Expanding AECO’s geographic range
Back-ground information
AECO was established in 2003 as an association for Arctic operators with activity in
Svalbard. The objective was to extend geographic range gradually and eventually
become a Pan-Arctic association for Arctic expedition cruise operators.
History
2003 -
AECO founded – Svalbard
2006 -
AECO expands geographic range to include Jan Mayen and Greenland
2011 -
AECO members with activity in other Arctic areas than Svalbard, Greenland and
Jan Mayen agree to follow AECO’s guidelines in all Arctic areas. No per passenger
fee applied. Members with operations in Canada and Russia only, are
considered”Associate members”.
AECO considers Arctic as ”AECO-area” but refers to Svalbard, Greenland and Jan Mayen as core
areas.
Traffic
Excluding Alaska, Bering Staight area and Arctic areas south of 60 degrees, Svalbard and
Greenland are the most visited Arctic areas by cruise vessels. Arctic Canada is visited by a couple
of thousand passengers annually – a number which has been declining recent years. Some of
these are passengers onboard vessels that are operated by AECO-members. ”Russian Arctic” has
been visited by around one thousand passengers annually, some of these onboard vessels
operated by members of AECO.
AECO’s work on the expansion issue
The expansion issue has been subject to discussion almost annually at AECO Annual meeting the
last 5-6 years. In addition it has been part of the EC-discussion and part of the AECO’s action plan
– and work.
Given the rather complex situation in Russia and limited resources, it was decided to first focus
on Canada.
Canada
There were several members pushing for AECO’s expansion to Canada – especially because they
were experiencing an extremely high bureaucrat, and time – as well as economic challenges,
both in regards to the permitting process and in regards to conducting operations.
In 2009 the General Secretary, together with one of the EC-members, made a trip to Canada and
met with a number of cruise tourism stakeholders. The challenges described by members where
1
confirmed, together with an impression of little attention to the cruise tourism industry as an
economic opportunity for Canada. There was just not very much interest.
But AECO managed to get on some mailing-lists and also followed up on a few issues. Since this
trip we have become partner in some consultations – and we started noticing references to
AECO in Canada.
The large task, combined with limited resources and very few to co-operate within Canada, led
to AECO’s decision to not fully expand to Canada at the time. But AECO’ guidelines was applied
and AECO also established a Canada resource group – of members with experience from
operations in Canada and/or who were based in Canada.
In 2012 AECO got a new employee, and one of the task he was given, was to further research
opportunities in Canada.
The research started with consultation of the Canada resource group, both with all members
individual and by group correspondence.
The below, which is included in AECO’s Annual report 2012-2013, is a description of what further
happened.
2012-2013
In October 2012 AECO’s PM went on a trip to Ottawa, Montreal and Iqaluit to meet up with a
number of different Canadian authorities, who deal with management, jurisdiction and
administration in regard to cruise operations. The purpose of the trip was to investigate
challenges and potentials for a possible AECO expansion in Arctic Canada and Nunavut. The
outcome of the trip was a better understanding of Canada and the challenges operators face
there. Many of the people AECO met up with made it clear that there is a need for an
organization like AECO in Canada and the positive feedback and attention AECO has gotten after
the trip is significant. The outcome of the trip can be summarized as follows:




On the trip to Canada AECO held 14 in person meetings and 4 meetings via Skype
At all meetings AECO gave a general presentation about AECO, AECO’s objectives, AECO’s
structure and the issues AECO is currently involved with. At the meetings it was stressed
that AECO was in Canada to listen and learn. At the same time AECO made the challenges
that operators face in terms of the complex system of licenses and permits in Canada quite
clear to everybody.
The timing of AECO’s visit to Canada was good, as the Arctic council took over the chair after
the trip and has it for the next two years (after this the council will be chaired by the United
States for another two years). This fact and the significant focus, which Canada and the U.S.
will have on the Arctic with an economic development perspective is something that was
generally emphasized as a window of opportunity in regard to improving the situation for
Arctic cruise tourism in Canada.
During the trip AECO learned that there is a role to play for AECO in Canada. Everybody
AECO met with during the trip without exception welcomed AECO as an organization
representing the expedition cruise operators, and it was made very clear to AECO by most
of the people AECO met with that there is a need for an organization like AECO, which the
2


governmental bodies can communicate with in regard to issues that has to do with the
expedition cruise industry. There is also a great deal of work to be done in terms of the
challenges and opportunities that operators face in Arctic Canada.
One of the most promising outcomes of the trip was the fact that Julie Gascon, Director at
Transport Canada’s Marine Safety Division encouraged AECO to prepare a
case/presentation of the expedition cruise industries challenges in regard to acquiring
permits in Canada. The focus of the presentation should be: the enormous amounts of
forms, the high complexity of the legislation and the fact that only little of this has to do
with tourism. Julie Gascon and Transport Canada, would like to take up this at a higher level
and have AECO come and present our version to the decision-makers. According to
Transport Canada many Canadian politicians would be interested in knowing about the
challenges the operators face and how things can be done better. AECO has just prepared a
case to Julie Gascon and Transport Canada with a short list of what operators are required
to do.
Another of the very promising outcomes of the trip is that many people in Canada according to professor Jackie Dawson from the University of Ottawa and one of AECO’s
close partners – are now talking about the problems the operators face and AECO as a part
of the solution.
During the trip AECO gave an input at the Arctic Shipping forum North America 2012 about
‘Expedition cruise operations: sustainability, safety, development and future growth’ and had
the following meetings:
-
Parks Canada, Iqaluit (Pauline Scott)
Nordreg, Iqaluit (Jean-Pierre Lehnert & Luis Robert)
Nunavut Tourism, Iqaluit (Kevin Kelly & Colleen Dupuis)
Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Iqaluit (Bernie Maclsaac & Salamonie Shoo)
Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service, Iqaluit (Olaf Jensen, Suzanne Emond & Mia
Pelletier)
Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Iqaluit (Cheri Kemp-Long)
Nunavut Parks, Iqaluit (David Monteth)
Department of Economic Development & Transportation, Iqaluit (Karen Kabloona and
Gordon MacKay)
Transport Canada, Ottawa (Brad Spence & Julie Gascon)
Jackie Dawson, Ottawa, University of Ottawa
Canadian Boarder Service Agency, Ottawa (France Audet, Steve Gorham, Johnny Prasad,
Michel Gaudet, Barbara Corbett and Stephanie Messier)
Canadian Hydrographic Service, Ottawa (Savi Narayanan & Sean Hinds)
Nunavut Impact Review Board, Montreal (Ryan Barry)
Health Canada, Montreal (Angus Skinner, Scott Collins, Peter & Andre)
Aquila Center for Cruise Excellence via Skype (Beth Kelly Hatt)
Wilderness Tourism Licensing Act Registrar in Yukon via Skype (Afan Jones)
Yukon Government Dept. Of Environment - Parks Branch via Skype (Dave Ladret)
Herschel Island Territorial Park via Skype (Cathryn Paish)
3
AECO’s conclusion after the trip to Canada is that the challenges that expedition cruise operators
face in regard to the current multi-regional, multi-tiered and multi-purpose permits are very
complex and that operators could get in trouble if they are not aware of the permitting
requirements, and
International
one or more permits
are missed (see
illustration).
Federal
International Maritime Organization: responsible for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships
Transport Canada: determine
legal entry limits, check
certificates, issue licenses to
allow use of non-Canadian
helicopters on ships, jointly
responsible for security,
marine safety, pollution
prevention, and port state
control.
Fisheries and Oceans &
Canadian Coast Guard: marine
communications and traffic
services (MCTS), monitoring
services, require registry of
itinerary, issue ice information,
deploy icebreaking resources,
assist in SAR and pollution
incident response
Environment Canada –
Canadian Ice Service: provide
current ice information
Foreign Affairs and
International Trade: require
cruise ship itinerary
Canadian Border Services:
enforce regulations, check
passports, issue coastal
trade licenses
Environment Canada Canadian Wildlife Service:
issue Canadian Wildlife
Sanctuary Permit
Canadian Forces:
coordinate SAR with
assistance from CCG and
Canadian Rangers, regional
security & protection
Health Canada: conducts
health and safety
inspections (ship and food)
RCMP: require cruise
ship itinerary, protect
local residents, enforce
regulations, check
passports, provide
support
There is no central
agency, which the
operators can
contact to get help
or information from
in regard to the
permitting process
and all contacts
work as individual
units. The total
amount of
Local
expedition Cruise
operations in the
Canadian Arctic is
declining slowly which might have to do with this extremely complex system of licenses and
permits. These requirements cost the operators many resources in terms of time and money.
The amount of hours an average AECO-member spend to live up to all the rules and regulations
regarding the Canadian Arctic is estimated to be significantly higher than the amount of
manpower involved with paper-work for a similar journey to Greenland or Svalbard.
Parks Canada: issue permits
for visiting National Parks
Canadian Hydrographic
Service (DFO): provide
required navigational
material
Citizenship and
Immigration Canada:
issue immigration
clearance for ship’s
crew and passengers
Provincial and Territorial Governments: Register business, obtain tourist establishment license, Archaeological, and historic site permits
Provincial/Territorial
Northwest Territories
Nunavut
Resources, Wildlife and
Economic Development:
issue tourist establishment
licenses & export licenses
Education, Culture and
Employment: issue
archaeological and heritage
sites license
Tourism and Culture:
promotion & management
Territorial Parks and
Heritage Rivers: issues
permits, provides support
Sustainable
Development: issue
tourist establishment
license, issue fishing and
export licenses
Legislation and
Enforcement:
management
Nunavut Planning
Commission: Obtain
approval for all activities
(applications must be
translated)
Nunavut Impact Review
Board: regulation and
management
Nunavut Tourism:
require cruise ship
itinerary
Nunavut Parks: Obtain
permit for visiting
Territorial Parks
Culture, Language,
Elders and Youth: issue
archaeological permits
Québec
Newfoundland & Labrador
Transports: issue permits
for transport of
passengers by water
Tourism, Culture and
Recreation: Adhere to
Tourist Establishments
Act
Tourisme: promotion and
management
Développement durable,
Environnement et Parcs:
protection and
management
Culture, Communication
et Condition féminine:
promotion
Environment and
Conservation: issue
commercial operator
& educational tour
permits
Transportation and
Works: management
Inuit Owned Lands Associations: issue permits for certain shore and community visits under jurisdiction of settled land claim areas
Community Hamlet Offices: require cruise ship itinerary, provide permission to visit, collect performance or visitation fees
At the end of 2012 AECO sent out two reports with the results of AECO’s Canada trip.
The first rapport consisted of a summary of the trip, a section about AECO’s objectives with the
trip / a list of the meetings held / a section with the outcome of each meeting and a list of
scenarios for ‘the way forward’ (which can be used to decide the road forward) and a list of
contacts that AECO did not meet with for future reference. This report also contain a section
about scenarios for ‘the way forward’ and a list of different options for AECO’s EC and members
to be able to take an informed decision about how many of AECO’s limited resources AECO
should put into this area in the time to come. The list with possible scenarios also has estimates
of how much time and resources the secretariat estimate is needed in connection with each
scenario.
The second rapport is a short overview of the permits and licenses needed when operating an
expedition cruise vessel in the Canadian Arctic. The lists of bodies expedition cruise operators
need to contact in order to operate in the Canadian Arctic include approximately 10 different
permitting authorities. Operators need to fill in approximately 20 different application-forms,
some of which have to be translated from English to the local Inuit language at the operators’
costs. Many of the application forms have very little to do with tourism, but are concerned with
for example digging in the ground, building runways, mining, exploration etc.
4
Simultaneously with the work directly directed on Canada, AECO has also taken initiative for a
better contact and potential co-operation with researchers. These efforts has led to several
positive outcomes, one of them being a very much closer contact with some of the researchers
on tourism issues in Canada.
When the researchers planned a survey among a very large number of stakeholders in Canadian
Arctic Cruise Tourism, the researchers co-operated with AECO to include some AECO-related
questions. The C-TAC study (Cruise Tourism in Arctic Canada) results includes a confirmation on
the need for AECO in Canada.
The contact has also led to a co-operation on a larger project that Canadian interests wants to
conducts. The University of Ottawa has applied funding for a site-guidelines project for Canada.
Among the application partners are Transport Canada – which makes the funding applicants
consist of both a governmental organization and researchers and the industry. The third partner
is AECO, and the project is based on AECO’s experience from developing guidelines in Svalbard.
Other initiatives from Canada include an inquiry from the national park in Yukon who asked if
they could use AECO’s guidelines as part of their permit for landings on Herschel Island. AECO
has approved such use of our guidelines.
Recently there has also been a closer contact with Nunavut Tourism, who shows larger interest
in AECO and our members. AECO has also been approached by tourism interests in Pangnirtung.
Last but not least. Arctic Council represented by Transport Canada and the Canadian Embassy in
Oslo, was eager to attend AECO’s Arctic Cruise Conference. Canada’s chairmanship in Arctic
Council involves as initiative from Canada. They would like to develop Arctic cruise ship
guidelines. It is crucial for AECO that we become part of such a process – and we have so far
been invited in. If AECO’s present guidelines can form the template for the Arctic Council’s
guidelines, it would not only be a very valuable achievement, but an opportunity to ensure that
members do not have to adjust to a different and additional set of guidelines in the Arctic.
Cost of working with Canada
It goes without saying that all these efforts to strengthen AECO’s position in Canada, have not
been for free. It involves larger travel expenses and months of working-hours. This has so far
been covered by income from passenger fees in Greenland, Jan Mayen and Svalbard, a strategy
that has been approved by the membership. It has, however, been an understanding that
members with interest in Canada at some point would need to start paying per passenger fees
for activity in Canada. The question is if AECO has reached to the point where Arctic Canada
should be considered a part of AECO’s core area and per passenger fees should apply.
Way forward - What can AECO do in Canada


There is no doubt a job to be done in regards to the complex permitting system in
Canada. Together with the contacts AECO has established, AECO can continue to focus
on the matters.
The Arctic Council plans for Arctic Shipping guidelines, under Canadian chairmanship,
should involve AECO.
5




The contacts established during these passed years should be further developed and
nourished.
If successful with the application, AECO should involve in developing site guidelines for
Canada.
AECO should re-visit Canada to follow up on the different issues.
AECO should continue to involve in consultancies whenever possible.
Challenges
AECO has a very small administration and the Arctic is very large. A growing number of tasks for
AECO may involve challenges in regards to the above. With more resources we could have done
more. But the perfect should not stand in the way for what can be good. If AECO continues to
focus on these matters, within the limitations resources have, we can still continue to develop in
Canada. Further hesitance with full expansion will represent a set-back in the process.
Russia
Due to the size and complexity of the area, Russia has since year been on hold in regards to
expanding, while AECO focused on Canada. But when AECO applied the guidelines in all Arctic
areas, a resource group for Russian was also established
This has changed during the last year.
AECO was in December 2012 contacted by the national park “Russian Arctic” who had an
interest in the work of the association. “Russian Arctic” covers Franz Josef Land and north
Novaya Zemlya. In a meeting, which found place in January 2013, the potential for further
cooperation was discussed.
AECO was asked what it would take to make “Russian Arctic” a part of AECO’s core area. By this
a new idea in regards expansion to Russia was born. Could AECO expand explicitly to this area of
Russia.
The dialogue continued and “Russian Arctic” became affiliate members of AECO in March 2013.
In April the Norwegian Directorate for nature management, together with “Russian Arctic”
organizes a work-shop in Arkhangelsk regarding cruise tourism development in “Russian Arctic”.
AECO participated in this work-shop and gave several contributions. These were inputs AECO
could give after communication with members who had experience from operations in the area.
We were invited to summarize and to large extend conclude the outcome of the work-shop.
There was a large degree of agreement between regulators and AECO at this workshop.
Members later received a summary:
“Background
The work-shop was hosted jointly by The National Park”Russian Arctic and The
Norwegian Directorate of Nature Management, within the frameworks of the RussianNorwegian cooperation agreement in preserving nature for 2013 – 2015.
6
Objectives
The goal of the workshop is to define environmental problems connected with tourism
development in High Arctic and to elaborate recommendations for sustainable tourism
development.
Participants
Participants were representatives from “Russian Arctic”, Norwegian Directorate of nature
management, Norwegian Polar Institute, Norwegian Institute of Nature Science,
Governor of Svalbard, Russian government officials from federal and regional levels,
museums, funds and research interests. The tourism industry was represented by:
AECO.
AECO:
Hapag-Lloyd Kreuzfahrten:
Poseidon Expeditions:
Poseidon Expeditions:
Lindblad Expeditions:
Terra Polaris:
Frigg Jørgensen, Executive director
Ko de Korte, Oceanwide Expeditions
Thilo Natke
Marina Vlasova
Katerina Petrova
Magnus Forsberg
Andreas Umbreit
Program/speakers
Main topics were:
 Attractiveness Svalbard vs Franz Josef Land
 Tourism development in Arctic
 Vulnerable Arctic
 Framework and management of the Arctic
Russian Arctic presented plans for development on FJL. ¨
 Clean-up
 Helipads
 Museum
 Wooden boardwalks
 Huts/infra-structure for park representatives
 Site guidelines
The number of visitors was app 1000 in 2012. The perspective for 2013 is a decline in this
numbers.
AECO presented “Sustainable tourism – challenges and opportunities seen from the Arctic
tourist operator’s perspectives.”
Presentations were followed by small work-shops and the tourism industry was
challenged to develop a “wish-list” for tourism development in Russian Arctic.
7
After the tourism-industry had presented the wish-list in plenum, AECO was asked to lead
the continuous discussion and help conclude on each issue. This turned out to be the final
part of the work-shop.
Issues raised by the tourism industry, discussed and agreed in plenum, were as follows:
1. Permissions
Background
Today’s bureaucracy in regards to the permitting process is very difficult to
manage, especially for foreign operators. Most operators have therefore seen no
other options than to use a Russian agent. It is an expensive and uncertain
process. Final permissions are often not received until very short time ahead of
travel. This unpredictability does not correspond with the need to market and sell
cruises months and years ahead of travel.
Industry-wish
The tourism industry would like to see one permitting body in charge all necessary
paperwork, permission to be given up to 18 months ahead of travel – and
permissions obtained for a reasonable price.
Russian Arctic comments
See #2
2. Port of entry at FJL
Background
The requirement to sail via Russian mainland for visa clearance and customs,
before visiting Russian Arctic is a major hinder for expedition cruise tourism
development in Russian Arctic. The sailing from Svalbard to Murmansk and north
again to FJL is very time-consuming, costly (fuel , extra port costs, etc), not
environmentally-friendly and not very interesting for passengers.
Industry-wish
The cruise industry would like to be able to sail directly from Svalbard to FJL and
v.v. If visa and costume clearance could be made available in FJL and vessels
could sail directly to/from Svalbard, there would be potentials for considerable
increase in tourism to Russian Arctic.
Russian Arctic comments
Russian Park administration has limited influence on federal regulations, included
issues connected to visa, customs and permitting. But, we see and understand the
problem and will argue and try to influence on changes in direction of what has
been discussed. We are very interested in co-operation with the tourism industry,
although it is new to us. We would also appreciate help from the industry, e.g.
through a feasibility study. It the industry can help to illustrate which potentials
there if things are changed, this would give arguments. We need to find out what
solutions will cost and what the industry will be willing to pay. Also, are there
other options e.g. flying in passengers to ships?
3. Limit to one representative from the Russian Arctic/authorities onboard vessels
8
Background
When sailing in Russian Arctic operators needs to take observers and bear-guards
from Russian Arctic and representatives from the agent on board. This often adds
up to many berths/several cabins (and loss of income), which is really expensive
for the operators. In other Arctic regions operators are charge of polar-bear
protection and routines are regulated by e.g. AECO guidelines. Russian Arctic has
no influence on agent representation on board.
Industry-wish
Operators would like to carry out the same in Russian Arctic and would like to see
park representatives limited to one person on board (zero if representatives are
located on FJL). If this person have knowledge of the area it is consider a valuable
add-on to the product.
Russian Arctic comments
When Russian Arctic shortly will receive formal status as national park, some
regulations fall under the park’s jurisdictions. It might be possible to meet some of
these needs/wishes and Russian Arctic will look into potential solutions.
4. Consultancy/dialogue/co-operation with the industry
Background
Many steps have already been taken in regards to development in Russian Arctic,
included development of framework, infra-structure plans and plans for site
guidelines.
Industry wish
The tourism industry would like dialogue and potential co-operation with Russian
Arctic and other interest in regards to development of the tourism, included
discussions on infra-structure needs, regulation hearings, etc. AECO also suggest
partnership to develop site guidelines and finally encourage Russian Arctic to
consider if AECO membership could be required for operations in the national
park.
Russian Arctic comments
Russian Arctic is open for co-operation with the industry, although has limited
experience with such co-operation. They are thankful for the offer to co-operate
on a site guidelines project.
Wrap-up
Russian Arctic sees great value in the co-operation with Norway in this project. They
suggest continuing to meet, next year in Svalbard followed by a potential inspection in
FJL. This is supported by the Norwegian partner, DN, but finances have to be found.
On request from “Russian Arctic”, the work-shop was followed up with a small survey among all
AECO-members, relating to potential cruise tourism development in Russian Arctic. It turns out
that there is a great interest among members to organize cruises to Franz Josef Land, but the
regulatory issues are in the way for a lager development in the short run.
9
Meanwhile “Russian Arctic” and AECO have further discussed what it would take to include the
national park in its geographic range. “Russian Arctic” has on AECO’s request considered if there
are larger conflicts between AECO’s guidelines and present management in the national park
which could make such an expansion difficult. It seems like there are a few small issues, but that
these issues can be worked out.
In the membership survey conducted in August 2013, a greater majority of AECO’s members are
in favor of expanding AECO’s geographic range to include Russia right away or within 1-2 years.
Costs
Like explained under Canada, any efforts involving costs are covered by membership fees
collected in Svalbard and Greenland. This is probably only acceptable as long as there is a plan
for when operators with activity in the areas in questions, starts to contribute.
Way forward – What can AECO do in “Russian Arctic”
Expanding to “Russian Arctic” is a much smaller expansion than expanding to Canada. The
challenges have been indentified and described above, although not all of the issues can be
expected “sorted out” in the short run. But there is a large willingness in local administration to
co-operate with AECO – and the initiative to expand comes form that side. This is considered
extremely valuable for a development.
AECO and local administration has joint interest in efforts that can increase tourism to “Russian
Arctic”. With an expansion, AECO can work together with “Russian Arctic” in achieving the
objective.
10