Governance of Expedition Cruise Ship Tourism in the Arctic: A Comparison of the Canadian and Russian Arctic

Abstract

Expedition style cruise tourism represents a significant proportion of shipping activity across the Arctic. This article compares and contrasts governance structures that manage the cruise sector from case studies located in the Canadian (Nunavut) and the Russian Arctic (Murmansk and Arkhangelsk regions). Analysis of sources, including interviews with key stakeholders, strategic tourism plans, and an inventory of institutional governance reveals that in both these locations there is no central authority to govern the growth of the industry, no specific cruise or yacht management plans, and no site guidelines for highly visited shore locations (other than in protected areas). The article concludes that under current conditions there are significant barriers to supporting development of the expedition cruise sector in both these Arctic regions.

Strategic Development Challenges in Marine Tourism in Nunavut

“…It is perhaps disheartening that many of the weaknesses apparent today were identified by Marquez and Eagles [23] a decade ago, but it is noteworthy that challenges in marine tourism development of the type and scale being experienced in Nunavut are similar to challenges experienced in other regions such as the Kimberley Coast in Australia [61], New Zealand's Fjordland [62,63] and the Russian Arctic [9]. The territorial Tourism Strategy, changes in legislation and the marine tourism management plan go a long way in resolving some of the identified problems.…”

“…The area available to cruise tourism in Russia is advantaged by robust infrastructure that supports the maritime sector in general. However, cruise tourism in Russia remains limited because of the aging fleet of cruise vessels in use, an inconsistent regulatory system, and competition from other polar cruising regions [9]. Development of the Russian Arctic National Park in 2009 has been an attraction to cruise vessels and more recently the protected area also attracts pleasure craft [10].…”

“…other polar cruising regions [9]. Development of the Russian Arctic National Park in 2009 has been an attraction to cruise vessels and more recently the protected area also attracts pleasure craft [10].…”

Are we poles apart? Stakeholders’ cooperation and decision-making in on-land cruise tourism in Iceland and New Zealand

“…Cooperation and cohesion between stakeholders is both vital to the sustainable development of the cruise sector and an important tool in deterring fragmentation between the cruise sector and other forms of tourism (Lester & Weeden, 2004). Recent studies still indicate a lack of such cooperation and management (Pashkevich, Dawson, & Stewart, 2015;Alonso & Alexander, 2017). This article investigates the main opportunities and challenges facing stakeholders in on-land cruise services in Iceland and New Zealand. Despite the geographical distance between New Zealand in the southern hemisphere and Iceland in the northern, the two countries share many similarities in regard to tourism.…”

Marine communities : governing oil & gas activities and cruise tourism in the Arctic and the Caribbean

“…First, the marine community concept reveals that the governance of expedition cruise tourism in Svalbard, similar to Arctic Canada and Russia, is characterised by institutional complexity (Dawson, Johnston, and Stewart, 2014;Pashkevich, Dawson, and Stewart, 2015) because of the coexistence of collective selfgovernance (represented by the AECO secretariat and tour operators) and state governance (coordinated by the Governor and its field inspectors), next to international regulations. The expedition crew act as intermediary between public and private policy and to a certain extent also between the expedition cruise user community and research user community.…”