Indigenous peoples, including Inuit whose rights and culture are legally enshrined in the region through several settled land claim agreements collectively encompassing Inuit Nunangat (i.e., Inuit homeland in Arctic Canada) (Figure 15.1), have for centuries utilized Canadian Arctic waters in support of subsistence and trade. Early European settlers later used these waterways to engage in whaling activities and have for years aspired to engage in formal international maritime trade via the Arctic. The most famous of these aspirations involved the race to discover the Northwest Passage, a route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through Arctic Canada.1 During what is often referred to as the heroic age of Arctic exploration, the ill-fated Franklin expedition failed in its attempt to discover and traverse the complete Northwest Passage, leaving behind a collection of mysteries, cultural heritage, and folklore of a time now long past.
Map of marine regions in Arctic Canada. Legend: EMRLCA–EEYOU Marine Region Land Claims Agreement; NA- Nunavut Agreement; NILCA–Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement
COURTESY OF ENVIRONMENT, SOCIETY & POLICY GROUP, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
What is not long past since these historic days of exploration, however, is the continued and unrelenting global desire to exploit the Northwest Passage in support of trade, tourism, transportation, and other prosperous economic activities.2 Until relatively recently, the reality of regular shipping through the Northwest Passage, and throughout Arctic Canada in general, was commonly
2 The Evolution of Shipping Activities in Canadian Arctic Waters
Many different types of marine vessels operate in the Canadian Arctic, each with distinct characteristics and cargo (Table 15.1). Over the past ten years, there has been a 150 percent increase in the number of unique ships in Arctic Canada—meaning there are an increasing number of ‘new entrants’ who lack localized expertise on the unique navigational challenges in the region.4 There has also been 300 percent increase in total voyages undertaken in the region, with the largest proportion of voyage increases attributed to cargo ships (community re-supply and servicing of mines), government vessels (military, search and rescue, and research), fishing vessels (small-scale commercial and non-commercial) and pleasure craft (commercial and personal yachts) (Figure 15.2 – left panel).5 In addition to the observed increases in the total number of unique vessels and the total number of voyages undertaken by these vessels, each of these vessels are now, on average, traveling further per voyage in terms of total kilometres traveled, than ever witnessed before. For example, the total number of kilometres travelled by all ships in Artic Canada has increased by over 75 percent in the past six years alone. These observations are underpinned by the fact that the characteristic season length of a shipping season in Arctic Canada has been increasing beyond the typical months of July, August and September, to include months earlier in the fall and later in the spring. This season length extension is largely attributable to climate change, although other broad factors such as globalization, commodity prices, demographics, and societal trends are certainly also at play.6
Main vessel types (AMSA class) found in the NORDREG zone
| Classification | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Government vessels and icebreakers |
|
|
| Container ships |
|
|
| General cargo |
|
|
| Bulk carriers |
|
|
| Tanker ships |
|
|
| Passenger ships |
|
|
| Pleasure craft |
|
|
| Tug / Barge |
|
|
| Fishing vessels |
|
|
| Oil and gas exploration vessels |
|
|
SOURCE: AFTER ARCTIC COUNCIL, ARCTIC MARINE SHIPPING ASSESSMENT (2009) [AMSA], HTTPS://WWW.PAME.IS/PROJECTS/ARCTIC-MARINE-SHIPPING/AMSA; DAWSON ET AL. 2016 (N 4)
Total annual voyage counts and unique ship counts in the Canadian Arctic between 1990 and 2019 (left). Total number of ship voyages for vessels with different levels of ice strengthening (i.e., by ice class (PC)). PC1 ships are highly strengthened, PC7 have medium strengthening, and 1B have little strengthening (right)
COURTESY OF ENVIRONMENT, SOCIETY & POLICY GROUP, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
The risks associated with sea ice change are only enhanced when considering the distribution of ice strengthened vessels that operate in Arctic Canada. Over the past decade the number of highly ice strengthened vessels (i.e., Polar Class 1, 2, 3) has decreased whereas the number of vessels with little to no ice strengthening (i.e., Polar Class 7 and 1B) have increased dramatically (Figure 15.2 – right panel).18 Climate models project a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next 30 years that will make key corridors more accessible even to non-ice strengthened vessels in summer months by mid-century and to moderately ice-strengthened vessels for 10–12 months a year by late century. This is significant to consider in the context of Canada’s limited capability to provide icebreaking services in the Canadian Arctic (see further Choi in this volume). This situation is only exasperated by the limited infrastructure and emergency response capabilities in the region, including a lack of critical search and rescue services, in the Canadian Arctic (see further Kikkert, Pedersen and Lackenbauer this volume).19 Recent research funded by Transport Canada has revealed that despite implementation of the Polar Code and clear operational guidelines for navigating in ice-infested waters, a number of vessels have still been found to be operating in elevated and high-risk ice areas, especially among non-ice strengthened vessels.20
The changing patterns and trends associated with shipping activities in Arctic Canada outlined here highlight the urgency of establishing effective governance frameworks for both managing and supporting shipping sector developments through Arctic Canada. The low-impact shipping corridors, if implemented effectively, could provide the backbone of what would be a revolutionary and visionary framework for supporting safe, sustainable and self-determined shipping in Arctic Canada.
As a management response to changing Arctic shipping activity and related levels of shipping risks in Canada, the Government of Canada began developing low-impact shipping corridors. These corridors are federally designated shipping routes representing the safest passage for sea vessels.21 The corridors are not mandatory, and voluntary compliance with these low-impact shipping corridors is encouraged by providing enhanced levels of infrastructure, navigational support, and emergency response services within these shipping corridors, motivating vessel operators to use these routes in order to reduce the risk to their crew and vessel.22 Existing regulatory frameworks still apply, such as the reporting requirement of certain classes of vessels in the Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone (see further Chircop in this volume who elaborates on the NORDREG reporting requirements; chapters by Bankes, Bartenstein and Buhler further outline the general governance framework relating to Arctic shipping).23 However, recognizing that the regulatory framework alone is not sufficient for ensuring safe marine transportation,24 an innovative aspect of the low-impact shipping corridors is that a softer approach is being employed by using incentivization, rather than relying on a ‘hard’ governance strategy that enforces mandatory compliance with established shipping routes.25 This voluntary approach represents, to some extent, a departure from classical prescriptive regulation that characterizes the Canadian legal regime for Arctic shipping, as described by Buhler in this volume. This approach could also potentially have implications for marine insurance as well, with respect
Preliminary versions of the low-impact shipping corridors were developed by the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Hydrographic Service in consultation with commercial master mariners and Canadian Coast Guard commanding officers, based on available information on ocean depth and historic shipping traffic over a period of three years (Figure 15.3).27 However, it soon became apparent that decisions on the location and management of these low-impact shipping corridors needed to be informed by a wider range of input through additional research and consultation.28 Such decisions should be based on considerations beyond existing traffic patterns and limited data from vessels that carry automatic identification system instrumentation.29 In particular, it was recognized that there was a need to further consider ecologically sensitive sites that could be impacted by future marine traffic, taking into account that those areas may change depending on the time of year and due to climate change.30
Low-impact shipping corridors in Arctic Canada
COURTESY OF ENVIRONMENT, SOCIETY & POLICY GROUP, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
Inuit and northern residents also highlighted that the location and management of low-impact shipping corridors should consider culturally sensitive marine areas, informed by the concerns and knowledge of Inuit and northern residents who live in and use these areas and whose way of life may be impacted by shipping traffic.31 Lajeunnesse and Lackenbauer (this volume) observe how, for decades, Inuit have raised concerns about the impacts of
Indigenous peoples, including Inuit, have noted that, historically, the knowledge of Indigenous peoples have often been excluded from decision-making affecting their homelands.35 It has been noted that by working with Inuit
In general, it has become clear that there is a need for a coordinated approach to developing and strategically managing the low-impact shipping corridors in the Canadian Arctic—and ensuring marine safety and environmental protection—through strategic collaborations amongst federal, Indigenous, provincial, territorial, academic and other non-governmental partners, particularly given the complex nature of the various regulatory
4 Identifying Culturally Significant Marine Areas for the Low-impact Shipping Corridors Framework
The Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices (ACNV)40 (www.arcticcorridors.ca) project began in 2015 with the goal of documenting and spatially mapping Inuit knowledge about shipping impacts on culturally significant marine areas (CSMA s) for the purpose of infusing new, local, and Inuit knowledge into the low-impact shipping corridors framework. At that time, the corridors framework had already considered historic ship traffic density, existing infrastructure, as well as ecologically and biologically significant areas, but thus far had neglected to include cultural components of marine use due to a lack of available information.41 The ACNV project, established out of the University of Ottawa and in consultation with the Canadian Coast Guard, was instrumental in filling in this information gap by implementing a community-based research partnership approach with a co-leadership model42 that involved a collaboration among southern-based university researchers, regional and national decision-makers, and northern-based Inuit and northern community
The ACNV project involved 59 Inuit and northern youth and over 150 expert knowledge holders who worked together using well-established marine spatial planning techniques in order to identify a series of CSMA s (Figure 15.4).43 CSMA s are marine areas that hold cultural importance to nearby communities, organized by season (i.e., including open water and non-open water season) (Figure 15.5). Aggregately, the CSMA s can be used to guide placement of the corridors officially through federal government processes, and can also be
ACNV community mapping workshop
COURTESY OF ENVIRONMENT, SOCIETY & POLICY GROUP, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
Culturally significant marine areas
COURTESY OF ENVIRONMENT, SOCIETY & POLICY GROUP, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
To fully understand the extent to which CSMA s and corridors are in conflict and the extent to which existing corridors as identified by the Government of Canada overlap with and may impact CSMA s, a spatial analysis was conducted as part of this project. Figure 15.6 provides an outline of ecologically and biologically significant areas (EBSA s) and CSMA s (left), including the extent to which these identified areas overlap, and EBSA s, CSMA s and low-impact shipping corridors (right), again displaying the extent to which these areas overlap. The analysis shows that 62 percent of the CSMA s identified by Inuit communities overlap with government identified EBSA s. This means that the remainder of these areas that do not overlap with EBSA s are not officially protected within federal regulations or within any official mechanisms. Should the Government of Canada formally adopt the CSMA s, this could change, but for now 38 percent of marine areas identified by Inuit as culturally significant are not officially recognized. When considering the extent to which CSMA s fall within or outside of the low-impact shipping corridors, we find that only 28 percent are within the corridors and 72 percent lay outside of the corridors. The areas where there is overlap between CSMA s and the low-impact shipping corridors (approximately 107,072 kilometres) occur within regions that may be difficult for ships to avoid, including through Hudson Strait, the western end of Lancaster Sound, and around Victoria Island.
CSMA s and EBSA s locations (left) and CSMA s and EBsA s inside identified low-impact shipping corridors (right)
COURTESY OF ENVIRONMENT, SOCIETY & POLICY GROUP, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
5 Strengths and Weaknesses of Low-impact Shipping Corridors
Another part of the ACNV project involved using a policy Delphi methodology through an iterative three-part survey to engage with rights holders, stakeholders, and other experts in Inuit Nunangat about their knowledge and perspectives about the management and governance of the low-impact shipping corridors. This involved a collaborative design process for the survey questions, involving external reviewers affiliated with federal, territorial, and regional governments, Inuit organizations, institutions of public government, shipping and cruise ship industry, universities and non-governmental organizations. This process produced a number of insights relevant to the
Summary of identified strengths and weaknesses of the low-impact shipping corridors framework
| Enhanced marine navigation safety | Strengths | Voluntary nature of the corridors enables vessel operators to be responsive to changing environmental conditions and avoid hazards by transiting outside the corridors when needed. |
| Helps to concentrate (improved) communication and navigational support, including charting, required to foster safer shipping in the region, thus strengthening Canada’s position as a global northern stakeholder. | ||
| Increases navigational safety for vessels to use (at their discretion) when voyage-planning and operating in Canadian Arctic waters. Also supports pre-season preparation and quicker response to incidents. | ||
| Simple, graphical way of providing guidance for ships on where they should go, and (Arctic community-identified) areas of concern to bypass. | ||
| Weaknesses | Compliance among ship operators may be a challenge as corridors are voluntary. Finding innovative approaches to compliance/conformity monitoring and communication with vessels will be critical to success. | |
| Cruise operators may actively avoid these corridors. The corridors framework does little to address the safety concerns raised by cruise ship traffic. | ||
| Keeping corridors up to date, making the corridors dynamic (temporally), collecting and integrating data, as well as communicating changes and anomalous events could be challenging. | ||
| A comprehensive monitoring system is required. Simply drawing lines on a map/chart indicating boundaries is not enough; without a strong AIS-based monitoring and surveillance system, as a waterways system the corridors will not be effective. A public-private partnership is needed, like the Marine Exchange of Alaska where industry, the United States Coast Guard, and the State of Alaska are partners in an effective ship-tracking system. | ||
| Concentrating most of the 21st century charting in the corridors will lead to potential marine accidents/disasters. With a voluntary system, vessels will venture outside the corridors. Charting the corridors must be only the first step in a larger charting plan. A development plan for additional charting, outside of the corridors, is missing. | ||
| The focus (physical size and placement) of the corridors is too narrow. They do not allow flexibility for normal navigation in ice-free conditions as well as in ice-covered conditions and may also cause congestion and detract from tourism experiences. This may increasingly be an issue due to climate changes and as historic shipping season dates change. The circumstances under which vessels may deviate from the corridors are not clearly laid out. | ||
| Minimizing ecological and cultural impacts | Strengths | Provides a foundation for measures to reduce the negative impact of vessel operations in the Arctic. |
| Values and utilizes Inuit and other Indigenous knowledge to identify local concerns and support decisions about corridor location and management. | ||
| Will support solutions to northern food insecurity by mitigating negative impacts on wildlife and harvesting areas. | ||
| Could be used as a tool for adaptive management of wildlife and the marine environment. | ||
| Weaknesses | Although corridors are important, understanding wider spread effects of shipping traffic beyond the corridors needs to be part of the conversation, with the ability to alter corridors if required. | |
| Corridors currently pass through protected areas and regions identified as culturally and ecologically significant. If Canada is to have effective corridors system in Arctic waters, many will pass through culturally and ecologically significant areas; this cannot be avoided unless Canada closes these waters to all traffic. | ||
| Inuit and local knowledge are not sufficiently documented to enable strategic planning in remote areas. | ||
| Guiding investment | Strengths | Provides an opportunity to harmonize economic development, Indigenous community priorities, and environmental protection. Provides a comprehensive framework for regional development and infrastructure investment. |
| Helps to focus deployment of limited federal resources for service delivery, search and rescue (SAR) including monitoring and emergency response (to spills, groundings etc.). | ||
| Weaknesses | Significant resources (capital, infrastructure, and human) will be required to provide the needed extensive coverage. | |
| Harmonizing economic development, Indigenous community priorities, and environmental protection is neither possible nor feasible with the corridor approach. All of these are driven by multiple external factors, not navigation rules and regulations. | ||
| The corridors framework will not be a primary driver of regional development and infrastructure investment. | ||
| Corridors placement resulting in vessel re-routing may impact existing economic activity such as commercial fishing or community re-supply. | ||
| Collaborative management | Strengths | Sets a vision and provides one platform i.e. a national governance structure, for management of Arctic shipping, taking into account social, Indigenous, environmental, and logistical considerations, and supports responsive, adaptive planning and refinement to respond to rights holder and stakeholder priorities. |
| Provides a framework under which Inuit and Government of Canada can try new models for shared operations including, potentially, shared authority for monitoring and reporting. | ||
| Provides an opportunity to try innovative approaches and establish Canada as a world leader in circumpolar marine policy. | ||
| Weaknesses | The complexity of the operating environment may make governance a challenge. The regulatory complexity of the region may not be addressed by the corridors approach. | |
| The process for developing corridors has lacked transparency and has not always included all stakeholders and rights holders appropriately. This may delay implementation and generate opposition and a lack of compliance. | ||
| The ongoing development of navigable corridors may lack input from ship operators due to budgetary constraints and failure to effectively communicate. | ||
| Interregional coordination may be a challenge. |
Many of the results of the Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices project reinforce, and shed new insights on, considerations that have been explored elsewhere with respect to Arctic shipping. The chapter in this
Lajeunesse and Lackenbauer (this volume) also describe how the prospect of Arctic shipping helped catalyze discussions of Inuit self-government in the past, highlighting the intricate historical link between Arctic shipping and Inuit self-determination. Knowledge holders in this project raised concerns about their lack of knowledge and lack of control over shipping activities affecting their sense of sovereignty, reinforcing the points made by Ell-Kanayuk (this volume) in explicitly connecting Inuit self-determination with Arctic shipping issues and highlighting the need for Inuit participation in Arctic shipping management. These corridors should therefore be managed in a manner that is sustainable, effective, in compliance with relevant land claim agreements and Indigenous rights (as outlined by Bankes and Lalonde in this volume), and
The low impact shipping corridors should be managed in a manner that is responsive and inclusive. This involves, among other things:
- –including Inuit in all stages of decision-making;
- –prioritizing Inuit communities’ perspectives;
- –giving equal consideration to Indigenous knowledge and western scientific methods;
- –meeting the needs of Inuit, allowing Inuit communities to benefit; and
- –providing essential services to ships and their crews.
The low impact shipping corridors should be managed in a dynamic manner, by:
- –incorporating not only federal government-sourced feedback, but also feedback from Indigenous communities;
- –addressing seasonal activities and informational needs, such as harvesting by Inuit, changing ice and weather conditions, and the presence or absence of wildlife;
- –communicating real-time information to ship crews and affected communities; and
- –enabling current and emerging priorities to be integrated into the low impact shipping corridors framework.46
Some of the strengths of the corridor’s framework identified by Carter et al. 2022 (see Table 15.2) are related to the role of Inuit and other Indigenous knowledge holders in supporting decisions about the location and management of low-impact shipping corridors. Inversely, one identified weakness was that the process for developing corridors has not always included all rights holders and stakeholders appropriately. As such, this relates to the first guiding principle for implementing low-impact shipping corridors management strategies in a manner that is inclusive, including involving Inuit in all stages of decision-making, prioritizing Inuit community perspectives and needs, and integrating Indigenous knowledge. Developing and managing the low-impact shipping corridors framework therefore requires not only considering the knowledge and concerns of those living in these very regions (such as Inuit
The community-based partnership approach of the ACNV project described in this chapter may serve as a useful practical model for how to operationalize such a collaborative and inclusive approach to managing Arctic shipping. As was done in the ACNV project, community partners can provide an integral role to help produce fulsome, informative, inclusive and accurate results to inform the development of the low-impact shipping corridors, by considering the needs of the community, leveraging local ties to maximize the engagement of the community, and providing invaluable locally-relevant guidance and logistical support.
Besides managing the low-impact shipping corridors in a responsive and inclusive manner, the results from the project suggest that this management should done in a dynamic manner, as captured in the second principle above. There is further substantial work to be done. The governance framework for Arctic shipping must be able to adapt effectively on an ongoing basis to account for the dynamic conditions of the Canadian Arctic due to climate change and increasing international interest in the region, as well to respond to changes in shipping traffic trends and the dynamic needs of communities and vessels.47
One of the weaknesses of the low-impact shipping corridors is that the complexity of the operating environment of Arctic shipping may make governance a challenge, as the corridors approach may not full address the regulatory complexities involved. Although the low-impact shipping corridors will be a useful management approach for governing many of the marine vessels that are traveling and will travel through the Canadian Arctic, further governance options will need to be explored for other types of marine vessels, such as tourism passenger ships and pleasure craft, which are known to travel through routes outside of these low-impact shipping corridors—including through ecologically or biologically significant marine areas and culturally significant marine areas—for tourism experiences, a concern noted when assessing the weaknesses of the corridors framework.48 As these Arctic
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding for chapter activities from the Canada Research Chairs program, Transport Canada’s Northern Transportation and Adaptation Initiative and other funders and supports of the Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices project (various funders listed at www.arcticcorridors.ca). The authors also acknowledge the large number of important researchers involved in the Arctic Corridors research project including Dr. Natalie Carter (among many others) who was the community research lead and guided mapping exercises to establish culturally significant marine areas. The views expressed in this chapter reflect the personal perspectives of the authors, and do not represent the views of their employers, the Government of Canada, or the Department of Justice Canada.
Larissa Pizzolato et al., Climate Change Adaptation Assessment for Transportation in Arctic Waters (CATAW) Scoping Study: Summary Report, Report prepared for Transport Canada (Ottawa: Transport Canada, 2013), 3, https://www.arcticcorridors.ca/?acr_download=%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F09%2FCATAW_Transport_Canada_DAWSON.pdf&v=1644502523620.
Id.; Stephen E.L. Howell et al., “Recent Changes in the Exchange of Sea Ice between the Arctic Ocean and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 118 (2013): 1– 13, doi: 10.1002/jgrc.20265; Stephen E.L. Howell and Mike Brady, “The dynamic Response of Sea Ice to Warming in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago,” Geophysical Research Letters 46:22 (2019): 13119–13125, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085116; Luke Copland, Jackie Dawson and Alison Cook, Impacts of Climate Change on Navigational Choke Points for Ships Operating in the Canadian Arctic, Report prepared for Transport Canada (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2021), 51; Stephen E.L. Howell and J.J. Yackel, “A Vessel Transit Assessment of Sea Ice Variability in the Western Arctic, 1969–2002: Implications for Ship Navigation,” Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 30:2 (2004): 205–215; Po-Hsing Tseng and Kevin Cullinane, “Key Criteria Influencing the Choice of Arctic Shipping: A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Model,” Maritime Policy and Management 54:4 (2018): 422–438; Jackie Dawson, Luke Copland, Alison Cook, Jean Holloway, and Will Kochtitzky, Analysis of Ice Navigational Risks by Level of Ice Strengthening among Vessels in the Canadian Arctic (1990–2019), Report prepared for Transport Canada (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2021), https://www.arcticcorridors.ca/?acr_download=%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F10%2FTC-Risk-Threshold-Draft-Report_Final_Mar31_2021.pdf&v=1644672569519.
“Inuit Nunangat Policy,” Government of Canada, last modified 21 April 2022, https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1650556354784/1650556491509.
Pizzolato et al. 2013 (n 1), p. 15; Copland et al. 2021 (n 2), p. 49; Jackie Dawson, Louie Porta, Seyi Okuribido-Malcolm, M. deHann and Olivia Mussels, Proceedings of the Northern Marine Transportation Corridors Workshop, December 8, 2015, Vancouver (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2016), 1, https://www.arcticcorridors.ca/?acr_download=%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F01%2FNMTC_Workshop_Proceedings.pdf&v=1644502523620; Larissa Pizzolato, Stephen E.L. Howell, Jackie Dawson, Frédéric Laliberté and Luke Copland, “The Influence of Declining Sea Ice on Shipping Activity in the Canadian Arctic,” Geophysical Research Letters 43:23 (2016): 12146–12154, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071489.
Dawson et al. 2021 (n 2).
Terry D. Prowse et al., “Implications of Climate Change for Economic Development in Northern Canada: Energy, Resource, and Transportation Sectors,” AMBIO 38:5 (2009): 272–281; Council of Canadian Academies, Commercial Marine Shipping Accidents: Understanding the Risks in Canada, Workshop Report (Ottawa: Council of Canadian Academies, 2016), https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/cca_marine_shipping_risks_en_fullreport.pdf; Jackie Dawson et al., Climate Change Adaptation Strategies and Policy Options for Arctic Shipping, Report prepared for Transport Canada (Ottawa, 2017).
Mark C. Serreze and Julienne Stroeve, “Arctic Sea Ice Trends, Variability and Implications for Seasonal Ice Forecasting,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 373 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0159; R. Kwok, “Arctic Sea Ice Thickness, Volume, and Multiyear Ice Coverage: Losses and Coupled Variability (1958–2018),” Environmental Research Letters 13 (2018), doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aae3ec; Emma J. Stewart, Stephen E. L. Howell, Dianne Draper, John J. Yackel and Adrienne Tivy, “Sea Ice in Canada’s Arctic: Implications for Cruise Tourism,” Arctic 60:4 (2007): 370–380; Tessa Sou and Gregory Flato, “Sea Ice in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago: Modeling the Past (1950–2004) and the Future (2041–60),” Journal of Climate 22:8 (2009): 2181–2198, doi: 10.1175/2008JCLI2335.1; Stephen E.L. Howell, A. Tivy, J.J. Yackel and R.K. Scharien, “Application of a SeaWinds/ QuikSCAT Sea Ice Melt Algorithm for Assessing Melt Dynamics in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 111:C07025 (2006): doi:10.1029/2005JC003193; Emmanuel Guy, “Evaluating the Viability of Commercial Shipping in the Northwest Passage,” Journal of Ocean Technology 1:1 (2006): 9–18; Adrienne Tivy et al., “Trends and Variability in Summer Sea Ice Cover in the Canadian Arctic Based on the Canadian Ice Service Digital Archive,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 116:C3(2011), doi:10.1029/2011JC007248; Josefino C. Comiso, “Large Decadal Decline of Arctic Multiyear Ice Cover,” Journal of Climate 25 (2012): 1176–1193, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00113.1; D.J. Cavalieri and C.L. Parkinson, “Arctic Sea Ice Variability and Trends, 1979–2010,” The Cryosphere 6 (2012): 881–889, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-881-2012.
Cavalieri and Parkinson (n 7).
Id.; Howell et al. 2013 (n 2); Howell and Brady (n 2).
Pizzolato et al. 2016 (n 4); V.C. Khon, I.I. Mokhov, I. M. Latif, V.A. Semenov and W. Park, “Perspectives of Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage in the Twenty-first Century,” Climatic Change 100:3–4 (2009): 757–768, doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9683-2; Adrienne Tivy et al. 2011 (n 7).
Sou and Flato (n 7); Scott R. Stephenson, Laurence C. Smith and John A. Agnew, “Divergent Long-Term Trajectories of Human Access to the Arctic,” Nature Climate Change 1 (2011) 156–160; Laurence C. Smith and Scott R. Stephenson, “New Trans-Arctic Shipping Routes Navigable by Mid-Century,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110:13 (2013): E1191–E1195, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214212110; F. Laliberté, S.E.K. Howell and P.J. Kushner, “Regional Variability of a Projected Sea Ice-free Arctic During the Summer Months,” Geophysical Research Letters 43:1 (2016): 256–263, doi: 10.1002/2015GL066855.
Howell et al. 2013 (n 2).
Copland et al. 2021 (n 2), p. 51.
Tseng and Cullinane (n 2), p. 35; Howell and Yackel (n 2); Dawson et al. 2021 (n 2), p. 35; Copland et al. 2021 (n 2), pp. 7, 42.
P. Kujala et al., “Review of Risk-based Design for Ice-class Ships,” Marine Structures 63 (2019): 181–195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2018.09.008. See, for example, incidents of pleasure craft sinking in Chris Mooney, “Even Small Boats Are Tackling the Fabled Northwest Passage. The Ice Doesn’t Always Cooperate,” The Washington Post, 9 August 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/09/we-wanted-to-be-early-northwest-passage-adventurers-held-back-by-lingering-ice/; “Coast Guard Rescues 2 Passengers of Sinking Sailboat Stranded on Ice Floe,” CBC News North, 29 August 2018, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/coast-guard-sail-boat-rescue-1.4804102; Katie Toth, “Fog, Ice and a Sinking Sailboat Involved in 16th Arctic-based Emergency of the Year,” CBC News North, 5 September 2018, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-rescue-coast-guard-1.4810420; Government of Canada, “Canadian Coast Guard 2018 Arctic Operations Coming to an End,” Canadian Coast Guard News Release, 19 November 2018, https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-coast-guard/news/2018/11/canadian-coast-guard-2018-arctic-operations-coming-to-an-end.html.
Dawson et al. 2021 (n 2), p. 1.
Cecilie Mauritzen and Erik Kolstad, “The Arctic Ocean: An Ocean in Transition” in Marine Transport in the High North, eds., John Grue and Roy H. Gabrielson (Oslo: The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, 2011), 25–36; Larissa Pizzolato et al., “Changing Sea Ice Conditions and Marine Transportation Activity in Canadian Arctic Waters Between 1990 and 2012,” Climatic Change 123:2 (2014): 161–173; Copland et al. 2021 (n 2), p. 49.
Dawson et al. 2021 (n 2), pp. 21, 50; Pizzolato et al. 2014 (n 17); Jackie Dawson et al., “Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Ship Traffic in the Canadian Arctic from 1990 to 2015,” Arctic 71:1(2018): 15–26, https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4698; Luke Copland et al., “Changes in Shipping Navigability in the Canadian Arctic Between 1972 and 2016,” Facets 6:1 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0096.
Copland et al. 2021 (n 2), pp. 49, 53; Dawson et al. 2021 (n 2), pp. 35–36.
Dawson et al. 2021 (n 2).
Dawson et al. 2017 (n 6), pp. 9, 113; Dawson et al. 2021 (n 2), p. 1; Louie Porta, Erin Abou-Abssi, Jackie Dawson, and Olivia Mussells, “Shipping Corridors as a Framework for Advancing Marine Law and Policy in the Canadian Arctic,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal 22:1 (2017): 63–84, at 65; Transport Canada, “Government of Canada introduces new measures to protect the marine environment and coastal communities in Canada’s Arctic,” News Release, Government of Canada, 27 August 2017, https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2017/08/government_of_canadaintroducesnewmeasurestoprotectthemarineenvir.html.
Porta et al. 2017 (n 21), p. 78; Dawson et al. 2017 (n 6), p. 105; Canadian Coast Guard (n 21).
Transport Canada, Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System (AIRSS) Standards, 2nd ed. (TP 12259E, January 2018), https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/migrated/tp12259e.pdf; Porta et al. 2017 (n 21), p. 71.
For example, Vincent, Lovejoy and Bartenstein (this volume) note that the establishment of marine protected areas as conservation zones has not always been successful in limiting ship traffic, and are not necessarily always designed to do so.
Porta et al. 2017 (n 21), p. 73; Dawson et al. 2016 (n 4), p. 2.
Dawson et al. 2016 (n 4), p. 2; Porta et al. 2017 (n 21), p. 68; Transport Canada 2017 (n 21); Canadian Coast Guard (n 21).
Dawson et al. 2016 (n 4), p. 2; Rene Chénier, Loretta Abado, Olivier Sabourin and Laurent Tardif, “Northern Marine Transportation Corridors: Creation and Analysis of Northern Marine Traffic Routes in Canadian Waters,” Transactions in GIS 21:6 (2017): 1085–1097, doi:10.1111/tgis.12295; Jackie Dawson et al., Tourism Vessels and Low Impact Shipping Corridors in Arctic Canada: Trends, Risks, Community Perspectives and Management Strategies (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2021), 7, doi: 10.20381/d3dd-yk49.
Dawson et al. 2017 (n 6), p. 107; Dawson et al. 2016 (n 4), pp. 3–4.
Porta et al. 2017 (n 21), p. 67; Dawson et al. 2016 (n 4), p. 4.
Porta et al. 2017 (n 21), p. 78; Dawson et al. 2017 (n 6), pp. 106, 111.
Dawson et al. 2016 (n 4), p. 4; Porta et al. 2017 (n 21), pp. 73, 78; Natalie Ann Carter, Jackie Dawson, Natasha Simonee, Shirley Tagalik and Gita Ljubicic, “Lessons Learned through Research Partnership and Capacity Enhancement in Inuit Nunangat,” Arctic 72:4 (2019): 381–403, https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic69507 at 384.
Claudio Aporta, “The Trail as Home: Inuit and Their Pan-Arctic Network of Routes, “Human Ecology 37:2 (2009): 131–146, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9213-x; Gita J. Laidler et al., “Travelling and Hunting in a Changing Arctic: Assessing Inuit Vulnerability to Sea Ice Change in Igloolik, Nunavut,” Climatic Change 94:3–4 (2009): 363–397, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9512-z; Igor Krupnik, Claudio Aporta, Shari Gearheard, Gita J. Laidler, and Lene Kielsen Holm, eds., SIKU: Knowing Our Ice: Documenting Inuit Sea-Ice Knowledge and Use (Dordrecht: Springer, 2010); Shari Fox Gearheard et al., eds., The Meaning of Ice: People and Sea Ice in Three Arctic Communities (Hanover, NH: International Polar Institute Press, 2013).
Matilde Tomaselli et al., “Iqaluktutiaq Voices: Local Perspectives about the Importance of Muskoxen, Contemporary and Traditional Use and Practices,” Arctic 71:1 (2018): 1–14, https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4697; John Bennett and Susan Rowley, eds., Uqalurait: An Oral History of Nunavut (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004); Ashlee Cunsolo Willox et al., “From This Place and of This Place: Climate Change, Sense of Place, and Health in Nunatsiavut, Canada,” Social Science and Medicine 75:3 (2012): 538–547, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.043; Agata Durkalec, Chris Furgal, Mark W. Skinner, and Tom Sheldon, “Climate Change Influences on Environment as a Determinant of Indigenous Health: Relationships to Place, Sea Ice, and Health in an Inuit Community,” Social Science and Medicine 136–137 (2015): 17–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.026.
Dawson et al. 2016 (n 4), p. 6; Pew Charitable Trusts, The Integrated Arctic Corridors Framework: Planning for Responsible Shipping in Canada’s Arctic Waters (Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016), https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/04/the-integrated-arctic-corridors-framework.pdf; Natalie Ann Carter, Jackie Dawson, Jenna Joyce and Annika Ogilvie, Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices: Governing Marine Transportation in the Canadian Arctic (Arviat, Nunavut Community Report) (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2017), https://doi.org/10.20381/RUOR36924; Natalie Ann Carter, Jackie Dawson, Jenna Joyce and Annika Ogilvie, Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices: Governing Marine Transportation in the Canadian Arctic (Gjoa Haven, Nunavut Community Report) (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2017), https://doi.org/10.20381/RUOR36911; Natalie Ann Carter et al., Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices: Governing Marine Transportation in the Canadian Arctic (Pond Inlet, Nunavut Community Report) (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2018), https://doi.org/10.20381/RUOR37271; Natalie Carter et al., Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices: Governing Marine Transportation in the Canadian Arctic (Cambridge Bay, Nunavut Community Report) (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2018), https://doi.org/10.20381/RUOR37325; Chénier et al. (n 27); Jackie Dawson et al., “Infusing Local Knowledge and Community Perspectives into the Low Impact Shipping Corridors: An Adaptation to Increased Shipping Activity and Climate Change in Arctic Canada,” Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020): 19–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.11.013; Environment, Society and Policy Group (ESPG), Arctic Corridors Research for Policy on Shipping Governance in Arctic Canada (Ottawa: ESPG, University of Ottawa, 2019), http://www.arcticcorridors.ca.
Shari Gearheard and Jamal Shirley, “Challenges in Community-Research Relationships: Learning from Natural Science in Nunavut,” Arctic 60:1 (2007): 62–74, https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic266; Northern Governance Policy Research Conference (NGPRC), NGPRC Draft Recommendations. Recommendations from the NGPRC, 3–5 November 2009 (Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, 2009); Deborah McGregor, Walter Bayha and Deborah Simmons, “Our Responsibility to Keep the Land Alive: Voices of Northern Indigenous Researchers,” Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health 8:1 (2010): 101–123; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), National Inuit Strategy on Research (Ottawa: ITK, 2018), https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ITK_NISR-Report_English_low_res.pdf.
Dawson et al. 2016 (n 4), p. 8; ITK 2018 (n 35), p. 76.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021, c 14; Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, “Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework,” Government of Canada, last modified, 18 November 2019, https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1560523306861/1560523330587; “Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous Peoples,” Government of Canada, last modified 1 August 2021, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-principes.html; Advisory Panel on Federal Support for Fundamental Science, Investing in Canada’s Future: Strengthening the Foundations of Canadian Research (2017), http://www.sciencereview.ca/eic/site/059.nsf/vwapj/ScienceReview_April2017-rv.pdf/$file/ScienceReview_April2017-rv.pdf.
Dawson et al. 2016 (n 4), p. 6; Porta et al. (n 21), p. 74. For more discussions on the importance of including Indigenous perspectives, see also Nicolien van Luijk et al., “At the Front Lines of Increased Shipping and Climate Change: Inuit Perspectives on Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security,” Arctic Yearbook (2021), https://arcticyearbook.com/arctic-yearbook/2021/2021-scholarly-papers/379-at-the-front-lines-of-increased-shipping-and-climate-change-inuit-perspectives-on-canadian-arctic-sovereignty-and-security.
Dawson et al. 2016 (n 4), pp. 8–9; David L. VanderZwaag et al., Governance of Arctic Marine Shipping (Halifax: Marine & Environmental Law Institute, 2008); Porta et al. (n 21), pp. 65–66.
In May 2021, the ACNV project received the Governor General’s Innovation Award, in recognition for the project’s collaborative approach. Given the success of this project, the community-based partnership model of the ACNV project may serve as a useful model for ensuring all relevant data is available—including the knowledge and perspectives of Inuit and northern communities—for informing policy and decisions in other areas of marine activity management and planning.
Carter et al., Arviat, Nunavut Community Report (n 34); Carter et al., Gjoa Haven, Nunavut Community Report (n 34); Carter et al., Pond Inlet, Nunavut Community Report (n 34); Carter et al., Cambridge Bay, Nunavut Community Report (n 34); Dawson et al. 2020 (n 34).
For full details of the methods used in this project, see Jackson Dawson et al., “Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices Project: Methods for Community-based Participatory Mapping for Low Impact Shipping Corridors in Arctic Canada,” MethodsX 7 (2020): 101064, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.101064.
The results of the ACNV can be found on the project website: https://www.arcticcorridors.ca/reports/.
Dawson et al. 2020 (n 34).
Porta et al. (n 21), p. 68.
Natalie A. Carter, Jackie Dawson, and Annika Stensland, Opportunities and Strategies for Effective Management of Low Impact Arctic Shipping Corridors (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2022), doi: 10.20381/epj4-fz32 (emphasis in original) [Carter et al. 2022].
Dawson et al., 2016 (n 4), p. 9.
Dawson et al., 2021 (n 4), p. 23; Jackie Dawson, Emma J. Stewart, Harvey Lemelin and Daniel Scott, “The Carbon Cost of Polar Bear Viewing in Churchill, Canada,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18:3 (2010): 319–336, doi:10.1080/09669580903215147; Jackie Dawson et al., “Ethical Considerations of Last Chance Tourism,” Journal of Ecotourism 10:3 (2011): 205–262, doi:10.1080/14724049.2011.617449; Jackie Dawson, M.E. Johnston and E.J. Stewart, “Governance of Arctic Expedition Cruise Ships in a Time of Rapid Environmental and Economic Change,” Ocean & Coastal Management 89(2014): 88–99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.12.005.; Harvey Lemelin et al., “Last Chance Tourism: The Doom, the Gloom and the Boom of Visiting Destinations,” Current Issues in Tourism 13:5 (2010): 477–493, doi: 10.1080/13683500903406367; Adrianne Johnston, Margaret E. Johnston, Jackie Dawson and Emma Stewart, “Challenges of Arctic Cruise Tourism Development in Canada: Perspectives of Federal Government Stakeholders,” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 43:3 (2012): 335–347.