Around 2,000 ships use the port of Felixstowe in the United Kingdom every year. But the arrival this month of the Istanbul Bridge was special.
On 13 October, the container ship docked at the port after a pioneering 20-day journey from China. It had eschewed the usual maritime Silk Road to Europe around India and through the Mediterranean in favour of an Arctic voyage.
“We navigate this route with a deep sense of respect and caution,” the vessel’s captain Zhong Desheng told Xinhua, China’s state press agency. “There’s a certain pressure that comes with the great responsibility we carry, but with thorough preparation and strong support, we’re fully confident in completing the voyage safely.”
Sea Legend Shipping arranged the voyage. The company’s chief operating officer, Li Xiaobin, told Global Times that he hopes to run the route weekly or biweekly during the summer. Ice-hardened vessels could be used in the future to allow year-round voyages.
Li said the ship was mainly carrying China’s current big three exports: electric vehicles, lithium batteries and solar panels.
“This is the world’s first container route through the Arctic specifically designed for cross-border e-commerce and high-value-added goods. It is also a major achievement in the development of the ‘Ice Silk Road’ under the Belt and Road Initiative,” said an official from China’s Ministry of Transport (People’s Daily).
Global shipping and trade is increasingly politicised, especially for green transition products such as batteries and solar panels, which have become subject to tit-for-tat trade wars. Russia has long been interested in seeing more cargo flow along its northern border, while China has taken an increasingly active role in Arctic affairs as it asserts itself as a global power.
In 2018, China published an Arctic strategy white paper that included supporting the development of a polar Silk Road. It included: “China, as a responsible major country, is ready to cooperate with all relevant parties to seize the historic opportunity in the development of the Arctic, to address the challenges brought by the changes in the region.”
The Istanbul Bridge’s 20 day voyage from Ningbo-Zhoushan to Felixstowe was 5 days shorter than the equivalent rail journey. According to Xinhua, the traditional maritime route via the Suez canal takes 40 days, while another alternative around the tip of Africa and up the Atlantic takes even longer. The Centre for High North Logistics thinks the Suez route would only take 27 days if ships omitted their usual stops along the way – which do not exist along the Arctic route.
As the Maritime Executive reports, voyages along this Arctic passage – sometimes called the Northern Sea Route (NSR) – traditionally require a Russian icebreaker to safely lead the way.
As the NSR is shorter, it could bring benefits in reduced carbon emissions from shipping. Not everyone has been celebrating, though.
Sian Prior, a marine science and policy specialist, and lead adviser of the Clean Arctic Alliance, expressed concerns about the fuel being used by the Istanbul Bridge for the journey. The Clean Arctic Alliance is campaigning for ships in the area to reduce their “black carbon” emissions. It argues that the black particles emitted by ships burning heavy fuel oil cause significant global warming when they settle on white snow and ice.
“Although shipping operators may argue that a shorter route – via the Arctic – will result in lower CO2 emissions, the Arctic has been largely undeveloped in terms of transit shipping, due to the risks posed by sea ice, and the waters are poorly charted,” says Prior. “CO2 reductions will be meaningless if shipping in the Arctic results in higher emissions of super pollutant black carbon, which has a 1,600 times greater climate impact than CO2 on a 20 year basis, and a disproportionate impact when emitted near to snow and ice.”
Ksenia Vakhrusheva, of Norwegian environmental group the Bellona Foundation, told The Observer: “The Russian narrative that the NSR is a quicker, cheaper and environmentally friendly alternative to the Suez canal is false. The development of infrastructure and more intense use of NSR will put at risk the fragile Arctic environment.”