Keywords

1 Introduction

Area-based management (ABM) approaches, including marine spatial planning, are prominent in the context of Canada’s ocean policy and legal frameworks, namely, the Oceans Act (1996), Oceans Strategy (DFO, 2002), and Oceans Protection Plan (Canada, n.d.), which have consistently proposed integrated and ecosystem-based approaches, clearly requiring the engagement of local communities and Indigenous peoples. Canada’s Oceans Strategy states that integrated planning processes need to “gather input from scientific and traditional knowledge, vigorous public debate, monitoring, assessment and reporting” (p. 5). More specifically, the Strategy calls for the following:

  • New technologies and understanding of traditional ecological knowledge that become part of the approach

  • New sets of information and new types of relationships that will promote wealth generation and assist in managing conflicts

  • Efficiencies through an increased knowledge base, establishing effective networks and reducing regulatory delays (p. 5)

More recently, Canada introduced the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIP Act, 2021), which affirms Canada’s commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007). The UNDRIP Act requires that the laws of Canada are amended, as necessary, to ensure they are in line with UNDRIP and directs the Government to implement an action plan to achieve the Declaration’s objectives (GoC, 2023), all in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples. In practical terms, this may require federal departments and agencies to develop new strategies for engagement, from improving consultation mechanisms to involving Indigenous communities in the design and implementation of governance models, including on maritime issues.

Integrated marine planning today is intrinsically connected to and dependent on decision support tools and systems that process information. Computational and remote sensing tools, such as geographic information systems (GIS), Marxan, automatic identifications systems (AIS), logbooks, biological sampling, catch sampling, etc., are heavily reliant on quantitative data and datasets, and they are seamlessly integrated into DSS.

The reliance on information tools is increasing, and it is beginning to be recognized that the growing dependence on these tools in management may be to the detriment of observational, experiential, and traditional knowledge systems, such as those of Indigenous peoples (Tesar et al., 2019). Multiple stakeholders, activities, and goals, among others, are involved in ABM, which includes marine protected areas (MPAs) and marine spatial planning (MSP). With the prevalence of computer-based decision support tools (DSTs), local stakeholders are forced to adapt their understanding and knowledge of the environment to fit the demands (and limitations) of the tools. Furthermore, the systems are complex, and management and planning tools are often only fully understandable, accessible, and therefore helpful, to individuals and organizations that have the technical capacity to use them, which often excludes local knowledge holders.

DSTs are not only invaluable but essential today, as marine planning involves lengthy public consultations, processing large amounts of information, generating heat maps, providing feedback to the system, etc. In shipping, specifically, such DST can provide up-to-date information to mariners, and they can be used to enforce or to guide in compliance with regulations. In Arctic shipping, these tools can offer real-time information about sea ice and determine—in a flexible way—areas to be avoided or areas where the speed of a vessel should be reduced. The trade-off of these tools and systems is that Indigenous knowledge held by communities is often left out or incorporated in ways that strip the knowledge from its original meaning and context. Marine atlases, for instance, include Indigenous knowledge as data layers, most often as geographic/spatial data points, lines, or polygons, while narratives and context of Indigenous knowledge are more difficult to include. This challenge is experienced, for instance, in the under construction Canadian Marine Planning Atlas (https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/planning-planification/atlas/about-au-sujet-eng.html), where data layers such as boundaries of MPAs and bathymetry can be easily incorporated, whereas local knowledge would require alternative approaches to documenting and visualizing information. ABM is a significant framework to approach environmental governance in a holistic way, and as such it could be an appropriate model to be applied to governance problems involving Indigenous peoples, including Arctic shipping. ABM is also the governance approach underlying this book, and it is implicit in the Government of Canada’s overarching Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors initiative.

The issues discussed in this chapter are far from being exclusively technical (how to incorporate observational knowledge in tools that were mostly conceived to deal with quantitative or discrete information), as DST and DSS provide frameworks of practice, set up standards, and trigger actions. If Indigenous knowledge is not properly accounted for and, perhaps more importantly, if Indigenous peoples have no role in informing such tools and systems, their engagement in the process will be mostly anecdotal or peripheral, as what Arnstein’s still relevant conceptual model of citizen participation called “tokenism” (citizens’ involvement is sought only to show that they are being involved) implies (Arnstein, 1969). While federal and provincial governments frequently embark on public consultation processes, these might not be appropriate in the case of Indigenous peoples and indeed might not truly reflect the federal government’s fiduciary duties and duty to consult.

In the context of working with Indigenous peoples, it is important to note the “consultation and cooperation” spectrum outlined in the newly released United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Action Plan 2023–2028 (GoC, 2023). It is also essential to distinguish between consultation and the legal duty to consult. The duty to consult in Canada is derived from the Honour of the Crown and has been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada (Delgamuukw v. BC, 1997; Haida Nation v. BC (Minister of Forests), 2004). It, too, lies on a spectrum: at the low-end, where the “potential for infringement [is] minor,” there is a duty to, at minimum, “give notice, disclose information, and discuss any issues raised in response” (Haida v. BC, para 43), and at the high-end, where “the right and potential infringement is of high significance to the Aboriginal peoples, and the risk of non-compensable damage is high … deep consultation, aimed at finding a satisfactory interim solution, may be required” (Haida v. BC, para 44) or the duty to accommodate may be revealed (Haida v. BC, para 47). Regardless of where along the spectrum a particular case lies, some form of consultation is required once the duty to consult has been found to exist, and the process “must be in good faith and with the intention of substantially addressing the concerns of the aboriginal peoples whose lands are at issue” (Delgamuukw v. BC, para 168).

Terms are important, and engagement of Indigenous peoples in Canada is framed beyond mere consultation to involve higher levels of participation. Cooperation, for instance, means “that Indigenous peoples have the opportunity, including through their representative organizations, to participate in and to positively influence federal decision-making processes with adequate time and supported by adequate resources” (GoC, 2023: 22). Co-development takes participation one step further, “and involves Indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada working together in good faith through a substantive, collaborative, and consensus-based process to develop effective solutions and advance UN Declaration implementation in a timely way” (ibid).

Arnstein proposed that true participatory approaches necessarily comprise citizen empowerment, which should lead to real redistribution of power. In this context, MSP has been recognized as an effective means to implement ecosystem-based management, but, at the same time, it could potentially reinforce preexisting conditions of power imbalance to the detriment of the more vulnerable actors (Flannery et al., 2020). In other words, there seems to be a shared understanding that MSP facilitates participation, but whether such participation results in empowerment of local actors is an entirely different issue. Most literature and guiding principles on MSP refer to the engagement of stakeholders, whereas in the context of Arctic shipping, local coastal communities are composed of “rightsholders” (people with inherent rights). Each of the four Inuit land claims that encompass the entirety of Canada’s Arctic coastline extend to the boundary of the territorial sea (12 nautical miles offshore), except in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, where the western boundary reaches to longitude 141° and north to 80° N (beyond the exclusive economic zone).

Arctic shipping is a unique and interesting governance problem upon which to develop our argument, as regulations must be clear for shipping companies, instructions must be precise for mariners (yet flexible to adapt to environmental conditions), and up-to-date information, including charts, bathymetry, and sea ice conditions, is key to ensuring the safety of navigation and the efficiency of trade. While this is true for all shipping, the uniqueness in Arctic shipping lies in the standards for ship design, construction, crewing and operations, as well as the unique vulnerabilities of the region and, in Canadian waters, the fundamental rights of Indigenous peoples.

As shipping activities increase in the Arctic, so does the reliance on data for decision-making. At the same time, the vulnerability and adaptive capacity of Inuit coastal communities become central issues if their rights as Indigenous peoples are truly recognized, as shipping potentially could be a threat to cultural traditions, historical links to the marine environment, legal obligations to Indigenous peoples, economic and social well-being, and food security. Shipping is also considered as an opportunity for development and well-being, as long as governance and control mechanisms are in place.

Regarding its relationship with Indigenous peoples, Canada as a country has committed to a journey of reconciliation, which includes the acknowledgment of Indigenous rights both nationally (CA, 1982; UNDRIP Act, 2021) and internationally (UNDRIP, 2007). It goes without saying that Arctic shipping is also a multiscale problem, with local, national, regional, and international dimensions (AMSA, 2009).

In terms of ocean policy and legal frameworks, the Oceans Protection Plan has set up clear (if broad) goals regarding engagement, capacity-building, and partnership-building with Indigenous peoples (Canada, n.d.). Such goals are being pursued through significant investment, initiatives, and programs that are meant to engage Indigenous peoples.

While reconciliation is often referenced as a destination (e.g., “action was taken towards achieving reconciliation”), it is also an ongoing process that goes far beyond the limits of a particular law or policy. As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada defines it, reconciliation is “an ongoing process of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships” (TRC, 2015, p. 11). The roots of the conflict between Indigenous peoples and Canada are ineludibly historical in nature (mostly manifested through trauma, cultural loss, territorial loss, and massive loss of lives), and they transcend specific policies, laws, and regulations. Reconciliation is also closely related to decolonization, which involves the deconstruction of colonial institutions, processes, and relations to enable new interpersonal and institutional relationships and processes to be built upon a foundation that recognizes the rights of Indigenous peoples.

For federal regulators, policy-makers, and law enforcers, this broader context may be unknown, blurred, ignored, or forgotten. The tensions stemming from historical wrongdoings by colonizing states and the resulting intergenerational and ongoing traumas, hardships, and discrimination faced by Indigenous peoples across colonized spaces throughout the world are in the background of any engagement of Indigenous peoples in ocean governance, including in (Arctic) shipping in Canada. The process of reconciliation—of interacting from a space that recognizes the wrongdoing of the past and the rights of Indigenous peoples—must therefore address these tensions through models of governance that involve respectful, equitable, and inclusive partnerships (Beveridge, 2023). There are many facets of and mechanisms for decolonization, such as the repatriation of land, institutional change, and healing, but this chapter will focus on understanding power imbalances between Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors within the governance of shipping and, more specifically, within the context of decision-making tools and systems.

The use of Indigenous knowledge in decision support tools and systems is far beyond the limits of a technical discussion. On the contrary, the technical issue of properly engaging with the knowledge of Indigenous peoples unfolds within broader contexts that either facilitate or hinder reconciliation and decolonizing processes. This chapter addresses the following research question: how can area-based planning facilitate (or hinder) processes of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples? There are three fundamental dimensions to answering this question: a) political (regarding the will, actions, investments, and commitments to engage with Indigenous peoples), b) ontological (concerning the assumptions, principles, and openness of governance frameworks), and c) methodological (concerning how to engage with Indigenous knowledge holders through decision support tools and systems). While these three dimensions are discussed here, they should be treated as intrinsically connected, and specific emphasis is given to the last two as they relate more specifically to the use of knowledge in decision support tools.

Understanding how to meaningfully work with Indigenous peoples through a multidimensional lens involves acting upon the acknowledgment that there is more than one way to conceptualize the marine environment (ontological awareness) and having the methodological open-mindedness to recognize that Indigenous peoples must inform and impact the design and operation of governance frameworks and tools. ABM, if properly conceived, can in fact be a path through which processes of reconciliation and decolonization can be facilitated by creating spaces for people to work together. ABM, however, is not necessarily a ticket to just and equitable governance, as its application without critical awareness can also normalize and even increase inequality.

This chapter is structured as follows: the next section offers a brief context of Canadian Arctic shipping, followed by a section that looks closely at ontological assumptions in marine spatial planning. The following section analyzes three Arctic shipping initiatives, of different scope, that include Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous engagement as part of their mandates: the Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors, the Enhanced Maritime Situational Awareness (EMSA) initiative, and the Proactive Vessel Management (PVM) initiative. The discussion section analyzes how the three initiatives deal with the three dimensions identified in this chapter, and the conclusion offers ideas on futures direction for research.

2 Canadian Arctic Shipping Governance and Inuit: A Brief Context

The significant increase in Arctic shipping in Canada is primarily attributable to the ongoing effects of climate change and the consequent reduction of sea ice coverage (AMSA, 2009; Chen et al., 2021; Pizzolato et al., 2014, 2016). From 1990 to 2019, the number of voyages and distances traveled by ships tripled (Auditor General of Canada, 2022; PAME, 2021). Previously inaccessible areas and resources are becoming increasingly accessible by ships, creating economic opportunities that may potentially result in benefits to communities.

However, the increase in Arctic maritime activities also raises concerns about potential environmental risks, disruptions, and the increased likelihood of encounters between shipping vessels and activities of Indigenous peoples (AMSA, 2009; Olsen et al., 2019). Geopolitically, tensions arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have significantly amplified the strategic significance of the Arctic region (Koivurova et al., 2022; Waloven et al., 2023). In this context, Canada’s federal agencies have been found to have a long way to go in bridging the persistent gaps in the monitoring and surveillance of Arctic waters (Auditor General of Canada, 2022).

Because of the increasing economic and geopolitical importance of the Arctic, creating and adopting effective measures that ensure the safety and responsibility of shipping operations in Canadian Arctic waterways has become of critical importance. This involves implementing rigorous maritime regulations, policies, protocols, and monitoring systems to mitigate risks and promote sustainable shipping practices, as well as mechanisms of engagement with Indigenous peoples.

A detailed description of the Canadian governance approach in Arctic waters has been done elsewhere (Wang, 2023), including in this book (see Chap. 9, this volume). In the context of this chapter, it suffices to say that Canada has been developing a particular approach to governing Arctic shipping activities that aligns with broader ocean policy frameworks, ultimately promoting integrated, area-based management, as well as the engagement of coastal communities in the process of governance. Such foundations were clearly laid out in the Oceans Protection Plan (OPP), which establishes directions for the implementation of comprehensive measures to further enhance the safety in and achieve greater protection of Arctic waters (Canada, n.d.).

Significant investments are being made in safety equipment and marine infrastructure (TC, 2023). These investments aim to provide the necessary resources and infrastructure to respond effectively to emergencies and mitigate risks associated with shipping activities. Additionally, Canada has prioritized the improvement of charting and the establishment of safe shipping routes through the Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors initiative, which seeks to enhance navigational safety and minimize impacts of shipping on wildlife and culturally and ecologically sensitive areas (DFO, 2022a). Several programs are designed to track marine pollution and facilitate prompt response to all marine emergencies (TC, 2023). Canada also has intensified its efforts to establish meaningful partnerships with Arctic Indigenous peoples in shipping governance aiming at increasing their local marine safety capacity and integrating Indigenous perspectives and knowledge to improve marine safety, environmental monitoring, and protection (TC, 2023).

To implement the next phase of the OPP (TC, 2022a), Canada has specifically allocated substantial funding to bolster Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and Canadian Hydrographic Service’s initiatives to enhance safe and security in Arctic waters (DFO, 2022b). Furthermore, the Canadian government has reached a conclusive agreement with Irving Shipbuilding to commence the construction of an additional pair of Arctic and offshore patrol ships, which are designated for deployment within the CCG (Maritime Executive, 2023).

The governance of Arctic shipping involves intergovernmental governance bodies, local and Indigenous communities, and a complex governance framework that entails international and domestic conventions, maritime laws, policies, and industry standards (AMSA, 2009; VanderZwaag et al., 2008). By introducing the Arctic Shipping Safety and Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASSPPR, 2017), Canada sought to incorporate the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code, 2014/15) into domestic legislation, which meant that overall safety and pollution safety standards were raised and that Canadian regulation was synched to international regulation (Chircop, 2018).

However, historically, the governance of Arctic shipping has been situated at the international and national levels, with only recent (and still limited) engagement of Indigenous peoples, especially Inuit, who have a long-standing history of use of Arctic waters, coastal environments, and marine resources (Carmona et al., 2023) As Arctic shipping continues to increase, both positive and negative environmental, economic, and social impacts from shipping are magnified, and the issue of Inuit involvement in governance and decision-making processes becomes more critical. This engagement is crucial for Inuit communities, as shipping activities affect their daily lives in several ways, including impacts on the seasonal patterns of marine and land animals that are vital for their livelihoods and on the sea ice that is intricately intertwined with the land environment and the mobility routes Inuit have been using for millennia (Aporta, 2009).

Rethinking governance to ensure that Indigenous rights, interests, and perspectives are taken into account has become paramount, not only from the communities’ perspectives but also in light of international and national obligations contracted by Canada in the last few decades. UNDRIP was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2007 to systematically outline and elaborate Indigenous rights in governance, decision-making, and economic, cultural, and social development (UNDRIP, 2007). Though nonbinding, UNDRIP was negotiated as a means of articulating rights already present in the international human rights framework that Indigenous peoples have been denied and which have been supported through the actions of states and reactions of the international community to their violation (Anaya, 2010; ILA, 2016). The International Law Association reviewed this topic and in a 2012 resolution identified those articles of the UNDRIP that correspond to existing customary and conventional international law (ILA, 2012; Rodriguez-Piñero, 2009)Footnote 1 and noted that those that do not necessarily correspond to existing customary or conventional international law still represent an international standard because the Declaration was negotiated within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations between states and Indigenous peoples for the purpose of “[improving] existing standards for the safeguarding of Indigenous peoples’ human rights” and “reflects the highest possible level of consensus” (ILA, 2012, para 3; see also ILA, 2016).

UNDRIP Article 18 states that Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making on matters that may affect them/their rights, including subsistence lifestyles and cultural connection. It could be argued that in a context of increased shipping, voyage planning may affect Inuit rights, which could translate to Inuit having the right to inform voyage planning to ensure their rights are respected. There is general voyage planning made onshore by a company ahead of a transit, and there are dynamic adjustments that a mariner must make on the bridge based on what is in front of them. The influence of Inuit in voyage planning on board is limited to wildlife monitors who are already assisting with the dynamic on-the-bridge decision-making to ensure marine wildlife is protected in certain areas (e.g., Tarium Niryutait MPA/Anguniaqvia Niqiqyuam MPA). The scope of this engagement, therefore, is limited to wildlife monitoring in some specific areas.

In recent years, there has been some recognition of the importance of Indigenous rights in the interpretation and implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982; Chircop, 2018) and other international conventions (e.g., in SOLAS, 1974 and MARPOL, 1973/78), particularly through the Arctic Council in the context of maritime search and rescue, marine oil pollution preparedness and response, as well as Arctic scientific cooperation (Kirchner & Cristani, 2023). In 2021, the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) obtained a 2-year provisional consultative status at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) (ICC, 2021a). This status granted ICC the opportunity to actively participate in discussions, provide expertise, and voice the concerns and perspectives of Inuit communities in matters relating to Arctic shipping activities, such as black carbon emissions (ICC, 2021b), fisheries (ICC, 2023a), and underwater noise pollution reduction (ICC, 2022, 2023b). Obtaining this status was considered by Inuit and other Indigenous peoples as a positive step toward the recognition of their rights and perspectives in maritime governance (ICC, 2021a, 2023c), but the “provisional” nature of the position may have limited consequences in the long term.

Increased efforts on and recognition of Inuit rights in Arctic shipping governance have prompted a critical examination of Canada’s existing governance mechanisms and encouraged the development of an integrated governance framework that includes Indigenous knowledge and safeguards Indigenous rights. While the political will to enhance the engagement of and fulfil the obligations with Indigenous peoples has increased significantly in recent years, particularly through OPP initiatives, ontological tensions are rarely explicitly discussed, and the implications and limitations of using certain decision-making tools and systems in governance are also seldom reflected upon. The following two sections will look at the ontological and methodological dimensions of shipping governance, first through a review of assumptions underpinning marine spatial planning and second through the analysis of initiatives that show progress in engagement but also the challenges in their effective application.

3 Ontological Assumptions of Governance Approaches

Governance approaches (from governance frameworks to management tools) are based on principles, although their ontological underpinnings (ontological assumptions) are not often articulated. Ontologies are not easy to articulate because they are difficult to perceive, especially when regarding our own assumptions. Ontologies are underlying beliefs about the nature of reality that shape how we perceive and approach a particular subject (Brown, 2015). These ontological assumptions can collectively shape the conceptual framework and guiding principles of marine management, influencing how stakeholders perceive, analyze, and address the challenges of sustainable marine governance.

Systematically identifying ontological assumptions of governance approaches and tools is mostly in the realm of philosophy of science and science and technology studies (Seguin & Vinck, 2023). For the sake of our argument, it suffices to say that ontologies are in fact fundamental in influencing how we interact with the world and that tensions will emerge when different ontologies are in conflict, or when they are not recognized, or when one is implicitly or explicitly favored over another (Nader, 1996; Green, 2006). For instance, single-sector management tools, such as establishing fishing quotas in isolation, may be based on the assumption that certain regulations (e.g., establishing limits to fishing) will have a positive environmental effect (e.g., conservation or recovery of a certain species). The ontological underpinning of such assumptions may be that it is possible to control behavior through regulation and that a species could be “treated” as separate from the ecosystem. On the other hand, integrated management approaches, such as the ones favored in Canada’s overarching legislation (i.e., Oceans Act (1996), Oceans Strategy), are based on assumptions that activities in the ocean must be understood as interrelated and that the ocean and people are part of an ecosystem (ecosystem-based approach). The ontological assumptions of ecosystem-based approaches are clearly more in line with Inuit approaches.

Inuit ontologies tend to conceptualize humans as part of the environment, as well as challenging other dichotomies that are quite common in non-Indigenous worldviews, such as that of ocean and land, humans and animals, physical and spiritual, etc. (Barras, 2019). This holism is much broader than in integrated management approaches, as it may include all aspects of life (beyond what is normally considered in defining a governance problem). This level of connection among things and with the world affects rules of interactions among humans and within the environment (Rasing, 2017), and it may conflict with concepts of the world (including management and regulations) embedded in prevailing (Western) marine governance frameworks. Different ontologies are not necessarily incompatible, and models have been proposed to improve dialogs between worldviews in marine management and research (e.g., Smith et al., 2023), but multi-ontological scenarios are complex and embedded in broader power relationships that implicitly or explicitly favor one ontological approach over others. In the cross-cultural and postcolonial context of Arctic shipping governance, ABM models may align with Inuit ontological views, in terms of proposing integrated, ecosystem-based approaches, but differences will remain, as Inuit have unique understandings of how to conceptualize problems, risks, decision-making, seasonality, and boundaries.

A crucial point is that ontological tensions between non-Indigenous and Indigenous governance approaches are not often (if ever) discussed and that, in the context of asymmetric power relations, initiatives whose ontological tensions remain hidden risk not being effective in the reconciliation process. Collaborations, therefore, may fail unless such differences are discussed and Indigenous views are considered in all stages of the governance process through culturally aware partnerships.

3.1 MSP as a Decolonizing Tool?

Marine spatial planning is interesting as it has been conceived as an area-based management approach involving collaboration and engagement. The principles embedded in MSP (integrated management, area-based, data integration, stakeholder engagement) are, on paper, generally in line with Indigenous/Inuit approaches to environmental governance. As defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), MSP is “a public process of analyzing and allocating spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas” and an open and practical way to protect the marine environment, achieve social objectives, and develop sustainable ocean economy (Ehler & Douvere, 2009; IOC-UNESCO/European Commission, 2022; UNESCO, 2023). MSP is known for its capability to facilitate integration, which involves collaboration with multiple stakeholders, use of different sources of information, intersectoral or interdepartmental cooperation, and transboundary management (Flannery et al., 2016; IOC-UNESCO/European Commission, 2022).

MSP seeks to adopt a comprehensive and inclusive approach through continuously engaging stakeholders throughout almost every planning stage (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). It also aims to integrate scientific knowledge, spatial data, and local knowledge into geographic information systems and decision support tools to understand the ecological, social, and economic implications of different scenarios and options (Agardy, 2010). Comprehensive MSP has been widely adopted by more than 100 countries as a framework that has the capability to deal with conflicts in using marine spaces and wicked problems in a comprehensive and coordinated manner through an integrated framework (Ehler & Douvere, 2009; IOC-UNESCO/European Commission, 2022).

The governance of shipping activities involves multiple jurisdictions and sectors, various stakeholders, and, in the Canadian Arctic, rightsholders, making it a good candidate for the application of MSP as a governance approach. In fact, Canada has adopted area-based measures and comprehensive planning frameworks to reduce shipping risks and mitigate impacts from shipping activities that align with the principles of MSP. There have been discussions about the potential to adopt MSP as an explicit framework to facilitate the governance of shipping activities within national jurisdiction, especially in terms of facilitating interdepartmental collaboration, science-based decision-making, and engagement of Indigenous peoples (Wang, 2023; Wright et al., 2021).

While the concept and practices of MSP have gained popularity as a comprehensive planning framework for managing marine resources and regulating human activities, some of Canada’s past and existing MSP practices have been found to be less effective or functional for governing shipping activities and delivering expected engagement outcomes. For instance, Canada’s Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) initiative and the Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacific Coast (MaPP) are found lacking in collaboration with federal maritime authorities (Diggon et al., 2022; McCuaig & Herbert, 2013; Rutherford et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2022; Wang, 2023). On the other hand, MaPP is considered groundbreaking in establishing co-governance models involving Indigenous peoples.

The idea that MSP can balance multiple interests and achieve diverse objectives is wrongly taken for granted. In fact, there is relatively little research that has critically examined the extent to which MSP objectives are achieved in the context of power un/balance and redistribution of power (Flannery et al., 2016) and even less research on how Indigenous peoples may be engaged in a marine plan as rightsholders (Diggon et al., 2021; Ban & Frid, 2018). Furthermore, there are certain challenges when it comes to using appropriate participatory approaches with a wide range of stakeholders (and rightsholders) with diverse interests, knowledge, and levels of influence in MSP. For instance, power dynamics and limited representation of marginalized or less influential groups can influence the extent to which stakeholders are effectively engaged. For example, the ESSIM initiative encountered challenges in fully engaging the fishing industry and First Nations (McCuaig & Herbert, 2013; Wang, 2023). The fishing industry, in this case, thought that integrated ocean management could adversely affect their fishing activities, showing that, in the context of MSP, these processes have to contend with special interest groups that are ready to use political lobbying to shape the planning process.

Furthermore, one of the main principles of MSP, referring to the integration of different types of knowledge and information, often may be used to overlook the need to (a) understand the ontological frameworks and the nature of different knowledge systems and (b) devise knowledge coproduction mechanisms that can consider not only scientific data but also local knowledge. In a cross-cultural and postcolonial context, true “integration” of knowledge is not straightforward (and perhaps not even desirable), considering that Indigenous peoples’ unique worldviews, values, and knowledge do not cleanly “fit” within existing scientific MSP frameworks. In this context, the empowerment of Indigenous communities to influence the design of DSS and DST that are instrumental in knowledge sharing is critical. In other words, a significant issue for Indigenous peoples participating in marine governance processes may be their lack of political leverage, as compared with the fishing, energy, and transport industries, as well as the perception that local/Indigenous knowledge is less authoritative as compared to information and knowledge produced through scientific methods.

MSP’s goals include coordinating decision-making, integrating policies, engaging stakeholders, fostering collaboration, and ensuring the integration of environmental considerations. However, for MSP (or other ABM approaches) to become instrumental in the reconciliation process, it would need to more appropriately and effectively address socioeconomic inequities in the use of ocean space. Therefore, MSP can, in principle but not necessarily, align with Indigenous peoples’ holistic approaches to environmental governance.

The most relevant caveat regarding the use of MSP as a participatory approach inherently capable of decolonizing ocean governance comes from a point elaborated by Ellis and Flannery (in Flannery et al., 2016), who highlighted the dangers of using MSP in an uncritical way, one which ignores “often unarticulated, assumptions and values” (ibid: 5) frequently underlaying MSP initiatives. Ellis and Flannery’s call to critically assess MSP to identify assumptions and winners and losers in the governance process is a critical point. This is also important in the assessments of MSP (and ABM in general), which tend to “exhibit a dominance of research on positivist traditions in natural resource management, technical assessment processes or descriptive case studies” (ibid.). Ellis and Flannery are correct in calling for a more critical assessment of MSP, which will address cultural, social, and distributive consequences of the implementation of the initiatives, as well as the impact of MSP in the most vulnerable (local) actors. In general, our argument reflects the view of Flannery et al. (2020) that social science perspectives (and certainly Indigenous perspectives) are needed in MSP studies and design, as the prevailing approaches are rooted in the fields of natural science and environmental management.

A further relevant question is whether an uncritical application of MSP or ABM could, unintentionally, rationalize, perpetuate, legitimize, and even increase inequity among local resource users, particularly in the context of Arctic shipping. On the other hand, an equally important question can be asked regarding whether a properly (and critically) designed MSP/ABM framework, which explicitly addresses power unbalance and Indigenous ontologies and rights (i.e., a decolonized MSP/ABM framework), may align with and facilitate processes of reconciliation in the Canadian context. This may be possible through policies and practices designed to address historical and systemic disadvantages and to increase Indigenous representation and capacity-building, as well as considering the political, ontological, and methodological challenges of implementing policies and plans. This issue is discussed in more detail in the next section, but the critical point to make here is that ontological issues have not been explicitly addressed in the context of Arctic shipping.

4 DSS/DST: A Conceptual Discussion and Examples of Engagement in the Canadian Arctic

In the Canadian Arctic, the application of MSP (or other comprehensive ABM approaches) to facilitate more inclusive shipping governance engaging Inuit communities is a promising opportunity, but a critical lens is needed. Ignoring ontological differences in the understanding of and interactions with marine environments, resources, and activities may result in governance models that could trivialize, simplify, and even marginalize the views of Inuit communities. It is critical to recognize that Inuit relationships with and knowledge of the marine environment are historically rooted, multidimensional, and hard to capture by conventional information and visualization tools that are common in spatial planning. Furthermore, while Western environmental governance practices, in all their variety, have historically tended to reflect a conceptual separation of the environment from humans, Indigenous peoples’ approaches (in all their variety) tend to consider humans as part of the environment (Ingold, 2000), whereas the concept of managing an external entity (e.g., a resource, a bounded space, nature) is often foreign to their own ontological approaches.

For instance, in the Inuit context, the assessments of harvesting over periods of time resulted in what elders defined as “the land becoming heated,” which required specific human intervention (socially defined avoidance of a certain area) until the land “cooled down.” Julia Amarualik, an elder in Igloolik that Aporta interviewed in 2001, gave an example of such approach:

[The camp] Avvajja, was abandoned because “our elder Ittusarjjuat, just before he passed on, had made it known that this place had heated up from all the use; he wanted this place abandoned to give it a chance to cool down; it might be only for a year. That means no one was to stay there during that period; if they so wish they could come back and live there again.” (Aporta, 2003)

Such “normative” practices were not necessarily described as management approaches by Inuit, but rather as ways of dwelling (Ingold, 2000) in a world that is shared between humans and nonhumans. In practice, the emphasis was not on protecting the resource (e.g., walrus), but on maintaining a balanced relationship with the land. Under this ontological perspective, therefore, the walrus well-being was entangled with social well-being of the community and even more generally with the world’s well-being. This holistic understanding of the environment with people in it is still prevailing in contemporary Inuit communities, and it critically affects communities’ responses to governance and policy efforts that may focus on one activity or one dimension of the environment. It should be noted that Indigenous ways of “environmental governance” were overwhelmingly ignored and unacknowledged in the process of colonization in the Americas (including Canada), as part of a political strategy that chose to characterize native inhabitants as not having any agency over their territories (Bell & Asch, 1997). Remnants of these assumptions are still present today in the background of policies and research approaches that tend to ignore Indigenous views in favor of Western scientific frameworks.

In this light, the contemporary concept of DSS and DST are intrinsically dominated by Western conceptions of knowledge (as scientifically validated), although paradigms of environmental governance have evolved toward more holistic and integrated concepts, in part as a response to the crises generated by industrial overexploitation of marine resources (Johnsen et al., 2009). As mentioned above, MSP was developed as a response to such complex problems, and there is evidence that it is an effective approach for the management of marine areas that include multiple users and uses (World Ocean Council, 2016). However, an unintended consequence of data integration is that the significant knowledge and ontological approaches of local actors are ignored or not valued enough in a process that increasingly relies mostly on “hard data,” quantitative analyses, and peer-reviewed science-based evidence. While it is hard, if not impossible, to argue against the value of MSP and other area-based frameworks, the problem remains that actors that are already marginalized may be further disempowered by the use of DSS and DST that do not account for different ways in which local communities experience their own environments and how they communicate their knowledge. This ontological tension is particularly true when involving Indigenous communities.

An increasing problem regarding the reliance on complex decision support tools (e.g., Marxan) is that their mastery and use are often beyond the technical capacity of most people (let alone marginalized communities). The question, therefore, of how to appropriately document, visualize, and utilize communities’ knowledges across cross-cultural systems is not only relevant to truly achieve the goals of MSP but also as a step toward reconciliation when decisions or governance problems include local Indigenous communities.

4.1 DSS and DST in Canadian Arctic Shipping

This section provides examples of how Indigenous knowledge and perspectives are considered and incorporated into the design of frameworks, systems, and tools in the governance of Arctic shipping within a general framework of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The three initiatives analyzed are of different scope (a governance framework, a decision support tool, and a decision support system), but they are intertwined, and all of them are situated within the context of Canada’s Arctic shipping policies. While they do not explicitly reflect ontological awareness, they do represent efforts to include Indigenous peoples in their design.

The distinction between DST and DSS is important here. DST are typically software applications or methods that aid in the decision-making process, providing data, analytics, visualization options, etc. They do not necessarily make decisions but provide insights to assist in decision-making. DSSs, on the other hand, involve more complex and integrated solutions that incorporate various DSTs and aim to support the decision-making process at various stages, levels, and scales. They usually have advanced features for data integration, processing, and reporting, providing a comprehensive platform for decision support. A DSS is a more extensive platform that integrates multiple tools, data sources, and, in practice, expert systems to support decision-making in a more holistic manner.

In the context of governing marine shipping activities in the Canadian Arctic, DSS and DST are pivotal. They encompass onboard and onshore systems, supporting diverse types of decisions, including route planning, risk assessment, emergency response, and identification of sensitive areas. Their application seeks to generate the conditions for secure, efficient, and ecologically responsible shipping practices in the demanding Arctic environment. A range of systems has been developed to provide mariners with relevant and timely information about vessels’ positions, sea ice conditions, weather, and other datasets to support safe navigation in Arctic waters and decision-making.

4.1.1 Geographic Information Systems

Applications containing various forms of geographic information systems have been widely used to document, visualize, and use Indigenous knowledge in Canada since the land use studies of the 1970s (Freeman, 1976; Aporta, 2016). GIS is relevant for the integration of Indigenous knowledge in ABM because of its ability to spatialize “uses” and knowledge, in ways that make them potentially compatible with spatial planning.

GIS and various GIS software applications, such as ArcGIS and PostGIS, play a significant role as decision support tools for effective governance of marine shipping operations in the Canadian Arctic. GIS enables the integration of spatial data, encompassing maps, charts, and satellite imagery, with attribute data, including vessel characteristics, ice coverage, bathymetry, weather patterns, collision-prone areas, and regulatory demarcations. This integration facilitates comprehensive analysis and informed decision-making processes related to marine shipping activities.

GIS has numerous applications in shipping, and it is of course a critical tool in any MSP and area-based initiative. For instance, Étienne et al. (2013) developed a methodology to forecast marine traffic density in the Canadian Arctic through mapping traffic patterns in GIS software with data from the CCG. ArcGIS software was employed by Smith and Stephenson (2013) to identify the fastest available trans-Arctic routes for different types of vessels. Furthermore, Mueller et al. (2013) extensively used GIS software to analyze ice shelves data and conduct spatial analysis, thereby gaining deeper insights into ice-generated risks faced by vessels navigating through the Canadian Arctic.

Importantly, GIS has the capability to generate various outputs, including interactive maps, which can potentially allow users (from government to a range of stakeholders) to develop spatial analysis and get involved in the management of marine shipping activities. Specifically, the utilization of public participatory GIS (PPGIS) can facilitate community engagement, and it can potentially enable collaborative coproduction of knowledge through collaboration of Indigenous communities and science (Aporta et al., 2020; Lamers et al., 2018). However, documenting and visualizing Indigenous knowledge in GIS does not necessarily involve fostering participation in decision-making processes.

The utilization of ArcGIS software within the Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices (ACNV) project to document Inuit perspectives on Canada’s Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors initiative (described below) is certainly a remarkable case study. The ACNV project adopted a community-based research approach to gather data through Inuit participatory mapping and focus group discussions (Dawson et al., 2020). Subsequently, the collected datasets were subjected to analysis within the ArcGIS software, enabling the digitization and visualization of qualitative information, as well as the creation of maps highlighting areas to be avoided by ships as identified by Inuit community members (Dawson et al., 2020). The outputs generated by the ACNV project, stemming from GIS applications, are examples of valuable information sources for understanding Inuit perspectives, but they are just one dataset among many others, feeding into further decision-making processes for optimizing the placement/location of the corridors.

This, of course, is the differentiation between the DST and DSS—while a DST such as GIS may be a useful tool for visualizing Inuit knowledge, it does not guarantee an effect on the decisions made through broader governance processes. Given that the corridors have not been adjusted since they were first released (Chénier et al., 2017; Dawson & Song, 2023), it remains to be seen whether and how this knowledge will be integrated or applied effectively in decision-making, as well as how Inuit communities themselves will be able to manage and control future uses of their data in the context of broader decision support systems. It is also clear that rendering knowledge in a GIS type of framework can usually capture only one or two dimensions (spatial and sometimes seasonal) of a type of knowledge that is multidimensional by nature (Aporta et al., 2020).

4.1.2 Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors

Our exploration of Indigenous engagement in the context of Arctic shipping starts with a framework of governance, whose principles may set the tone for the development and application of decision support tools and systems. The Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors (Corridors) initiative is jointly led by Transport Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, and the Canadian Hydrographic Service. The primary aim of the Corridors initiative is twofold: (1) identify corridors that will shape future regulatory decisions and guide infrastructure investments to encourage traffic through routes that enhance maritime safe navigation practices that prioritize both the well-being of people and environmental considerations and (2) to collaboratively develop a governance framework for determining and managing the corridors moving forward (Dawson et al., 2019; Dawson & Song, 2023; DFO, 2022a).

The policy foundation for the Corridors initiative is in alignment with Canada’s Oceans Protection Plan.Footnote 2 The objectives of the Corridors initiative align with the OPP’s objectives of enhancing Canada’s marine safety and protecting the marine environment. Additionally, policy studies, such as the one conducted by The Pew Charitable Trusts, provided insights by proposing policy actions and establishing guiding principles specifically tailored for the development of Arctic corridors (PCT, 2016). The Corridors governance framework is meant to complement existing regulatory frameworks in Arctic waters by engaging with Indigenous rightsholders, particularly Inuit, and providing navigation guidance to vessel operators.

Central to the Corridors’ governance framework is an area-based planning model, notably comprising multiple levels of corridors in its preliminary design based on historical ship movement data (Chénier et al., 2017) and consultation with mariners (Dawson et al., 2017). From an implementation perspective, the Corridors initiative adopts a nonmandatory approach, advocating for voluntary compliance to mitigate risks, enhance marine safety, and improve government services (Dawson & Song, 2023). This voluntary governance framework fits the unique maritime navigational conditions and infrastructure development challenges in the Arctic. Chapter 9 in this volume explores how such a voluntary framework has the potential to effectively achieve the goals of Arctic governance (the authors propose to look at the successful implementation of the Voluntary Protection Zone (VPZ) for shipping located at the west coast of Haida Gwaii as a model of co-governance).

Area-based planning for the Corridors will involve the utilization of several decision support tools/systems. The preliminary designed corridors were created, classified, and visualized by using historical shipping data and visualizations tools. They were data-driven designs based on scientific studies and statistics, and they did not consider Inuit experiences, knowledge, and their views on what areas were culturally, socially, and environmentally sensitive (Dawson et al., 2020). As mentioned above, the Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices project’s goal is to account for Inuit knowledge and views in a way that can inform the Corridors. The communities’ knowledge was documented through spatial analysis tools, including participatory mapping, GIS, and community-based research that allowed for active Inuit engagement to gather local perspectives and knowledge about culturally significant marine areas. The documentation and interpretation of Inuit knowledge resulted in a series of reports, measures, and recommendations that could be taken to optimize area-based planning and management of the corridors (Dawson et al., 2020).

The ACNV project reveals the extensive local and environmental knowledge of Inuit that could contribute to the management of Arctic shipping. The federal government recognized the importance of considering the views and opinions of a wide range of stakeholders and rightsholders in creating the governance framework for the corridors. Thus, it launched an extensive public consultation program in 2022 to engage with Inuit and First Nations organization and governments, territorial and provincial governments, shipping industry practitioners, nongovernmental organizations, academia, and others (DFO, 2022a). However, as noted by Beveridge, the sheer existence of engagement does not necessarily equate to a feeling of being meaningfully engaged (Beveridge, 2024).

Now that the Corridors initiative is underway as the OPP enters its second phase of development, the emphasis of its next phase is to develop the governance framework and to identify priority areas (TC, 2022a). The challenges of true engagement with Inuit are multifaceted and include designing frameworks, tools, and systems that properly account for communities’ knowledge and views. Explicitly or implicitly, this has been recognized in the efforts by the federal government to design decision support tools and systems following a collaborative approach, including the EMSA and the PVM initiatives.

4.1.3 EMSA (as a DST)

The EMSA initiative was launched in 2017 with the aim of providing Indigenous peoples and coastal communities improved access to local data on marine traffic and information on the local marine environment (TC, 2020). It was piloted with 13 Indigenous communities across Canada, who came together to collectively decide on the industry partner that would develop the EMSA system “to provide near real-time vessel activity and other marine environmental information in local waters through a user-friendly web platform” and to improve communities’ situational awareness on the water (TC, 2022b). EMSA functions as a DST in facilitating not only data collection and integration but also providing opportunities for local and collaborative planning, spatial analysis, and decision-making (TC, 2021).

EMSA is a multifaceted tool that includes various functions pivotal to informed decision-making. One of its primary functions involves the integration of diverse datasets of historical and near real-time marine vessel tracking data (e.g., AIS data, historical vessel data) and marine environment information (e.g., hydrographic data and biophysical data about weather, ice, wind, wildlife, pollution, and sensitive areas) (TC, 2022b). With these datasets, EMSA users have the capability to perform comprehensive spatial analyses, considering both data- and area-based factors. This enables the generation of near real-time scenario analyses for the local marine navigation environment, contributing significantly to the enhancement of safety on the water. The user interface within EMSA is designed as a friendly web-based platform with data layers and spatial analysis tools, providing data access to Indigenous organizations and local communities (GoC, 2021). Overall, EMSA has been developed as an integrated tool with the intent of helping users to improve decision-making in local waters by collecting data, conducting data analysis, and developing emergency management plans (Beecherbay, 2023).

EMSA’s potential value goes beyond informing the location of vessels. In 2019, an exercise was held by the Tuktoyaktuk Hunters and Trappers Committee—one of the pilot project partners—to demonstrate how EMSA was contributing to community safety. The scenario was that a community member went hunting but did not return that evening. On the first day of the exercise, participants tried to find the missing community member, but after 7.5 hours they gave up. The second day, they redid the exercise, this time using EMSA to help them locate the missing community member; they were found after only 1 hour and 7 minutes as the location of the missing hunter was quickly identified using EMSA tools (TC, 2019).

EMSA aims to integrate Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge to foster a user-friendly environment where Indigenous community members may be able to make informed decisions that uphold their interests and values. As a practical tool, EMSA can also be applied through other DSSs (such as the PVM, see below) for a wider range of applications, but it remains to be seen how (and if) Indigenous knowledge will be integrated and used. In the case of the Tuktoyaktuk pilot, EMSA already, to some degree, includes Indigenous knowledge by showing where people are taking their boats or snowmobiles and where they are harvesting. This information is only available to the community in order to protect the privacy of their members and to avoid advertising harvesting locations.

As of September 2023, TC is funding 13 pilot projects, 3 of which are in the Canadian Arctic (TC, 2022b): with the Tuktoyaktuk Hunters and Trappers Committee in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, in Nunavut with the Ekaluktutiak Hunters and Trappers Organization, and with the Nunatsiavut Government in Nunatsiavut (TC, 2022b). The EMSA framework is anticipated to undergo evolution and development, presenting prospects for the inclusion of expanded data sources and even the integration of artificial intelligence tools to further enhance its core functionalities (Larkin & Hall, 2022). The design of EMSA to date has been driven by the interests of participating Indigenous communities and consensus-based decision-making. Therefore, it is anticipated that the future of EMSA will continue to be shaped by these communities and respond to the interests of those it intends to serve. EMSA is an example of how a shipping-related DST can be developed in a context of partnership, and as such it has been positively received by communities.

4.1.4 Proactive Vessel Management

Also under the OPP, the PVM initiative is an example of a forum that aims to improve engagement and collaboration with Indigenous peoples. It is meant to safeguard coasts and local waterways while addressing marine safety concerns associated with commercial shipping. PVM’s objectives include enhancing both marine safety and environmental protection and fostering collaboration with diverse stakeholders and rightsholders, including Indigenous partners; coastal communities; industry; commercial vessel operators; federal departments; provincial, territorial, and municipal governments; and nongovernmental organizations. The key deliverable of the PVM is a national framework, a draft of which was collaboratively developed with partners and stakeholders, to provide comprehensive guidance and directives for implementation across Canada (TC, 2019). The national framework was to help guide individual collaborations (e.g., with specific communities). Each PVM table—through agreed upon procedures—decided their own priorities, the information required, tools for analyzing information, and solutions. PVM is not strictly a decision support system, but it provides guidelines for the collaborative development of a decision support system based on data inputs and situational awareness.

Besides being proposed as a national framework, to date the focus has been on regional pilots. For example, in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, the desire is for the PVM framework to include a checklist of “dos and don’ts” based on local needs and the abilities of small vessel operators, including guidelines of applying necessary techniques (e.g., AIS devices) (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2020). There is also interest in having it incorporate a set of guidelines tailored to local requirements and the capacities of small vessel operators, potentially providing ship operators a checklist of recommended practices. For instance, it might outline the proper application of essential techniques, such as AIS devices (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2020).

Another feature of PVM is its voluntary or collaborative nature, which contemplates only nonmandatory measures designed to complement existing marine safety and environmental regulations. So far, regulatory or mandatory measures are firmly outside the scope of discussion at a PVM table.

In order to achieve these objectives, PVM has placed emphasis on preserving the integrity of the marine environment by minimizing conflicts among local waterway users, identifying ecologically and culturally sensitive areas (this specifically refers to the PVM pilot project on the west coast, namely, the VPZ off Haida Gwaii). In the Arctic, a Notice to Mariners was developed in Cambridge Bay in 2019 (CCG, 2022; TC, 2023). Several techniques and tools (e.g., GIS, Marxan, and other spatial planning and analysis tools) have been applied within PVM pilot projects with the aim of improving communication efficiency on waterways, introducing measures for speed control and routing, and establishing designated local areas to be avoided. Such marine spatial analysis tools, however, are not particularly designed for processing qualitative information, let alone Indigenous knowledge in the form of narratives. But the development of local management measures/guidelines is supposed to be informed by local (Inuit) knowledge and inputs, and information coming through the system is in turn supposed to help increase awareness of shipping traffic for community members.

In order to emphasize its “proactive” attribute, PVM emphasizes collaboration and co-development of policies with Indigenous peoples and communities. This process has led to the recognition of the PVM’s feasibility and effectiveness by the North Pacific coast First Nation communities engaged in the initial pilot project, acknowledging its potential for further progress (Island Trust, 2019). Meanwhile, these engagements have also sparked new inquiries and pathways for future Indigenous involvement in shipping governance (Clear Seas, 2021).

5 Discussion: A Decolonizing Approach for Area-Based Planning

The main argument here is that for ABM approaches to align with the process of reconciliation, the three dimensions of the problem (i.e., political will, methodological appropriateness, ontological awareness) need to be considered together. ABM, in this sense, potentially can create a space for working collaboratively with Indigenous peoples in a reconciliation process, which inherently must involve decolonization (Beveridge, 2024). As such, the ontological biases of the governance process (including frameworks, systems, and tools) must be examined.

Based on recent political narratives (e.g., statements, commitments), there have been significant advancements in political will in Canada, from overarching marine policies (e.g., Oceans Act), national initiatives (e.g., the Oceans Protection Plan), international and national commitments to the rights of Indigenous peoples (e.g., Canada’s commitments regarding UNDRIP), and concrete initiatives in the context of Arctic marine shipping (e.g., Corridors initiative). These advancements have trickled down to specific government actions, institutional efforts to adapt to new frameworks of engagement, and the establishment of concrete initiatives and programs.

The second and third dimensions of the problem (methodological appropriateness and ontological awareness) are fundamentally intertwined and more difficult to address. As shown in Table 6.1, methodological awareness involves finding alternative ways of documenting, visualizing, and using Indigenous knowledge, as well as figuring out novel ways of knowledge sharing between Indigenous peoples, other stakeholders, and governmental institutions.

Table 6.1 Interconnected obstacles for the true engagement of the Inuit in MSP
Full size table

A methodological approach must be designed to address cross-cultural differences, and it must respect the context and nature of local (Indigenous) knowledge. One particular challenge in this regard is that while information sharing is crucial for ABM, Indigenous knowledge is subject to guidelines that may include protection of such knowledge (as defined by the duty to consult—see Chap. 2, this volume). Codesigning mechanisms are needed not only to document and visualize Indigenous data but also to respect Indigenous approaches to reality and knowledge.

Setting standards for methodological appropriateness in governance requires addressing an even more challenging dimension of the problem, namely, becoming aware not only of others’ ontologies but also of our own ontological principles and biases. As discussed above in the context of MSP, ontological approaches and biases are embedded in governance approaches, including in ABM.

The three initiatives discussed above are, potentially, steps in the right direction, but their effectiveness and their place in the reconciliation process remain to be seen, which is normal providing that they are still at the planning or pilot stages. The governance framework of the Corridors initiative can potentially be a space for Indigenous engagement, and it is hoped that the ACNV project will have an impact on effective corridors design and governance approaches.

The decision to look at Indigenous engagement through a discussion of decision support tools and systems stems from the fact that these systems and tools reflect (in their design) certain ontological and methodological decisions, approaches, and, potentially, biases regarding the understanding and the value given to Indigenous knowledge. It is easy to propose ideas regarding incorporating Indigenous knowledge and views in general governance frameworks, but it is certainly more challenging to operationalize these ideas in decision-making systems and tools. If the general ontological assumption of tools and systems involves respect for Indigenous approaches, such tools and systems can in principle create conditions for reconciliation. On the other hand, if ontological biases are not addressed (for instance, the idea that Indigenous knowledge is less reliable), the systems and tools likely will not be effective in the reconciliation process.

EMSA and PVM are examples of operationalization of Indigenous engagement in shipping governance, and they show promising features that can potentially guide the development of other tools and systems in the context of marine governance in general. EMSA is a DST that has been designed and is implemented in the form of pilots through partnerships with Indigenous communities and organizations, and PVM is an example of co-development of guiding principles that may result in decision support systems that are tuned to local realities, environments, and actors. They are both examples of engaging with Indigenous peoples at early stages of decision-making, including in the technical design of a tool, and are geared toward responding to local needs and interests within the governance of Arctic shipping. Paired with early and continuous engagement and collaboration, these initiatives have demonstrated respect for the concerns of participating communities and offered spaces for positive relationship-building.

Some major challenges remain. For instance, how the knowledge documented by the ACNV project will be operationalized and integrated into broader systems of decision-making, including in the layout and governance of the Corridors initiative. Furthermore, the multidimensionality and narrative-driven approach of Inuit knowledge seems difficult to integrate with the quantitative nature of most of the tools and systems used in the governance of shipping.

Incorporating Inuit knowledge and interests in DST and in platforms used to support operational decision-making for shipping is an essential first step toward respecting Inuit rights. However, the information is only one part of the equation. Assumptions regarding how to document and use Inuit knowledge, and more general assumptions about how governance problems are conceptualized (for instance, how risks are defined and assessed), are deeper than methodological choices, and they go beyond good intentions in utilizing participatory approaches for governance. If most of the relevant decision-makers, authorities, regulators, and planners align with “Western” ontologies, and little room is given to others’ approaches, it is likely that those being engaged will perceive their level of engagement to be at the very bottom of the participatory ladder, resulting in little change in power distribution (a central element of the reconciliation process) and little impact in the well-being of Arctic communities. On the contrary, such legitimately important initiatives and goals could end up generating frustration in all parts due to lack of results. Building capacity so that Inuit communities and organizations can participate in the design and utilization of the DSS and DST for decision-making in shipping is paramount.

Finally, little advancements will be made in creating more effective and participatory governance without long-term political will to continue to implement and support governance mechanisms that will be both effective for shipping management and just in the processes of empowering Indigenous communities whose livelihoods are directly and indirectly impacted by shipping and, as such, who have rights to participate in decision-making.

Ontologically, the main challenge is accepting that if there are multiple ways to conceptualize the marine environment, there may also be multiple ways of governing activities that take place in this environment. Crucially, this introduces cultural values to the governance realm, which is typically not part of discussions, particularly in the context of shipping. Conceptualizations of risk, for example, can vary widely between cultures, rather than representing objective realities outside of interpretation. Of course, the presence of floating ice will be an objective danger to a ship, but risks associated with the ship transit in a particularly sensitive marine area need ontological framing and negotiations in cross-cultural settings to be truly participatory (for a discussion of risk conceptualizations, see Chap. 2, this volume).

The ontological dilemma extends much further than the regulation of an activity (e.g., shipping), and hence implementing comprehensive ABM approaches is a step in the right direction. From the perspectives of Indigenous communities, however, the holistic nature of problems extends beyond the realm of ABM to encompass all dimensions of life, including the historical tensions of colonial processes. This explains, for example, how topics such as residential schools and marginalization may be brought up by community members in all sorts of fora, including in the engagement process that takes place in shipping governance. A decolonizing approach in shipping governance would not ignore the specific needs of shipping regulations and management, but it will also create conditions for fair engagement where the knowledge and history of Indigenous communities are recognized in their own right.

Meaningful Indigenous engagement must move beyond the incorporation of scientific and technical information, and/or Indigenous knowledge presented as such, to ensure that Indigenous peoples themselves inform and impact the design and operation of frameworks and tools so that their knowledge and ontology influences decision-making and planning. All this requires political will from government to create and implement procedures to meaningfully engage Indigenous peoples in these ways.

As described, these three elements—the ontological, methodological, and political—are intricately intertwined. The idea of an inclusive governance framework for the Corridors initiative and the development of EMSA and PVM are steps in the right direction, but broader ontological issues should be explicitly considered in future developments. Ultimately, the initiatives must unfold in the context of a systematic and politically robust approach to empower local communities through capacity-building and a clear recognition of the value of Indigenous knowledge and views.

6 Conclusion

There have been significant advances in policies and initiatives focused on increasing the engagement of Indigenous peoples in Canada, including the documentation of Indigenous knowledge and voices for area-based management. However, it remains true that there is a large gap between policies, planning, and implementation. The final decision-making in the context of shipping remains solely with the mariner, shipping company, and federal government, none of which have historically had mechanisms to incorporate, reflect, or include Indigenous ontologies or peoples. Examples of Indigenous engagement in shipping governance are few, but significant, including the three examples described above. DSS and DST have critical roles in the implementation of ABM initiatives, but the underpinning methodological and ontological biases inherent in those systems and tools, and how they affect Indigenous engagement, are rarely (if ever) discussed. Therefore, efforts to truly facilitate Indigenous engagement often fall short of their original expectations, generating frustration both in government and Indigenous communities.

The Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors initiative is a crucial opportunity to implement ABM tools and approaches that include Inuit in the context of a process of reconciliation in an area of Canada that is almost exclusively inhabited by Indigenous peoples. ABM approaches can indeed improve participation in marine governance, and specifically in Arctic shipping, as long as ontologies are made explicit, methodologies are properly designed, and Inuit are involved in all stages of the process.

One of the main problems to achieve true engagement and empowerment of Indigenous communities is the fact that Inuit ontologies and the inherent biases of tools, systems, and frameworks of prevailing governance models are often ignored. In order to pursue reconciliation, the three dimensions (ontological, methodological, and political) should be approached as intrinsically connected.

Understanding this problem through a multidimensional lens involves open-mindedness to recognize that Indigenous peoples must inform and influence the design of frameworks and tools within the context of ABM, so that the decision support tools and systems are not only reliant on scientific and technical information but also on Indigenous knowledge and insights.

A prerequisite of the application of ABM is the gathering and use of evidence from different sources for decision-making, but in practical terms, decision support systems and tools rely mostly on quantitative or quantifiable information that excludes or decontextualizes local knowledge. Therefore, in most cases, decision support systems and tools are better suited to be used by corporations, governments, institutions, and scientists. Local communities often require assistance and, in some cases, translation to participate. Community engagement is often reduced to data collection and harmonization (at its best) and empty consultation (at its worst). In the process of transforming Inuit knowledge into evidence for decision-making, the “journey” of local knowledge usually includes reduction, simplification, and decontextualization.

To revert this power unbalance, governance models need to start by identifying and recognizing the ontologies embedded in prevailing governance and management frameworks, as well as the ontologies of local actors and main users of the marine space. A pragmatic (but conceptually informed) approach is needed to define specifically tailored best practices that can include a combination of approaches, techniques, and knowledge. A combination of ontological awareness, methodological fine-tuning, and political will is needed. The result could be a step forward in the general journey of reconciliation.

The main limitation of this analysis is that the descriptions of the EMSA and PVM initiatives were based on reports and available literature, which are not detailed. An in-depth look into these initiatives (including the design and implementation stages) could shed light into several significant issues, including how Inuit ontologies were considered, how and if they are resulting in capacity-building for Inuit communities and organizations, what mechanisms are in place for long-term maintenance and improvement of tools and systems, and what future plans are in place for effective incorporation of Inuit knowledge. In the meantime, both EMSA and PVM seem to offer a space for partnership development in the context of Arctic shipping governance. Whether this leads to advancements in the path of reconciliation is only for Inuit and other participating Indigenous peoples to say.