian state interests.

“A service that routinely pays for Russian permits, icebreaker assistance, pilotage or other infrastructure supports a transport corridor operated by the Russian state,” van Loon said. “It also helps Moscow present the Northern Sea Route as a successful international project despite its isolation from Europe.”

She added that receiving a vessel did not imply legal recognition of Russia’s authority over the route, allowing European countries to accept port calls while still challenging Moscow’s claims under international law.

Alongside the tensions between the EU and Russia, major European shipping giants, especially top container carriers, have reaffirmed their commitment to steer clear of Arctic transit. They are driven mainly by environmental concerns, doubt over commercial viability and severe navigational hazards.

“For many Western shipping companies, the geopolitical and reputational risks so far outweigh the commercial incentives,” Andersson said.

Asked if, like its Chinese counterparts, Maersk would consider the Arctic route as other maritime chokepoints are squeezed, Vincent Clerc, CEO of the Danish shipping giant, told Bloomberg TV last month that he did not view the passage as a meaningful substitute.

Beyond environmental concerns and extreme weather unpredictability, the route “relies on sanctioned Russia to provide icebreakers and escorts throughout those waters”, Clerc said, describing the route as unlikely to play a significant role in global shipping in the coming years.

The head of MSC, the world’s largest container shipping company, had a similar view.

“Our position at MSC is clear. We do not and will not use the Northern Sea Route,” Soren Toft, CEO of the Geneva-headquartered company, said in January.

“Safe navigation cannot be assured.

“The risks for crews remain too high. And increased traffic would put additional pressure on fragile ecosystems and local communities.”

In 2019, four of the world’s five largest shipping companies – MSC, Maersk, CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd – signed a voluntary commitment launched by Ocean Conservancy, a Washington-based marine environmental NGO, pledging not to send ships through the Arctic. China’s Cosco Group did not sign the pledge.

With the Arctic warming four times faster than the rest of the world, its ecosystems were already under intense stress, Ocean Conservancy said, noting that unpredictable or even perilous conditions made each trip hazardous.

“Shipping companies comprising more than 60 per cent of global container capacity have decided that Arctic shipping is not worth the risk,” it said. “We strongly agree.”

European analysts have questioned the route’s overall commercial viability, despite the time savings and the ability to bypass geopolitical conflict zones.

Andersson said the savings in time and fuel were offset by high insurance premiums, the need for specialised ice-class vessels and elevated operational costs in harsh Arctic conditions. The economic impact of Europe staying away from the route was negligible, he said.

Meanwhile, the risks are real. According to global insurer Allianz Commercial, Arctic shipping presents a markedly higher risk profile than conventional trade routes. Operational risks dominated Arctic waters, with machinery damage and failure accounting for nearly half of all reported casualties.

Last month, a Russian tanker suffered serious damage to its hull while navigating through Arctic sea ice, resulting in an insurance payout of 53 million roubles (US$609,000), according to Russian insurer AlfaStrakhovanie.

The Russian insurer said icebreaker assistance did not eliminate the physical risks associated with Arctic navigation.

The Arctic’s remoteness and lack of infrastructure, such as port state control, tug availability and repair facilities, also made these risks particularly acute, said Captain Anastasios Leonburg, senior marine risk consultant at Allianz Commercial.

For shipping in polar waters, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) international code provides the regulatory baseline by requiring vessels to obtain a polar ship certificate based on ice conditions. But Leonburg said the framework, in force since 2017, was inadequate on its own.

Major marine insurers were applying improved due diligence requirements for Arctic transits, mandating pre-voyage surveys and specific warranties regarding vessel suitability, crew competence and operational planning, he said.

“We expect these requirements to become more widespread and more rigorous across the industry as traffic volumes increase,” Leonburg said.

Enforcing stricter compliance could help Europe regain some leverage, van Loon said, adding that Europe’s strongest influence lay not in competing with Russia for control of the route but in the ports and commercial services needed for ships using it to reach European markets.

European authorities could use sanctions screening, insurance and financial rules, as well as environmental and safety standards, to determine the conditions under which vessels using the Northern Sea Route entered European ports, she said.

European countries are already putting this strategy into practice. Last December, Denmark, joined by France, Germany and the Solomon Islands, submitted a proposal to the IMO requiring ships operating in the Arctic to switch to cleaner fuels to reduce black carbon emissions.

The move illustrates how Europe is using stricter environmental compliance to assert its influence over polar shipping.

However, Jian Junbo, director of the Centre for China-Europe Relations at Fudan University in Shanghai, said Europe should not view the Northern Sea Route solely through a geopolitical lens.

He argued that European environmental and safety standards could improve governance along the route and should not be used to obstruct its development.

“A shipping route is an international public good that should be accessible to all countries,” Jian said.