Addressing the Cumulative Effects of Marine Shipping Through Area-Based Management Approaches

Abstract

Canada’s Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) is a comprehensive initiative launched by the Government of Canada to enhance marine safety, protect marine ecosystems, engage with coastal communities, and improve evidence-based decision-making. The OPP focuses on safeguarding Canadian coasts and waterways by implementing measures to prevent and respond to marine incidents, supporting research and innovation, and establishing stronger Indigenous partnerships to address maritime concerns and promote sustainable marine practices. Under the Oceans Protection Plan, Transport Canada’s Cumulative Effects of Marine Shipping (CEMS) initiative has been working in seven regions of Canada to assess and address the regional cumulative effects of marine shipping, in partnership with Indigenous peoples and guided by the principles of reconciliation. The goal of this chapter is to showcase how area-based management (ABM) is applied in the CEMS initiative by first providing background on the CEMS initiative from a broad perspective and then examining linkages between the initiative and ABM approaches. A case study is described from one regional CEMS assessment being conducted along a section of the Northwest Passage in southern Victoria Island, Nunavut, which resulted in the development of a voluntary measure using an ABM approach to mitigate the impacts of icebreaking activities on caribou migration and hunter safety.

1 Introduction

Marine shipping is a vital part of Canada’s economy, culture, environment, and security (Council of Canadian Academies, 2017). It is essential for trade growth and prosperity as shipping often remains the only viable mode of transporting goods to domestic and international markets. Each of Canada’s three coasts, as well as the Great Lakes and Canada’s inland waterways, has experienced continuous growth in marine traffic, and this trend is predicted to persist into the future (Council of Canadian Academies, 2017; Clear Seas, 2020; Kochanowicz et al., 2020). In recognition of Canada’s reliance on shipping and the growing presence of vessels, from small recreational boats to large commercial ships, there is a need to effectively manage marine traffic within Canadian waters.

Transport Canada (TC) plays a leadership role for the Government of Canada (GoC) in ensuring that all components of Canada’s marine transportation system work together in an efficient, safe, and environmentally sustainable manner. In 2016, the GoC announced the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) with the mandate of protecting coasts and waterways under Canadian jurisdiction (Transport Canada, 2024). The priorities of the OPP include enhancing marine safety, preserving and restoring marine ecosystems, engaging with coastal communities, and building a stronger evidence base for decision-making. As a reflection of the GoC’s commitment to working toward reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, a foundational component of the OPP is to also create stronger Indigenous partnerships and collaboratively address the marine shipping concerns of Indigenous communities. As Canada’s lead department on policies and regulations related to the safety and security of marine transportation, TC has responsibilities to develop and administer various initiatives under the OPP, including the Cumulative Effects of Marine Shipping (CEMS) initiative.

The purpose of the CEMS initiative is to establish shared approaches to better understand the potential cumulative effects (CE) of regional marine shipping activities on the environment and coastal communities. Many Indigenous and non-Indigenous coastal communities have expressed concerns regarding the experienced impacts and perceived risks of shipping activities on coastal and marine environments and Indigenous ways of life. Such concerns are often raised during project-level impact assessments (e.g., resource extraction projects and/or port infrastructure development), but the process of assessing CE for such projects does not always provide a thorough understanding of CE at a regional scale. Since 2018, TC has been working alongside Indigenous peoples in seven “pilot” areas throughout Canada’s three coasts to undertake regional CE assessments that aim to better understand and address the interactions between marine shipping activities and their effects. These areas are referred to as “pilot areas” since TC is developing a novel approach to assess the CE of marine shipping on a regional basis, beyond the scope of individual project-level impact assessments. Use of the term “pilot” enables the exploration of innovative strategies, methodologies, and new collaborative engagement models to collect and document valuable insights for completing such work. These pilot areas include Cambridge Bay, Nunavut; the Northern Shelf Bioregion, British Columbia (BC); South Coast, BC; St. Lawrence and Saguenay Rivers, Quebec; Great Lakes, Ontario; Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; and Placentia Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador (Fig. 3.1).

Fig. 3.1

Map depicting the locations of CEMS pilot areas

A key deliverable of the CEMS initiative is the development of a National CEMS Framework that provides flexible guidance in assessing the regional cumulative effects of marine shipping based on the steps taken and lessons learned through the implementation of national and regional CEMS work (Transport Canada, 2022). The National CEMS Framework provides a description of the key activities and outcomes that are involved in completing a CEMS assessment, as summarized in Fig. 3.2. Flexibility is embedded within each phase of the CEMS process to respond to unique priorities and needs in each pilot area and to respect the preferences of regional partners. As such, a key insight gained through the pilot work to date is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach for assessing regional cumulative effects of marine shipping across different regions of Canada.

Fig. 3.2

Transport Canada’s Cumulative Effects of Marine Shipping (CEMS) Assessment Framework under the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) (Transport Canada, 2022). In the first phase of the OPP (2016–2022), the CEMS initiative put an emphasis on completing the first four steps (in blue) of this framework. The last two steps (pale blue) are being explored through the recent renewal and ongoing implementation of OPP (2023 onward)

While there are common stressors from marine shipping activities across the pilot areas (e.g., wake disturbance), the understanding of regional CE is shaped by the historical and present-day contexts of associated impacts to culture, socioeconomics, and the environment that are distinct to each area. It is therefore essential to establish a thorough and holistic understanding of marine shipping activities of concern and their associated impacts for each area to inform effective and comprehensive management recommendations that can be applied to current vessel operations and/or considered in future project-level impact assessments. The development of management recommendations must be informed by the desired outcomes of regional CEMS partners and collaborators in terms of whether the anticipated changes to marine shipping activities are likely to address their concerns. The requirements and preferences of other marine stakeholders and users of the waterways must also be factored into this decision-making process to ensure the expectations of all parties are aligned and for the management recommendations to be optimally effective and feasible. To assist with this process, CEMS has compiled a list of legislation, regulations, policies, programs, or voluntary tools (“management levers”) that could be used to mitigate or manage the effects of marine shipping activities under different levels of jurisdiction (see Appendix IV of Transport Canada, 2022).

Area-based management (ABM) is an approach for managing anthropogenic stressors in an area that can be applied to a marine shipping context (Dalhousie University et al., 2022). In consideration of the complex and dynamic nature of marine shipping in Canada, the goal of this chapter is to explain how ABM strategies can be applied in the context of the CEMS initiative to help overcome challenges with effectively managing the potential effects associated with such activities. The purpose of Sect. 3.2 is to identify and explain the various linkages between the CEMS initiative and ABM, both in terms of how ABM is related to CEMS as well as how CEMS can inform efforts by other researchers in applying ABM strategies. It will also describe how TC is working toward reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada with the development of various collaborative governance frameworks that have been applied in CEMS. Section 3.3 will then provide a case study of how the CEMS initiative used an ABM, regional and collaborative approach to establish a Notice to Mariners in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, which is a voluntary ABM tool to mitigate the impacts of icebreakers on caribou migration and hunter safety.

2 Application of Area-Based Management Strategies in CEMS

2.1 Using an Area-Based Management Approach in CEMS

Transport Canada’s National CEMS Framework defines a CE assessment as a systematic process that identifies, analyzes, and evaluates changes in the environment caused by interactions between human activities and natural processes over time and space. Guidelines put forward by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) state that regional CE assessments involve understanding and analyzing past, current, and future conditions, and their interactions, through an agreed-upon process (CCME, 2009). Lastly, the Government of Canada’s definition of CE includes the combined effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities and natural processes. It goes on to state that specific definitions vary among different parties and under different legislation and policies, but the term generally refers to effects that may be individually minor, but collectively significant. Effects can be adverse (e.g., decreased water quality) or positive (e.g., economic growth opportunities for a community). Overall, these definitions collectively emphasize a structured, comprehensive, and collaborative approach to understanding the complex and interrelated impacts of human activities and natural processes, which can have significant implications for the environment and people.

The CEMS initiative is an example of an activity-based and area-based management approach to decision-making—the “activity” being marine shipping and the “area” being the coastal region being assessed (i.e., CEMS pilot areas). Before embarking on the development of the National CEMS Framework, TC commissioned a “Literature Review of Cumulative Effects Management Concepts and International Frameworks” (Lerner, 2018). A takeaway from this review was that 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. Under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS, 1974), the International Maritime Organization (IMO) may adopt a number of ship routeing measures in an area to ensure safe navigation and marine environmental protection, including areas to be avoided, traffic separation schemes, two-way routes, recommended tracks, no-anchoring areas, inshore traffic zones, roundabouts, precautionary areas, and deep-water routes (NOAA, 2020). Activity-based assessments are also being used around the world such as in Norway (Barents Sea Integrated Management Plan), Australia (Great Barrier Reef Strategic Environmental Assessment), and New Zealand (Mauri Model Decision-making Framework in post-Rena assessment), to evaluate the CE of stressors on the marine environment (Lerner, 2018). Within these examples found in the literature, many types of tools and models are being used to help identify and organize cause-and-effect linkages between activities and CE on components of the environment. Some examples of these tools include causal frameworks (e.g., the Drivers-Pressures-State-Change-Impact-Response framework and pathways of effects models), ecological risk assessment frameworks, and cumulative impact mapping (Lerner, 2018).

Regional assessments, when looked at from a broad perspective, such as through the lens of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), are extensive studies conducted in areas with existing or anticipated development that can guide land and marine planning efforts. They are adaptable and diverse, involving a range of approaches, and can encompass various activities, sectors, or specific activities within a region, ultimately enhancing impact assessment processes and decisions to better understand and manage effects (IAAC, 2022). Since regional assessments also provide strategic and comprehensive information for decision-making, they can be useful for and linked to other ABM approaches such as marine spatial planning (MSP) and marine protected area (MPA) management.

MSP is a tool used to establish a comprehensive and integrated approach to the management of activities in marine areas. It can consider ecological, social, and economic aspects and aims to balance the competing uses of marine spaces. MPA management focuses on the protection and conservation of a specific marine area to maintain its ecological integrity and the biodiversity found within. Within MPA management, zoning may be established to restrict human activities to allow for the protection of the marine ecosystems and species present. Since regional CE assessments look at the cumulative effects of human activities on environmental, cultural, social, and economic conditions, they can inform both MSP and MPA processes to help manage activities that may be causing harm to the marine space itself (e.g., reducing biodiversity) and use of that space (e.g., by Indigenous and coastal communities). Regional CE assessments can also inform other linked processes such as monitoring and/or restoration programs, help identify knowledge and data gaps that can inform further research, as well as enable Indigenous peoples and other groups (e.g., academia and environmental nongovernment organizations) in collecting information to support their involvement in MSP or MPA management processes.

Besides informing MSP or MPA management, regional CE assessments can also help to inform ongoing project-level impact assessments such as those under Canada’s Impact Assessment Act (2019) or other reviews subject to a provincial or territorial impact assessment process (e.g., Inuvialuit Final Agreement (1984), Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act (2013), Yukon Environmental Socio-Economic Act (2003), and Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (1998)). Regional CE assessments can provide valuable information for project-level impact assessments by:

• Identifying potential CE that may not have been considered in isolation of a single project

• Identifying existing environmental and social conditions in a region such as the presence of sensitive habitats or culturally significant areas

• Identifying regional mitigation measures that can be considered during project-level impact assessments and incorporated into project design and planning

• Informing decision-making processes related to project approvals and permitting by providing the broader context for understanding potential impacts and CE

• Helping to ensure that project-level impact assessments are conducted in a comprehensive and informed manner, considering the broader environmental and social context in which the project is situated

2.2 Advancing Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Canada Through CEMS

The GoC is committed to working toward reconciliation with Indigenous peoples (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) through renewed, Nation-to-Nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-Crown relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation, and partnerships. Indigenous peoples are key partners in the OPP, as coastal environments are intrinsic to the identities and ways of life for these communities. Indigenous peoples have invaluable traditional and local knowledge, which can inform the marine safety system and expand the western scientific understanding of ecosystems. Indigenous participation is especially important in Canada, which has a legal context of constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights, treaty rights, and title. The CEMS initiative relies on regional partnerships, collaboration, and engagement in each of the regional CE assessments underway and with national organizations where possible and appropriate. TC has developed several types of models for strengthened collaboration with Indigenous peoples aimed at improving the quality and legitimacy of CEMS assessments (Transport Canada, 2022).

CEMS pilot area assessments are heavily influenced by the principles of reconciliation, as they are being conducted in partnership with Indigenous peoples and coastal communities. Therefore, the development of effective solutions in addressing concerns arising from CEMS assessments is also shaped by the principles of reconciliation, as agreed to in the regionally specific collaborative governance frameworks. The solutions should be culturally appropriate, respect Indigenous rights and knowledge, and contribute to the well-being of Indigenous peoples. In Canada, there are several other examples of ABM-type initiatives that have been developed in partnership with Indigenous communities, including the resulting culturally appropriate management strategies. Examples include the Victoria Island Waterway Safety Committee in Nunavut and the Marine Area Planning Partnership in BC (MaPP, 2024). These initiatives represent key steps toward reconciliation and a more inclusive and sustainable approach to managing Canada’s natural resources in partnership with Indigenous peoples.

To establish a more holistic understanding of the issues associated with marine shipping activities, the CEMS process provides flexibility for bringing together western science and Indigenous knowledge. As part of the CEMS initiative, there is recognition of the uniqueness and significance of Indigenous and western knowledge systems, and efforts are deliberately made in the conduct of CEMS assessments to create synergies across these diverse knowledge systems. Doing so provides invaluable insights for understanding the externalities of marine shipping activities on local communities regarding their environment and ways of living. Furthermore, by utilizing both knowledge systems, recommendations to mitigate the impacts of marine shipping identified through CEMS assessments are inherently more comprehensive. Such management recommendations can then serve as a reliable compass to inform the development of strategies for mitigation that fully consider the cumulative effects of marine shipping activities within a region.

2.3 Collaboration Models in CEMS

Each of the seven CEMS pilot sites has progressed differently since each area has unique regional realities and priorities. As a result, there are notable differences in their collaboration models, engagement strategies, and assessment methodologies, as each is tailored to the region in focus. As documented in the National CEMS Framework, the diversity of approaches used for completing work at each CEMS pilot site highlights the importance of being flexible while conducting activity-based and area-based assessments. Maintaining this flexibility is crucial for several reasons including the following:

• 1. Different regions of Canada have unique cultural, socioeconomic, and environmental characteristics that require tailored approaches to address their specific needs and challenges. A flexible approach allows local communities and other parties to have input from the beginning to codevelop the planning and decision-making processes, as well as encourage collaboration from interested parties, which results in a more effective and culturally appropriate management approach.

• 2. A flexible approach allows for the process to be adaptive, which is critical in responding to changing environmental and social conditions or unexpected events (e.g., adjusting the expectations and work scheduling due to COVID-19).

• 3. A flexible approach enables the incorporation of new knowledge as it becomes available, which also promotes more effective adaptive management strategies.

• 4. A flexible approach can also facilitate reconciliation with Indigenous peoples by acknowledging and incorporating their perspectives, values, and knowledge into CE assessment approaches and management decisions. Furthermore, this approach recognizes the important and necessary role of Indigenous peoples in managing the land and waters and can lead to more equitable management approaches.

There have been many lessons learned from utilizing collaborative governance models for implementing the CEMS initiative that could be considered by other groups or researchers when completing similar regional or area-based work that involves Indigenous peoples and/or Indigenous organizations. It is important to note the term “collaborative governance” means different things to different people. It is a complex term, and the arrangements themselves can be varied depending on the needs and parties involved. In this regard, the lessons learned to this point by the CEMS initiative (and documented in the National CEMS Framework) include the following:

• Commit to early and ongoing relationship building.

• Build partnerships based on open dialog and trust.

• Understand the macroscopic environment to realize synergies.

• Plan to incorporate local issues and be guided by Indigenous principles.

• Link CEMS work with other ongoing initiatives where possible and appropriate.

• Embrace a flexible and collaborative approach from the initial planning stages that isn’t restricted by preconceived notions.

• Respect the Nation-to-Nation relationship.

• Facilitate opportunities for meaningful two-way dialog.

• Proactively provide capacity support.

• Devote effort to project management best practices.

Regardless of the collaborative governance model being used, the CEMS initiative has found it important to invest time in understanding the concerns, interests, and current practices of local and Indigenous communities; improve the communication and coordination of CEMS work with other regional initiatives being undertaken in the same general area; and understand the importance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Calls to Action (TRCC, 2012), especially in the context of partnership-building.

3 CEMS Case Study in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut

3.1 Background on the Cambridge Bay Pilot Area

Located on the Arctic coastline of Canada’s Northwest Passage, Iqaluktuutiaq (or Cambridge Bay, as it was renamed by settlers) is a hamlet on the southeastern shore of Victoria Island within the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut. For centuries, the community of Cambridge Bay has stewarded their lands and waters and, in doing so, holds Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit traditional knowledge, also commonly referred to as “IQ”) of the actions that must be taken to protect the area and to continue their traditional ways of life. From 1990 to 2015, Cambridge Bay had the third highest increase in vessel traffic in Nunavut due to an increasing number of passenger vessels, cargo vessels, tankers, and pleasure vessels navigating the Northwest Passage (Dawson et al., 2018). In response, residents of Cambridge Bay, and those in other Arctic communities that have witnessed similar changes, have voiced a need to better understand the CE of marine shipping activities in the region and to identify management strategies that will effectively mitigate both current and anticipated impacts.

In 2018, the local Ekaluktutiak Hunters & Trappers Organization (EHTO) agreed to partner with TC and Oceans North (an environmental nongovernment organization) to collaborate on conducting the CEMS Cambridge Bay pilot area assessment. The Victoria Island Waterways Safety Committee (VIWSC) was formed under the authority of the EHTO to guide the development and implementation of the CEMS project. Representation on the VIWSC consists of Cambridge Bay community members (including hunters and Elders), relevant Inuit organizations, and various territorial and federal government organizations, and the VIWSC serves as a forum for collaborative decision-making. After the VIWSC was formed, terms of reference (TOR) were codeveloped to consolidate the collaborative governance structure, specify the diverse mandates of the VIWSC members, and outline the preferred decision-making approach and process. In addition, the TOR highlights the shared goals of the VIWSC, which are focused on developing management recommendations and identifying best practices for ensuring a safe, efficient, and predictable operating environment for all waterway users.

The VIWSC also guides the implementation of two other OPP initiatives that have been active in Cambridge Bay since 2018: the Proactive Vessel Management (PVM) and the Enhanced Maritime Situational Awareness (EMSA) initiatives. Although each OPP initiative in Cambridge Bay (i.e., CEMS, PVM, and EMSA) has distinct roles and objectives, the decision to have them operate simultaneously was intentional as there are clear synergies and benefits in doing so:

• CEMS provides a process to collaboratively identify all regional marine shipping issues of concern, gather relevant knowledge and data for evaluating the levels of CE occurring, and use that information to support evidence-informed decision-making.

• PVM is a partnership among Indigenous communities, federal maritime authorities, industry, environmental nongovernment organizations, and other marine stakeholders to address impacts of commercial shipping that conflict with Indigenous users in local and regional waterways. The nature of PVM is designed for regional and local flexibility, allowing for each table to identify priority concerns, gather existing information, and codevelop the best approach to address the issues (e.g. voluntary management measures, vessel routing, speed controls, communication protocols, etc). 

• EMSA is a web-based geographic information system that provides near-real-time vessel information across Canada. TC partners with 13 Indigenous communities, including Cambridge Bay, to continuously codevelop the EMSA system. The system provides access to near real time maritime vessel traffic data and when combined with environmental information, the system deepens maritime domain awareness. This common operating picture of the maritime environment can be used in a number of ways to support collaborative planning and decision-making processes. The system can be used to understand activities occurring in and around traditional territories and sensitive areas and can also be used to monitor and evaluate whether vessel management measures are achieving desired outcomes. 

Through early discussions at the VIWSC, the following marine shipping impacts and activities were prioritized to be included in the scope of the Cambridge Bay CEMS regional assessment:

• Impacts of icebreaking activities on caribou migration, food security, and hunter safety

• Impacts of vessel wake on coastal erosion as well as marine mammal haulouts, and calving areas

• Impacts of accidental oil spills on coastal shorelines, marine mammals, fish, and cultural sites

• Impacts of underwater noise on marine mammal distribution and behavior

At the time of writing, the assessments for each pathway of effect are at various stages of completion. The advancement of each assessment has been heavily influenced by the availability (or lack thereof) of knowledge and data to inform an understanding of baseline conditions and effects. As such, a crucial step of CEMS (as well as PVM and EMSA) has been to continually build long-lasting local capacity for the EHTO and VIWSC to collect relevant information and to be actively involved in long-term CE assessment work such as CEMS.

Examples of the ways capacity is being provided to assist with the assessment of CE include the collaboration with other departments to access and/or leverage equipment for the EHTO to collect data. This involves using hydrophones to gather underwater acoustic data, utilizing drones and training to capture baseline information on shoreline conditions, and employing trail cameras and training to set up equipment for monitoring shoreline erosion. Additionally, the approach involves establishing collaborations with researchers to offer assistance and training in data collection. Furthermore, service agreements and/or capacity funding is provided to cover costs associated with fieldwork and project management. This funding also contributes to enhancing resources necessary to facilitate community engagement and the collection of local knowledge when appropriate. People in the Cambridge Bay community are stewards of their land and waters, so it is important to consider that building capacity should be responsive to the needs of the community and done in a way that reflects the preferences of the region. Doing so has helped to build a holistic and shared understanding of CE as well as encourage collaborative governance and decision-making.

The impacts of icebreaking activities on caribou migration, food security, and hunter safety emerged as a top priority issue when the VIWSC was first established. In response, immediate efforts were put toward addressing those concerns and developing a solution to mitigate those impacts. The following subsections will detail the steps involved and outcomes of that process, which showcase how ABM has been applied through OPP work in the region.

3.2 Identifying Area-Based Solutions for Managing Ship Traffic in Cambridge Bay

Each autumn, as sea ice starts to form around Cambridge Bay, the Dolphin and Union caribou herds commence their yearly migration across the frozen, intact waterways linking Victoria Island and the mainland, which also serve as travel routes for local hunters seeking their traditional food source (Dumond et al., 2013). The waterways also provide safe connections between residents of neighboring Arctic communities, allowing Inuit to maintain cultural connections, customs, and traditional ways of life.

The potential for icebreaking to obstruct caribou migration or impact people on sea ice has been documented for many years as a potential problem across the Arctic and specifically within the Kitikmeot region (ICC, 2014; Kochanowicz et al., 2020). In 2015, two icebreakers were transiting eastward from the Chukchi Sea in Alaska with the original intent to pass north of Victoria Island, but ice conditions prevented use of that route. In the meantime, a local hunter had been tracking a caribou herd and, upon returning home, noticed the icebreakers transiting through the very frozen pathways he had traversed on his snowmobile the previous day. Had the icebreakers passed through a little earlier, the hunter would have been stranded from his community until the ice could freeze over again, possibly weeks later. The hunter’s encounter highlighted an urgent need to improve two-way communication between vessels and local authorities to prevent unexpected encounters with wildlife or people on the sea ice. As such, the VIWSC quickly reached consensus to conduct a comprehensive assessment on the impacts of icebreaking activities and to formulate and implement mitigation actions (using a PVM approach).

In October 2019, the EHTO hosted a series of “icebreaking” workshops that gathered over 40 participants representing various voices from the local and surrounding communities of the Kitikmeot region (including Elders), federal and territorial governments, nongovernment organizations, academia, industry, and other marine stakeholders. Through group discussions, presentations, and interactive mapping exercises, relevant scientific evidence and IQ was brought forward to pinpoint seasonal periods and locations where caribou and people are expected to utilize sea ice, and ship operators traveling through the region should be made aware of. As Inuit identity, knowledge, and livelihoods are strongly linked to the seasonal cycles of sea ice and wildlife harvesting, it was critical to integrate these perspectives with those of scientists and industry to build a shared picture and context for the issue. This was evidenced throughout the workshop as the observations of Elders and hunters clearly aligned with the scientific evidence concerning seasonal patterns of sea ice and caribou, which helped allocate more effort toward developing solutions.

Given the urgency of needing to address the issue, participants recognized the advantages of developing voluntary measures that could be more readily implemented. There was also recognition that the agreed-upon solution should not involve outright banning of icebreaking or shipping activities given the critical role these activities play in supporting local economies and providing essential services in the region such as community resupply. With these considerations in mind, participants agreed that a Notice to Mariners (NOTMAR) was the most effective communication and management tool to quickly convey these considerations to mariners. Additionally, given the development of new safety protocols for activities in the Arctic, such as the International Maritime Organization’s Polar Code (2014/15), there were opportunities for locally relevant information within a NOTMAR to be included in mandated voyage planning.

3.3 Implementation of ABM in Cambridge Bay

An outcome of the icebreaking workshops was the development of the Notice to Mariners for Vessels Intending to Navigate the Kitikmeot Region in Canada’s Northern Waters (hereby referred to as the “NOTMAR Notice 7C”) that has been in place since 2020 (see Fig. 3.3) (NOTMAR, 2020a). In 2023, the NOTMAR Notice 7C was updated to include inputs gathered from the neighboring communities of Kugluktuk and Gjoa Haven, as both communities use the same waterways as Cambridge Bay and rely on the same caribou herds for their food security (Paquette, 2020). With the NOTMAR Notice 7C in effect from April through November each year, vessels must provide 1 week’s notice of their passage over the phone to a list of contacts and follow-up 24 hours in advance. The NOTMAR Notice 7C also outlines voluntary measures that request vessels slow down to minimum safe speeds if people or caribou are encountered while transiting and to refrain from opening multiple leads through the open ice. By improving communication with ships in real time and before their arrival, vessel operators and the communities of Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk, and Gjoa Haven, can keep each other well-informed about their respective activities.

Fig. 3.3

Overview of the spatial boundaries and considerations included in the Notice to Mariners for Vessels Intending to Navigate the Kitikmeot Region in Canada’s Norther Waters. Source: https://www.notmar.gc.ca/publications/annual-annuel/section-a/a7c-en.php

In addition to addressing the potential impacts caused by icebreakers, the NOTMAR Notice 7C applies to all vessels transiting through the identified protection zone. Furthermore, TC also recently amended Notice 7A Voyage Planning for Vessels Intending to Navigate in Canada’s Northern Waters to better reflect the department’s regulatory requirements regarding the Polar Code and voyage planning in the Arctic (NOTMAR, 2022). NOTMAR Notice 7A is now published and includes recommended measures to mitigate the impacts of shipping on traditional hunting and fishing, environmentally sensitive areas, marine mammals, and caribou migration in the Canadian Arctic. It also explicitly mentions the NOTMAR Notice 7C as it must be considered by the master of a vessel before embarking on a voyage through Arctic waters and documented in their voyage plans if transiting through the identified protection zone. These voyage plans are submitted for review by TC Marine Safety & Security in advance of a voyage as required by the Polar Code.

Due to travel restrictions caused by COVID-19 whereby nonessential vessels were not permitted to transit through Arctic waters in 2020–2022, there has not yet been an extensive evaluation of the adherence of vessels to the NOTMAR Notice 7C voluntary measures under normal traffic conditions. However, in 2022, essential Canadian Coast Guard icebreaking vessels adhered to the NOTMAR voluntary measures and reporting protocols. TC is leveraging opportunities to continually raise awareness of the NOTMAR Notice 7C measures through industry forums (e.g., Canadian Marine Advisory Council—Prairie and Northern Region), direct engagement with regional ship operators and other local authorities, to encourage mariners to follow the recommended voluntary measures. The EMSA platform will also be used to monitor vessel activity and help determine the efficacy of the NOTMAR Notice 7C.

Moving forward, the VIWSC will continue to serve as a forum for collaborative decision-making in determining whether adjustments are needed to improve the NOTMAR Notice 7C by adapting it to changes in local conditions and the timing of the seasons or migration periods or to consider new knowledge. The NOTMAR 7C could also be broadened to address other issues prioritized through CEMS such as the impacts of underwater noise on marine mammals. For instance, measures have been developed through a NOTMAR in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region to identify voluntary avoidance and slowdown areas to protect beluga and bowhead whale populations (NOTMAR, 2020b). As such, the NOTMAR, established through a joint effort between the EHTO, VIWSC, CEMS, PVM, and EMSA, is a flexible communication tool that can support ABM and address concerns of the Cambridge Bay community by effectively mitigating the risks of shipping to wildlife and people using the waterways, in a precautionary and proactive manner.

4 Conclusion

In 2016, the OPP was launched to safeguard Canadian coasts and waterways, which includes the CEMS initiative. The CEMS initiative involves using novel approaches that aim to understand the CE of regional marine shipping activities on the environment and Indigenous communities and should be viewed as an example of an initiative that utilizes ABM approaches. The outcomes of CEMS assessments can inform the development of policies, regulations, and mitigation strategies that consider the CE of all marine shipping activities in a region. TC has partnered with Indigenous peoples in seven pilot areas in Canada to evaluate regional CE and explore new collaborative engagement models for a comprehensive understanding of CE issues and for collaborative decision-making. This chapter highlighted an example of how CEMS applied ABM approaches through the CEMS regional assessment in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, that is being completed in partnership with the EHTO and Oceans North. Specifically, the collaborative development of the NOTMAR Notice 7C showcases how an ABM strategy was developed to address the community’s concerns regarding the impacts of icebreaking activities on caribou and people traveling on the sea ice. Other such tools and ABM approaches are in development, not only through CEMS in Cambridge Bay but also through the other six ongoing CEMS pilot areas, which are described in the CEMS National Framework.

It is important to acknowledge that the process of identifying and understanding the CE of marine shipping activities in Canada is complex. Recognition of this complexity led to the development of inclusive, flexible, and adaptive approaches to understand and address marine shipping impacts in a manner that embraces Indigenous knowledge and western science. Furthermore, a foundational component of CEMS (and OPP) is grounding the work through the commitment of the Government of Canada for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Efforts are also made through the CEMS initiative to shift decision-making to a more collaborative approach with Indigenous peoples as recognized by the adoption of UNDRIP by the federal government of Canada. Having the CEMS initiative grounded in the principles of reconciliation and collaborative governance has continuously helped advance the initiative in true partnership with Indigenous peoples. The authors of this report wish to thank the EHTO for their continued efforts in the OPP-CEMS initiative and at the VIWSC table.