Keywords

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 benefits.

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 reflections under five 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 reflections 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.

2 What We Have Learned

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 specific 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 traffic 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 scientific 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)).Footnote 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 definition 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” definition 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 identified 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, conflict management, safety and security of shipping, and the delivery of services to shipping. They consist of standardized and flexible 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 efficiency, consistency, predictability, and clarity, such as in the case of vessel traffic 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 specific context. This can be done in a nimble manner when time is of the essence. For example, in Canada, speed restrictions in defined 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 Pacific waters (see Chap. 5, this volume). These tools address the impacts of shipping directly through prescribing rules and standards for vessel operations in defined 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 flexible 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 flexible 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, fishing areas, submarine cables and pipelines, and military use areas. Chapter 8 further illustrated how vessel traffic 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.

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 specific 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 reflected 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 scientific exercise to define 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 traffic 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, fitness 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 influenced 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).

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 defines long-term goals (Ehler & Douvere, 2009), could potentially provide a framework to initiatives like the Corridors. An integrated MSP approach may offer other benefits, including clear guidelines, data-sharing 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-fledged 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 specific 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 benefits 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 Pacific 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 (ecosystem-based, 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 scientific 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.

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 first 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-reflexive about the various risks created by scientific, 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 profit.

A second observation is that ABM tools are devised explicitly to address specific aspects of shipping-related risks, as needed in defined areas, by imposing technical and operational actions and restrictions on ships navigating those areas. These ABM tools can be tailored to a specific risk, such as traffic 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 flexibility 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 reflect 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. Significantly, these can be justified based on different value systems of the societal actors with an interest in the human activities in that marine area. Thus, while scientific and technical knowledge is often a key element in supporting decisions on the need for ABM and in deciding on the specific 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 findings 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 exemplified in Chap. 10, which focuses on risk governance deficits 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 traffic 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 findings. For other ABM tools, techniques exist or are being developed to support strategic or operational decision-making 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 beneficial 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 scientific 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 decision-making procedures, implementation and monitoring plans, and stakeholder and rightsholder engagement processes for existing or new ABM tools.

The issue of standardized versus flexible ABM tools (noted in Sect. 14.2.1) can also be viewed through a risk lens. Standardized tools to handle particular risks, such as traffic 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 well-understood and the associated complexities and uncertainties are relatively low. Other well-established ABM tools balance efficiency, consistency, predictability, and clarity of legal instruments, with the flexibility inherent in the tool to tailor risk mitigations to the specific 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 flexibility 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 specific nature of an MSP in a given marine area to flexibly 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 scientifically 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 scientific 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 flexibility in requirements and measures to regulate activities are recommended. While technical risk assessments often play an important role in flexibly 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 specific 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).

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 specific, 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 efficient means of achieving desired outcomes in a given domain. These practices are often identified through experience, research, and analysis and are widely accepted as superior to alternative approaches. Best practices are continually refined 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 reflected in the examples in this book, the identification 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 significantly. 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 specific methods.

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

  • Methodical process: ABM should be based on a structured, rational approach to achieving the desired goal(s). There is no single approach, or recipe, to ABM, so it needs to be customized to the problem at hand, which is why generally ABM comprises a framework and various tools for effective management in marine spaces.

  • Stakeholder engagement and collaboration: The nature and degree of multiple stakeholder involvement depend on many factors, but principally the nature of the problem. Standard shipping lane designs in ports and waterways generally fall into the simple risk category (see Chap. 2) and may rely primarily on data-driven modelling, requiring limited consultation with shipping and port experts. Conversely, as noted in the preceding sections, shipping in the Canadian Arctic may involve complex and/or ambiguous risks which calls for extensive consultation with Indigenous groups, environmentalists, shipping companies, seafarers (see Chap. 13), and multiple levels of government.

  • Building trust: When there are competing interests in an ABM problem, better outcomes can be achieved through collaborative solutions, even though they often involve compromise on all sides, but such a joint effort in turn is enabled by building trust between the varied stakeholders and rightsholders. This takes time, patience, and diplomacy, but the end result can benefit greatly, and it also helps to foster sustainability of the ABM implementation.

  • Evidence-based decision-making: ABM should be based on the best available scientific information and data. This includes spatial data on the relevant oceanographic conditions, human activities in the area, and socio-economic, and sometimes cultural, factors. Incorporating data does not preclude subjective inputs that may complement or occasionally supersede scientific-based information since, for real-world problems, crucial data may be lacking or sometimes be misleading or erroneous.

  • Long-term vision: Some ABM applications that are meant to endure indefinitely should be guided by a long-term vision that considers the implications of decisions over time. This involves setting clear goals and objectives for sustainable development and continuously monitoring progress towards achieving them. Furthermore, projecting into the future allows planners to account for potential significant changes in conditions, such as climate change effects, evolved ship designs and technology, new international regulations, changing global markets, and other elements. Such considerations may affect specific aspects of the proposed ABM plan. Finally, uncertainty should be considered, and while it generally grows with longer time horizons, incorporating it can contribute to hedging strategies which ultimately enhance the success of the ABM plan.

  • Adaptive management: As a corollary to the preceding point, since a forward-looking approach does not address all uncertainty, when it is germane, ABM tools should be flexible and adaptive, capable of responding to new information, changing conditions, and emerging challenges. This involves monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of planning decisions and to make adjustments as necessary over time. While the processes in a given ABM tool should be responsive to changing conditions, the concept of “dynamic” should be considered in the short, medium, and long term, where the main emphasis depends on the particular problem.

  • Cumulative effects assessment: Depending on the context, the term cumulative can refer to the possibility of impacts of multiple ship-source stressors on various receptors, but also the accumulation of impacts over time (even of a single stressor), which ties into the previous element of trying to predict the aggregate future benefits, and possibly side effects, of an ABM plan.

  • Sustainability: The previous points also tie into the concept of sustainability, which may apply to some ABM problems, whereby the plan should aim to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

  • Equity and social justice: On occasion, ABM must promote equity and social justice, particularly for coastal and/or Indigenous groups that are affected by shipping activity. This may include mitigation of shipping impacts on valued environments or activities, or opportunities for communities to benefit from changes induced through the ABM implementation.

  • Environmental protection: Irrespective of all considerations for the needs and values of rightsholders, special interest groups, or industry, ABM should prioritize the protection and conservation of the environment where possible, even if it is not the principal aim of the exercise, including the coast, water, air, and biodiversity.

  • Efficiency: By design, many ABM plans place various restrictions on shipping activities, but to the extent possible, economic benefits should be maintained or enhanced, to the benefit of all consumers of the vessels’ cargoes or services. In accordance with that, there should be consideration of the increased costs of shipping when ABM tools have the effect of prolonging voyages. This element also applies to multiple, potentially conflicting, uses of ocean spaces, whereby an 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.

  • Effectiveness: Ultimately, the implementation of an ABM tool requires a supportive legal, policy, and monitoring framework, which may be at the national, regional, and international levels, as well as mechanisms for coordination and cooperation among relevant authorities and stakeholders. Alternatively, the constraints on shipping behaviour can be applied on a voluntary basis, subject to sufficient monitoring and compliance.

  • Periodic review: The design and application of ABM tools should be accompanied by periodic performance review and evaluation to determine overall effectiveness and justification of the continued associated costs. An evaluative framework that investigates the performance and measures the elements set out above should be considered.

  • Transparency and accountability: ABM processes should be transparent, inclusive, and accountable to ensure legitimacy and trust by relevant stakeholders and rightsholders. This involves providing access to information (subject to data sovereignty or privacy restrictions), opportunities for public participation, and mechanisms for feedback and grievance redressal.

There are of course challenges to adopting some of these elements in ABM design. Some difficulties 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 benefits 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 beneficial.

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 re-evaluation 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 scientifically 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 Scientific 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 identification and management of impacts from marine shipping on the ocean environment in a regional or area-based context (Samuel Mansfield, 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 specific 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 benefit 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 benefits.

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 beneficial 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 decision-making 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 flexibly 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 risk-based 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.