6. Concluding remarks
Passengers booking a cruise in Arctic/Greenlandic waters obviously expect to enjoy exceptional nature and spectacular landscapes. But this unique experience comes at a price. The Arctic climate and environment are harsh, distances are long, and navigation is complex and difficult. The average cruise ship passenger might not really consider the risks involved and believe that any hazards are under control and that there is an effective SAR system able to assist if things go wrong.
The legal framework for navigation in the Arctic is trying to establish legal prophylaxis by providing regulations to limit risk and to create a system of preparedness if things go wrong. This legal framework is complex and fragmented, but it cumulatively increases safety at sea. On the other hand, legal regulation is always a result of negotiations and compromises, which does not always result in the most risk-reducing option. For example, a clear obligation for cruise ships to provide immersion suits for all passengers and crew would most probably increase their survival chances. However, this is not an obligation chosen to be included in the Polar Code. The reason for this might be connected to the fact that this would be costly for the shipping companies or that there is an expectation that some of the less mobile passengers would have difficulties getting into such survival suits.
Regardless of the fact that there is a legal framework that to a high degree is of a prophylactic nature, this must, if a maritime accident occurs, be supported by a well-functioning emergency response system and here the overall conclusion has to be that the emergency response system in Greenland is not geared towards a large cruise ship in distress with several thousand people on board. The Danish strategy for the SAR system and capacities around Greenland are based on the scenario of cruise ships carrying up to 250 passengers(1) See Skibsfartens og Luftfartens Redningsråd; SAR Grønland, Eftersøgnings- og redningstjenesten i Grønland, chapter 8., when in fact far larger cruise ships navigate in Greenlandic waters every summer. The trust in the specific legal prophylaxis for large passenger ships comes with a risk. One way to limit risks and to ensure assistance if things go wrong would be a requirement that cruise ships must sail at a proper distance so that there is always a sister ship that can come to the rescue within a short period of time; however, such a requirement was not introduced in the Polar Code.
The Greenlandic SAR system has never been stress-tested in a real, large-scale SAR situation with a large cruise ship with thousands of passengers and crew onboard. In the aftermath of the Sky Viking Incident, the EPPR Chair, Peter Holst-Andersen, was cited for seeing the incident as a warning about what could be expected in the Arctic: “The incident with Viking Sky was somehow a ‘best case scenario’. It happened in a densely populated area with a lot of rescue capabilities relatively close to the ship. Had a similar disaster happened in most other places in the Arctic the result would most likely have been catastrophic. (…) No one would have had sufficient resources to react so effectively and promptly in the high North. This is why it is so extremely important that we work and cooperate cross-state on these issues. And there is still room for improvement”.(2) High North News, The Viking Sky incident: A warning about what to expect in the Arctic: https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/viking-sky-incident-warning-about-what-expect-arctic.
This seems to be true for the Greenlandic preparedness. We can only hope that the legal prophylaxis will continue to be effective and that we will never have to stress-test the Greenlandic SAR system under extreme circumstances in a large-scale rescue operation in bad weather, far away from the main capabilities around Nuuk.