Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents from an Arctic and insurance perspective
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Johannsdottir, L, et al. 2021. Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents
from an Arctic and insurance perspective. Elem Sci Anth, 9: 1. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.00009
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents from an Arctic
and insurance perspective
Lara Johannsdottir1,*, David Cook1, and Gisele M. Arruda2
Easier accessibility and demand for so-called last chance tourism has contributed to rapid growth in Arctic
cruise ship tourism. Arctic cruising brings many benefits to remote coastal communities but also presents an
array of risks. In the light of this context, this article explores the concept of systemic risk of cruise ship
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article-pdf/9/1/00009/474369/elementa.2020.00009.pdf by guest on 13 September 2021
incidents in general, findings which are then placed in an Arctic context and consideration given of the role
the insurance sector may play in addressing cruise ship incidents. The study is based on metadata, both from
academic and nonacademic sources. Findings are drawn from 11 global case studies of cruise ship incidents, 5
of which are polar examples. In the worst-case scenario, an array of serious economic, business,
environmental, sociocultural, and security impacts may unfold in the Arctic, presenting risks that may be
considerably worse than in other parts of the world. Arctic-specific challenges include extreme weather
conditions and the presence of sea-ice, navigation and communication conditions, and lack of
infrastructure (port facilities, Search and Rescue capabilities). Significant knowledge gaps across the
Arctic have been identified, for example, in terms of seabed mapping, how to deal with industry-related
activities, and the risks and nature of environmental change. When cruise ship risks in the Arctic are
considered, both passenger and shipowner risk need to be accounted for, including Search and Rescue cover.
Although data are limited, there is evidence that the sociocultural risks of an Arctic cruise ship incident are
insufficiently addressed, either via insurance mechanisms or cross-border, navigational safety guidelines such
as the Polar Code. The academic contribution of the study is the systemic scale of the analysis, and the
practical and political implications are to lay the foundation for solution discussion that is of relevance in
an Arctic and insurance context.
Keywords: Arctic, Insurance, Cruise ship, Systemic risk, Incident, Worst-case scenario
Introduction cities” (Research Centre for Coastal Tourism, 2012, p. 3). The
Across the world, cruise tourism has been the largest grow- types of cruises, however, differ and may include cruises in
ing part of the tourism industry, experiencing a doubling in giant vessels, river cruises, theme cruises, mini cruises,
scale every 10 years since 1990 (Research Centre for Coastal world cruises, transit cruises, and turnaround cruises
Tourism, 2,012; MacNeill and Wozniak, 2018). The size of (Research Centre for Coastal Tourism, 2012).
the vessels has furthermore expanded in such a way that New destinations are on the agenda as traditional
although a typical cruise ship in the 1960s accommodated cruise ship routes have become crowded (Research Centre
between 600 and 1,000 passengers, recent class vessels can for Coastal Tourism, 2012). Given the melting of ice, newly
host over 5,000 tourists (Klein, 2018). Cruise ship vessels accessible routes are emerging, as well as the perception
operating in polar waters are usually smaller with fewer of “last chance” tourism (Veijola & Strauss-Mazzullo,
passengers on board (Research Centre for Coastal Tourism, 2019), which influences the “desire for tourists to witness
2012). The cruise ships are often quite luxurious, described vanishing landscapes or seascapes and disappearing
as floating resorts or cities (Research Centre for Coastal species” (Lemelina et al., 2010, p. 477). This means that
Tourism, 2012). This form of tourism has been defined as larger tours to more remote locations (Ocean Conservancy,
“a luxurious form of travelling, involving an all-inclusive 2017) are becoming increasingly popular destinations for
holiday on a cruise ship of at least 48 h, according to specific cruise ship operators (Lasserre and Têtu, 2015; Innanrı́kis-
itinerary, in which the cruise ship calls at several ports or ráðuneyti Íslands, 2016), including high-end tourism in
large ships navigating Arctic waters. Seaborne tourism,
especially the cruise ship industry, constitutes one of the
1
Environment and Natural Resources, University of Iceland, fastest growing segments of polar tourism (Larson & Fon-
Reykjavı́k, Iceland dahl, 2015; Bystrowska and Dawson, 2017; Dawson et al.,
2
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland 2018; Palma et al., 2019).
* Corresponding author: Whereas there were only three zones that attracted
Email: laraj@hi.is cruise ships in 2000, Russian, Greenlandic, and Canadian,Art. 9(1) page 2 of 22 Johannsdottir et al: Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents
by 2017 there were 10 (AECO, n.d.; Têtu et al., 2019). There are benefits and challenges associated with
Newly emerging routes and destinations have been pro- cruise ship operations in the Arctic, as stated by the Arctic
minent (Lamers et al., 2018). In Iceland, the number of Council:
cruise ship visitors increased from 265,935 in 2015 to
402,834 in 2017, an uplift of 66% (Icelandic Tourist Board, The Arctic Ocean is an important source of
2018). In 2019, 496,432 cruise passengers visited ports in livelihood for communities along its shores. The
northern Norway, which is a 33% increase since 2014. demand for natural resources and the opening of
Nowadays, most of the cruises organized in the High Arc- new sea routes may bring prosperity to the region,
tic frequent the archipelago of Svalbard (Bytrowska and but they will also increase the risks to Arctic
Dawson, 2017). The number of cruise ship visitors to Sval- inhabitants and nature. The global interest in the
bard increased from 39,000 in 2008 to 63,000 in 2017, Arctic puts pressure on developing models for
growth of 62%. Significantly less, albeit growing, cruise
stewardship of Arctic sea areas to safeguard
ship tourism is occurring in Greenland and Canada (AMAP,
sustainable development of the region. (Arctic
2018). The number of cruise ship visitors to Greenland
increased from 20,000 to 30,000 per year between Council, 2017b, p. 5)
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article-pdf/9/1/00009/474369/elementa.2020.00009.pdf by guest on 13 September 2021
2008 and 2017 (Bytrowska and Dawson, 2017). Cruise
Economic development in the Arctic, including ex-
shipping in Arctic Russia is also gradually expanding, with
panding tourism, has the potential to facilitate positive
Arkhangelsk a focal point (Olsen et al., 2020), partly due to
economic and social development, such as through infra-
its location near to the Russian Arctic National Park, es-
structure investments, tax revenues, and increased
tablished in 2009 and including Severny Island and Franz
employment (PAME, 2015). In the Canadian Arctic, tour-
Josef Land (Pashkevich et al., 2015). Overall, cruise passen-
ism ships, including cruise ships, have increased by 75%
ger data from the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise
during the period 2005–2018 (Dawson, 2018), but in the
Operators show the growth of visitors to the High Arctic
Arctic region as a whole, there was a 400% increase in
from 67,752 in 2008 to 98,238 in 2017, an upscaling of
cruise ship traffic registered between 2004 and 2007
57% (Palma et al., 2019).
(from 50 to 250 ships; Ocean Conservancy, 2017). In the
Until the year 2020, when, by June, more than 50% of
harbor of Reykjavı́k, Iceland, arrival of cruise ships
Arctic cruise ships had been canceled or postponed until
increased from 77 in 2005 to 152 in 2018, and numbers
2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Halpern, 2020); the
of visitors from 54,795 to 144,658, respectively (Faxaflóa-
cruise ship industry was rapidly expanding to meet
hafnir, n.d.). Consequently, communities in some remote
demand in the Arctic. One example of a larger cruise was
Arctic locations, such as Svalbard (20,000 cruise ship visi-
when the Crystal Serenity cruise, a vessel with a capacity of
tors per year in 2018) and Greenland (50,000 cruise ship
1,700 passengers and crew, sailed through the Northwest
visitors per year in 2018; Brigham and Hildebrand, 2018),
Passage of the Canadian Arctic’s territorial waters in 2016
are increasingly transitioning from subsistence to mixed
(Arctic Today, 2017). According to The Barents Observer
economies, with nowadays a strong monetized element
(2018), by 2022 it is anticipated that 28 new, specially (Trump et al., 2018).
designed ships will be operational in addition to the 80 The development is also regarded as controversial as
(in 2018) already sailing in Arctic waters. The emergent small Indigenous communities may be overwhelmed with
class of ships will be able to venture deeper into the Arctic
1 large number of passengers entering small villages while
than before, having a higher ice-class, with some of the 28
not leaving much behind in terms of revenues (The Guard-
new ships being Polar Class 5 (The Barents Observer,
ian, 2019; The Jakarta Post). There may also be negative
2018). Despite the extent of melting summer sea ice, the
impacts on social behavior and the traditions of local in-
season for cruise ship operators in the Arctic is likely to
habitants and small coastal communities, disruption to
remain very short, from June to late August in most loca-
fishing and hunting practices, and congestions at small
tions. This means that certain ports will become crowded,
ports (Research Centre for Coastal Tourism, 2012; Ocean
with much of the industry focused on a few, core loca-
Conservancy, 2017). Negative impacts on the natural envi-
tions, in places such as Longyearbyen on Svalbard, North-
ronment—in some cases, an untouched environment—
ern Norway, Franz Josef Land in Russia, Iceland,
include considerable generation of gray water and sewage
Greenland, Canada, and Alaska in the United States
(Ocean Conservancy, 2017), “emissions of ‘black carbon’
(Cruise Industry News, 2018). The pressure is therefore
(caused by soot), transport of alien species (some of which
also to increase the number of winter voyages, such as
can become invasive) and chemical contamination” (Gov-
from Bergen to the town of Kirkenes in far north-
eastern Norway in a 530-passenger ship (The Barents ernment Office for Science, 2018, p. 47). Additionally,
Observer, 2018). some cruise ships operate under flags of convenience,
where they might treat their crews poorly in terms of
salaries and security, to name some issues (Research Cen-
1. Ships can be assigned one of seven Polar Classes (PC) tre for Coastal Tourism, 2012).
ranging from PC 1 for year-round operation in all polar waters The negative impacts discussed above do not address
to PC 7 for summer and autumn operation in thin first-year ice.
potential negative impacts in case of significant cruise
The Polar Classes are based on the Unified Requirements for
Polar Class Ships developed by the International Association of ship accidents in the region. In this context, it is worth
Classification Societies (IACS, 2016). noticing that:Johannsdottir et al: Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents Art. 9(1) page 3 of 22
It is the duty of each sovereign state to guarantee of Costa Concordia, which sank off the coast of Tuscany,
the security of its citizens, including to ensure the Italy, human error played a critical role despite the adop-
security of its citizens in order to prevent threats to tion of strict safety precautions (Research Centre for
their lifestyles and economic foundation. Coastal Tourism, 2012).
(Innanrı́kisráðuneyti Íslands, 2016, p. 9) Other definitions of incident highlight nonconformity
to commonly agreed standards. In such cases, there is
Given the complexity of potential cruise ship accident evidence indicating “a non-fulfillment of a specified re-
cases, a systemic risk-based approach is important. For this quirement” (International Safety Management (ISM) Code,
purpose, the aim of this study is to explore the systemic 2015, p. 1). In cases of major nonconformity, there is an
risk of significant cruise ship accidents in general, placing “identifiable deviation that poses a serious threat to the
these findings in an Arctic and insurance context. The safety of personnel or the ship or a serious risk to the
research questions proposed are as follows: environment that requires immediate corrective action
or the lack of effective and systematic implementation
What are the types of severe cruise ship of a requirement of this Code” (International Safety Man-
incidents? agement (ISM) Code, 2015, p. 1). Furthermore, severe
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article-pdf/9/1/00009/474369/elementa.2020.00009.pdf by guest on 13 September 2021
What are the consequences when severe cruise operational incidents are defined as ones in which (G. P.
Wild (International) Limited, 2018, p. 7):
ship incidents occur?
How might the consequences of severe cruise the ship suffers more than 24 h delay to the
ship incident look like in the Arctic? published itinerary,
What is the role of insurance in cases of severe fatalities occur to either passengers or crew, or
cruise ship incidents? a serious injury occurs to either passengers or
The paper is structured as follows: The literature review crew.
section addresses definitions of significant cruise ship inci-
dent, systemic and Arctic-specific risks, insurance, risk During the period 2009–2017, in total, 168 severe
management, and safety. The research method is then worldwide operational incidents were registered. The
explained, followed by an outlining of the findings, before nature of these events were technical problems (70), fires
discussing the implications of the findings and the paper’s (26), stranding or grounding (21), minor collisions/allu-
conclusions. sion (14), storm or rough waves (13), or other unspecified
causes (24; G. P. Wild (International) Limited, 2018). Of
these, some occurred in the Arctic or the Antarctic envi-
Severe cruise ship incidents, systemic and Arctic
ronment, including cases of stranding and running
risks, insurances, risk management, and safety
aground, extreme weather during voyages, and technical
Despite the best intentions of cruise ship operators, cruise
issues such as mechanical damage or failure of ship
ship incidents can occur. Various concepts are used to
machinery, or fires or explosions on ships (G. P. Wild (Inter-
explain journey mishaps in the complex large-scale and
national) Limited, 2018; Congressional Research Service,
safety-critical systems of cruise ships. These include the
2020). Additionally, collision, overloading, inclement
terms “incidents,” “accidents,” “mishaps,” and “disasters,”
weather, fire and explosion, and bottom damage where
some of which are used in the literature as synonyms, thus
structural rules were not followed are incident types men-
making it challenging to identify the most severe cases.
tioned in Asian passenger vessel cases (Rahman, 2017). An
The term “incident” is favored in this article due to its
analysis of navigational shipping incidents/accidents in
capacity to include accidents and nonaccidents, and
the Baltic Sea has also been carried out, recognizing
events which differ in terms of severity, ranging from
grounding (29%) as the main cause of accidents, followed
minor to significant events. In this article, a severe inci-
by contact (20%), and collision (18%), where the two lat-
dent describes cases of emergency, involving events such
ter issues may be grouped together given the similarity in
as a major oil spill or threat of loss of life and necessitating
the nature of such cases (HELCOM - Baltic Marine Envi-
urgent external support, for example, from the coast-
ronment Protection Commission, 2014). Collision has
guard, navy, other Search and Rescue (SAR) services and
been the major shipping accident type in the Baltic region
so on (Grabowski et al., 2000; Grabowski et al., 2009;
during the period of 2014–2017 (HELCOM – Helsinki
Milenski et al., 2014). The main causes of emergencies are
Commission, 2018).
unfavorable natural conditions, human error, and failure
of equipment (Innanrı́kisráðuneyti Íslands, 2016). Of
these, operational incidents include “fire, technical break- Arctic-specific risks and systemic risks
down, such as failure of an engine; stranding or ground- Environmental risks imposed by climate change and polar
ing; passenger missing overboard and not recovered; tourism, including Arctic tourism, is a complex and inter-
storm or wave damage; collision/allusion; and sinking” disciplinary subject that involves a range of bio-geo-
(G. P. Wild (International) Limited, 2018, p. 7). An analysis physical, economic, socio-environmental, and cultural as-
of cruise ship incidents states a lack of proper mainte- pects concomitantly. Meehan (1995) points out the diver-
nance as the number one cause (60.52%), followed by sity of ecological pressures faced by Arctic ecosystems and
human error (26.2%; Milenski et al., 2014). In the case societies as a result of anthropogenic activities, amongArt. 9(1) page 4 of 22 Johannsdottir et al: Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents
simply by risk-based health advisories or food
substitutions alone. All decisions should involve the
Subsistence level of risks, e.g. individuals and/or community and consider many aspects of socio-
communies
cultural stability to arrive at a decision that will be
Enterprise level of risks, i.e. single cruise ship the most protective and least detrimental to the
communities. (p. 165)
Porolio level of risks, i.e. cruise ship industry
There is limited research focusing on polar cruise tour-
ism regarding its social and cultural impacts (Stefanidaki
Systemic level of risk, e.g. breakdown of systems
and Lekakou, 2012) or considering the systematic socio-
Existenal level of risks, e.g. risk to prisne Arcc logical and anthropological analysis of risks to local com-
ecosystems or local communies munities (Wood 2000; Weeden et al., 2011; Satta et al.,
2014). When incidents create multicultural interactions,
they can provoke intense tensions (i.e., psychological dis-
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article-pdf/9/1/00009/474369/elementa.2020.00009.pdf by guest on 13 September 2021
tress for both passengers and locals) because incidents or
Figure 1. Scaling of risks. Model developed by authors and accidents may cause disruption in the daily activities of
inspired by models developed by (Thurm et al., 2018, residents (Cerveny, 2004; Ringer, 2010), such as hunting,
pp. 6, 49; Johannsdottir and Cook, 2019). DOI: https:// fishing, herding, cultural rituals, and traditions. The ten-
doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.00009.f1 sions are motivated by the incident circumstances but also
by different beliefs and behavior patterns characteristic to
them those associated with polar cruising. Forbes (1995, multicultural societies.
p. 372) complements this, stating that local and regional There are many different ways to define risks, but one
impacts are of two orders: “acute disturbances” resulting way is to describe the “potential for adverse consequences
from a single disruptive event, like the impacts of vehicles from a hazard for human and natural systems, resulting
passing across tundra landscapes, and “chronic dis- from the interactions between the hazard and the vulner-
turbances” resulting from a sustained long-term pressure ability and exposure of the affected system” (IPCC, 2018,
upon the ecosystems like the deposition of pollutants, p. 33). The potential frequency of negative consequences,
heavy metals, or permanent or semipermanent environ- combined with the severity of such impacts, is of key
mental changes. importance, as well as the probability of the event
Marine pollution, whether incremental or acute, poses weighed against business impacts (Jóhannsdóttir et al.,
major threats to humans and the natural environmental 2012). These definitions of risks, however, mainly focus
(Congressional Research Service, 2020), and such risks on individual projects, businesses or, at best, from an in-
need to be assessed. The challenge is, however, that vestor’s point of view, portfolios of investment options
human and environmental risk assessments are often car- (Johannsdottir and Cook, 2019). Even in cases of systemic
ried out in isolation from one another (Galloway, 2006). risk (see Figure 1), it is quite often related to shocks
The procedures for assessing risks in both cases include affecting financial markets or institutions (Danielsson &
four procedures, namely identifying the hazard, assessing Shin, 2002; Schwarcz, 2008), or in some cases to the envi-
the exposure, assessing the dose–response, and character- ronment (PwC, 2014), leading to severe and widespread
izing the risk (EPA, n.d.), with the ultimate goal of protect- economic consequences (The Systemic Risk Centre, 2013).
ing human health and the environment. In the former As such, this suggests a very narrow focus since in some
case, the goal is to protect one species, but many species cases, such as oil spills, the impacts may be much broader
and ecosystems in the latter case. Therefore, “more holistic and affect economic, social/cultural, environmental, polit-
assessments of human health and ecological risks” are ical/security, technological, and institutional systems (Jo-
proposed (Galloway, 2006). This is particularly important hannsdottir and Cook, 2019).
in the Arctic environmental, social, and cultural context The Lloyd’s of London (2012) report, focusing on
where subsistence, mixed, and market economies coexist opportunities and risk related to climate change and eco-
(Vammen Larsen et al., 2019). Those supporting them- nomic development in the Arctic, states a “significant level
selves at a minimum level of subsistence, see Figure 1, of uncertainty about the Arctic’s future, both environmen-
rely on unpolluted marine food supplies for nutritional tally and economically” (p. 5). Therefore, risk management
benefits for their health and well-being. Therefore, as plays a vital role in “helping businesses, governments and
stated by Van Oostdam et al. (2005): communities manage these uncertainties and minimize
risks” (Emmerson and Lahn, 2012, p. 5). General risks for
Social, cultural, spiritual, nutritional and economic cruise ships are similar to the ones faced by Arctic ship-
benefits of these foods must be considered in concert ping in general. These include operational risk factors,
with the risks of exposure to environmental geographic electronic communications challenges, cli-
contaminants through their exposure. mate change–related factors, weather, icing and floating
Consequently, the contamination of country food sea ice, high waves, and darkness (Emmerson and Lahn,
raises problems which go far beyond the usual 2012; PAME, 2015). In addition, there are risks to the
confines of public health and cannot be resolved environment, such as pollution from outside and withinJohannsdottir et al: Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents Art. 9(1) page 5 of 22
the Arctic, and ecosystem disturbance, political and repu- was the case with an excursion tour where two sightseeing
tational risk factors, for example, reputational, regulatory, airplanes collided in Alaska in 2019, resulting in deaths
legal, domestic political, and geopolitical risks (Emmerson and injuries despite immediate rescue operations by locals
and Lahn, 2012). Many of these risk factors exaggerate the (CBS News, 2019; Juneau Empire, 2019).
level of risk due to remoteness, absence of infrastructure,
such as port facilities, and support services, relatively inad-
Insurance perspective on risks and cruise ship risks
equate knowledge of seabed characteristics, and extreme
in Arctic waters
weather conditions (Emmerson and Lahn, 2012; PAME,
In classic risk management and the insurance literature,
2015). These conditions may cause incidents such as icing
four main strategies deal with risks. These are to avoid,
or ice contact, including icebergs; fog, mainly during sum-
accept/retain, reduce, or share/transfer the risks (Gibbs
mer months; damage from ice to machinery such as pro-
and DeLoach, 2006; Jóhannsdóttir et al., 2012). Addition-
pellers and rudders; grounding on uncharted rocks;
ally, and more aggressively, risks can be exploited (De
collision, delay, and/or lack of salvage impaired by remote-
ness; and lack of infrastructure such as safe ports (Emmer- Loach, 2000; Lessard & Lucea, 2006; Jóhannsdóttir et al.,
son and Lahn, 2012). The Ocean Conservancy (2017) 2012) or even ignored (Tomlin, 2006; Jóhannsdóttir et al.,
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article-pdf/9/1/00009/474369/elementa.2020.00009.pdf by guest on 13 September 2021
assessment of Arctic vessel traffic focuses more on cost 2012). A frequency-severity method is used to determine
factors including “fuel costs, navigation fees and other the expected number of claims and average costs of these
regulatory costs, insurance costs, security concerns, ability claims (Investopedia, 2018). In case of significant cruise
to consistently adhere to shipping schedules, political con- ship accidents, they may fall under the category of being
siderations, development of local regulations and the rel- of low frequency but high severity. The probability may
ative costs of the ships themselves” (p. 30). also be low, while the business impacts may be high (Jó-
The Ministry of the Interior in Iceland in 2016 has hannsdóttir et al., 2012). When estimating marine risks,
highlighted the cases of Costa Concordia, a cruise ship the Cambridge-Lloyd’s Marine Risk Model takes into
with more than 4,000 passengers, M/V Clipper Adven- account the size and type of the ship and the jurisdiction,
turer, and MS Hanseatic in Arctic conditions (Innanrı́kis- and the total loss would include hull damage or even total
ráðuneyti Íslands, 2016). In its report, the Ministry stated loss, such as in cases of sinking, cargo loss, wreck removal,
that despite favorable weather conditions in the Costa human casualty and liability, and environmental liability
Concordia case, and the fact that the ship was close to (LLoyd’s, 2018). This covers the risk of the shipowner. This
shore, more than 30 people lost their lives. Cruise ships of is still insufficient in cases of cruise ships as the passengers
the same size now sale close to Greenland, Iceland, and also need to be insured through private travel insurances
Svalbard, but given the natural conditions in the Arctic, it covering unexpected events occurring while traveling.
is expected that rescue will take a longer time than in the These insurances may, however, exclude SAR-related costs,
Costa Concordia case. When M/V Clipper Adventurer which subsequently need to be covered separately (Burke,
grounded, close to Kukluktuk in Nunavut in 2010, it took 2000; Trantzas et al., 2018).
2 days for the Canadian Coast Guard, using an icebreaker, In the Marine Risk Model, cruise ships are categorized
to reach the ship. In the case of the grounding of MS as standard, super, and mega, with a financial value rang-
Hanseatic in Gjoa Javen in Nunavut in 1996, it took a Rus- ing between $20–200 M, $200–600 M, and $600–1,200
sian ship almost a week to rescue the passengers (Innan- M, respectively (Lloyd’s, 2018). The total cost in a severe
rı́kisráðuneyti Íslands, 2016). As stated in the U.S. accident, namely Costa Concordia, resulted however in an
Congressional Research Service report (2000): “Given the insurance cost of over $2 B (Lloyd’s, 2018). In case of
location of current U.S. Coast Guard operating bases, it grounding of a cruise ship, the expected loss “could result
could take Coast Guard aircraft several hours, and Coast in a $4bn loss when the costs of salvage, wreck removal
Guard cutters days or even weeks, to reach a ship in dis- and environmental claims are included,” in addition to
tress or a downed aircraft in Arctic waters” (pp. 47–48). passenger and crew liabilities and litigation costs (Allianz
The “long times that would be needed to respond to Global Corporate and Specialty SE, 2019, p. 20).
potential emergency situations in certain parts the Arctic” Several insurance reports offer insights into how insur-
(Congressional Research Service, 2000, p. 49) may result ance companies perceive risks related to cruise ship opera-
in a major disaster in the case of a large number of civi- tions. In a novelty report issued by Allianz Global
lians on board, compared to a manageable situation in Corporate and Specialty AG (2012), entitled “Safety and
a warmer climate. Given extreme weather conditions, it Shipping 1912–2012 - From Titanic to Costa Concordia,”
might also not even be possible to use lifeboats or tugs to the most significant emerging issues facing the industry
rescue passengers. Further escalation of the problem regarding cruise ships operating in Polar waters include
would relate to limited “emergency response capabilities” the following:
and the “capacity to host patients, achieving situational
awareness, and unsuitable evacuation and survival equip- Arctic and Polar waters. Threats related to
ment [which would] pose major challenges for maritime
navigation in icy waters, hostile environmental
safety and SAR in the Arctic” (Congressional Research Ser-
vice, 2000, p. 48). Severe incidents related to Arctic cruis- conditions, construction and design appropri-
ing may, furthermore, not solely be related to the vessel ate for Polar conditions, and emergency
itself, but also extra activities offered to the passengers, as practices.Art. 9(1) page 6 of 22 Johannsdottir et al: Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents
Cruise ship size and number of passen- Corporate & Specialty AG in 2012. Such conditions, sub-
gers. Challenges regarding evacuation of the sequently, make it difficult for newcomers to enter the
vessel and rescue of human lives. market (Sarrabezolles et al., 2016).
The Polar Code of the International Maritime Organi-
Crew levels, language barriers and
zation (IMO, 2015), mandatory for all parties to the MAR-
bureaucracy. Low crew numbers, compared POL (pollution from ships) and SOLAS (safety of life at sea)
to the size of the ship, number of passengers, conventions, is from an insurance perspective, a significant
around the clock operating time, and bureau- improvement in international regulation of the Polar Re-
cracy increases the risk of human error, which gions. It requires a Polar Waters Operational Manual, to be
is estimated to cause 75%–96% of marine carried onboard, which must consider the security of sea-
farers, protection of indigenous peoples and the natural
casualties despite being the root cause of only
environment (Lloyd’s, 2017b). Benefits of the Polar Code
26.2% of cruise ship incidents. An additional include its general framework on safety and environmen-
risk factor is a language barrier, given multi- tal protection, a risk-based approach and awareness of
national crews [and passengers] on board main risks, a compliance tool for insurability, and coverage
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article-pdf/9/1/00009/474369/elementa.2020.00009.pdf by guest on 13 September 2021
cruise ships. of all main processes from the conception of the ship to
Training and labor. Variation in the compe- training the crew, to name a few (Fedi et al., 2018). Short-
comings are also recognized, including data gaps, it does
tences of officers and crew, including crew-
not help pricing risks, excludes fishing and leisure vessels,
members from emerging economies. pollution risks are not adequately addressed, and
Risk management. Inadequate, but advanced training is not required for all crew members
strengthening of safety management systems (Fedi et al., 2018). Additionally, there are considerable
and processes will address this issue. concerns about the enforcement of the Polar Code given
Fire. In cases of a large number of passengers the discretion of the Arctic Council governments, mari-
time agencies, and ship owners in defining the exact scope
on cruise ships offering hotel-type service, fire
and substance of the safety standards (Todorov, 2020),
is a major concern (Allianz Global Corporate & a feature that exemplifies long-held concerns about the
Specialty AG, 2012). weak level of authority of the IMO over maritime opera-
tors’ compliance with international requirements (Helga-
Adding to the risk categories listed above are issues son et al., 2020).
that could potentially intensify the negative outcomes of The role of marine insurers is furthermore seen as
severe incidents or cannot be adequately assessed (Hel- essential concerning the subject of transparency in under-
lenic Shipping News Worldwide, 2018). These include SAR writing, dialogue with ship owners, preemptive risk con-
challenges in Arctic conditions due to limited resources sultancy, and in promoting best practice (Allianz Global
and remoteness (Arctic Council, 2015), a salvage gap given Corporate & Specialty AG, 2012), but adopting strict stan-
limited salvage options in the Arctic (Lloyd’s, 2017c), over- dards is a way for maritime insurers to mitigate their risk
reliance on single technologies, and Flag States with re- exposure and potential financial losses. However, what
gard to “non-ratification of legislation, or non- seems to be missing from the discussion is the role of
enforcement of ratified legislation” (Allianz Global Corpo- insurers in sharing lessons learned from worst-case
rate & Specialty AG, 2012). A severe shipping-related inci- scenarios.
dent in the Arctic with pollution and consequent
environmental damage and/or casualty is also likely to Risk management and safety
result in a very negative publicity (Lloyd’s, 2017c). The Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) establishes the
Consequently, insurance coverage and insurance cost is common rule that a minimum regulatory standard for
relevant for Arctic shipping. This cost is, however, consid- Flag State jurisdiction and maximum standard for coastal
ered minimal compared to the cost of capital, crew, or fuel states are generally accepted as international standards
(Sarrabezolles, et al., 2016). Assessing the cost of insurance and rules (Boone, 2013). To mitigate risks and ensure safer
has been problematic and messages mixed on the extra shipping in Arctic and Antarctic waters, the Polar Code
premium paid for sailing in Arctic waters, as insurers do specifies some conditions for passenger ships. These
not disclose information on tariffs or policies. Addition- include a proper immersion suit or a thermal protective
ally, risks associated with navigation in Arctic waters are, aid provided for each person on board in case of survival
so far, not fully assessed or modelled and are thus assessed emergency, basic training for master, chief mate and offi-
on a case-by-case basis and therefore more costly than if cers in charge of navigation in open waters, and advanced
standardized (Liu, 2016; Sarrabezolles, et al., 2016; Trant- training for master and chief mate in other waters (IMO,
zas et al., 2018). However, higher premium rates for sailing 2015). Reference is also made to guidelines on voyage
in Arctic waters can be limited if certain conditions are planning for passenger ships operating in areas remote
met, such as ice-class certification, risk and safety manage- from SAR capabilities (IMO, 2015). Insurers are seen to
ment policies and past behavior, training and experience have a critical role to play in the implementation of the
of shipmaster and crew, and contingency plans, thus align- Polar Code, and given difficulty and danger in shipping
ing with suggestions made by the Allianz Global above the 70 N line, the Lloyd’s Institute Hull ClausesJohannsdottir et al: Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents Art. 9(1) page 7 of 22
underwriters exclude such voyages (Kingston, 2016). members of the association (AECO, n.d.). AECO has also
Other similar exclusions exist, meaning that cruise ships identified knowledge gaps and research needed to sup-
owners need to consult insurers on a case-by-case basis, so port responsible tourism management in the region,
that they can review the intentions of operators and infor- including environmental and wildlife impacts, mapping
mation about the crew and planned mitigation efforts in of unorganized tourism activities, volume, value, risks, and
case of emergency (Kingston, 2016). Others that need be impacts of large-scale incidents on particular areas and
involved in remote area excursions are local authorities communities (Ikonen and Sokolı́čková, 2020). Lloyd’s of
and coastguards, given that there is “no room for error in London also highlight the importance of a risk-aware
such a transit with so many people on board” (Kingston, approach to Arctic operations, risk governance, risk mit-
2016, p. 25). This is, however, not sufficient as good com- igation, and risk transfer. Risk governance frameworks
munications are fundamental (Research Centre for Coastal would include identification, assessment and analysis of
Tourism, 2012) as well as increased ability to perform SAR, risks, risk control, planning, and reporting. A part of
and cope with pollution, in remote areas (Congressional this includes identifying and understanding the worst-
Research Service, 2020; RUV, 2019). case scenario concerning prevention, responses, crisis
Preparation and international joint SAR training and management, and how to address potential damage
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article-pdf/9/1/00009/474369/elementa.2020.00009.pdf by guest on 13 September 2021
survival exercises simulating cruise ship incidents in the to reputation (Emmerson and Lahn, 2012). Risk mitiga-
Arctic and involving members from the cruise ship indus- tion can include operational and safety standards and
try, search-and-rescue responders, and academics are using the latest technology, processes and material de-
therefore essential (Ikonen, 2017; Trantzas, 2018; Arctic signed for Arctic conditions. Risk transfer is then in the
Today, 2019). Findings from such exercises bring forth form of insurance coverage, but insurers may also pro-
potential challenges and offer recommendations for solu- vide safety and risk-related information of relevance
tions (Ikonen, 2017) as safety is the main challenge to be (Emmerson and Lahn, 2012). When risk related to cruise
assessed (Trantzas, 2018). This collaboration and coordina- ship operations is considered, both the shipowners risk
tion is further strengthened through a common organiza- and passenger risk need to be accounted for and ad-
tion, the Arctic Coast Guard Forum (ACGF, n.d.), and the dressed as insurers offering SAR coverage may limit
Arctic Council’s Ministerial Declaration on the establish- their risk based on the age of passengers or area where
ment of the Arctic Shipping Best Practice Information the ships operate. The shipowners therefore should
Forum supporting the implementation of the Polar Code acquire SAR cover for all passengers on board (Trantzas
(PAME, n.d.). This establishment is furthermore endorsed et al., 2018). Furthermore, although Arctic marine
by insurers (Lloyd’s, 2017a). The resilience of the local insurance is subject to domestic and international reg-
communities also needs to be accounted for. As a part ulations concerning marine safety and environmental
of a systemic approach, communities need to be prepared protection (Liu, 2016), much less is discussed in rela-
and have the capacity to recover and thrive during and tion to the social aspect, both consequences for passen-
after a shocking event (Arctic Council, 2017a) such as gers and local communities.
a severe cruise ship accident. Requirements made by insurers in relation to Arctic
Despite the emergence of the Polar Code (IMO, 2015), shipping, such as the ones discussed in the previous sec-
there is also a great need for sharing of information and tion (Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG, 2012; Liu,
cooperation, such as to improve weather forecasting and 2016; Sarrabezolles, et al., 2016; Trantzas et al., 2018),
sea ice prediction, creation of precise nautical maps, while subsequently influence the cruise ship operators’ response
also sharing information and utilizing best practice exam- as their reaction affects the policy terms and conditions
ples and appropriate technologies for Arctic conditions under which they operate, or even availability and eligi-
(PAME, 2015). Other related issues, for instance, Finland’s bility for insurance plans (Liu, 2016; Sarrabezolles et al.,
Arctic Council’s (2017–2019) priorities, included environ- 2016), as instances of breaching the navigation warranty
mental protection, meteorological and oceanographic contract of the ship insurers would not lead to liability for
cooperation, and developing communication networks the consequences or a termination of the contract (Liu,
and services (Arctic Council, 2017b). Iceland’s priorities 2016). Therefore, benefiting both the shipowners and in-
(2019–2021) also include a focus on the environment, surers, and subsequently cruise ship passengers, would be
as well as sustainable shipping and tourism practices, and standardized procedures and a new Arctic marine insur-
improved connectivity (Arctic Council, 2019). ance and risk coverage regime with standard clauses ad-
From the perspective of responsible vessel owners and dressing irregularities in current Arctic marine regimes
operators, preventive measures and risk management (Liu, 2016).
need to take into account the complexity of Arctic cruise
ship operations, both including the systemic level of anal- Research method
ysis and multi-criteria risk management (Yatsalo et al., For analytical purpose, the scaling of risk model is em-
2016; Johannsdottir and Cook, 2019) since severe inci- ployed (Johannsdottir and Cook, 2019, p. 6; see Figure
dents in the Arctic may tarnish their reputation. Therefore, 1). This model is a starting point for further exploration
the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators is of with respect to the first two research questions in the
key importance as it offers various types of guidelines for paper concerning the types of cruise ship incidents and
operators and visitors, some of which are mandatory, such their consequences. The focus is on the systemic level,
as operational guidelines for tour operators that are where breakdown of systems occurs after a trigger eventArt. 9(1) page 8 of 22 Johannsdottir et al: Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents
Cruise ship incident
Social/cultural Environmental Economic Security/policy causes Impacts on the business /
causes and impacts causes and impacts causes and impacts and implicaon(s) partners
• Loss of lives, injuries • Environmental • Search and rescue • Coast guard • Total loss or damaged
• Age of passengers damage costs involvement vessel
• Panic on board, • Fuel and sludge spills • Medical expenses • Search and rescue • Reducon in net
trauma • Impacts on • Reducon in net • Mass rescue, income
• Mul-naonality of coralligenous habitats income evacuaon • Reduced profits and
crew and passengers • Debris distribuon • Costs of refloang, • Missing people, damaged financial
cause problems • Impact on the quality towing and salvage people trapped performance
• Lack of training of biological systems • Clean-up costs • Blackout on board • Liability claims
• • • • •
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article-pdf/9/1/00009/474369/elementa.2020.00009.pdf by guest on 13 September 2021
Human error, Contaminants such as Liability claims, e.g. Water leakage Clean-up/salvage
neglegence trace metals and environmental (flooding) beyond costs
• Mass rescue, plascs/microplascs liability claims and manageable limits • Compensaon paid
evacuaon • Wreck in sensive claims from • Chaos and confusion, out to vicms
• First aid area passengers and lack of • Reimbursement of all
• Volunteer • Salvage operaon relaves communicaon / travel costs
involvement • Waste, e.g. hull of the • Insurance/write-off miscommunicaon • Medical expenses
• Sheltering vessel costs • Insufficient safety arising from the
(authories, • Higher levels of • Lengthy legal cases drills accident
inhabitants) aluminum and lead and costs of legal • Navigaon issues, • On-board expenses
• Physical, • Noise polluon proceeedings technical issues • Re-floang, towing,
psychological and • Natural weather • Class acon lawsuit • Flaw in signaling for dismantling, and
emoonal, endured condions • Reduce profits and abandoning the ship scrapping costs
pain and suffering • Ecological damage negave impacts to • Volunteer • Reducon in cruise
• Hospital treatment due to invasive other financial involvement bookings
• Long-term species performance • Sheltering • Lengthy legal cases
psychological and/or indicators • Wreck salvage / • Class acon lawsuit
physical implicaons • Loss of trust in the removal • Manslaughter charges
Loss of enjoyment of cruise ship industry • Oil spill • Fines
the cruise • Negave impacts to • Call for beer • Negave press
• Concerned relaves tourism and safeguard coverage
• The structure of the recreaon, locally and • Strengthening of • Bad PR / loss of trust
polar communies further afield regulaons and • Reputaonal damage
• The values of the • Impact on share price internaonal • Loss of jobs
communies • Potenal loss of jobs standards, e.g. • Bankrupcy
• Behaviour paerns in the cruise ship technical standards • Insurance terms and
• Life style and quality industry • Industry-wide condions
of life voluntary adopon of • Impact on share price
policies
• Flag state
Potenal systemic consequenses of major cruise ship incident in the Arcc
Figure 2. Potential systemic consequences of major cruise ship incident in the Arctic, findings synthesis by the authors.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.00009.f2
causes systemic consequences (Schwarcz, 2008; Johanns- evidence found, and are presented in Figure 2. Comple-
dottir and Cook, 2019). This level of analysis is not lim- menting the figure are examples from the analysis, pre-
ited to economic consequences but offers a view on sented in the following section. The focus on systemic
issues related to social aspects, security, environmental level broadens into the view of the potential worst-case
implications, business and operational impacts, and pol- scenario, which might involve an existential level of risk
icy and legal aspects (see Figure 2 and Appendix A). This for pristine Arctic ecosystems and/or local communities,
appendix presents a simple version of the analytical especially impacted subsistence economies (Johannsdot-
framework employed, showing the main categories and tir and Cook, 2019).
some examples of consequences found. Furthermore,
each case had its own spreadsheet where links to relevant Data collection and case selection
documents were listed. For analytical purposes, cate- As previously explained, concepts such as incident, acci-
gories in the analytical framework and new issues were dent, mishap, and disaster are often used as synonyms and
added to the framework, based on new indications or data are scattered, thus making it challenging to identifyJohannsdottir et al: Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents Art. 9(1) page 9 of 22
Table 1. Overview of selected cases. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.00009.t1
Year of Dead or Rescued
Arctic and Antarctica Cases Location Cause of Accident Accident Missing Alive
TS Maxim Gorky Svalbard Collision with an iceberg 1989 n/a 953
MS Explorer Southern/Antarctic Ocean Collision with an iceberg 2007 n/a 154
M/V Clipper Adventurer Coronation Gulf, Nunavut Grounding on a shoal 2010 n/a 197
M/V Akademik Ioffe Northwest Passage —Gulf of Grounding on a shoal 2018 n/a 162
Boothia
Viking Sky Norwegian sea Engine shutdown; bad 2019 n/a 1,373
weather
Non-Arctic and Antarctica cases
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article-pdf/9/1/00009/474369/elementa.2020.00009.pdf by guest on 13 September 2021
Costa Concordia Mediterranean Sea Collision; grounding 2012 32 4,197
MV Estonia Baltic Sea Capsized 1994 852 137
M/V Al-Salam Boccaccio 98 Red Sea Fire on board; sinking 2006 1,031 387
MS Herald of Free Enterprise (Ferry) Port of Zeebrugge Capsized 1987 188 351
Rabaul Queen (cargo-passenger) Solomon Sea—Vitiaz Strait Capsized; large wave 2012 165 246
Oriental star (Eastern Star or Yangtze River Capsized; thunderstorm 2015 442 12
Dongfang zhi Xing)
severe incidents of relevance to the analysis. There are Potential worst-case scenario of major cruise ship
some incident databases that are not of relevance, such incident
as the one from the Stockholm International Peace Figure 2 presents a holistic depiction of the worst-case
Research Institute (SIPRI, n.d.), where the focus is on scenario if a systemic risk of a severe cruise ship incident
armament, disarmament, conflict, peace, and security, materializes. Findings synthesized by authors.
or others that have limited information about cruise ship
incidents, such as the European Maritime Safety Agency Sociocultural causes and impacts
Accident Investigation Publications (European Maritime All the non-Arctic and Antarctic cases selected for analysis
Safety Agency, 2019). Various sources were used for data resulted in injuries and casualties (Murray and Thimgan,
collection given the challenge in identifying cases and 2016; Lloyd’s, 2018), with most casualties in the Al-Salam
how scattered the data are. These included academic da- Boccaccio 98 accident (Soliman, 2013) and the MS Estonia
tabases, such as the EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Web of Sci- case (The Joint Accident Investigation Commission of MV
ence, and Scopus, official incident/accident and/or ESTONIA & Edita Ltd., 1997). In the Arctic and Antarctic
insurance reports, and media coverage. Other sources cases, there are no record of casualties, even in near-
included industry reports, ministerial reports, joint- disastrous cases, such as the Viking Sky, where people
Arctic SAR report, reports from coastal forums, and so were in grave danger and some were hospitalized because
on (Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG, 2012; Em- of injuries (NewsinEnglish.no, 2019) including bruising,
merson and Lahn, 2012; Innanrı́kisráðuneyti Íslands, broken bones, and trauma (The Independent Barents
2016; Lloyd’s, 2018; Allianz Global Corporate and Spe- Observer AS, 2019). The consequences are nevertheless
cialty SE, 2019; Ikonen and Andreassen, 2019). Nonethe- grave given a forthcoming class action lawsuit against the
less, there is still scarcity of information related to cruise ship operator, where it is claimed that passengers
navigational hazards in the Arctic (Liu, 2016) and the “were subjected to severe distress both physical, psycho-
consequences of such hazards. logical and emotional, endured pain and suffering along
Table 1 shows the cases selected for analysis, which are with physical and emotional injury” (NewsinEnglish.no,
categorized as Arctic and Antarctic, and non-Arctic and 2019). Minor consequences include loss of enjoyment of
Antarctic cases. In each case, the location is identified, the cruise, although compensated for by refunding pas-
main cause of the incident, year when it happened, num- sengers’ fares, covering of their expenses after the accident
ber of deaths or missing persons, and number of people and/or offering another cruise trip at a later date (News-
rescued alive. Next, an Excel spreadsheet (see copy in inEnglish.no, 2019). For longer term psychological and/or
Appendix) was used to track themes applicable to each physical implications for survivors of severe cruise ship
case. Information was then synthesized in Figure 2, pre- incidents, research seems to be lacking, although a study
sented in the following section. The purpose was to has been carried out showing more favorable psychologi-
deduce the possible impacts of worst-case scenarios of cal outcomes if survivors of marine-related incidents
systemic risk of major cruise ship incidents rather than receive mental health support after such a drama (Kato
compare or contrast cases. et al., 2006).Art. 9(1) page 10 of 22 Johannsdottir et al: Systemic risk of cruise ship incidents
According to statistics from the World Health crew and/or that crew members come from different
Organization, the average age of cruise ship passengers countries, potentially complicating communication due
are 45–45 years of age. However, there are also a signifi- to language barriers. In the case of Clipper Adventurer,
cant number of senior citizens, amounting to about one the crew was from many different nations, that is, Argen-
third of passengers, and those who are 65 or over are most tina, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines, Sweden,
often in need of the emergency services due to illnesses and Ukraine, using English as the working language (Cal-
(WHO, n.d.). This is important in the context of a potential derbank, 2018). Inadequate safety and risk management
emergency evacuation situation and/or SAR efforts, given systems, and/or low crew levels, and/or bureaucracy, may
the harsh Arctic conditions (The Independent Barents also be a part of the root cause of cruise ship incidents
Observer AS, 2019). (Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty AG, 2012).
First aid is often provided by locals (CBS News, 2019; Another important impact is on the values of the com-
Juneau Empire, 2019) or volunteers, such as from the Red munity. Seen as a “floating tourist resort,” the closed phys-
Cross, as was the case in the Viking Sky incident, where ical and psychological environment of a cruise ship
240 volunteers were called to action to assist in the local represents the social, physical, psychological, and built
rescue operations. The concern here is that the further environment, separated from the surrounding environ-
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article-pdf/9/1/00009/474369/elementa.2020.00009.pdf by guest on 13 September 2021
north cruise operations take place, in less populated areas, ment (Cohen, 1978) and transporting tourists used to
the less likely such a number of volunteers is to exist (The high-standard amenities to natural or cultural locations
Independent Barents Observer AS, 2019). In the most with a different infrastructure reality. When incidents cre-
recent case, the Viking Sky, a massive rescue evacuation ate multicultural interactions, they could provoke intense
took place. Due to high waves, rescue boats were not tensions (i.e., psychological distress for both passengers
deployable; instead, passengers, mainly elderly passen- and locals) because they can cause disruption in the daily
gers, were airlifted onto helicopters one by one (Indepen- activities of residents (Cerveny, 2004; Ringer, 2010), such
dent, 2019). In around 24 h, only 479 people had been as hunting, fishing, herding, cultural rituals, and tradi-
evacuated, leaving around 900 persons remaining on tions. The tensions are determined by the incident’s cir-
board (NPR.org, 2019). For those rescued to shore, and cumstances but also by different beliefs and behavior
not hospitalized, shelters are needed, and in the case of patterns characteristic of multicultural incompatibilities.
Costa Concordia, small churches and other local buildings Sociocultural impacts on local lifestyle and quality of
were used as shelters (CNN, 2012). Concerned relatives of life are better contextualized in the Arctic than in the
passengers and crew may have to wait anxiously for an- Antarctic due to the presence of indigenous communities
swers about the status of their loved ones, and in some in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Resource use consti-
cases, they might not be found at all (BBC News, 2012). tutes a fundamental component of indigenous culture
The case of M/V Clipper Adventurer that grounded in and the base to maintain and develop local communities
Nunavut in 2010 is a classic example of the challenge of (language, culture, and social life; Vammen Larsen et al.,
coordinating local infrastructure and disaster emergency 2019). Cruise ship incidents may cause disruption to tra-
services for rescue and operational support. In remote, ditional ways of using resources due to the complexity of
secluded locations like Nunavut, there is no modern infra- rescue operations involving casualties but also because of
structure (i.e., medical services) to cope with events of this the degradation of resources and environmental condi-
magnitude. The rescue of the passengers by the coast tions (i.e., Costa Concordia, MV Clipper Adventurer).
guard icebreaker in the case of the M/V Clipper Adven-
turer was possible and successful (without casualties) due Environmental impacts
to favorable weather conditions of high visibility, low The dynamic nature of interaction in the complex polar
winds, and quiet sea (CBS News, 2019). In an adverse environment can easily be disrupted by processes and
weather scenario, the consequences would likely be chaos accidental contamination by cruise ships and incidents,
and panic on board (NPR.org, 2019), loss of lives and creating serious hazards to the local environmental sys-
intense psychological distress, with significant impact to tems. The extent of these polluting processes is influenced
the structure of communities in culturally sensitive areas. by the special geographical conditions of the site and by
Cases of collision and grounding always impose pressure the environmental practices and technologies used by the
on local infrastructure, such as in the accidents involving cruise ship industry. The findings reveal evidence of the
Costa Concordia, TS Maxin Gorky, MS Explorer, MV Akade- challenges of polar cruising and the persistent levels of
mik loffe, and Viking Sky. Severe cruise ship incidents, pollution and toxicity caused by incidents (Congressional
such as the MV Estonia, are claimed to be traumatic for Research Service, 2020).
a nation (Deutsche Welle, 2019), let alone for a small local In the case of the Costa Concordia accident, water fea-
community coping with an aftermath of such a situation. tures were monitored throughout the salvage operation in
In many cruise ship incidents, human error and/or order to record any alterations in physicochemical para-
negligence are the main cause (Milenski et al., 2014; In- meters. Sampling stations were selected for monitoring
nanrı́kisráðuneyti Íslands, 2016), such as in the Costa Con- impacts on the marine environment, and additional op-
cordia (Research Centre for Coastal Tourism, 2012), and/or erations on the seafloor and on the wreck were conducted
may escalate the situation such as in the case of MV Her- to evaluate alterations compared to the original environ-
ald of Free Enterprise (Praetorius et al., 2011). This may be ment. Impacts on coralligenous habitats were detected, in
due to the lack of training competences of officers and this case, with clear evidence found of degradation inYou can also read
