Arctic seafarers face various diffculties while working at sea, including cold weather, ice navigation, wind, extended daylight affecting circadian rhythms, and isolation. The fatigue seafarers experience while working in diffcult circumstances may have major ramifcations for their health, safety, and navigational safety. To prevent fatigue and related injuries, shipping companies must secure suffcient resources, including appropriate crewing levels, promote a strong safety culture, and facilitate smooth crew changes. With the lift of public health restrictions, more support and resources should be available for ship managers and crew. However, challenges arising from the limited infrastructure must be addressed with long-term plans by federal and territorial governments. In the development process of these Arctic shipping infrastructures, seafarers' health and safety need to be considered, including their access to healthcare and welfare services during the Arctic voyages. Such support can be enhanced through onboard occupational support (e.g. telemedical support) and port-based services in Arctic communities and near Arctic ports. Ports and other Arctic marine infrastructure can potentially improve living conditions in coastal populations, producing employment and assisting with the development of communities (WWF Arctic, 2022). Fostering cooperation and partnership between federal and territorial governments, Indigenous communities, and maritime industry stakeholders can be benefcial for addressing some of the challenges highlighted in this chapter.

Due to the travel restrictions and feldwork bans imposed by the university during the pandemic, this research also has signifcant limitations. With the support of online interviews, the authors obtained a preliminary understanding of maritime occupational health and safety challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, future studies are still required, preferably with onboard observation and interviews with Arctic seafarers, and an in-depth understanding of the health and safety challenges can be acquired. An in-depth understanding of Arctic seafarers' occupational health and safety challenges is essential to protect seafarers' health and well-being and ensure the future talent recruitment of the Canadian Arctic shipping sector.

**Acknowledgements** This research is funded by the Ocean Frontier Institute, a grant by Canada First Research Excellent Fund (CFREF). This research also receives fnancial support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, through Operating Grant: Emerging COVID-19 Research Gaps and Priorities—Differential Impact of Covid-19 on Historically Excluded or Underserved Populations (EG2-179434) and the Memorial University of Newfoundland through the Seed, Bridge, and Multidisciplinary Fund (Ref: 20210387) and Special Award of the Vice-President Research and the Dean of Medicine (Ref: 20201883). Special thanks for the revision suggestions of Professors Aldo Chircop and Claudio Aporta and the editorial support of Ms. Susan Rolston and Ms. Cory Ochs.

# **References**

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Chapter 14 Conclusion**

## **Ronald Pelot , Aldo Chircop , Floris Goerlandt , and Claudio Aporta**

**Abstract** This concluding chapter serves to elaborate and extrapolate some of the main points delivered throughout this book's collection of complementary perspectives on area-based management (ABM) applied to maritime shipping. Researchers and practitioners in this continuously developing feld of ABM can beneft from the diverse perspectives provided in this text, which are synthesized according to key facets, namely, the purpose of ABM and basic principles that mould its construction and application; the role of risk governance and risk analysis in shaping ABM applications and for determining how shipping-related risks may thus be mitigated; how marine spatial planning (MSP), another rapidly growing tool that systematically advances sustainable management of marine areas, intersects with the suite of ABM tools; and what comprises good practices when implementing ABM processes and tools. The chapter concludes with some remarks on fruitful areas for additional research that may further strengthen ABM.

**Keywords** ABM risk governance · ABM good practices · ABM principles · ABM terminology · ABM tools · International Maritime Organization · Marine spatial planning

A. Chircop

C. Aporta Marine Environmental Protection, World Maritime University, International Maritime Organization, Malmö, Sweden e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
R. Pelot (\*) · F. Goerlandt

Department of Industrial Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Marine & Environmental Law Institute, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
# **14.1 Our Goal**

This book explored the theory and practice of area-based management (ABM) of shipping at a time of growing demand from decision-makers and the academic community for more effective ocean governance. We focused on shipping because, as observed in Chap. 1, the ship is a critical platform for human use of ocean space. It is an instrument of industrialization, and therefore control over its mobility and performance standards is critical to ocean management, as well as the management of port areas and coastal zones, as explained in Chaps. 2, 3, 5, and 11. At the core of the contemporary ABM discourse is the spatial management and regulation of ocean uses to enhance maritime safety, mitigate environmental impacts, facilitate the decarbonization of economies, and ensure good governance of the ocean commons. The contributors to this book explored the relationships between risk, spatial designation, and functions in ABM theory and in the process sought insights into the approach to the use of ABM tools for problem-solving in ocean space and over time and the related costs and expected benefts.

Beyond the conclusions reached by each chapter, we now conclude with what we have learned from this collective endeavour in the big scheme of things. In the introduction we set out questions to guide our explorations and to which we group our refections under fve major themes, namely, ABM terminology, purpose, and scope; the norms and principles that guide ABM; the relationship of ABM to ocean management and marine spatial planning (MSP); the relevance of risk governance and management to ABM in shipping; and ABM good practices. Our refections are tentative because we also conclude that more research is needed to strengthen our knowledge and skill in using ABM tools. Hence, we identify possible directions for future research.

# **14.2 What We Have Learned**

# *14.2.1 ABM Terminology, Purpose, and Scope*

In the shipping context, ABM comprehends a wide suite of tools that are frequently invoked by practitioners and scholars alike, while not always clarifying what they mean or distinguishing between the different tools. ABM is more than just a buzzword and is a useful and proven approach in managing shipping using multiple tools for specifc applications and thereby enhances ocean management, as our observations of ABM shipping practices in Canada suggest in Chaps. 2 and 11. Among others, they are used regularly to ensure safe traffc and manage vessel-source pollution. Most ABM tools in international shipping are adopted in the technocratic meetings of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) according to sound scientifc and technical criteria and usually without political fanfare. They may be mandatory or voluntary, and the level of authoritativeness does not necessarily mean less effectiveness.

Functionally, ABM has been practised long before the coining of the term in the recently adopted *Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction*, 2023 (BBNJ Agreement, 2023, art 1(1)).1 Several existing international agreements, such as the conventions of IMO, provide for a range of tools that today should be considered to be examples of ABM, as discussed in Chap. 2. What the BBNJ Agreement has done is to potentially extend the geographical and functional reach of some ABM tools, such as routeing measures and marine protected areas (MPAs), including MPA networks, to the high seas as explained in Chap. 4. The BBNJ defnition is drafted in an inclusive manner so to capture multiple ABM tools, rather than to focus on a single tool to achieve conservation and sustainable use objectives. Accordingly, by itself, the "ABM tool" defnition in the BBNJ Agreement is an organizational concept for a "class" of existing tools in ocean management and marine conservation that include MSP and other sectoral tools to manage navigation and shipping and other ocean uses.

In this book we attempted to understand the range and scope of such tools used directly to manage or regulate shipping or to achieve management or conservation goals by addressing human uses including shipping. As part of this exercise, we compiled a comprehensive—but not exhaustive—list of tools employed in shipping and marine conservation (see Chap. 2 appendix). Many of the tools we identifed and which we feel can be characterized as "ABM tools" are of old vintage and therefore have their own unique terminology, meaning, and technical scope. Obvious examples are special areas and emission control areas prescribed in the *International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/78* (MARPOL) and routeing measures designated by IMO under the authority of the *International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea* (SOLAS) (MARPOL, 1973/78, Annexes I, II, IV, V, VI; SOLAS, 1974, chap V).

ABM tools in shipping address many purposes, including sustainable ocean use, prevention or mitigation or solution of impacts produced by shipping, confict management, safety and security of shipping, and the delivery of services to shipping. They consist of standardized and fexible tools, hence their value for ocean governance. Standardized tools are those predetermined in international and domestic legal instruments and accompanying guidelines and whose application is replicable to enable effciency, consistency, predictability, and clarity, such as in the case of vessel traffc separation schemes for the prevention of collisions between ships (COLREGS, 1972, reg 10). Flexible tools, although enshrined in legal instruments, enable them to be tailored to a particular risk or conservation need in a specifc context. This can be done in a nimble manner when time is of the essence. For

1Article 1(1): "'Area-based management tool' means a tool, including a marine protected area, for a geographically defned area through which one or several sectors or activities are managed with the aim of achieving particular conservation and sustainable use objectives in accordance with this Agreement".

example, in Canada, speed restrictions in defned areas have been used to address urgent conservation concerns, such as ship strikes of North Atlantic right whales in Atlantic waters and Southern Resident killer whales in Pacifc waters (see Chap. 5, this volume). These tools address the impacts of shipping directly through prescribing rules and standards for vessel operations in defned areas. However, other ABM tools having a broader purpose and more general application, such as MPAs, have also addressed shipping among other ocean uses and conservation concerns. Indeed, MPAs are fexible tools designed with the conservation needs of each MPA concerned in mind, and shipping may be only one class of activities that is regulated in such areas (Oceans Act, 1996, s 35(3)(c)). Hence, there is a rich toolbox of ABM tools that can be used or fashioned for common and unique needs, and because of the diversity of purposes, there is no one single formula or procedure applicable to all ABM tools.

The geographical and functional scope of ABM tools in shipping is fexible and can be applied at different levels in ocean governance. At the domestic level, ABM tools may be applied at the national, regional, or local level. At the international level, they may be applied in a transboundary context, that is, between adjacent States, or at the regional level, or even on the high seas. In some regions, for example, in the Baltic and North Sea, multiple ABM tools have been adopted by IMO, and coordinated by the proponent States, to ensure the safety and continuity of routeing measures in transboundary settings, while at the same time safeguarding other marine uses in the vicinity of navigation routes, such as offshore oil and gas installations, offshore renewable energy activities, fshing areas, submarine cables and pipelines, and military use areas. Chapter 8 further illustrated how vessel traffc management is conducted in a coordinated manner in the European Union (EU).

At the regional level, the EU adopted a directive on MSP which member states are in the process of implementing in multiple regional seas (EU 2014). MSP enables them to undertake ABM at the highest level of ocean management through the establishment of "a framework for maritime spatial planning aimed at promoting the sustainable growth of maritime economies, the sustainable development of marine areas and the sustainable use of marine resources" within the Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union (ibid, art 1). Shipping is one of many ocean uses competing for limited space, producing multiple use interactions and impacts in the marine regions concerned (ibid, preamble, para 1). At yet a different level, and beyond national jurisdiction, the BBNJ Agreement provides for the adoption of ABM tools for application on the high seas, as described in Chap. 4. While this is not totally novel (because some MARPOL special areas, as in the case of the Mediterranean, have included high seas in part), the BBNJ Agreement has broken new ground by *expressly* providing for their designation in the ocean commons.

# *14.2.2 Norms and Principles Guiding ABM Tools*

Several international laws of the sea, maritime law, and environmental law instruments either provide a framework for the adoption of tools or even prescribe specifc tools (UNCLOS, 1982, arts 60, 211(6); BBNJ Agreement, 2023, arts 17-26; COLREGs, 1972, reg 10; MARPOL, 1973/78, Annexes I, II, IV, V, VI; SOLAS, 1974, chap V). Those tools are refected in turn at the domestic level, at least in Canada's case as explained in Chap. 5. The design and application of tools is normally a multidisciplinary scientifc exercise to defne the problem or risk; weigh environmental, social, safety, economic, and other factors; employ consultative processes; and result in authoritative decisions. In the case of mandatory and recommended routeing measures adopted by IMO, the procedure involves the submission of a technical proposal that must address various traffc and marine environmental considerations and include consultations with affected states and which is reviewed by a technical peer committee within IMO before they are adopted by the Maritime Safety Committee (IMO, 2003).

Accordingly, the use of ABM tools is purposive, not random, and highly rationalized and subject to principles and procedures. Apart from being a lengthy and deliberative technical process (IMO, 2003), the adoption of ABM tools at IMO is frequently an integral part of regulatory measures guided by principles applicable to the development of new and amendment of existing regulations. These include compelling need for the measure, consistency with other measures, proportionality to the risk or problem addressed, ftness for the intended purpose, resilience over time, and clarity for ease of implementation (IMO, 2015).

Moreover, since at least 1992, the use of ABM tools at the international and domestic levels has been infuenced by the principles of sustainable development, which include, inter alia, integration, ecosystem-based approach to management, precaution, polluter pays, environmental impact assessment, and inclusive participation (UNCED, 1992, principles 7, 10, 15-17, 22; Oceans Act, 1996, s 30). IMO took early steps to embrace precaution to developing "solutions to problems and consideration of new and existing policies, programmes, guidelines and regulations … in accordance with the precautionary approach" (IMO, 1995). In the era of ocean governance, greater emphasis is placed on inclusive approaches, rather than *dirigisme*, thus involving all interested and affected rightsholders, stakeholders, and the public at large. In this respect, and as explained in Chap. 5, Canada was an early starter in legislating a ministerial duty to lead and facilitate the development of integrated management plans that necessarily involved interdepartmental cooperation and a wide range of societal groups and interests (Oceans Act, 1996, ss 31–33).

# *14.2.3 ABM Relationship to MSP*

In the dynamic interplay between human activities (including shipping), the protection of marine ecosystems, and the well-being of coastal communities, it is relevant to ask whether ABM tools are effective enablers of good governance, or whether more integrated approaches, such as marine spatial planning, should be considered.

The taxonomy of ABM tools presented in Chap. 2 distinguishes those directly linked to shipping (e.g. designation of places of refuge) and others impacting shipping within broader management goals (e.g. national marine conservation areas). Many of these tools require collaboration between government/regulators and stakeholders, including rightsholders, particularly in managing shipping risks in sensitive areas requiring protection.

Arctic Canada, and particularly the development of the governance framework for the Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors, will perhaps be a unique opportunity for assessing ABM solutions for shipping and for inquiring whether more comprehensive approaches that address shipping within broader contexts of governance are needed. The vulnerability of Arctic marine ecosystems, the intensity and seasonal use of the marine space by Inuit coastal communities, the lack of accurate charts, the seasonal variations of the environment, and the intrinsic connections of shipping with many other activities (from mining to community supply) make the Canadian Arctic a case of special interest for future research.

The question of whether individual ABM measures should contribute to a broader marine spatial plan that integrates various ABM initiatives within a comprehensive framework is not limited to the Canadian Arctic. MSP, conceived as a "vision for the future" that is general in nature and that defnes long-term goals (Ehler & Douvere, 2009), could potentially provide a framework to initiatives like the Corridors. An integrated MSP approach may offer other benefts, including clear guidelines, datasharing platforms, streamlined decision-making, and coordination in the consultation and engagement process. But it may also present challenges.

Indeed, an inclusive integrated approach is in alignment with Canada's *Oceans Act* (1996), but this book has shown that many ABM tools appear to work and largely achieve their purposes (e.g. enhancing safety, mitigating vessel-source pollution) without an MSP framework in place. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the tools applied tend to have an institutional sectoral driver (e.g. Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, port authorities, Parks Canada). Naturally, this does not necessarily mean that a full-fedged integrated approach is not desirable or indeed needed, but it does suggest that using shipping ABM tools may promote pragmatic coordination of ocean use and management concerns.

The potential framing of specifc ABM initiatives within a broader MSP framework poses other challenges, including the resources and time needed to establish partnerships and collaborations, the efforts involved in intergovernmental coordination, and the establishment of complex governance bodies, but in the long term, the benefts of integration may be greater than the short- and medium-term challenges, as shown by the developments of the Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacifc

Coast (Diggon et al., 2022). For a comprehensive MSP framework to work, a critical approach that gives proper respect to local communities and that properly accounts for local knowledge is needed. An uncritical approach to MSP may perpetuate or even reinforce pre-existing conditions of power unbalance among stakeholders (Flannery et al., 2020).

Broader MSP or integrated frameworks may constitute an approach (ecosystembased, holistic, place-based or area-based, adaptive and capable of learning from experience, strategic and anticipatory, and participatory) that is generally aligned with the expectations of coastal communities and that is ontologically compatible with recognized Indigenous governance principles (Brondízio et al., 2021).

A lesson learned from some of the initiatives discussed in this book, and that remains true for both ABM and MSP, is that the pursuit of synergy across diverse knowledge systems, such as the intersection of Western scientifc methodologies and Indigenous knowledge, can present a transformative strategy to develop a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of the multifaceted issues associated with marine shipping activities in a given region (as discussed in Chap. 3). By tapping into the strengths of different knowledge systems, the decision-making process may access a wealth of insights, ensuring a more nuanced and well-informed approach to decision-making.

A culturally inclusive strategy may not only enhance the effectiveness of decision-making processes but also foster processes of engagement with Indigenous communities in alignment with the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC, 2015) and thus result in a more nuanced, culturally sensitive, resilient. and adaptive governance framework (see Chap. 6 for a detailed argument). This inclusivity may also result in management strategies that evolve in response to changing environmental dynamics and societal needs.

# *14.2.4 Relevance of Risk Governance and Management to ABM*

The use of ABM tools and the processes associated with their implementation can be approached through various lenses related to risk governance and management, with several examples of these addressed in various chapters of the book, notably in Chaps. 7, 10, 12, and 13. A frst high-level observation is that ABM can be readily understood as a mechanism of modern "risk societies" to cope with a variety of risks to ships and risks from ships to the ocean and coastal environment. In modernity, societies are self-refexive about the various risks created by scientifc, technological, and industrial progress, which produce possible but uncertain impacts on a makeable future. In this sense, ABM tools can be seen as risk mitigation measures devised by modern societies, which project their socio-cultural values and norms on marine areas, for example, by prioritizing marine conservation or enhancing safety of ships and humans at sea over economic exploitation or proft.

A second observation is that ABM tools are devised explicitly to address specifc aspects of shipping-related risks, as needed in defned areas, by imposing technical and operational actions and restrictions on ships navigating those areas. These ABM tools can be tailored to a specifc risk, such as traffc separation schemes for improving navigational safety or emission control areas for reducing the impacts of harmful air emissions. Other ABM tools can be devised to accommodate and direct different risk-inducing activities across a marine area, for example, MSP processes. Similarly, ABM tools provide fexibility to address one or several of the risk management phases, that is, prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.

Third, the fact that ABM tools aim to achieve desired policy outcomes, typically embedded in higher-order policy goals which refect the socio-cultural norms and values, implies that their selection and implementation are essentially a political undertaking. There can be different legitimate views among stakeholders and rightsholders related to the importance of and need for protecting or promoting certain values in a given marine area. Signifcantly, these can be justifed based on different value systems of the societal actors with an interest in the human activities in that marine area. Thus, while scientifc and technical knowledge is often a key element in supporting decisions on the need for ABM and in deciding on the specifc measures in its practical implementation, normative ambiguity and different worldviews among stakeholders and rightsholders must be considered in selecting, constructing, implementing, and monitoring ABM tools as a matter of good governance. Furthermore, as illustrated in case studies in Chap. 9 and elaborated theoretically in Chap. 6, special consideration should be given to Indigenous knowledge systems and their relation to fndings based on Western science, when Indigenous rightsholders have legitimate interests in the marine area under consideration. As explained in Chap. 2, this balancing act can be approached through a risk governance lens, with frameworks such as the International Risk Governance Council's Risk Governance Framework (IRGC-RGF) potentially providing a fruitful basis for strengthening the principles and processes associated with selecting, developing, implementing, and monitoring ABM tools, through distinguishing simple, complex, uncertain, and ambiguous risk types. For already implemented ABM measures, the IRGC-RGF can similarly serve to assess and evaluate the performance of the practical risk governance processes and activities and direct decision-makers in making improvements. This is exemplifed in Chap. 10, which focuses on risk governance defcits associated with oil spill pollution preparedness and response ABM tools in Canada.

A fourth observation is that to support decisions on and to support the practical implementation of ABM tools, various techniques, models, and computational tools have been developed. For some tools, techniques have been developed to explicitly analyse the shipping-related risks in a given marine area in terms of the probability of occurrence and severity of consequences of unwanted events, as elaborated in Chap. 7, for assessing navigational risks in waterways and to delineating traffc separation schemes. When devising such techniques, the chapter highlights the importance of attention by academics and understanding by decision-makers of the theoretical frameworks on which such techniques build, as this can have important implications for the validity and completeness of the fndings. For other ABM tools, techniques exist or are being developed to support strategic or operational decisionmaking without explicitly determining the risks, such as the maps depicting incident response service areas and incident response isochrones introduced in Chap. 12.

Based on the above, adopting a risk governance and management lens in the context of ABM can be benefcial especially as there are elaborate risk frameworks and techniques available to support the decision-making processes for and the design, implementation, and monitoring of ABM tools. Risk analyses are especially well-suited to gain insights into the complexities underlying the unwanted events and their consequences addressed by ABM tools, including the effects of associated risk mitigation measures. Understanding complexity is particularly important to anticipate undesired side effects of implementing risk mitigations in ABM tools. This is, for instance, highlighted by Hassellöv (2023) by focusing on the increased marine pollution and ecotoxicological risks to marine ecosystems caused by exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers), which are used on board vessels to attain their nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide emission limits in emission control areas established under MARPOL Annex VI.

An essential aspect of risk analysis and management is consideration of uncertainty in decision-making. When elaborate scientifc and technical evidence is available and uncertainties are low, risk-based analytical approaches that explicitly account for complexities (for instance, through quantitative scenario analyses) can be used to make trade-offs between decision alternatives, explicit or qualitative assessments of events, and acceptability of risks and consequences. However, when evidentiary uncertainties are large and/or when societal actors are in alignment on the values to protect, precautionary approaches to managing risks in marine areas can be the preferred routes to risk management. In this respect, established risk management standards such as ISO 31000:2018 (ISO, 2018) and frameworks such as the IRGC-RGF (IRGC, 2017) can form a fruitful basis for elaborating decisionmaking procedures, implementation and monitoring plans, and stakeholder and rightsholder engagement processes for existing or new ABM tools.

The issue of standardized versus fexible ABM tools (noted in Sect. 14.2.1) can also be viewed through a risk lens. Standardized tools to handle particular risks, such as traffc separation schemes to prevent collisions and grounding accidents, can be recommended when the risks, the risk-reducing effects of ABM tools, and the potential for unintended side effects of risk mitigation measures are wellunderstood and the associated complexities and uncertainties are relatively low. Other well-established ABM tools balance effciency, consistency, predictability, and clarity of legal instruments, with the fexibility inherent in the tool to tailor risk mitigations to the specifc context of the marine and coastal areas under consideration, accounting for local conditions, stakeholder views, presence of other legal requirements, and anticipated long-term developments of marine activities and marine ecosystems. As described in Sect. 14.2.3, MSP is an example of an ABM tool balancing standardization with fexibility concerns. In the EU, MSP has a clear legal basis in Directive 2014/89/EU establishing a framework for maritime spatial

planning for EU member states (EU, 2014). Additionally, elaborate guidelines exist to operationalize the specifc nature of an MSP in a given marine area to fexibly consider the local context, for example, the MSP global international guide on marine/maritime spatial planning (UNESCO-IOC/EC, 2021).

Other risks, which are less well scientifcally understood, and about which uncertainties are higher, or on which societal actors agree on the values to protect, can be mitigated through precautionary risk management approaches using standardized ABM tools. The establishment of MPAs, such as the Tuvaijuittuq MPA in the Canadian Arctic (Oceans Act Order, 2019), is an illustration of such an ABM use in the context of scientifc uncertainties on the effects on marine ecosystems of possible increased shipping and human activity in Arctic areas, which are themselves also uncertain.

Finally, for new and emerging risks for which prohibiting human activities in marine areas is undesirable or infeasible, ABM tools providing a high degree of fexibility in requirements and measures to regulate activities are recommended. While technical risk assessments often play an important role in fexibly setting requirements in such ABM tools, the ability of regulators to adopt resilient strategies to set and adapt requirements as new information becomes available is arguably of key importance. An example of such an ABM tool is the designation of specifc marine testbed areas to support the development and testing of new maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS), with accompanying guidance such as the IMO Interim Guidelines for MASS Trials and industry codes of practice, for example, the one produced by Maritime UK (IMO, 2019a; Maritime UK, 2020).

# *14.2.5 ABM "Good Practices"*

Instances of good practices for applying ABM tools are peppered throughout this book, with a sample sprinkled above in this chapter. However, a recap of good practices, and its antithesis, poor practices, must be tempered by the realization that the applicability and application of given ABM tools are very context specifc, so generalizations must be viewed cautiously. Traditionally, good/best practices refer to the established techniques, methods, processes, or activities that are recognized as being effective and effcient means of achieving desired outcomes in a given domain. These practices are often identifed through experience, research, and analysis and are widely accepted as superior to alternative approaches. Best practices are continually refned and updated based on new knowledge, technological advancements, and changing circumstances. They serve as benchmarks for excellence and are adopted by organizations to improve performance, streamline operations, reduce risks, and enhance outcomes.

Of these approaches to capture and convey good practices for ABM applications, experience is generally the best guide, but given the diversity of methods, scope, and contexts in the diverse cases as refected in the examples in this book, the identifcation of fairly similar situations is required to replicate successful preceding applications. For example, the approach taken to mitigate the risk of ship-whale collisions in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (see Chap. 2) through reactive speed reductions and/or route alterations is very different than the ABM planning process used to accommodate potentially harmful impacts on whales in the Canadian Arctic, where the community engagement is much more extensive, the consequences are more varied and diffuse, and the solutions are more persistent (see Chap. 9). Thus, other ABM initiatives elsewhere to deal with this type of problem must examine these and similar cases to see what aspects are translatable to the new situation, and even then, the relevant stakeholders, regulatory regime, environmental conditions, and other factors might differ signifcantly. This inexorably leads to the observation that a process of drawing upon good practices in ABM would rely on a substantial set of available, successful applications to discover potentially comparable conditions or more realistically that it is the underlying elements of the various tools and approaches which provide the foundation for good practice emulation, and not solely the specifc methods.

Key elements for good ABM design revealed throughout this book include the following. Some elements are universally benefcial for any ABM, while the relevance of other elements is context specifc and will not apply to all initiatives.

ABM application can sometimes accommodate distinct aims in order to provide opportunities to multiple groups and/or lessen the economic burden on any of the players.

There are of course challenges to adopting some of these elements in ABM design. Some diffculties may derive from the contradictory nature of certain aspects of ABM. For example, while some ABM plans should be dynamic and nimble, in general they must also be consistent enough to be captured in guidelines and regulations, to be understood by all affected parties, and stable enough to be monitored for continuous improvement. Another hurdle, well appreciated by practitioners, is that effective multi-stakeholder collaboration and compromise are often elusive, especially when the problem is a zero-sum game. Nevertheless, skilled negotiators can often arrive at solutions that distribute the benefts or risks across groups. Another concern is the apparent gap between the theory and practice of ABM. While this dichotomy arises in many domains, it may be particularly acute in ABM given the ongoing development of this management approach and its somewhat amorphous nature.

This brings us to the concluding point. Identifying and adopting good practices for ABM depends largely on the number and availability of past ABM case studies, as well as an approach for comparing, contrasting, and synthesizing the key elements from those processes. This in turn relies on those cases having a mechanism in place for capturing the principal aspects needed to infer best practices: the planning process that was followed from conception to implementation and the outcome that was achieved, which usually requires monitoring the changed activities over a substantial period of time. This information is often not available and constitutes one of the recommendations for future work in the next section, via increased performance evaluations of ABM implementations. Finally, such information, when produced, must be available to interested ABM practitioners, which is also a challenge as only a limited portion of it may be publicly available through academic

journals or government publications. Adding more mechanisms for sharing written information, as well as promoting best practices through training courses or open symposia, would be benefcial.

# **14.3 Directions for Future Research**

As we explored the theoretical foundations and practical explanations of ABM tools in shipping, we experienced knowledge gaps and the need for greater general understanding of the opportunities and limitations of ABM tools.

Although the design and adoption of ABM tools at IMO are generally accompanied by impact assessment processes, it appears that at least some tools, such as particularly sensitive sea areas (PSSAs) and MARPOL special areas, are not followed by periodic performance assessments leading to reviews to determine if they need to be adjusted, strengthened, or discontinued. Some ABM tools are kept under constant review (e.g., routeing measures for the periodically updated *Ships' Routeing*), but it is unclear whether these undergo periodic formal performance evaluation. IMO Member States requesting the designation of tools such as PSSAs are supposed to keep IMO informed (IMO, 2019b). Indeed, IMO's own guidelines provide that the organization "should provide a forum for the review and reevaluation of any associated protective measure adopted, as necessary, taking into account pertinent comments, reports, and observations of the associated protective measures" (IMO, 2005, para 8.4). Even if performance evaluations of PSSAs and special areas were to be undertaken, an appropriate and peer-reviewed framework would need to be developed. In comparison, guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of MPAs have existed for some time (Hockings et al., 2006). Periodic evaluations or audits are useful to enable the design of better and more effective tools. For this purpose, researchers could help develop a scientifcally supported framework for observation, monitoring, data collection, analyses, and reporting. There is an opportunity here because ABM tools adopted under the BBNJ Agreement must be monitored and periodically reviewed by the Scientifc and Technical Body, and for this purpose an evaluative framework would have to be developed (BBNJ Agreement, 2023, art 26).

On another front, Canada is joined by other countries around the world in looking at the identifcation and management of impacts from marine shipping on the ocean environment in a regional or area-based context (Samuel Mansfeld, personal communication, 16 February 2024). Regional assessments are extensive studies conducted in areas with existing or anticipated development that can guide land and marine planning efforts. These assessments are characterized by adaptability, as they involve a range of approaches and can encompass various activities, sectors, or specifc activities within a region. Moreover, they can enhance impact assessment processes and other ABM approaches (e.g. marine spatial planning) and ultimately provide comprehensive and strategic information for decision-making on how to manage effects. This extensive initiative could beneft from post hoc analysis to produce insights into good (and poor) ABM practices and to monitor outcomes of implementations over time to establish effective methods to measure tangible benefts.

There is also a need for further risk-related research. First, there is value in increasing academic understanding through case studies to show how the need for, and selection, design, and implementation of ABM tools, has been practically achieved in different contexts. While many ABM tools exist and have been used, there is little systematic understanding of these issues, whereas such knowledge could be benefcial to guide decision-makers in improving the practical use of ABM tools.

Second, given the evolving landscape of human activities in marine spaces and the changes to the natural, economic, and socio-cultural environments in which these take place, there is a continued need for developing new risk frameworks, analysis techniques, and models to support decision-makers in operationalizing ABM tools throughout their conception, design, and implementation stages. In this context, the prospects of ongoing developments towards digital twins, which provide a digital representation of physical, chemical, and biological features of ocean, marine, and coastal areas, and of selected human activities within these, can provide new mechanisms to monitor the effects of ABM tools and to support decisionmaking through predictive analyses. More research is required not only to develop such digital twins for different contexts and shipping risk mitigation purposes but also to embed these in regulatory and policy practices.

Finally, to fexibly respond to new and emerging risks of marine activities, and devise or implement new ABM tools or adapt existing ones to changing conditions, responsible authorities should have the capacity to respond to regular and irregular events, to monitor ongoing conditions, anticipate developments and changes, and learn from experience. Research is recommended to better understand how riskbased versus resilience-based perspectives for ABM tools can be effectively used in the development of new techniques and in decision-making and risk monitoring processes.

# **References**

*Oceans Act*, SC 1996, c 31.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Index**

#### **A**

*Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks*, *see* United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement *Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction*, *see*  BBNJ Agreement Aids to navigation, *see* International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA); Navigation Antarctic, 18, 19, 25, 31, 76, 78, 83, 85, 308 Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices (ACNV) project, 141, 213 Arctic Council, 221 oil pollution preparedness and response, 133, 234 Arctic environmental protection oil spill response and preparedness, 228, 234 Arctic infrastructure, 318–319, 329 Arctic shipping, *see* Canada, Arctic shipping Area-based management and conservation of living resources (marine), 75, 82–83 and cumulative effects assessment, 7, 344

and decision support systems, 6, 8, 149, 150 future research directions, 8–10, 334, 346–347 good practices, 334, 342–346 governance areas beyond national jurisdiction, 85, 86 coherence and complementarity, 86 collaborative approaches, 9, 55, 142 consultation processes, 6, 279 engagement of Indigenous peoples, 128, 129, 132, 136 integration, 117, 337, 338 international legal framework, 7, 70–87 national jurisdiction, 3, 74, 76, 81, 86, 115, 336 national regulatory regime, 343 purposes and functions, 8, 25, 114–115 regional/transboundary, 9, 336 management measures, 5, 235 and marine conservation, 3, 8, 16, 18, 26, 28, 29, 38, 43, 92, 97, 105–107, 338, 339 and marine spatial planning, 2, 5, 16, 18, 28, 38, 40, 56, 81, 92, 93, 117, 118, 126, 130, 135–137, 147, 279, 334, 336, 338–339, 346 and mitigation of oil spill risk, 228, 248–252 and non-living marine resources, 84–85 norms and governing principles, 334, 337 regulatory approaches, 5 and risk risk management, 17, 30–33, 228, 229, 248, 328, 340, 342

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2024 351 A. Chircop et al. (eds.), *Area-Based Management of Shipping*, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60053-1

Area-based management (*cont.*) risk object, 17, 30–31, 248 risk problem, 30, 32–35, 248 and shipping, 2–6, 8, 16, 32, 92, 93, 98, 334 social license, 37 socio-cultural considerations, 5 taxonomy and classifcation, 5, 7, 16–29, 40, 338 technology/technological developments, 5, 344 terminology/defnition, 17–29, 334–336 tools fexibility, 40, 340–342 *See also* Canada, area-based management; Marine protected areas; Marine spatial planning (MSP); Routeing measures; *by specifc* area-based management tools Areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), 70, 75, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86 Areas of Particular Environmental Interest (APEIs), 76, 84 Area to be avoided (ATBA), 27, 41 Artifcial intelligence, 144, 187, 201, 202 Assessment, *see* Canada, Arctic shipping, navigation risk assessment; Impact assessment; Regional cumulative effects assessment; Risk analysis and assessment Atmospheric emissions, *see* Shipping emissions Automatic identifcation system (AIS), 106, 126, 143, 145, 161, 164, 170, 189, 192, 193, 201, 212, 291, 292, 296 Autonomous vessels, *see* Maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS)

#### **B**

Ballast water management, 104–105, 113 BBNJ Agreement area-based management tool defnition, 16, 17, 40, 70–72, 75, 77, 85–86, 335, 336, 346 Clearing House Mechanism, 86, 87 existing legal instruments, 85 British Columbia (Canada) Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacifc Coast (MaPP), 38, 57, 136, 214, 217, 220, 339 Southern Resident killer whale protection, 27, 106, 278 Bunkering, 27, 265, 273, 281

#### **C**

Cambridge Bay (Nunavut) area-based management measures, 7, 26, 220 Cumulative Effects of Marine Shipping (CEMS) Assessment Framework pilot area, 7, 59–65, 220 Canada, Arctic shipping accidents/casualties, 210, 316, 328 and area-based management jurisdiction, 135 measures, 11, 38, 131, 135, 316, 323 and climate change, 130, 210 Cumulative Effects of Marine Shipping (CEMS) initiative, 52, 53, 211 emissions control/standards, 102 Enhanced Maritime Situational Awareness (EMSA) initiative, 38, 60, 130, 211, 237 governance engagement of Indigenous peoples, 129, 132, 136, 149 international regulatory regime, 64, 217 Polar Code implementation, 64, 103, 132 marine forecasting and sea ice resources, 311 marine infrastructure, 131, 142 navigation risk assessment Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System (AIRSS), 26, 103, 291 Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors initiative and Inuit knowledge, 142, 213 and Voluntary Protection Zone (VPZ) model, 142, 211, 212, 216, 217, 220, 221 governance framework, 141–143, 147, 149, 211, 213, 216–219, 222 priority areas, 143, 211, 213, 216, 219–220, 222 occupational health and safety COVID-19 pandemic, 319, 320, 323–327 environment-related risks, 316, 317 mental health, 319, 323, 324, 328, 329 public health restrictions, 327 polar class, 11, 289, 290, 295, 296, 298 Polar Operational Limit Assessment Risk Indexing System (POLARIS) and polar class, 103, 290, 294–296 network analysis exercise, 291, 304, 308, 311

Risk Index Outcome (RIO), 293–296, 299, 308–310 Proactive Vessel Management (PVM) initiative, 60, 130, 143–145, 150, 211, 214, 220, 237, 241 reporting measures, 18, 19, 22, 25, 27, 28, 98, 103, 316 risk governance, 30, 34, 93, 228–232, 239, 247, 249, 250, 252, 253, 340 risk management and mitigation, 176, 316, 339, 341 safety and public health, 18, 26, 29, 92, 93, 114 sea ice analysis, 290, 291, 293–296, 304, 307, 309, 311 sea ice risks, 288, 290, 309 search and rescue resources/measures, 322 traffc/shipping corridor, 94, 115, 211, 213, 215, 220, 221 traffc volumes, 210 trans-Arctic shipping routes, 291 voyage planning, 63, 64, 133 *See also* Search and rescue (SAR); Shipping Canada, Arctic waters, 21, 26–28, 30, 31, 103, 115, 131, 213, 270, 289, 316, 318, 320, 328 Canada, area-based management engagement of Indigenous peoples and local communities decolonization approach, 129, 130, 146–149 implementation of international commitments, 115 integrated approach, 2, 338 jurisdiction, 6, 10, 17, 97–98, 100, 116, 262–264 purposes and functions, 25, 114 regulation, 92, 95, 102, 114, 129, 269 regulatory authorities, 92, 94–97, 236 *See also* Area-based management Canada, environmental protection climate targets, 274 decarbonization, 10, 276–278, 281 prevention of marine and air pollution, 10, 276–278 *See also* Marine environmental protection Canada, federal departments Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS), 131, 141, 212, 216 Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) (DFO)

small craft harbours, 95, 96, 262, 268, 269 Department of National Defence, 29 Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Canadian Ice Service (CIS), 290, 292, 293, 295, 308, 309 Parks Canada Agency, 29, 96, 97 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), 56, 96, 272, 273 Natural Resources Canada, 29, 96 Public Health Agency, 11, 271 Transport Canada Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System (AIRSS), 291 Cumulative Effects of Marine Shipping (CEMS) initiative, 7, 52 National Places of Refuge Contingency Plan (PORCP), 22, 100 Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors initiative, 212, 338 Oceans Protection Plan (OPP), 52, 131, 211, 219, 231, 235, 240, 251 Polar Operational Limit Assessment Risk Indexing System (POLARIS), 26 ports decarbonization, 273 Vessel Management (PVM) program, 144–145 Voluntary Protection Zone (VPZ) initiative, North Pacifc VPZ, 212, 217 Canada, federal legislation *Arctic Shipping Safety Pollution Prevention Regulations* (ASSPPR), 26, 103, 132, 234, 270, 329 *Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act* (AWPPA), 22, 26, 94, 102, 103, 110, 234, 270, 316 *Ballast Water Regulations*, 104 *Canada Health Act*, 21, 22 *Canada Marine Act* (CMA), 22, 28, 94, 100, 108, 117, 262–267, 269, 271–274, 278 *Canada National Marine Conservation Area Act* (CNMCAA), 23, 43, 108, 110, 270, 277 *Canada National Parks Act* (CNPA), 23, 43, 270 *Canada Navigable Waters Act*, 270 *Canada Shipping Act, 2001* (CSA, 2001), 22, 94, 109, 217, 266, 269

Canada, federal legislation (*cont.*) *Canada Wildlife Act* (CWA), 23, 43, 108, 111, 270, 277 *Canadian Environmental Protection Act* (CEPA), 235, 270, 276 *Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act* (CNZEAA), 269, 273 *Constitution Act, 1867*, 263 *Constitution Act, 1982*, 37, 129, 213 *Emergency Management Act*, 235 *Environmental Emergencies Regulations*, 235 *Fisheries Act*, 95, 105, 108, 112, 235, 270, 272, 276, 277 *Fishing and Recreational Harbours Regulations*, 96 *Impact Assessment Act* (IAA), 56, 265, 269, 270, 272, 273 *Marine Transportation Security Act* (MTSA), 22, 107, 266, 269 *Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations*, 23, 277 *Migratory Birds Convention Act* (MBCA), 111, 235, 270, 272, 276, 277 *Northern Canada Vessel Traffc Services Zone Regulations* (NORDREG), 22, 27, 28, 98, 103, 115, 316 *Oceans Act* (OA), 28, 36, 43, 92, 95–97, 105, 108, 109, 113, 114, 116, 118, 126, 134, 146, 337, 338 *Oil Tanker Moratorium Act* (OTMA), 27, 103, 270 *Pilotage Act*, 41, 100, 108, 266, 269 *Public Ports and Public Port Facilities Regulations*, 267 *Quarantine Act*, 271 *Shipping Safety Control Zones Order*, 22, 103 *Species at Risk Act* (SARA), 23, 32, 43, 95, 106, 108, 112, 270, 272, 277, 278 *United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples* (UNDRIP) *Act*, 37, 59, 65, 126, 127, 129, 132, 133, 146, 213, 217, 218 *Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations* (VPDCR), 26, 27, 101, 102, 104, 113, 235, 275, 276 *Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act* (WAHVA), 22, 100, 101, 235, 270 Canada, Great Lakes, 52, 53, 100, 102, 105, 234, 262, 276

Canada, Indigenous peoples

and area-based management decolonization approach, 8, 130 and data and decision support tools and systems Enhanced Maritime Situational Awareness (EMSA) initiative, 143–144, 147 Proactive Vessel Management (PVM) initiative, 143–145 engagement, 57, 127–129, 132, 133, 136 Inuit Nunangat Declaration on Inuit-Crown Partnership, 37 ocean planning initiatives Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacifc Coast (MaPP) (Canada), 38, 57, 220 Pacifc North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), 217 reconciliation and Cumulative Effects of Marine Shipping (CEMS) initiative, 52, 54, 65 rights duty to consult, 37, 94, 127, 264 and risk management, 10, 246, 249 shipping governance engagement/ participation, 145, 147, 213 tripartite governance arrangements, 217 Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), 59, 129, 339 *See also* Haida Nation; Indigenous knowledge; Indigenous peoples; Inuit Canada, marine conservation areas fsheries conservation areas, 112 migratory bird sanctuaries, 97, 111, 277 national (NMCA), 110 species at risk critical habitats, 112 wildlife areas, 97, 108, 111, 113, 277 *See also* Marine conservation areas Canada, marine oil spill preparedness and response and area-based management, 248–252 decision-making process Canada-United States Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan, 238 engagement (rightsholders and stakeholders), 10, 248, 252 Environmental Prevention and Response National Preparedness Plan (NPP), 235 future research avenues, 252–253

#### Index

pollution response areas, 104 regulatory framework, 92 response organizations, 104, 236, 249 responsible authorities, 10, 248 risk governance defcits assessment and understanding of risks, 229, 240–244 management of risks, 34 *See also* Marine oil spill preparedness and response Canada, marine protected areas, 109 MPA Protection Standard, 108, 113–114 *See also* Marine protected areas Canada, marine spatial planning and area-based management, 2, 5, 16, 18, 28, 38, 40, 56, 81, 92, 93, 117, 118, 126, 130, 135–137, 147, 279, 334, 335, 338–339, 346 marine protected areas, 43 and Indigenous peoples participation, 38, 128 *See also* Marine spatial planning (MSP) Canada, maritime occupational health and safety, 319, 320, 329, 330 *See also* Occupational health and safety Canada, maritime safety, 3, 16, 18, 20, 26, 27, 34, 72, 74, 80, 92, 93, 98–100, 107, 161, 187, 191–193, 202, 211, 212, 334 Canada, maritime security sovereignty protection, 28 *See also* Maritime security Canada, ocean governance Cumulative Effects of Marine Shipping (CEMS) initiative, 7, 52–65, 211, 220 collaborative governance, 57, 59, 65, 237 pilot areas, 52, 53, 55, 57, 59–62, 65 Enhanced Maritime Situational Awareness (EMSA) initiative, 130, 211 Oceans Protection Plan (OPP), 26, 36, 52, 131, 142, 242, 247, 251 Oceans Strategy, 36, 126, 134 Pacifc oil tanker moratorium, 103 Proactive Vessel Management (PVM) initiative, 36, 130, 143, 144, 211, 220, 237 Canada, ports and area-based management, 262 environmental protection decarbonization initiatives, 27 emissions control, 273, 281

marine biological diversity, 276–278, 280 sustainability initiatives, 269, 271, 276–278 governance jurisdiction, 262–264 National Ports System, 262 port authorities, 107, 264–266 public ports, 267 small craft harbours, 268–269 *See also* Ports Canada, search and rescue, 229, 319 *See also* Search and rescue (SAR) Canada, shipping, area-based management indigenous peoples engagement, 211 jurisdiction, 97–98 measures maritime safety, 98–100 places of refuge for ships, 100–101 pollution prevention, 101–104 wrecks, 100–101 Canada, shipping governance Arctic Ice Regime Shipping System (AIRSS), 22, 26, 103, 291 ballast water management and exchange areas, 104–105 Canadian Marine Advisory Council, 94 Indigenous peoples participation/ engagement, 57, 128, 129 North American Emission Control Area (NAECA), 21, 25, 26, 28, 102, 276 *Notice to Mariners* (NOTMAR), 63–65 Polar Code implementation, 26 Polar Operational Limit Assessment Risk Indexing System (POLARIS), 10, 26, 103, 288, 290–292, 294–296, 298, 300, 302, 308–310 *See also* Canada, federal legislation; Shipping Canada, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 59, 129 Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and area-based management, 289 Search and Rescue Program Information Management System (SISAR), 289, 290, 305 Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC), 64, 94, 237 Climate change sea ice coverage, 130 Coastal and ocean management, *see* Integrated coastal and ocean management; Marine spatial planning (MSP)

Coastal communities, 25, 28, 36–38, 52, 56, 57, 128, 129, 131, 143, 144, 210, 211, 235, 237, 238, 241, 247, 248, 251, 262, 289, 338, 339 Coastal State rights and area-based management, 5 Collaborative governance, 9, 54, 57, 59–61, 65, 218, 237 Competent international organization, 44, 76, 78, 86, 94 *See also* Specifc organization Consultation, 6, 26, 36, 126–128, 142, 150, 163, 211–213, 216, 219, 233, 241, 249, 265, 272, 274, 277, 279, 338, 343 *Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean* (Barcelona Convention), 76 *Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic* (OSPAR), 72, 74, 76, 80, 87 *See also* OSPAR Commission *Convention on Biological Diversity* (CBD), 76 *Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffc* (FAL), 193 *Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources* (CCAMLR), 72, 76, 83 *Convention on the International Maritime Organization* (IMO Convention), 19, 25, 78, 187 *Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea* (COLREGs), 19, 20, 72, 81, 279, 335, 337 Cumulative effects assessment, *see* Regional cumulative effects assessment

#### **D**

Decarbonization, *see* Canada, ports, decarbonization; Ports, environmental issues, decarbonization; Shipping decarbonization Decision support tools and systems (DST and DSS), 139 decision support tools (DSTs), 8, 116, 126, 127, 130, 135, 136, 138–145, 147–150, 228, 238, 252 incorporation of traditional knowledge, 139

*See also* Geographic information systems (GIS) Decolonization, 129, 130, 146 Due regard, 75, 82

#### **E**

Ecologically or biologically signifcant marine areas (EBSAs), 76 Emergency prevention, preparedness, and response, 234 *See also* Search and rescue (SAR) Emission control areas, *see* Shipping emissions European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) European Union Maritime Information and Exchange system (SafeSeaNet), 187, 191–193, 195, 196, 198 Ecosystem Graphical User Interface (SEG), 195, 196 THETIS, 193, 196 *See also* European Union; Vessel traffc management European Union marine spatial planning, 336 vessel traffc management Community Vessel Traffc Monitoring and Information (VTMIS) system, 9, 191 European Maritime Single Window environment (EMSWe), 9, 187, 194–197 *See also* European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA); Vessel traffc management Exclusive economic zone (EEZ), 20, 43, 73–75, 84, 97, 102, 109, 111, 113, 128, 194

#### **F**

Fisheries conservation areas, 112 Flag states, 2, 74, 75, 82 Freedom of navigation, 70, 74–76, 82, 84, 85, 97, 109

#### **G**

Geographic information systems (GIS) and Indigenous knowledge, 140, 141 *See also* Decision support tools and systems (DST and DSS) Governance of Arctic shipping, *see* Canada, shipping governance

Index

*Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement* (Canada/United States), 22, 28 Green corridors, 21, 27, 28 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (ships), 80, 87, 269 Gulf of St. Lawrence, 27, 105–106, 110, 343

#### **H**

Haida Gwaii, 9, 105, 142, 145, 211, 214–215, 217, 219–221 Haida Nation Voluntary Protection Zone (VPZ) North Pacifc coast, 142, 211–217 *See also* Canada, Indigenous peoples; Indigenous peoples High seas international legal regime, 70, 75, 82 marine protected areas, 76, 82, 83, 87, 335 Human safety at sea, 5

#### **I**

Icebreaking, 21, 26, 61–65 Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fshing, 82 Impact assessment, 56, 96, 269, 270, 272, 273, 279–281, 337, 346 *See also* Regional cumulative effects assessment Incident data analysis, *see* Search and rescue (SAR) Incident Response Isochrones (IRI), 10 Indigenous knowledge and area-based management tools, 126–150 and capacity-building, 149, 150 and decision support tools and systems, 130, 141, 148, 150 integration into decision-making processes, 10, 150, 220, 246, 249 *See also* Canada, Indigenous peoples; Inuit, knowledge; Knowledge; United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Indigenous peoples and Arctic shipping, 35, 127, 129, 131, 132, 139, 210 and area-based management, 5, 7, 35, 37, 38, 146, 149 and decision support tools and systems, 139–145 governance

capacity-building, 129, 137 participation in shipping governance, 131 Two-Eyed Seeing approach, 250 international standards, 37, 59, 65, 126, 129, 132, 133, 146, 213, 217, 218 and marine oil spill preparedness and response, 10, 248–252 rights free, prior and informed consent, 213, 250 *See also* Canada, Indigenous peoples; Haida Nation; Inuit; *United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples* (UNDRIP) Integrated coastal and ocean management and area-based management, 5 *See also* Marine spatial planning (MSP) International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) IALA Risk Management Summary (IRMAS), 164 One Page Risk Assessment (OPRA), 164–165 Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA), 164–165, 174, 176, 177, 180 Simplifed IALA Risk Assessment (SIRA), 164–165 SIMULATOR (navigation simulator tool), 164–165 Waterway Risk Assessment Programme (IWRAP), 164–165, 170, 171, 180 IALA Risk Assessment Toolbox, 164, 165 Risk Management Toolbox, 33, 160 vessel traffc services (VTS), 189, 190 *See also* Navigation; Risk management; Vessel traffc management International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters, *see* Polar Code *International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments* (BWM Convention), 104 *International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships* (MARPOL 73/78), 19 and area-based management, 335 emission control areas (ECAs), 335 special areas, 19, 42, 335 *International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling* (ICRW), 72, 76

*International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea* (SOLAS) and area-based management, 3, 16, 18, 103, 115, 335, 337 *International Convention on Load Lines* (ICLL), 18–20, 30, 41, 99 *International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue* (SAR Convention), 20, 22, 32, 71 *International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation* (OPRC) HNS Protocol, 25 *International Convention on Salvage* (ISC), 19, 20, 24, 237 International customary law, 75 *International Health Regulations*, *see* World Health Organization International law of the sea, 2, 3, 73–74, 337 International Maritime Organization (IMO) area-based management measures, 16, 102 competent international organization, 76, 78, 94 emissions control North American Emission Control Area, 25, 27, 102 Formal Safety Assessment Guidelines, 33 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Strategy, 80, 81, 274 Guidelines for Vessel Traffc Services, 187–189 Indigenous peoples participation, 58, 128 International Safety Management Code (ISM Code), 160, 196 International Ship and Port Facilities Code (ISPS Code), 41, 269 maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS), 342 NAVAREA, 18–20, 22 places of refuge, 18, 19, 24, 100 ship routeing measures, 55 special areas, 3, 16, 19, 24, 25, 42, 78, 101, 102, 346 *See also* Particularly sensitive sea area (PSSA); Polar Code; Vessel traffc management International navigation, *see* Navigation *International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea* (COLREGs), 41, 72, 81, 98, 99, 115, 279, 335, 337 International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) risk governance defcits, 229–233, 239, 254

Risk Governance Framework (RGF), 10, 32, 34, 35, 229, 232, 233, 248, 253, 340, 341 *See also* Risk governance; Risk management International Seabed Authority (ISA), 76, 83, 84, 86 International Standards Organization ISO 31000:2018, 29, 162, 163, 341 Inuit and area-based management participation, 149 rightsholders, 128, 142 conceptualizations/worldview, 210, 218, 250 knowledge (Inuit Quaijimajatuqangit), 59 and decision support systems (DSSs), 127, 141 ontological assumptions of governance approaches, 134–137 protected areas, 38 shipping governance participation, 130–134, 138, 211, 215–218, 220, 221 *See also* Canada, Indigenous peoples; Indigenous knowledge; Indigenous peoples Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), 62, 133, 213, 220 Inuit Nunangat Declaration on Inuit-Crown Partnership, 37

#### **K**

Knowledge and risk management, 10, 328 *See also* Indigenous knowledge

#### **L**

Large ocean management areas (LOMA), 23, 28, 43 Load lines, 18, 19, 30, 41 Long-range identifcation and tracking (LRIT) systems, 192

#### **M**

Marine biological diversity protection, 10, 276–278 Marine conservation, 3, 8, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 26–29, 33, 43, 335, 339 Marine conservation areas, 43, 97, 108, 277, 338

*See also* Canada, marine conservation areas Marine environmental protection emergency planning and response, 271 prevention measures, 276–278, 288 *See also* Canada, environmental protection; Shipping emissions Marine living resources, 71 Marine mammals, vessel strikes, 5, 61, 64, 109, 115 *See also* Whales Marine oil spill preparedness and response and area-based management decision-making process, 229, 238–239, 246, 248, 249 engagement of rightsholders and stakeholders, 230, 252 transboundary cooperation, 234, 238, 240, 249, 253 future research avenues, 252–253 pollution response areas, 234, 248, 251 preparedness and response systems, 243, 249 response organizations (ROs), 235, 236, 248, 253 response techniques, 227–253 responsible authorities, 236–237 risk governance defcits assessment and understanding of risks, 229, 240–244 management of risks, 228, 230, 244–248, 250 *See also* Canada, marine oil spill preparedness and response; Oil spills Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacifc Coast (MaPP) (Canada), 38, 57, 136, 214, 217, 220, 339 Marine protected areas, 23, 43, 109 high seas, 74, 76, 335 *See also* Area-based management; Canada, marine protected areas Marine spatial planning (MSP), 23 and area-based management, 2, 56, 126, 135, 279, 346 participation/engagement, 126, 128, 135, 146 *See also* Area-based management; Canada, marine spatial planning; Integrated coastal and ocean management Marine traffc information systems, 191 *See also* Vessel traffc management

Maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS), 186–202, 342 Maritime occupational health and safety, *see*  Occupational health and safety Maritime safety, 3, 16, 18–22, 26, 27, 29, 72, 74, 75, 80, 92, 93, 98–100, 114, 187, 189, 191–193, 200, 202, 212, 334 *See also* Navigation Maritime search and rescue activities, *see*  Search and rescue (SAR) Maritime security security zones, 107 *See also* Canada, Maritime security MARPOL, *see International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships* (MARPOL 73/78) METAREAS, 16, 18–20, 22, 41 *See also* World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Migratory bird sanctuaries, 23, 277

#### **N**

National marine conservation areas (NMCAs), 23, 38, 43, 97, 108, 110–111, 270 National parks/reserves, 23, 43, 97, 113, 270 Navigation accidents/casualties, 34, 180 aids to navigation (AtoN), 74, 95, 160, 164–165, 262 and area-based management, 160, 265 and climate change, 288 collaborative measures, 211 risk assessment POLARIS, 290, 292, 294–296 safety, 9, 16, 26, 34, 55, 70, 71, 78, 92, 98, 113, 115, 128, 131, 140, 141, 161, 186–189, 198, 200, 202, 215, 234, 269, 279, 322, 329, 340 *See also* International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA); Maritime safety; Risk analysis; Routeing measures; Shipping; Vessel traffc management; Waterway risk analysis Nitrogen oxides (NOx), *see* Shipping emissions Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 72, 86 Non-living marine resources, 84–85 North American Emission Control Area (NAECA), 21, 25–28, 102, 276

North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), 76, 83, 86, 87 Northern low-impact Arctic shipping corridors, *see* Canada, federal departments, Transport Canada, Northern Low-impact Shipping Corridors initiative Northwest Passage, 59, 60 Nunatsiavut Region, 38 Nunavut Marine Council (NMC), 26, 218

#### **O**

Occupational health and safety, 319, 320, 329, 330 Arctic shipping risks, 319, 320 Arctic Seafarers, 321–322 mental health, 323, 324 public health measures impact of COVID-19 pandemic, 316–330 OHS of Arctic Seafarers, 323–327 public health regulations, 323 *See also* Canada, maritime occupational health and safety; Seafarers Ocean management, *see* Integrated coastal and ocean management Oil spills governance, 10, 228–253 risk management, 228, 248, 253 *See also* Marine oil spill preparedness and response Oil tanker moratorium (Canada), 22, 27, 31, 270 OSPAR Commission, 79, 80, 83, 86 *See also Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic* (OSPAR)

#### **P**

Pacifc North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), 214, 217 Particularly sensitive sea area (PSSA), 16, 19, 24, 25, 41, 78–80, 83, 86, 87, 346 *See also* International Maritime Organization (IMO) Pilotage, 21, 26, 35, 41, 172–175, 180, 188, 265, 266, 269, 278 Places of refuge, 21, 24, 41 Polar Code and area-based management, 25, 31, 72, 234

domestic implementation, 64, 132, 329 domestic regulation, 132 pollution prevention provisions, 24, 103 safety provisions, 18, 234 search and rescue provisions, 288 *See also* International Maritime Organization (IMO) Pollution preparedness and response, 160, 233, 234, 248, 249, 251 *See also* Oil spills Port authorities, 10, 21, 35, 176, 262–267, 269, 271, 273–275, 278, 280, 281, 338 Ports and area-based management, 107, 262 environmental issues decarbonization, 27, 269, 273, 275–278, 281 pollution prevention, 269, 275–278 protection of marine biological diversity, 276–278 sustainability, 271, 276–278 federal regulation, 262–264 management areas, 262–281 *See also* Canada, ports Public health, 4, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29, 271, 316, 320, 323, 325, 327–329

## **Q**

Quarantine, 21

#### **R**

Regional cumulative effects assessment Cumulative Effects of Marine Shipping (CEMS) Assessment Framework (Canada), 52–65 *See also* Impact assessment Regional fsheries management organizations (RFMOs), 83, 196 Risk analysis and assessment accident causation theories, 161, 166, 168, 170, 173–177, 179, 180 and decision-making, 163, 180, 341 formal safety assessment (FSA), 160, 162, 163, 165 future research and development, 179 relational accident theories, 169 risk indicator, 168, 174–177 risk models, 161, 169, 170, 176, 180, 228 systems-theoretic process analysis (STPA), 172

#### Index

techniques, 8, 33, 160, 166–177 tools, 9, 160, 163, 165, 290 *See also* Navigation; Waterway risk analysis Risk governance and area-based management, 30, 32, 35, 93, 339–342 defcits assessment and understanding of risks, 230, 240–244, 253 management of risks, 244–248 risk governance escalator framework, 34, 35 *See also* International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) Risk management accident analysis and waterway risk methods, 34 and area-based management, 5, 17, 30–33, 340 indicators, 168, 174–177, 180 international management standards, 162 marine forecasting and sea ice resources, 292 and marine spaces, 30, 34 navigation risk assessment POLARIS, 290 and oil spill preparedness and response, 228–253 organizational capacity, 10, 250 phases and area-based management tools, 30–33, 248 problems, 30, 32–35, 37, 248 and risk governance defcits, 228–253 stakeholder and rightsholder engagement Indigenous knowledge integration, 140 *See also* International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA), Risk Management Toolbox; International Risk Governance Council (IRGC); Vessel traffc management; Waterway risk analysis Risk perception, 32–34, 229, 233, 241, 242, 249, 250, 253, 254 Risk society, 4, 7 Routeing measures, 19 areas to be avoided, 3, 26, 42, 55, 99 deep-water route, 20, 41, 55, 99 inshore traffc area, 20, 41, 55, 98 no anchoring area, 55 precautionary area, 20, 41, 55, 99 recommended direction of traffc fow, 42

recommended route, 42, 337 recommended track, 20, 42, 55, 99 roundabout, 20, 42, 55, 99 routeing system, 20, 22, 34, 42, 99, 115, 192, 193 separation zone or line, 42, 99 traffc lane, 42 traffc separation scheme, 20, 41, 42, 55 two-way route, 20, 42, 55, 99 weather routeing, 42 *See also* Area-based management; Navigation

#### **S**

Safety zones, 3, 20, 26, 44, 84 Salish Sea, 106, 107 Seafarers public health measures COVID-19 pandemic, 11, 316, 319, 327, 330 crew change and shore leave, 316, 319, 323–326, 328, 329 mental health, 319, 323, 324, 326, 328, 329 safety measures, 11, 79, 81, 320–322, 329, 330 *See also* Occupational health and safety Sea ice and climate change, 288 risk assessment, 26, 288, 290, 304 Sea lanes, 20, 78 Search and rescue (SAR) area-based management measures, 5 governance international legal regime, 187–190 preparedness and response planning coordination, 42 geospatial and temporal access, 10 Incident Response Isochrones (IRI), 10, 289, 292, 297–299, 302, 304–307, 311 Incident Response Service Areas (IRSA), 10, 289, 292, 293, 297–307, 309, 311 network analysis exercise, 287–311 network analysis techniques, 311 polar class, 11, 288, 298 rescue coordination centres, 32 Search and Rescue Program Information Management System (SISAR) database, 289, 290, 305 search and rescue regions (SRR), 42, 318

Search and rescue (SAR) (*cont.*) societal factors/participation, 289 temporal and spatial patterns, 11 *See also* Canada, Arctic shipping; Canada, search and rescue; Emergency prevention, preparedness and response Search and rescue areas, 20 Sea traffc management, 187, 200, 201 *See also* Vessel traffc management Security zones, 107 Ship design goal-based, 160 polar class, 103, 288, 290, 294–300, 303, 304, 306 Polar Code standards, 115 risk-based, 160 Shipping and risk, 9, 31, 35, 40, 135, 148, 160, 214, 215, 220, 228, 229, 233, 234, 250, 311, 338, 347 governance approaches, 134–137 collaborative approaches, 9 competent international organization, 44, 76, 78, 86, 94 Indigenous peoples participation, co-governance, 38, 136 Indigenous peoples participation, ontological assumptions of governance international legal regime, 70, 77 noise, 80, 214 *See also* Canada, Arctic shipping; Canada, shipping governance; Navigation; Vessel traffc management Shipping decarbonization, 273–275, 281 Shipping emissions emission control areas (ECAs), 19, 21, 24–26, 28, 31, 41, 74, 78, 79, 102, 276, 335, 340, 341 *See also* Marine environmental protection Shipping safety control zones (SSCZ), 22, 26, 30, 102–103 Shipping zones, 27, 106 Ship reporting systems data harmonization, 189 mandatory, 198 *See also* Vessel traffc management Ship routeing measures, *see* Routeing measures Ship speed measures, 26, 27 Small craft harbours, 262–264, 268–269, 280, 318

Social license, 7, 17, 36–40 Society for Risk Analysis (SRA), 29 Special areas, *see International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships* (MARPOL 73/78); International Maritime Organization (IMO) Species at risk, 23, 32, 270, 278 St. Lawrence Seaway, 22, 26–28 Straits used for international navigation, 20 Submarine cables and pipelines, 2, 3, 75, 336 Sulphur oxides (SOx), *see* Shipping emissions Sustainability, 2, 8, 10, 37, 39, 84, 251, 269, 271–274, 281, 343, 344

#### **T**

Traditional knowledge, *see* Indigenous knowledge Transparency and accountability, 345

#### **U**

Underwater radiated noise (URN), 80 *United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea* (UNCLOS) and area-based management, 2, 18, 97, 98 competent international organization, 76, 78, 94 continental shelf, 97 exclusive economic zone (EEZ), 75, 84, 97 high seas, 75, 82, 85 internal waters, 97 territorial sea, 20, 74, 97, 102 *United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples* (UNDRIP), 37, 59, 65, 126, 127, 129, 132, 133, 146, 213, 217, 218 *See also* Indigenous knowledge; Indigenous peoples United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, 83 United States National Ice Center (USNIC), 290, 292–295, 307–311

#### **V**

Vessel traffc management and autonomous vessels, 9 data sources, 9 digitalization, 9, 186–202 dynamic shipping zones, 106 interoperability, 9, 198, 202

reporting requirements, 9, 198 traffc separation schemes (TSS), 81, 98, 107, 335 vessel identifcation and tracking devices and systems, 143, 192, 193, 198, 201 vessel traffc services (VTS), 9, 98, 101, 161, 187–192, 198, 265 *See also* European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA); European Union; International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA); International Maritime Organization (IMO); Marine traffc information systems; Navigation; Risk management; Sea traffc management; Ship reporting systems; Shipping *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*, 76 Vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs),

76, 82, 83

#### **W**

Waterway risk analysis conceptualization of marine space environmental, 9, 161 infrastructural, 9, 161 organizational, 9, 161 physical, 9, 161 *See also* Navigation; Risk analysis; Risk management Whales area-based management measures, 336 North Atlantic right whale, 27, 105, 336 Southern Resident killer whale, 27, 106, 278, 336 *See also* Marine mammals Wildlife areas, 23, 43, 277 World Health Organization (WHO) *International Health Regulations* (IHR), 24 World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 16, 18, 19, 22, 293, 294 *See also* METAREAS