Keywords

1 Introduction

The increasing sea ice loss in the Canadian ArcticFootnote 1 and near Arctic areas is expected to lead to significant growth of maritime activities in these areas (Eguíluz et al., 2016). However, limited infrastructure, remote distances from communities, and extreme weather conditions pose challenges to maritime operational safety. In addition, between 2020 and 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic increased the severity of health hazards related to Arctic shipping in Canada, due to the infection risks among crew on board ships and between crew and members of northern communities. To protect the northern communities from infection risks, strict public health measures were imposed upon Arctic seafarers’ mobility, such as shore leave bans, which further complicated the occupational health challenges faced by the Arctic seafarers.

Safe and sustainable development of Arctic shipping requires a comprehensive understanding of risk factors, the advancement of risk mitigation strategies, and enhanced search and rescue capacities. Following the Akademik Ioffe grounding accident in the Arctic (69°43.043′ N091°20.951′ W) in 2018, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (2021) identified environmental, human-related, and organizational risk factors as key challenges to Canadian Arctic shipping that warrant enhanced focus.

1.1 Environment-Related Risk Factors

In the Canadian Arctic archipelago, harsh environmental conditions, such as strong swells and winds, can create unexpected risks for vessel operations. Inadequate charting of the Canadian Arctic Waters poses further risks to shipping, such as vessels running aground, potentially damaging the ship, and stranding all crew members (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 2021; Oceans North, 2023). Harsh environmental conditions contributed to the grounding of the Akademik Ioffe, where quarterly swells and winds deviated the vessel’s course and rendered the autopilot ineffective (Transportation Safety Board, 2021). The incomplete bathymetric data contained within the Canadian sea charts on board led to the misjudged ocean depth of the alternative voyage route by the master. The vessel ran aground north-northwest of Kugaaruk, Nunavut. Abandoning a vessel in the Arctic can increase risks of rapid onset of hypothermia and frostbite due to extreme cold (Ikäheimo & Hassi, 2011). Luckily, this vessel self-refloated with the flooding tide later that day, and passengers were evacuated and transferred to another vessel the next day (Transportation Safety Board, 2021).

Existing and floating sea ice create navigational hazards (CCG, 2019a). Floating sea ice is mobile and can quickly be affected by powerful currents and waves, putting the vessel at risk of collision with adjacent islands, injuring workers during cargo loading and unloading (Fontaine & Hardy, 2022), or damaging the ship (Lasserre, 2022). Changing ice conditions yearly leads to unexpected navigation issues, including the possibility of earlier and prolonged ice presence (Hardy & Fontaine, 2020). Submerged ice chunks (growlers) are difficult to detect with radar imaging (Lasserre, 2022; Hardy & Fontaine, 2020). Reduced daylight hours in the Canadian Arctic amplify risks, leading to greater chances of worker injury (Fontaine & Hardy, 2020b).

1.2 Human-Related Risk Factors

The shiftwork typically undertaken by seafarers, in combination with the harsh Arctic navigation environment, can increase workloads and stress, especially if a vessel is understaffed (Fontaine & Hardy, 2020a). This scenario often leads to acute and chronic fatigue, further exacerbated by chronic exposures to vessel noise and vibration. All these occupational hazards increase the likelihood of human errors and potential harm to crew members (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 2021). Psycho-social welfare, moreover, can be compromised by the remote nature of the Canadian Arctic, leading to loneliness and isolation among seafarers who spend extended periods away from family and friends (Fontaine & Hardy, 2020a).

1.3 Organizational Risk Factors

Strategic navigation is an essential component of Canadian Arctic shipping operations. Delays can incentivize vessel masters to navigate through irregularly mapped corridors as a time-saving measure, which could cause the vessel to become stranded in the ice or capsize. Tight schedules might prioritize deadlines over crew safety, which could occur if the captain orders the unloading of too many shipping containers or pallets onto the barges (Fontaine & Hardy, 2020b). This could cause the barge to take on too much weight and take on more water, resulting in the sinking of the barge and jeopardizing crew safety on board.

Management strategies are vital for preventing overwork and inadequate supervision of crew members (Zhang et al., 2019). A deficient safety culture hinders open discussions between the captain, officers, and crew (Guy & Lasserre, 2016), whereas inadequate organizational structure may encourage risky individual behaviours, putting other crew members or the vessel at risk (Zhang et al., 2019). It is also worth noting that the complex interactions between economic, political, and other societal factors influence organizational decisions that may increase the risk of adverse effects in Arctic waters (Stephen, 2018).

1.4 Lack of Arctic Infrastructure

Limited port infrastructure in the Canadian Arctic imposes logistical challenges for cargo vessels requiring community resupply (Eguíluz et al., 2016; Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 2021). In the near Arctic area, there are only one deep-water port in Churchill, Manitoba (Lasserre, 2022), and one small craft harbour for large vessels in Pangnirtung, Nunavut (Government of Nunavut, 2013). Consequently, large shipping vessels in the Canadian Arctic must conduct multiple sea lifts—a maritime transportation method for delivering essentials to northern communities—using barges and tugboats to carry containers or pallets ashore (Hardy & Fontaine, 2020). Large ships carry many containers, serving multiple northern communities on one trip before returning to a main harbour for restocking. Recent Government of Canada’s initiatives include developing deep-water seaports in Iqaluit and Qikiqtarjuaq, Nunavut, and new small craft harbours in Clyde River and Arctic Bay (Nunavut Impact Review Board, 2017; Transport Canada, 2021; Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2021).

The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) faces challenges in search and rescue due to its vast coverage area and limited northern services, operating with nine icebreakers (Lasserre, 2022). Reaching a stranded vessel may take up to a day or longer (Hardy & Fontaine, 2020). Air ambulances from the CCG or Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) can take hours to reach an injured worker. There is currently an inshore rescue boat station in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, as well as three northern communities that received funding from the CCG Auxiliary Indigenous Community Boat Volunteer Pilot Program to aid in Arctic SAR (Sheehan et al., 2021). The Government of Canada is developing a CAF naval facility in Nanisivik, Nunavut, that includes Arctic offshore patrol ships with icebreaker capabilities and cargo space for the CCG during resupply operations (Government of Canada, 2015). Three search and rescue regions (SRRs) are responsible for SAR operations in oceanic and coastal waters in Canada. Two SRRs (the Halifax SRR and Toronto SRR) are assigned responsibilities to service Canadian Arctic waters (see Fig. 13.1) (Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 2021).

Fig. 13.1
A map of Canada is divided into 3 regions listed from the left as Victoria S R R, Trenton S R R, and Halifax S R R.

Designated search and rescue regions in Canada (CCG, 2019b) © Canada Coast Guard

Full size image

1.5 COVID-19 and Arctic Shipping

The evaluation of impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Arctic maritime occupational health and safety reveals important shortcomings that can inform future crisis management strategies. Seafarers experienced an increased risk of mental health challenges due to long-term isolation from family and friends, concerns about family members’ health, and limited access to medical care ashore as a result of strict port restrictions (Baygi et al., 2022). Seafarers reported higher levels of depression and anxiety during the pandemic than during the pre-pandemic period (Pauksztat et al., 2022). Crew mobility, including crew exchanges and shore leaves, was largely restricted during the pandemic due to company and port regulations, prolonging the duration aboard the vessel and, consequently, reducing time with family (Neis et al., 2021).

While several studies have explored the impacts of COVID-19 on seafarers globally, there is a lack of research focus on Arctic seafarers. To address this critical research gap, this chapter delves into the occupational health and safety challenges Arctic seafarers faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilizing insights gained from semi-structured interviews with Arctic seafarers and key informants (e.g. union representatives, ship managers, marine consultants, and human resource managers), the research aims to provide a novel understanding of how the inherent Arctic conditions exacerbate the effects of a pandemic on seafarers, offering valuable insights for the protection and well-being of people working at sea.

In the following section, we will explain the research methods and qualitative semi-structured interview data collection strategies. In the third section, inherent Arctic maritime occupational health and safety challenges are discussed, as well as how COVID-19 has exacerbated seafarers’ health and safety challenges. Fourth, following a discussion synthesizing the complexity of the impact of COVID-19 on Arctic occupational health and safety, we propose some policy recommendations.

2 Research Methods

This study examines seafarers’ perspectives on COVID-19-related public health regulations, OHS challenges during the pandemic, and regulatory gaps in maritime OHS law. The participants were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview between 2020 and 2021. The participants included (1) seafarers with working experience in the Arctic or near Arctic waters; (2) union representatives of seafarers; (3) health and safety/human resource managers of shipping companies; and (4) key informants from maritime authorities. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 and the universal ban on in-person research activities, data collection was conducted online. Participants were recruited through LinkedIn or email, and the interviews were conducted by phone, Skype, or Zoom. Invitations to interview included the lead researcher’s contact information and were distributed through LinkedIn, Facebook, and email. The first author invited representatives from companies, unions, maritime charities, training institutions, and safety authorities through their contact information available online and at public conferences. A total of 20 participants completed the interviews (see Table 13.1).

Table 13.1 Research participants
Full size table

The interviews were audio-recorded for the analysis. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were processed by computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (Nvivo 11). Thematic analysis was used to understand the different challenges seafarers confront in Arctic maritime activities. The thematic analysis method was employed to identify recurring patterns of occupational health challenges and insights shared by participants during the interviews. The text presented in the next section of findings carefully rephrases the original interviews, allowing for a condensed and coherent representation of the participants’ perspectives. This approach ensures the faithful reflection of their experiences and perspectives within the context of Arctic maritime activities.

3 Findings

3.1 Environment-Related Health and Safety Hazards Faced by Arctic Seafarers

3.1.1 Cold Temperatures

The domestic Arctic shipping season usually starts in June and ends in November. During this period, ships operating domestic Arctic transportation each undertake three voyages scheduled from Canadian southern ports, such as Montreal, to the northern communities in the Arctic or near Arctic. During the returning part of the first and second voyages between July and September, some Arctic communities can experience temperatures of approximately 20 degrees (SF-13, Captain). Coldness is more concerning for seafarers during the third voyage, usually in November.

There was a consensus that extremely cold temperatures in the Arctic present potential hazards for the crew and the vessel. In October and November, a common task that requires prolonged exposure to cold Arctic conditions is chipping ice off the vessel that accumulated due to sea spray. Ice build-up on board compromises vessel stability (SF-1, Captain). Prolonged exposure to cold temperatures can result in hypothermia and frostbite in seafarers (SF-1, Captain; SF-12 maritime health and safety consultant). When the shipping season is delayed due to unforeseen circumstances, seafarers may be required to work later (i.e. late fall), exacerbating the frostbite risk.

3.1.2 Collision Risks with Growlers

Collision with growlers can cause serious damage to a vessel (SF-13, Captain). Impacted by global warming, glaciers and icebergs are more rapidly calving ice and growlers into the ocean, which present as obstacles along navigational routes (SF-3, Chief Engineer). Growlers are often difficult to detect on radar. They are usually old and thick ice that can severely damage a vessel if struck and may not always be detected in time, as most growlers are submerged (SF-7, Chief Officer; SF-12, union representative; SF-14, maritime consultant). When ice accumulates and blocks a vessel’s passage in the Arctic, shipping delays can occur by trapping the vessel in the ice and requiring assistance from a Coast Guard icebreaker (SF-15, Manager; SF-16, Captain).

3.1.3 Strong Winds and Lack of Daylight

Strong winds in the Arctic can prevent the offloading of supplies from vessels to barges and delay communities receiving supplies (SF-17, Bosun). Crane workers are also ordered to stop if a strong wind is considered to create dangerous working conditions (SF-17, Bosun).

At the end of the navigation season, extended darkness throughout the day poses additional challenges for navigation and cargo discharge (SF-1, Captain; SF-17, Bosun). The steady decrease in hours between sunrise and sunset in October and November leads to fewer hours of daylight to support safer navigation. Ice navigation in the dark can be very stressful, as the risks of striking icebergs and damaging vessels are greater (SF-3).

3.1.4 Landscape and Remoteness

To reach certain communities, Arctic seafarers must navigate through uncharted narrow passageways (SF-3, Chief Engineer). Seafarers were concerned that vessels may run ashore/ground if they travel through uncharted or inaccurately charted waters. Remoteness is another significant health and safety concern for seafarers. Search and rescue resources such as the CCG are not always present or immediately available to assist a damaged or stranded vessel in the Arctic. A maritime consultant shared a case of a vessel stuck for 12 days before an icebreaker could reach it (SF-14). An injured worker on board an Arctic vessel can also experience delays in rescue, for example, through medical evacuation, due to the remote location (SF-14, Maritime Consultant).

As summarized below by participant SF-3, a Chief Engineer, the environment-related health and safety hazards increase the workload for Arctic seafarers:

Sub-zero temperatures, harsh sun, and complete isolation. No mobile network … like socially, you’re cut off basically with[in] the vessel for a while … Yes, those things do make it challenging. In the Arctic, I think the workload increases because you don’t have a lot of infrastructure, and you work with the shortage of … terminals. So yes, those things make it a lot more hectic in the Arctic.

Low temperature, collision risks with growlers, strong winds, and lack of daylight during the late navigation season are inherent maritime occupational challenges of Arctic shipping. However, for experienced Arctic seafarers, even though they are familiar with these environment-related hazards, the lack of communication support and extremely limited infrastructure increase workplace stress, and seafarers’ ability to manage these hazards effectively is restricted.

3.2 The Impact of COVID-19 on the OHS of Arctic Seafarers

3.2.1 COVID-19-Related Public Health Regulations

In 2020, Transport Canada, territorial governments, and health agencies collaborated with Arctic shipping industry representatives to determine measures to ensure that both northern communities and Arctic seafarers were protected from exposure to COVID-19 (SF-1, Captain). Due to limited medical resources, northern communities implemented stricter COVID-19 public health measures than the rest of Canada. While in southern ports, essential shore leaves were permitted for seafarers during the pandemic, for Arctic seafarers, a complete shore leave ban was imposed in northern communities (Government of Nunavut, 2020).

The frequent changes in public health regulations increased the difficulty of their interpretation among seafarers (SF-12, Union representative). Most companies developed operations directives on COVID-19 to fulfil regulatory standards, which were constantly updated (SF-15, Human resource manager). Some measures included requiring all crew members joining the vessel to be screened and asymptomatic (SF-12). Otherwise, they would have had to isolate and receive a COVID-19 test. Some companies required seafarers to take a COVID-19 test before joining the vessel or to quarantine for 14 days before departure (SF-17). If a crew member was travelling to join the ship, they had to take the most direct route and not stop anywhere, whether driving and/or flying. If they had to stay somewhere overnight, it had to be at a company-approved hotel (SF-1, Captain). One shipping company required seafarers to complete a form that reported close contacts if they had spent time with someone for more than 15 minutes (SF-14). These changes significantly increased the workload for seafarers.

3.2.2 Mental Health

The Arctic is a stressful workplace due to minimal communication with families and friends. The reduced ability to see their families, particularly when seafarers cannot attend special celebrations or funerals, can affect a seafarer’s mental health (SF-1). The limited gym equipment and facilities on board also restrict the possibility of seafarers performing regular exercise, which can help maintain favourable mental and physical health (SF-3, Chief Engineer; SF-17, Bosun).

Long working hours were reported to be a major contributor to fatigue, which could lead seafarers to become less conscious of the dangers around them (SF-1, Captain; SF-13, Captain). Many Arctic seafarers reported that social isolation could result in mental health issues and increase risk-prone behaviours on board (SF-3, Chief Engineer; SF-12, Union Representative; SF-14, Maritime Consultant; SF-15, Human Resource Manager; SF-16, Captain). Extended sunlight/darkness can cause circadian rhythm disorders among seafarers in the Arctic. When darkness extended during the late season, ice navigation watchkeeping was reported to create extra stress for seafarers (SF-3, Chief Engineer; SF-4, Captain; SF-7, Chief Officer).

During the pandemic, one of the major mental health challenges for Arctic seafarers was the lack of communication with families, leading to concern and anxiety about whether their families were safe or not infected (SF-1, Captain; SF-12, Union Representative). Furthermore, crew members had to work longer rotations. In addition to self-isolation after signing off from the vessel, seafarers had to self-isolate earlier to wait for COVID-19 test results before signing on to the ship. This reduced their family reunion time and made it very mentally exhausting for seafarers (SF-12, Union Representative; SF-14, Maritime Consultant).

Fatigue became a more prominent issue as seafarers spent the entire navigation season on board the vessel. Due to the additional COVID-19 test requirements, some companies cancelled short breaks for seafarers between the three voyages. Before the pandemic, when the ship navigated back to the southern port, such as Montreal, some local seafarers could take two to three nights off and return home at night when cargo loading was conducted in port. The cancellation of these short breaks deprived the limited opportunities for seafarers to reduce the stress caused by separation from families. As one bosun (SF-17) explained:

SF-17:

“For me last year (2020), I was not being able to come home, sleep at home and then go back to the ship next day. Last year was different compared to before when I could go back home. I could not get away from it—to get away from it, just a break. It was [pause] I wouldn’t say stressful but a little more tiring just because you can’t get away from it at all”.

Interviewer:

“So it’s basically no life component but always work”?

SF-17:

“Exactly. Yeah exactly. And, like I said, seeing as we stayed onboard all the time, I just put in more hours. I just worked more just to occupy the time that I would have been at home instead of being on board”.

The inability to leave the work environment between voyages made the occupation more tiring and stressful (SF-17, Bosun). Being confined on board, the seafarer tended to work more hours just to pass the time, which might exacerbate the fatigue problem.

3.2.3 Crew Change

Crew changes were challenging before COVID-19. Small charter planes were hired to transport the crew to sign on/off the vessel in northern communities. Weather conditions could affect flights, and cancellations were normal (SF-15, Human Resource Manager; SF-16, Captain). The joining seafarer needed to arrive 1 day before the vessel left to ensure a handover with the departing crew member (SF-15, SF-16). Hotel accommodation service might not be reliable, because sometimes the hotel owner was not on site and could not be reached (SF-15, SF-16). With limited commercial taxi services available, companies relied on local community citizens to pick crew members up from the airport (SF-15, SF-16).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Territory of Nunavut temporarily banned the operation of crew changes for Arctic vessels, except for medical emergency (SF-12, Union Representative). No known crew changes took place in the North during the pandemic. Many shipowners required seafarers to work through the entire Arctic navigation season (June–October/November) (SF-12, Union Representative). Some companies were allowed to make one crew change for the entire season, but the change could only be conducted outside the Arctic (SF-12). If the Arctic vessel returned to Quebec, crew changes could be scheduled (SF-15 Human Resource manager, SF-16 Captain). Some companies offered their crew members the option of a car rental, subject to their provincial public health regulations (SF-15, SF-16). Chartered planes were organized for some companies to get new crew members on board (SF-15, SF-16). Crew members joining the vessel stayed in isolated facilities to avoid contact with the general public, so COVID-19 was not transmitted on board (SF-12). Many crew change restrictions were implemented to ensure that the crew on board and the northern community members were protected from infection risks (SF-12).

With the complexity of crew change restrictions, most companies attempted to extend seafarers’ shifts on board to save costs. As the Maritime Consultant SF-14 observed:

Travel restrictions and isolation are very tough, and very challenging for the crew. … Not so bad once you get on board but then when you return, … because it’s so difficult to travel most companies are extending your rotations because it is so difficult to travel. And so to make it more inexpensive for the companies.

Extended stays on board increase the risk of fatigue and mental health problems for seafarers (SF-1, Captain).

3.2.4 Shore Leave

Before the pandemic, even when seafarers were confined to the vessel for most of the trip, they could still go ashore occasionally. They could walk around communities, inspect the vessel, and seek medical care (SF-1, Captain; SF-2, Captain; SF-3, Chief Engineer). Some seafarers reported enjoying taking a break from the vessel, getting outside for fresh air, and collecting souvenirs (SF-1, SF-2, SF-12, Union Representative; SF-13, Captain; SF-17, Bosun). Other seafarers reported that they decided to stay on board, because “there was not much to do besides walking” ashore (SF-14, Maritime Consultant). Busy schedules prevented some vessels from providing shore leave, as seafarers had to stay on top of their work and not fall behind. They prioritized dropping off the cargo and moving on to the next community (SF-14).

During the pandemic, shore leave in the Arctic was strictly banned unless absolutely necessary for moving cargo around onshore (SF-1, Captain). This was likely due to northern communities’ concerns about their lack of healthcare resources in combating COVID-19, their tight-knit communities, and that they did not want outsiders to come in and potentially spread the virus. Transport Canada communicated that no crew members were allowed to travel ashore for personal reasons, such as exploring communities and buying souvenir items (SF-1). Some seafarers reported no problems with the restricted shore leave, as they typically stayed on the vessel for the entire trip (SF-12, Union representative).

If a crew member was possibly symptomatic, all others on board had to be careful about travelling ashore and ensure they would not be in close contact with anyone from the communities to prevent potential spread (SF-1, Captain). For people who did have to travel onshore, two communities requested that seafarers be tested again (SF-15, Human Resource Manager; SF-16, Captain). As a social distancing measure, some crew members brought a setup container as a beach office to keep them comfortable and isolated from other community members (SF-17, Bosun). Shore leave in a southern port, such as Montreal, was also restricted by some companies due to the risk of contracting the virus in the city and bringing it back to the vessel (SF-13). Shore leave, as a major mitigation measure for seafarers’ mental health problems and fatigue, was completely banned for Arctic seafarers. This put the Arctic seafarers in a more vulnerable situation during the pandemic since shore leave was one of the few relief measures for fatigue.

3.2.5 COVID-19 Isolation

Isolation requirements were complicated for seafarers to navigate throughout the pandemic. These requirements were constantly evolving as government officials learned more about the virus and its transmissibility. In Canada, officials originally instructed seafarers to isolate for 14 days when they returned home. The policy changed subsequently to include the 14 days spent on board the vessel as part of the isolation period, and as a result, seafarers could return home directly (SF-1, Captain; SF-12, Union Representative). Some companies required crew members to self-isolate for 14 days before departing to the Arctic (SF-14). Symptomatic individuals were required to self-isolate on board away from other crew members, wear a mask, and await their test results (SF-1, Captain). The required isolation period once they returned home was difficult for some seafarers because they had to spend extra time away from their families and had less time to spend with them before leaving for the next trip (SF-14, Maritime Consultant).

3.2.6 Onboard COVID-19 Virus Management

Preventive measures to reduce the spread risk included seafarers wearing masks and socially distancing themselves from others on board, especially when off duty and during the first few days of the trip, just in case COVID-19 was present (SF-1, Captain). There were concerns about seafarers contracting the virus onshore and bringing it back to the vessel because that meant heavy restrictions would be reinstated and affect their working schedules (SF-9, Ship Manager; SF-10, Ship Manager; SF-11 Ship Manager). Moreover, ventilation systems on board were a risk factor in the potential spread of the airborne virus that could trigger an outbreak. Several seafarers suggested measures to isolate the ventilation of a seafarer’s cabin to reduce the spread (SF-12, Union representative).

Responding to a COVID-19 case in the Arctic was challenging, because of the limited medical resources and the remoteness of proper medical facilities and equipment. Seafarers who were infected with the virus but were asymptomatic presented a challenge to the vessel because they were unaware of their infection and potentially spread it to other crew members (SF-1, Captain).

In 2021, when COVID-19 vaccines were introduced, some companies deployed resources to assist with vaccinating their seafarers before arriving on board to reduce the potential spread of COVID-19 (SF-17, Bosun). The first dose was given before their first trip, and the second one between the first and second voyages when they returned from the Arctic (SF-17). With the increased availability of vaccines, Arctic seafarers were immunized as a group of essential workers.

3.2.7 Refusal to Work During the Pandemic

Due to the increased occupational hazards, some seafarers refused to return to sea in 2020 or retired early in fear of COVID-19 infection (SF-15 Human Resource Manager, SF-16 Captain). This was especially the case for older seafarers as they understood there was a higher risk of mortality (SF-15, SF-16). Seafarers with chronic health conditions also decided against returning to sea in the 2020 and 2021 seasons; they understood that their health could be jeopardized if they contracted the virus (SF-15, SF-16).

4 Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted workplace health and safety at sea (Shan, 2022; IMO, 2019; ILO, 2020). A study by Baygi et al. (2022) revealed a high prevalence of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder among international seafarers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a humanitarian and health crisis. In addition, related public health measures implemented by governments, such as travel bans, limits on embarkation and disembarkation, or suspensions in the issue of travel permits, exacerbated health and safety challenges faced by seafarers (ILO et al., 2021). The United Nations urged member states to designate seafarers as “key workers” and to ensure public health restrictions in port States did not interfere with seafarers’ fundamental rights, including rights to shore leave and repatriation. Most research on OHS in the maritime industry focuses on international seafarers; however, the exacerbated occupational health challenges faced by domestic Canadian Arctic seafarers during the pandemic present as a gap in the current literature. The present research also revealed that COVID-19-related public health measures created barriers to crew exchanges and shore leave for domestic Arctic seafarers in Canada. During the Arctic 5-month sailing seasons in the pandemic (2020–2023), when public health regulations tightened, few shore leave opportunities were available to seafarers who can temporarily escape from work-related pressures. COVID-19 infection risks and concerns about restrictions on crew exchange increase the difficulty of retaining Arctic seafarers.

Regardless of the pandemic-related health challenges, Arctic shipping still involves inherent health safety challenges, including a lack of maritime infrastructure to support cargo discharging in the northern communities, limited search and rescue capabilities, and limited navigational aids (Brigham, 2008; Larsen et al., 2016). In the Arctic communities, port-based seafarer welfare services do not exist. This gap marginalizes Arctic seafarers from the health and well-being services and health-protective advocacy provided by seafarers’ welfare centres in southern Canadian ports, further diminishing the visibility of challenges this cohort encounters.

Unpredictable weather conditions and complex navigational challenges in the Arctic waters lead to regular changes to seafarers’ work schedules. Interrupted rest and sleep schedules may increase the likelihood of fatigue-related accidents (Shan, 2022; ILO, 2015). The fatigue of seafarers engaged in watchkeeping seafarers may also be exacerbated by extended hours of navigating through challenging ice conditions (Xu et al., 2021). Subsequently, increases in fatigue and limited opportunities to get restorative sleep on board can compromise the mental health of seafarers. Among the young crew members, work overload, stress, exhaustion, lack of social life, and lack of support are frequently reported (Lucas et al., 2021).

Arctic maritime OHS challenges and restrictions in shore leave and crew change entitlement due to public health measures during the pandemic created considerable harm to Arctic seafarers’ health and well-being. Additionally, senior seafarers decided to retire earlier to mitigate exposure risks. These factors point to additive pressures that ultimately compromised the institutional safeguards designed to protect mental health of seafarers and impacted seafarer retention. Participants pointed to the impacts of the reduction in resources and workplace supports on the mental health of active Arctic seafarers who were isolated from family and friends for extended periods and subjected to exacerbated fatigue and workplace stress due to the deprivation of shore leave opportunities. These challenging work conditions reduce the attraction of Arctic navigation careers among young Canadians, which affects the sustainable talent recruitment of the Arctic shipping sector.

Sustainable recruitment and retention in Arctic shipping benefit from Arctic area-based risk management strategies that consider the knowledge and perceptions of the rightsholders of northern communities, seafarers, and other industry stakeholders (Lucas et al., 2021). A dedicated Arctic seafarer welfare service is recommended to ensure Arctic seafarers’ interests can be well-represented and considered in any future Arctic shipping policy development process.

The current Canadian maritime occupational health and safety law, including the Canada Labour Code and the Maritime Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (2010), has not sufficiently addressed Arctic seafarers’ unique occupational hazards. In the current Arctic shipping safety regulatory frameworks, the Arctic Shipping Safety and Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASSPPR, 2017), which incorporated the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code, 2014/15) into Canada’s domestic legislation, rare attention has been paid to protect seafarers from the unique health and safety challenges in the Arctic area. This research has highlighted this gap, and to bridge this gap, further studies are required to understand the occupational health conditions of Arctic seafarers, particularly their mental health conditions. Occupational health support on board and port-based welfare service opportunities in the near Arctic ports must be explored.

5 Conclusion

The Arctic environment presents unique occupational safety and health challenges for seafarers. The Arctic is a hazardous environment for maritime activities due to low temperatures, the danger of multi-year ice, the geographical isolation of the region, and a lack of infrastructural facilities. Even though exposure to COVID-19 was the most apparent danger of the pandemic, the public health measures adopted to restrict the transmission of the virus have led to further health and safety concerns. These measures, such as lockdowns, travel restrictions, and border controls, were implemented to safeguard local populations from the threat of infection. However, the unexpected consequences of these actions on the fundamental rights of seafarers cannot be ignored. Stressful and traumatic life experiences, such as pandemics, may increase the risk of depression and anxiety in those individuals who are already at risk. A comprehensive strategy for dealing with the long-term repercussions of the coronavirus pandemic must include a focus on mental health.

Arctic seafarers face various difficulties while working at sea, including cold weather, ice navigation, wind, extended daylight affecting circadian rhythms, and isolation. The fatigue seafarers experience while working in difficult circumstances may have major ramifications for their health, safety, and navigational safety. To prevent fatigue and related injuries, shipping companies must secure sufficient 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 beneficial for addressing some of the challenges highlighted in this chapter.

Due to the travel restrictions and fieldwork bans imposed by the university during the pandemic, this research also has significant 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.