According to Assuranceforeningen Gard, a well prepared and trained crew and an experienced and trained ice navigator is one of the most important aspects when the insurance shall be negotiated. An important factor would be how many times the ice navigator has made this route before. And whether crews are prepared for winter navigation? However, previous discussions in this chapter have shown that the international and national requirements for crews and ice navigators in the NSR and NWP are very limited. Neither are the ship owners’ requirements. This could mean that large parts of crews operating in the Arctic have limited training. On the other hand, it would be difficult for underwriters to examine the crew's operational basis, since there, yet, is no international recognized educational certificate.

Available SAR facilities diverge between different Arctic areas. It is reasonable to conclude that the SAR facilities generally are more accessible on the NSR than on the NWP. One of the issues ship owners are facing is whether the vessel will sail on the NSR independently or with the icebreaker assistance. One might think that any use of icebreaker assistance would reduce the risk of accidents significantly. However, the available statistics of hull damage average frequency on the NSR shows that approximately 10% of ice damage to ships occurs when navigating independently; 60% of damage occurs when following an icebreaker; and the remaining 30% results from towing (see figure 5.5). Furthermore, it is still unclear whether these statistics are valid and significant. It does not state, for example, how much of the operations that have taken place in winter and/or summer season, or the specific areas operated along the NSR. Other SAR factors of importance for underwriters would be the availability of electronic maps, real time ice information, weather forecasts and how many days ahead the weather forecast would be reliable. Moreover, are there any SAR units available within a reasonable distance? And how much time does it take for any rescue unit to arrive in terms of the sea route’s total extent?

Availability of Arctic ports and port facilities differs from the NSR and the NWP. Nonetheless, there are very few ports along the NSR that meets modern southern port standards. The underwriters would base their risk assessments on many of the criteria discussed in this chapter. Typical issues would relate to available facilities such as; are there ice free ports available?  Is there available icebreaker assistance and/ tugs when vessels entering the port? Are there adequate loading/unloading facilities? Any transhipment challenges?  One of the main obstacles identified along the NSR, for instance, is lack of adequate water depths suitable for potential vessels trading into the ports. There are all factors that would be important when underwriters consider the likelihood for any damage to cargo and vessels when using the ports.

Previous studies show that the international insurance market would be willing and able to underwrite NSR risks. Nevertheless, lack of empirical data and significant statistics makes it difficult for marine insurance underwriters to compose an overall risk assessment related to the risks of the various Arctic shipping routes. As a result, the provision of insurance for Arctic shipping tends to be on a case-by-case basis. Some statistics are available, based on Russian marine traffic (1954-1990). Approximately 10% of ice damage to ships occurs when navigating independently; 60% of damage occurs when following an icebreaker; and the remaining 30% results from towing, grounding and other operations in ice. However, further research is required in order to examine the risk.