Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Infusing Inuit and local knowledge into the Low Impact Shipping Corridors: T
An adaptation to increased shipping activity and climate change in Arctic
Canada
Jackie Dawsona,*, Natalie Cartera, Nicolien van Luijka, Colleen Parkerb, Melissa Webera,
Alison Cooka, Kayla Greya, Jennifer Provencherc
a
University of Ottawa, Canada
b
Transport Canada, Nunavut Impact Review BoardGovernment of Canada, Canada
c
Environment and Climate Change Canada, Government of Canada, Canada

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Ship traffic has nearly tripled in the Canadian Arctic over the past decade and additional growth is expected as
Climate change climate change continues to increase navigability in the region. In response, the Canadian Government is de-
Adaptation veloping Low Impact Shipping Corridors as an adaptation strategy that supports safety and sustainability under
Arctic shipping rapidly changing environmental conditions. The corridors are specified voluntary maritime routes where ser-
Low impact corridors
vices and infrastructure investments are prioritized. While a large amount of data from different sources were
Inuit
used to establish the location of the corridors, important local and traditionalIndigenous knowledge from Arctic
Marine
Coastal communities has yet to be considered in much detail. The Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices (ACNV) project
was established in response to this fundamental gap in knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to outline
perspectives and recommendations for the corridors from 13 Canadian InuitArctic communities across Inuit
Nunangat (Inuit homeland) that were involved in the ACNV project through a series of participatory community
mapping exercisesworkshops. A summary of the recommendations for the corridors that emerged from com-
munities is presented including spatial representations for: 1) preferred corridors, 2) areas to avoid, 3) restric-
tions by season, 4) modification of vessel operation and 5) areas where charting is needed. The findings of the
study further reiterate the vital need for meaningful inclusion of northern voices and science alongside federal
government agencies in the development of Arctic shipping policy and governance.

1. Introduction
The rapid increase in Arctic shipping (i.e. movement of goods) and
transportation (i.e. movement of people), propelled by climate change
and the prospect of heightened global maritime trade through the
Arctic poses significant threats to a region with fragile and limited
biodiversity, and where Inuit livelihoods continue to rely on access to a
functioning and intact maritime environment (Lajeunesse, 2012; Ng
et al., 2018; Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada (ICC, 2008). Over the
past decade, the number of kilometers traveled by ships traffic in Arctic
Canada has nearly tripled (Dawson et al., 2017, 2018) and further
growth is expected given increased accessibility and longer open water
seasons due to climate change (Smith and Stephenson, 2013;
Stephenson et al., 2013). While current ship numbers in Arctic Canada
represent only a small percentage of total shipping traffic throughout
Canadian waters and across other global Arctic regions it is expected
that by 2030 the Northwest Passage will be ice free in the summertime
enabling the possibility of international trade and increased propor-
tional traffic volumes (Council of Canadian Academies, 2016; Eguíluz
et al., 2016; Haas and Howell, 2015; Pizzolato et al., 2014; Smith and
Stephenson, 2013; Stephenson et al., 2013).
It is vital to establish effective and proactive climate change adap-
tation initiatives in Arctic Canada that are aimed not only at mitiga-
tinglimiting the direct biophysical impacts of climate change (i.e. sea
ice reduction), but that also target the indirect socio-economic impacts
and risks ofresulting from observed biophysical change such as the (i.e.
the rapid increase in shipping opportunities). The importance of this
two-pronged consideration whereby adaptation initiatives are devel-
oped in response to both the direct and indirect implications of climate
change, as well as the cascading risks associated with the cummlative

⁎
Corresponding author at: 60 University Pvt, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada.
E-mail address: jackie.dawson@uottawa.ca (J. Dawson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.11.013
Received 24 July 2019; Received in revised form 29 November 2019; Accepted 29 November 2019
Available online 19 December 2019
1462-9011/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
J. Dawson, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36

effects of change, has been highlighted by the Arctic Council in their In this paper we present a summary of the spatial recommendations
Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic report (AACA) (Arctic for corridors prioritization as proposed by 131 of these communities
Monitoring Assessment Program, 2018 – see chapter 9). A promising that were based on identified impacts and culturally significant marine
adaptation strategiesstrategy that responds to climate change-induced areas. Findings are organized by region (i.e. Inuvialuit Settlement Re-
increases in Arctic shipping activity isare the Northern Marine Trans- gion (ISR); Nunavut: Kitikmeot, Qikiqtaaluk, Kivalliq; and Nunavik)
portation Corridors (NMTC) initiative – now known as ‘Low Impact (see Fig. 1a & b) and also by emergent themes including local per-
Corridors’ (referred to hereafter as ‘corridors’) following an official joint spectives on; 1) preferred corridors, 2) areas to avoid, 3) restrictions by
statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of season, 4) modification of vessel operation, 5) and charting needed. The
the USA in 2016 (Prime Minister of Canada, 2016). Low Impact Cor- findings of the study also reiterate the need for meaningful inclusion of
ridors are “…dynamic shipping routes throughout Canada’s North where northern voices alongside federal government agencies, Inuit land
the necessary infrastructure, marine navigational support, and emergency claim organizations and other Indigenous agencies, and scientists in
response services could be provided to ensure safer marine navigation, while Arctic shipping policy-making, research and decision making. Partici-
respecting the sensitive northern environment and its ecological and cultural pants and researchers involved in the ACNV study provided these data
significance” (Levitt, 2019, 68; underline our emphasis). in good faith and recognize these perspectives as being vital for the
The development of corridors in Arctic Canada has involved three prioritization of corridors that respect Inuit self-determination, but are
key Canadian federal government departments: Canadian Coast Guard fully aware that these data represent one input and that other data
(CCG), the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS), and Transport related to ship safety and economy also need full consideration among
Canada (TC). When the corridors were first spatially articulated and decision makers in the overall corridors placement and management.
shared with the public by the Government of Canada, they were based
on a large amount of geographic and operational data from various
2. State of knowledge
sources (see Chénier et al., 2017). However, at that time, important
local and Indigenous knowledge from Arctic communities was not
As a result of global climate change, the Canadian Arctic is now
considered in much detail. This meant that the original corridors lacked
warming at three times the rate of the global average (Bush and Flato,
local perspectives from the people that know the area best (Brunet
2019). Some of the most meaningful impacts of climate change in the
et al., 2016; ITK, 2013) and that the cultural significance of marine
Arctic are the observed reduction in extent and thickness of sea ice
areas was not well captured (again refer to Levitt, 2019, 68). Even an
(Hassol, 2004). Changing sea ice has broad ranging impacts on the
early the definition of corridors offered by Chénier et al. (2017) that
marine environment, animals, and also communities. Sea ice plays a
was provided just two years before the more comprehensive definition
central part in Inuit culture. It enables Inuit to travel and hunt for much
of Levitt, 2019Levitt (2019), neglected entirely to mention the inclusion
of the year (Durkalec et al., 2015; Kelley and Ljubicic, 2012; Panikkar
of culturally significant marine areas and instead only highlighted the
et al., 2018; Olsen et al., 2019) by acting as an extension of land or as
“…enhanced protection of ecologically and biologically significant
Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) has described it as an ‘ice ‘highway’
areas…” [EBSAs] (p.1086). Two years later, Levitt, 2019Levitt (2019,
(Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada (ICC, 2008). However, changing
68) offers a more comprehensive defintion of corridors that includes
climatic conditions of the sea ice have reduced local people’s ability to
cultural significane, indicating a clearer commitment to the inclusion of
hunt, fish and travel (Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada (ICC, 2008;
northern communities in the corridors iniciative (see defintion provided
Meier et al., 2014) and as a result “Canadian Inuit are experiencing
above). Although, some traditional knowledge was gathered in the
challenges to their food security, with consequences for nutritional
development of EBSAs that were used to createt the corridors, the
composition in their diets and other aspects of their well-being”
omission of Inuit voices directly in the orginal geographic prioritization
(Wesche and Chan, 2010, p. 361; see also Cunsolo Willox et al., 2012
of corridors was not only a missed opportunity in the development of
and Laidler et al., 2009).
effective, safe, and sustainable corridorsmaritime routes, it was also
Inuit are having to adapt directly to changing sea ice conditions
contradictory to the moral and legal imperative of Indigenous inclusion
(Panikkar et al., 2018; Olsen et al., 2019). But it is not just the changes
as ascribed in regional land claim agreements and as outlined in the
in ice that require adaptation, there are also secondary and indirect
Government of Canada’s reconciliation agenda (IRC, 1984; Nunavut
consequences of climate change that require focused adaptation at-
Land Claims Agreement Act (NLCA, 1993; NG (Nunatsiavut
tention including, dealing with the potential risks of climate change
Government), 2005; Makivik Corporation, 2007; Truth and
induced increases in Arctic shipping activity. Dawson et al. (2018)
Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015; Department of Justice
found that the distance travelled by ships in Arctic Canada nearly tri-
Canada, 2018). However, Ssince the initial conceptualization of the
pled from 1990 to 2015 and Pizzolato et al. (2016) found a limited but
corridors there have been many improvements made over time and
increasing correlation between reductions in sea ice and the observed
federal agencies have begunand continue to engaginge in consultation
increase in shipping activity. Shipping can both enhance communities’
processes with Inuit organizations and communities on the placement
wellbeing by bringing in much needed supplies, but it can also pose
and governance of low impact shipping corridors.
dangers and threats that can affect the marine environment by: in-
The Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices (ACNV) research project
troducing invasive species, breaking sea ice that disturbs migration
(see www.arcticcorridors.ca) was established in 2014 in direct response
routes for Arctic animals, polluting the marine environment that can
to the vital need to consider local and traditionalIndigenous knowledge
affect marine species. These ultimately impact Inuit communities that
of culturally significant marine areas in the maritimelow impact cor-
rely on sea ice and access to marine animals for their livelihoods
ridors across Arctic Canada (also see Arctic Council, 2009; 2017) and r.
(AMSA, 2009; Kelley and Ljubicic, 2012; Porta et al., 2017; Dawson
Results of the project couldcan now be used by decision makers in order
et al. 2014; 2016). Furthermore, icebreaking vessels break up an al-
to fill this identified information gap. The ACNV project was developed
ready thinning sea ice platform compounding the impacts for safe local
in consultation with the Canadian Coast Guard and involved close
transportation on sea ice highways between communities and to
collaboration with 14 Canadian Inuit communities across Inuit Nu-
hunting areas. It is vital that effective adaptation strategies be estab-
nangat (Inuit homelands). The aim of the project was to generate an
lished for both the direct impact of climate change in Arctic Canada as
inventory and foundation of scientific and, traditionallocal, and In-
well as the indirect implications; low impact shipping corridors
digneous knowledge about shipping impacts and culturally significant
marine areas. Funding required to complete this study totaled over
CA$1.5 million and was obtained by securing competitive scientific 1
Data from one of the communities had not been collected at the time of
research grants. submission.

20
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 1. Map of Low Impact Corridors and communities involved in ACNV research project.
represent an important and potentially highly effective multi-purpose
adaptation strategy in this regard.
It is imperative that the corridors are designed in a way that best
protects that environment and the livelihoods of Arctic communities
(The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016; Porta et al., 2017). A corridors fra-
mework that incorporates Inuit recommendations should consider how
local residents utilize the marine environment (including both frozen,
and during freeze-up, break-up, and open water seasons) for hunting
and travelling and also consider the importance of respecting cultural
and traditional areas as identified directly by Inuit. In 2016, Oceans
North and Pew Charitable Trusts authored an important report, pro-
posing the creation of an ‘Integrated Arctic Corridors Framework”, that
would include the “opportunity for Inuit traditional knowledge about
sensitive marine and coastal areas to shape corridor designation, clas-
sification, and management.” (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016, 29).
The report was endorsed by the Government of Canada and to date has
provided the most detailed insight into how these corridors might
consider areas of environmental and cultural importance including
areas that are used by Inuit communities for subsistence and liveli-
hoods. An employee of the Government of Canada also authored a
paper stating that: “To better understand the impacts of shipping routes
on human activities, ecosystems, and maritime mammals in the Cana-
dian Arctic, the corridors in conjunction with traditional and cultural
knowledge are vital” (Chénier et al., 2017, p.1091). Subsequently, in
2017, the Government of Canada proposed enhancing partnerships
with Indigenous communities and Arctic stakeholders to establish Low
Impact Shipping Corridors in their announcement of the Oceans Pro-
tection Plan (Transport Canada, 2017).
As of 2019, tThe Government of Canada ishas developinged a new
Arctic Policy Framework, where one of the priorities is continued col-
laboration with Arctic communities: “…it [Federal Government] will
21
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
work closely with Arctic residents and governments to ensure their
views and priorities are at the forefront of policy decisions affecting the
future of the Canadian Arctic and Canada’s role in the circumpolar
Arctic.” It is stated that the government will be following Arctic
Leadership Model objectives which includes “incorporating Arctic sci-
ence and traditional knowledge in decision-making; building a sus-
tainable Arctic economy; and supporting strong Arctic communities”
(Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, 2018, para
10). In addition, as part of the Government of Canada’s goal for re-
conciliation with Indigenous peoples of Canada there has been a call for
increased collaboration and consultation with Indigenous peoples, and
for the government to fully adopt and implement the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as the frame-
work for reconciliation (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of
Canada, 2015). In 2016, Canada officially adopted the UNDRIP. The
UNDRIP outlines 46 rights of Indigenous Peoples, including that “con-
trol by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their
lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and
strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote
their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs.”
(UNDRIP, 2007, 2). It also recognizes that “respect for indigenous
knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable
and equitable development and proper management of the environ-
ment” (UNDRIP, 2007, 2). The AC-NV project is directly in line with
these important international and national initiatives. Findings of this
study contribute both the development of new scientific knowledge and
also to the standards and important commitments made by the federal
government of Canada towards reconciliation and sustainable Arctic
development.
J. Dawson, et al.
3. Methods
3.1. Study area
Fourteen communities from three regions of the Canadian Arctic
participated in the ACNV project including, six from the Inuvialuit
Settlement region (ISR); Aklavik, Inuvik, Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour,
Tuktoyaktuk, and Ulukhaktok; seven from Nunavut (which consists of
three different regions – Kivalliq, Kitikmeot, Qikiqtaaluk): Arviat,
Cambridge Bay, Coral Harbour, Gjoa Haven, Iqaluit (not com-
pletedfinalized at time of submission), Pond Inlet, and Resolute; and
one from Nunavik: Salluit. Results of this study are based on 13 com-
munity cases that were available at the time of writing (see Fig. 1).
Communities involved in this study were purposively selected based on
known concerns about marine vessel traffic (see Stewart et al., 2015;
Dawson et al., 2017, 2018), and by leveraging existing research net-
works and collaborative relationships. Residents in these communities
all depend upon the marine ecosystem year-round for livelihoods and
sustenance (Kelley and Ljubicic, 2012). Because of climate change the
majority of these communities have witnessed more than a doubling of
the number of kilometers travelled by ships in their areas since 1990
(Dawson et al., 2018). The types of marine vessels operating in the
region vary and include, container ships, tankers, general cargo, bulk
carriers, government icebreakers, tug and barge, fishing vessels, oil and
gas exploration vessels, pleasure craft and cruise ships (Pizzolato et al.,
2014)
3.2. Study approach and methodology
The AC-NV project combined community-based research techniques
(Castleden et al., 2008; Christopher et al., 2008; Kue et al., 2015) with
participatory mapping approaches (International Fund for Agricultural
Development, 2009). Community-based research begins with a “con-
cern that is important to the community and is conducted with a
community and not just in a community setting” (Kue et al., 2015: 411).
The approach adds credibility to studies by integrating community
input (Christopher et al., 2008), enhancing community interactions,
and enabling training opportunities (Castleden et al., 2008). Partici-
patory mapping involves the creation of maps by local communities by
facilitating the development of valuable representations of what a
community perceives to be significant features within their landscape
including natural physical features and socio-cultural features
(International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2009:4). Participa-
tory mapping also “focuses on providing the skills and expertise for
community members to create the maps themselves, to represent the
spatial knowledge of community members and to ensure that commu-
nity members determine the ownership of the maps and how and to
whom to communicate the information the maps provide”
(International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2009)
A consistent approach was employed in all communities to ensure
comparability and reliability. In each community our approach in-
volved participatory mapping workshops, interviews, formal and in-
formal conversations, results validation, and results sharing exercises
(see Carter et al., 2019 for additional details on the methodological
approach than those provided here). Mapping workshops and inter-
views were conducted in English, Inuktitut, or Inuinnaqtun according to
participants’ preferences and were simultaneously translated by trained
interpreters. All workshop and interview data were audio-recorded and
transcribed verbatim. Expert community members chosen to participate
in the workshops and interviews were identified not by the researchers
themselves but rather by local organizations that were familiar with
community members. These study participants included a diversity of
men and women; current and active users of marine areas; holders of
expert knowledge of the marine environment, and individuals who had
knowledge of the potential impacts of marine vessel traffic. There was a
diversity of Inuit elders and adults among the study participants and
22
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
they were all paid an honorarium for their knowledge as per ethical
research protocols in the region (ITK, 2007; ITK, 2018). The mapping
workshops were co-facilitated by a non-Inuit visiting project team
member(s) and local Inuit youth (aged 18+) who were trained by the
research team in participatory mapping techniques, facilitation, and
qualitative research techniques more generally.
Workshop participants were asked to identify: wildlife habitat areas
(e.g., feeding and breeding locations, and migratory routes); local
harvesting and camping sites; local travel routes; observed and poten-
tial impacts of marine vessel traffic; and suggestions for marine vessel-
management options for the corridors specifically and for culturally
significant marine areas generally. These data were collected metho-
dically for each season (as defined by each community), which were not
defined by conventional seasons such as fall, winter, spring, and
summer, but rather by important marine conditions for the commu-
nities such as ‘open-water season’, ‘break-up’, ‘freeze-up’, and ‘ice-
covered’. All spatial data were documented on topographic maps cov-
ered with plastic overlays using extra-fine tipped coloured markers,
following conventions outlined in Tobias (2009). Images of all plastic
overlays aligned with the topographic map were georeferenced using
ArcGIS Desktop 10.6.1 software.
Features drawn on the maps by research participants were then
digitized in ArcGIS using the straight segment and trace options in the
editor toolbar. Spatial data was then further refined and analyzed using
the editor toolbar and other ArcGIS tools (e.g. merge, clip, buffer, and
erase). Details of each digitized features were recorded in the attribute
tables.
Non-spatial data, including field notes and interview and workshop
transcripts, were categorized and analyzed using conventional content
analysis, where common categories and themes were determined
through constant comparison and coding (Nowell et al., 2017) and by
utilizing NVivo software. As part of the broader ACNV project, com-
munity reports were generated and validated, and included summaries
of research findings such as, historic ship traffic over time; locally-
identified seasons; seasonal harvesting activities; maps of human and
wildlife activities, travel routes; potential impacts of marine vessel
traffic; and management options for the corridors (text and maps). To
ensure accuracy and in line with research ethical protocols on results
dissemination, these reports were validated and formally approved by
each community via focused consultations with all research partici-
pants (see www.arcticcorridors.ca).
4. Results
The results are organized by the five themes that emerged in the
study including: 1) Preferred Corridors – community identified alter-
native to the currently proposed corridors, 2) Areas to avoid – areas
identified by community members to be avoided by all or some ships
for a variety of reasons, 3) Restricted shipping seasonally – areas within
the proposed corridors or preferred corridors identified by communities
that should be avoided during certain seasons for a variety of reasons,
4) Modify vessel operation – recommendations for changing operation
of ships to minimize impacts of ships going through the corridors such
as speed or anchoring, and 5) Charting needed – identification of areas
of the corridors that require more charting (see Table 1). These themes
emerged predominantly from the community mapping workshop data
and then were cross-referenced with the workshop and interview
transcripts and community report summaries.
Table 1 provides a summary of all project results by theme and
additional sections are provided below that outline more spatially
specific details. The results are also presented by region organized by
three different regional groups including (again refer to Fig. 1): In-
uvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) – Tuktoyaktuk, Sachs Harbour, Inuvik,
Paulatuk, Aklavik, and Ulukhaktok; Kitikmeot and Qikiqtaaluk regions
of Nunavut – Gjoa Haven, Cambridge Bay, Resolute and Pond Inlet;
Kivalliq region of Nunavut and Nunavik – Arviat, Coral Harbour, and
J. Dawson, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36

Table 1
Summary of Recommendations *(#) indicates number of communities making recommendations.
Recommendation* Region Details Rationale

Preferred Corridors (8)
Areas to avoid (10)
Restricted shipping seasonally (10)
Modify vessel operation (7)
Charting needed (4)
ISR - Revise corridor near Anguniaqvia Niqiqyuam Marine
Protected Area (MPA)
- Amundsen Gulf corridor situated further off shore
- Route north of Banks Island preferred
Kitikmeot/ - Route through M’Clintock Channel proposed to replace
Qikiqtaaluk Peel Sound corridor
- Move corridor away from bays and Prince Leopold
Island
- Revise Eclipse Sound corridor
Kivalliq/ Nunavik - Move corridors further from the shoreline along west of
Hudson Bay and north of Coral Harbour
- Use corridor south of Coats Island if not stopping at
Coral Harbour
- Create one corridor in middle of Hudson Strait
ISR - No shipping along Aklavik shore
- Avoid Tarium Niryutait MPAs, Baillie Island area and
Prince of Wales Strait
- No shipping along Nelson Head shoreline
Kitikmeot/ - Avoid Bellot Strait
Qikiqtaaluk - Avoid migratory bird sanctuaries near Resolute and
Pond Inlet
- No anchoring in Allen Bay and Eclipse Sound
- Avoid Eclipse Sound near Pond Inlet community and
Bylot Island
Kivalliq/ Nunavik - Avoid corridor closest to Arviat community
- Avoid corridor north of Coats Island
- Restricted area through corridor between Charles Island
and the mainland
ISR - Consultation before breaking ice
- No breaking ice between Oct 1 and June 30
- Avoid areas during harvesting season
- Stay further out from MPAs during whale harvesting
Kitikmeot/ - No ships between Oct 1 – June 30
Qikiqtaaluk - No breaking ice through Peel Sound, Simpson Strait or
Allen Bay
- Restrict shipping during caribou migration
Kivalliq/ Nunavik - No breaking ice once freeze up has started
- No breaking ice during seal pupping
ISR - Ships should stay 1500 m from marine mammals
Kitikmeot/ - Ship wake dangerous for small vessels
Qikiqtaaluk - Reduce speed zone
Kivalliq/ Nunavik - No wake zone in Salluit and Deception Bay
ISR - M’Clure Strait and Amundsen Gulf should be charted
Kitikmeot/ - Bathurst Inlet and Simpson Strait need charting
Qikiqtaaluk
Kivalliq/ Nunavik - Charting of new potential corridors needed
- Decrease impact on wildlife and protect MPA
- Preferred route depending on vessel use (e.g.
commercial or local)
- Corridor located further off shore in case of shipping
accident to protect marine environment
- Avoid highly ecologically sensitive areas, whale
migration routes, and bird sanctuaries
- Decrease impact on community travel and hunting
- Avoid because of marine mammals
- Highly sensitive area because of whale nursery and
beluga calving
- Decrease impact on wildlife and protect MPA
- Avoid coastal erosion of sensitive area
- Safety issue because of underwater island and icebergs
- No anchoring in marine mammal migration route
- Avoid migratory bird sanctuaries and seabird colonies
- Enable community members to use ice to travel and
hunt
- Reduce noise pollution that impacts animals
- Minimize disturbance to animals e.g. caribou migration
- Minimize disturbance of harvesters
- Safety of animals and hunters
- Limit impact on wildlife
- No wake to reduce impact on smaller vessels,
communities, and coast
- Build quieter ships and propellers to reduce impact on
animals
- Much of the Arctic is not adequately charted
- Changes in depth of water observed
- Charting is needed to increase safety for community
members and ships

Salluit. These three groupings were created based on location and
overlap in areas that participants discussed and which they themselves
identified as maritime areas their community utilized for local trans-
portation, cultural activities, and subsistence hunting and fishing. It is
important to note that as a result of this approach, which involved
participants self-identifying their community regions, the research does
not cover all maritime areas of the federally-proposed corridors. Thus,
the recommendations that have emerged are limited to the areas that
communities in this research project utilize and have knowledge about
and should not be considered regionally comprehensive.
4.1. Preferred corridors
Eight of the thirteen communities recommended alternative routes
for some or part of the federally established corridors that are situated
within or near their communities. The 1) federally proposed, 2) com-
munity preferred, and 3) suggested limited-use corridors for all regions
are summarized shown in Fig. 2. Communities have identified a range
of reasons for these recommendations from minimizing disturbances
from ships on local communities and animals, to decreasing the
potential for shipping accidents because of known dangers. The current
corridors do not consider the ways in which Arctic communities use the
waters located within and around these corridors and this section shows
how the corridors might incorporate Inuit recommendations into the
creation of a corridors framework. The research shows that there are
some routes that may already be the best option – for example, Inuvik
community members said that the current corridors near their com-
munity were fine if ships continued to avoid other areas – but there are
other corridors that could be improved upon through the incorporation
of perspectives from communities who have been, and will continue to
be, impacted by them.
It is important to note here that these locally proposed corridors are
approximate renditions of what could be created and that additional
research and consideration is needed, which considers the full feasi-
bility, safety, and environmental impact of these recommendations.
Furthermore, some of the proposed corridors are forward thinking to
future potential corridors that may become accessible due to sea-ice
melt. All communities recommended that consultations with Inuit
communities be conducted on an on-going basis in the development
and continued management of what should be considered a dynamic

23
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 2. Community corridors recommendations.
Note: ‘Proposed corridor’ refers to community-proposed new corridors that are not currently part of Federally proposed corridors; ‘Preferred corridor’ are corridors
that are currently part of Federally proposed corridors and are preferred over other routes as identified by communities. ‘Limited corridor’ are corridors part of
Federally proposed corridors that communities have identified as restricted or limited to specific use.
(and regularly updated) set of shipping corridors. This is especially
pertinent as recommendations may be altered as a result of climate
change and increased shipping as well as climate change induced
wildlife migrations and habitat alterations
4.1.1. Inuvialuit settlement region
In the ISR region, community members from Paulatuk highlighted
the importance of protecting the Anguniaqvia Niqiqyuam Marine
Protected Area (ANMPA). The ANMPA is located near Paulatuk and was
designated as an MPA in a collaborative effort with Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, representative organizations, and the community, with
specified regulations that came into effect in 2016 (see Fig. 3). The
management plan currently allows for marine traffic, however, it is
prohibited to “carry out any activity that disturbs, damages, destroys,
or removes from the Marine Protected Areas any living marine or-
ganism or any part of its habitat or is likely to do so” (Oceans Act, 2016,
3). As it currently stands, the primary corridor runs through part of the
ANMPA (see Fig. 3). Paulatuk community members recommended that
this part of the corridor be revised so that it avoids Cape Parry and the
ANMPA altogether (See Fig. 3). Cape Parry is a migratory bird sanc-
tuary and the goal of this sanctuary is to support these species, as well
as beluga whales, Arctic char, and ringed and bearded seals (DFO,
2019). Other researchers (Halliday et al., 2017) have also found that
this corridor could be negatively impacting the marine mammals lo-
cated in or near the ANMPA and have suggested that “shifting vessel
traffic towards the northern edge of the shipping corridor might remove
the behavioural disturbance from the ANMPA for many vessels…” (79).
Sachs Harbour community members also recommended that the
24
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
primary corridor through Amundsen Gulf be situated further off shore
in order to protect the marine environment closer to the coast, so that
any emergency that may happen will have less of an impact on the
species that are relied upon in the ISR (see Fig. 4).
In addition, the Sachs Harbour participants recommended that their
preferred corridor for any recreational and commercial traffic that is
not actually stopping in communities along the Amundsen Gulf to take
the route north of Banks Island along M’Clure Strait in order to protect
the marine environment. The route through M’Clure Strait is often
choked up with mobile and hazardous multiyear ice, (see Haas and
Howell, 2015) and therefore it may or may not be feasible at present for
ships to regularly use this suggested corridor. However, in the future as
this area becomes increasingly ice free it could be proposed as an al-
ternative route for marine vessels at that time.
4.1.2. Kitikmeot/Qikiqtaaluk regions of Nunavut
Resolute and Gjoa Haven participants raised concerns about the
current corridors that go through Peel Sound (see Fig. 5). Both com-
munities described this as a highly ecologically sensitive area that in-
cludes many different marine species such as beluga whales, seals,
shrimp, and narwhal. It is a calving ground, nursery, and molting area
for 5000 beluga whales, and has significant concentrations of seals and
whales (Carter et al., 2017). There are no narwhal or whales near Gjoa
Haven due to low ocean salinity, therefore Gjoa Haven residents travel
to Peel Sound in order to harvest whales. Peel Sound was identified as
an Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area (EBSA) by the De-
partment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in 2015 (DFO, 2015). The
EBSA covers the southern half of Peel Sound and is based on the use
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 3. ISR, Baillie Island, Cape Parry.
area by narwhals for rearing and feeding. Furthermore, in 2013, the
International Maritime Organization identified Peel Sound as meeting
several criteria for Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) designation
(Dunmall, 2018). Both, Gjoa Haven and Resolute communities re-
commended creating a corridor west of Prince of Wales Island through
M’Clintock Channel in order to avoid Peel Sound. Currently, ships do
not as often travel along the west coast of Prince of Wales Island so it is
unclear how feasible this suggested corridor will be.
Resolute and Gjoa Haven participants raised concerns about the
current corridors that go through Peel Sound (see Fig. 5). Both com-
munities described this as a highly ecologically sensitive area that in-
cludes many different marine species such as beluga whales, seals,
shrimp, and narwhal. It is a calving ground, nursery, and molting area
for 5000 beluga whales, and has significant concentrations of seals and
whales (Carter et al., 2017). There are no narwhal or whales near Gjoa
Haven due to low ocean salinity, therefore Gjoa Haven residents travel
to Peel Sound in order to harvest whales. Peel Sound was identified as
an Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area (EBSA) by the De-
partment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in 2015 (DFO, 2015). The
EBSA covers the southern half of Peel Sound and is based on the use
area by narwhals for rearing and feeding. Furthermore, in 2013, the
International Maritime Organization identified Peel Sound as meeting
several criteria for Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) designation
(Dunmall, 2018). Both, Gjoa Haven and Resolute communities re-
commended creating a corridor west of Prince of Wales Island through
M’Clintock Channel in order to avoid Peel Sound. Currently, ships do
25
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
not as often travel along the west coast of Prince of Wales Island so it is
unclear how feasible this suggested corridor will be. Gjoa Haven com-
munity members strongly suggested that additional research should be
conducted in order to consider the feasibility of utilizing M’Clintock
Channel in order to avoid Peel Sound as an alternative corridor in the
future. Both communities acknowledged that this might increase the
distance and time for transiting ships which is a consideration. How-
ever, considering the sensitivity of the region communities are re-
questing that this alternative corridor be seriously considered whenever
possible. Within this scenario all communities raised concerns that
ships may pass on the increased cost of longer transits, in particular
from re-supply vessels that carry much needed food and resources, and
noted that they were not willing to absorb these.
Resolute community members also recommended moving the cor-
ridors away from the bays where marine mammals are regularly found
and harvested, especially south of Devon Island and also further away
from the migratory bird sanctuary on Prince Leopold Island.
Participants explained that the current corridor in that area is too close
to the bird sanctuary and could be negatively impacting birds and an-
imals on and around the Island. (see Fig. 5)
Pond Inlet community members explained that one of the current
corridors is located right in front of the town and directly within the key
community hunting area of Eclipse Sound. They recommended a re-
vised corridor where ships (other than mining ships which have rite of
passage as ascribed in an Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement for the nearby
Mary River mine) would enter and exit the community from the east, to
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 4. ISR Preferred Corridors.
avoid so much travel through Eclipse Sound. Eclipse Sound has also
been identified as an EBSA by DFO in 2015 (see Fig. 6) (DFO, 2015) and
is part of the Tallurutiup Imanga, an area that is currently under con-
sideration as a National Marine Conservation area (Parks Canada,
2018). As such, Eclipse Sound is considered to be highly significant
from an ecological perspective.
4.1.3. Kivalliq region of Nunavut /Nunavik
Community members in Coral Harbour recommended that the
current corridors going north of Coats Island and into to their com-
munity be revised and utilized only by re-supply, tourism, and other
vessels going into Coral Harbour (see Fig. 7). In addition, they also
made the recommendation for ships to utilize the corridor south of
Coats Island instead of transiting through the corridor north of Coats
Island. This recommendation was made in order to decrease impacts on
marine mammals and hunters between Coats Island, Walrus Island, and
Southampton Island. The community acknowledged that this might cost
ships a bit more money due to the longer transit, and that the weather
may sometimes make it unsafe for ships to take this less protected route.
Thus, it was recommended that ships be made available real-time
weather information for that section of the corridor and to utilize when
it is safe to do so. Community members also identified that the corridors
between Southampton and Coats Island overlap with beluga, bowhead,
seal, and walrus feeding areas, and this is also where these same
mammals are harvested by hunters. This area is part of an EBSA – as it is
an important migratory route for Narwhal and Bowhead – and has also
recently been designated as an Area of Interest, the first step in the
26
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
process to establish a Marine Protected Area (DFO, 2018a). It was re-
commended that the current corridor that travels south of Coats Island
be extended further so that ships travelling to other communities along
the western shore of Hudson Bay could make use of this corridor as
well. To minimize marine mammal disturbance, it was also re-
commended that corridors should be 50 miles (80 km) from shore –
except those coming into Coral Harbour and those areas where it is too
narrow (refer to Fig. 2). Coral Harbour community members did ac-
knowledge that the communities in nearby Nunavik may have different
recommendations regarding the preferred corridors and highlighted
that there would need to be some communication and coordination
among communities. While a community mapping workshop was
conducted in Salluit, Nunavik, they did not provide recommendations
for the corridors within the Hudson Bay region, and noted that other
communities in the region would likely have recommendations.
Salluit community members noted that they were satisfied with the
corridors that operated along the middle of the Hudson Strait and re-
flected that they were likely to be low impact there. They recommended
that this corridor be revised to one wide route in the middle of the Strait
in order to minimize impacts on wildlife. They also made re-
commendations to nearshore corridors (within 25 km) suggesting they
be made narrower to minimize the impacts (See Fig. 8). Arviat com-
munity members also raised some concerns about the current corridors.
They recommended that rather than continuing along closer to the
shoreline as the current corridor shows, ships should follow a corridor
located further from the shore and that ships should utilize a single
corridor to go in and out of the western Hudson Bay communities (refer
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 5. Nunavut Preferred Corridors.
to Fig. 2). The coastline area near Arviat has been identified as an EBSA
because this area is important for beluga and killer whales, seabirds,
and arctic char (DFO, 2011). Some community members did acknowl-
edge altering the ship corridor might increase the amount of fuel used
by ships but felt it would be better for the hunters and the animals.
Other community members agreed that to have specific dedicated
corridors going into each community could make it easier to create
properly sounded nautical charts as it is a smaller area to cover.
Community members in this region also suggested that it would be
pertinent asking shipping companies about their recommendations to
see how this would might impact the cost of goods for communities.
4.2. Areas to avoid
Ten of the thirteen communities highlighted areas that should be
avoided that are currently located in the corridors. This includes re-
commendations to avoid sensitive areas to protect marine animals,
areas to avoid to limit impacts on hunting and harvesting, and re-
commended distance from shorelines to minimize overall disturbances.
Several of these areas relate directly to the recommendations to change
a corridor as described above, however some are not within the current
27
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
proposed corridors and are recommendations based on the potential for
future shipping areas that may become accessible as sea ice continues to
reduce.
4.2.1. Inuvialuit settlement region
Four of the communities in this region recommended the creation of
areas to avoid, both within and outside of the current corridors. The
community of Inuvik recommended that the Tarium Niryutait Marine
Protected Areas (TNMPA) become an area to avoid. This area was
created to protect beluga populations, and while it does not sit directly
within the current corridor, ships are allowed to travel through this
area (see Fig. 9). Halliday et al. (2017) found that sound from ships
travelling through the current corridors could potentially disturb ha-
bitat within the TNMPA, noting that “the northern edge of the proposed
shipping corridor (central Amundsen Gulf) [should be] at least far en-
ough away from the MPAs [this includes ANMPA] so that vessels tra-
velling along this route would not be expected to affect the behavior of
marine mammals in either of the MPAs…” (81) This reflects a re-
commendation made by Sachs Harbour community members in the
section above, to move the corridors in Amundsen Gulf further to the
middle of the Gulf to minimize disturbance on marine mammals.
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 6. Pond Inlet Preferred Corridors.
Tuktoyaktuk recommended that ships avoid Baillie Island area as
the current corridor passes very close by and could disturb caribou and
muskox calving grounds. The area around Baillie Island has been
identified as an EBSA by DFO (DFO, 2014). Community members also
highlighted that a rare plant species grows on this Island, and thus they
recommended that ships be limited to coming within 10 miles (16 km)
offshore in order to limit coastal erosion in that area. Sachs Harbour
community members recommended that Prince of Wales Strait be
avoided by all ships at all times. Community members explained that,
in their view, this Strait can be very dangerous as there is an island in
the middle that is partially submerged by water thus there is a high risk
of groundings or other accidents and incidents. In addition, community
members recommended that ships stay 10 km off the coast between
Nelson Head and Sachs Harbour as there are rough seas close to the
shoreline and the granite bluffs, which make it dangerous for ships and
increases the possibility of incidents such as fuel spills. Aklavik com-
munity members also recommended that ships avoid the area along the
coast of Mackenzie Bay (refer to Fig. 4).
4.2.2. Kitikmeot/Qikiqtaaluk regions of Nunavut
Community members in both Resolute and Gjoa Haven re-
commended that Bellot Strait be avoided by all ships because it is such a
narrow and dangerous area to travel (refer to Fig. 5). Community
members explained that according to Inuit oral history they’ve actually
seen icebergs get sucked in on the east side of Bellot Strait, go under-
water, and then stay underwater right through Bellot Strait – and totally
out of sight of ship navagators. Bellot Strait is well-known by mariners
28
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
as a difficult area to travel– as changing weather conditions and ice can
impact safe navigation. For example, in August 2018 two passengers
had to be rescued after their sailboat sank in the area due to hazardous
ice (CBC News, 2018). Resolute community members acknowledged
that it might be difficult for ships to totally avoide this area because of
the precedent that is already set and because it is currently considered a
main corridor in the region, but recommended that all ships report their
route and maintain regular contact with the Canadian Coast Guard
(MCTS) while in that area.
Bellot Strait was also described as an important area for beluga
whales and was identified as an EBSA by DFO based on the narwhal and
beluga use as a migration route (DFO, 2015). Resolute community
members recommended that no ships anchor in Allen Bay as this is one
of the main hunting areas. Anchoring disturbs the whales and seals, and
community members are seeing fewer beluga whales. The community
members proposed a secondary anchoring option in Resolute Bay,
however, they explained that anchoring in this area would also cause
belugas to leave.
Pond Inlet participants provided additional recommendations of
areas to avoid near their community. Firstly, they recommended that all
ships respect an existing legislated 3.2 km boundary around the
Migratory Bird Sanctuary on Bylot Island. Other areas to avoid in-
cluded, south of Bylot Island through Eclipse Sound. Eclipse Sound (see
section 4.1.2). In addition, community members recommended that
there be no anchoring in an area between Borden Peninsula and Bylot
Island as it was affecting the seals and causing them to move away
(Refer to Fig. 6). Some of these areas are located outside of the current
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 7. Coral Harbour Preferred Corridors.
corridors but because of the increase in mining shipping activity, the
popularity of the area for cruise ships this could be relevant in the fu-
ture.
4.2.3. Kivalliq region of Nunavut/Nunavik
The communities in this region all made recommendations for areas
to avoid. For Arviat and Coral Harbour, areas to avoid are directly re-
lated to the recommendations they made for revising the corridors
(Refer to Fig. 2 and Section 4.1.3). To minimize the impact of shipping
on marine mammals, Arviat community members recommended that
the current corridor situated closest to the community become an area
to avoid. If this avoidance is not possible, they recommended that this
corridor be limited to essential travel only (e.g. re-supply, military,
search and rescue vessels). Coral Harbour community members re-
commended the creation of an area to avoid in the current corridor
north of Coats Island. There are several small islands identified that
community members would like ships to avoid, this includes Walrus
Island, Qaaluktaaq, and Bencas Island (these are all islands located
between Southampton and Coats Island just outside of one of the cor-
ridors) (Refer to Fig. 7). One community member explained that the
ships passing by Walrus and Coats Island are “very much disturbing the
animals and driving them away from their main breeding areas.” Salluit
community members recommended the creation of a restricted area (no
access for boats greater than 30 m in length) through a sensitive section
29
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
of the current corridor between Charles Island and the mainland (Refer
to Fig. 8).
4.3. Restricted shipping seasonally
Ten communities identified areas within and around the corridors
where they recommended seasonal restrictions on shipping. The vast
majority of these recommendations were made in relation to breaking
ice. However, there were also some recommendations that related to
seasonal harvesting and hunting during open water seasons, as the
presence of ships causes animals to flee, impacting the ability to hunt.
Sea ice is a central part of Inuit culture as it is used to travel and
hunt (Laidler et al., 2009). In addition, the ice is also important for
Arctic wildlife that use it for migration purposes and to build dens for
reproduction. Several community participants explained that iceb-
reaking by ships could, and is, impacting communities. Icebreaking
during the ice forming and break up seasons shortens the time period
that Inuit (and animals) can use the ice for travelling and hunting. The
term icebreaking as referred to in this paper incorporates both, the
activities of a purpose-built icebreaker that navigates through ice-cov-
ered waters, and also breaking of ice that is caused by any ship going
through waters that might prevent or prolong the ice forming process,
or might shorten the ice break up process. Climate change is already
impacting the length of time the ice is navigable and ships breaking
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 8. Salluit Preferred Corridors.
through the ice contributes to this, making it even more challenging for
communities to adapt to the changing climate. While icebreaking in the
winter does not yet regularly occur in most areas of the Canadian Arctic
(with exception are the areas between Montreal and Deception Bay),
Inuit communities are aware that this is something that could become
more regular. Winter shipping may indeed increase with an increase in
commodity prices, the advent or improvement in ship-design tech-
nology, and the decreases in multi-year ice (Council of Canadian
Academies, 2016; Pizzolato et al., 2014; Smith and Stephenson, 2013;
Stephenson et al., 2013). Winter shipping is something that several
communities are highly concerned about. Some participants described
their experiences travelling over the ice during hunting season and
coming across an area where a ship had travelled through and broken
the sea ice. This poses a danger for hunters as it makes it difficult to
discern the strength of the ice. In addition, ice breaking also causes the
ice to fracture and re-freeze in a way that can make it dangerous and
sometimes impossible to cross with a snowmobile. This not only affects
the ability of community members to hunt but also can be very dan-
gerous if a hunter were to fall through the ice that has not yet re-frozen
to previous strength or if a snowmobile breaks down because of chal-
lenging ice formations.
4.3.1. Inuvialuit settlement region
Several of the communities in the ISR highlighted the impact of
30
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
icebreaking and recommended that icebreakers and the Canadian Coast
Guard communicate local organizations in the communities (e.g. the
Hunters and Trappers Committee) about planned icebreaking activities
in case people are out harvesting. Ulukhaktok recommended the crea-
tion of no ice-breaking zones in Prince of Wales Strait, Coronation Gulf,
Dolphin and Union Strait, Dease Strait, and Amundsen Gulf from
October 1 to June 30. Community members from Ulukhaktok and Sachs
Harbour explained that icebreaking could negatively impact caribou
migration (Refer to Fig. 10). Caribou migration starts in the spring,
when the water is still frozen. If icebreakers go through the ice, caribou
could fall through into open water and drown, or they might simply not
cross and starve. This impacts the wellbeing of caribou, but also impacts
the community which relies on caribou for food.
Community members also raised concerns that the noise from
icebreaking could scare polar bears away from the area and could affect
polar bear denning and seal habitat. Community members also ex-
plained that icebreaking would affect snowmobiling and other trails
that hunters use. They explained that hunters may not be able to go out
because the ice would either be too rough or too thin when it re-freezes
or there may be open water making areas impassable. Ulukhaktok
community members described an experience where an icebreaker
passing near Nelson Head created a delay for community members in
returning from their hunt as they had to find a safe way to cross where
the ice was frozen solid. This could present serious dangers to hunters,
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 9. ISR Areas to Avoid.
especially if they did not know that an ice breaker has recently crossed
through their trails or if they did not have sufficient fuel or resources to
account for longer periods of time on the land and ice.
Several communities in the ISR also recommended that ships com-
municate with local organizations to ensure they do not disturb hunters
and animals during harvesting seasons – for example, Aklavik com-
munity members recommended that they should be able to commu-
nicate with ships during fall whale harvesting season (September) to
tell them to avoid certain areas. Ulukhaktok community members re-
commended that ships should anchor at least 200 feet from shore
during fishing seasons (July, August, September). In addition, Inuvik
community members made the recommendations for ships to stay fur-
ther out from the Marine Protected Areas during calving as well as local
harvesting times which are June and July.
4.3.2. Kitikmeot/Qikiqtaaluk regions of Nunavut
In the Kitikmeot and Qikiqtaaluk regions of Nunavut communities
were also concerned about the potential increases in icebreaking by
ships. All communities consulted in this area recommended some re-
strictions for icebreaking to ensure the safety of travelers and hunters,
and also of migration of animals such as caribou. Cambridge Bay
community members specifically recommended that no ships transit
their region between October 1 to June 30, to avoid icebreaking after
freeze up has begun. Community members use the ice to travel and if
ships have been breaking up the ice during freeze up or afterwards that
makes travelling dangerous, and sometimes impossible (Refer to
Fig. 10). One community member recalled a time when he was out
hunting on the ice, and a Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker went
through where they had only just recently driven their snowmobiles. He
explained that if they had snowmobiled through that area after the
31
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
icebreaker they would not have been here to speak of the incident. He
also shared that he had seen boats coming through in the spring as the
ice is melting while community members were still using the ice.
Community members also recommended that no ships go through
during Caribou migration (October, November). One participant ex-
plained that the caribou is declining in the region and that ships going
through in early fall could make it worse. Resolute community mem-
bers also recommended restricting shipping during caribou migration.
They also recommended that there be no winter shipping through Allen
Bay, which is their main winter hunting area.
Gjoa Haven community members recommended there be no iceb-
reaking through Peel Sound. Community members also explained that
winter shipping should be “off limits” because winter shipping means
would mean breaking the ice that is used as a highway between com-
munities and hunting areas. They were very clear that there should be
zero shipping in the winter in the region. They also recommended no
icebreaking along Simpson Strait. Pond Inlet community members re-
commended that no ice breaking except for essential services or if the
mine ships year-round2 because of the negative impact it would have on
seals in the area (Refer to Fig. 10). Seals create dens to have their pups
over the ice in March, April, May and sometimes into June.
4.3.3. Kivalliq region of Nunavut/Nunavik
Similar to the suggestions made by communities above, Coral
Harbour community members also recommended that ships should
avoid the region when freeze up has started. They suggested that ships
2
In early 2017 Baffinland (mining company that operates an iron ore mine
near Pond Inlet) abandoned plans to start winter shipping because of commu-
nity response.
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 10. Nunavut and ISR No Icebreaking.
should arrive and leave while there is open water and no ice and that
there is too much noise when they come too late. Arviat community
members stated that no icebreaking has occurred near Arviat and thus
the impacts of icebreaking was currently unknown. Salluit community
members discussed the impacts of icebreaking while travelling. Several
of the community members mentioned that ships travelling year-round
and through the ice in Deception Bay sometimes made it more difficult
and dangerous to navigate via snowmobile while hunting. One com-
munity member mentioned that in the last few years a few snowmobiles
got submerged in the water because ships had travelled through the ice
and only the top layer had frozen over. Salluit community members
recommended no ice-breaking inside the inlets during seal pupping.
4.4. Modify vessel operation
Seven communities specifically spoke about recommending speed
and noise restrictions in certain areas along the corridors in order to
minimize the impact ships have on marine animals and to minimize the
potential danger to smaller vessels due to ship wake. Several commu-
nities explained that the noise of ships has a negative impact on marine
animals, causing them to flee an area where they would normally feed
or calve. This has had a negative impact on hunting as it effects a
hunter’s ability to know where animals are located. In addition, Inuit
have to travel further to find animals to hunt, which can increase
overall risks. This is significant, as some community members explain
that they sometimes have to travel so far that it is no longer econom-
ically viable to hunt because the cost of gas and travel time can out-
weigh the potential of having a successful hunt. Community members
in Arviat also spoke about how noise puts stress on animals, which
negatively affects the quality of the meat. Some communities
32
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
recommended slower speed zones for ships to decrease the noise.
Slower speeds were also recommended in order to decrease ship wake
that can affect local boaters and animals alike. Ship wake can cause
smaller local boats to tip and can make hunting more difficult.
4.4.1. Inuvialuit settlement region
Aklavik community members recommended that all ships stay
1500 m from marine mammals in harvesting areas. Their reason for this
was that underwater noise is loud and travels far underwater and drives
away whales, seals, polar bears, and fish. Tuktoyaktuk, Inuvik,
Ulukhaktok, and Sachs Harbour community members also explained
that ship noise was a big concern as it could drive marine mammals
away. One community member from Inuvik explained that long-ago
people were not even allowed to drop rocks or whistle because the noise
would scare away the whales. Sachs Harbour community members re-
ported that they did not see any polar bears for one month after a ship
went through in the Amundsen Gulf. If animals stay away because of
ship noise it could negatively impact successful hunts, which then could
have an impact on food security for many Inuit communities.
4.4.2. Kitikmeot/Qikiqtaaluk regions of Nunavut
All four communities in the Kitikmeot and Qikiqtaaluk regions re-
commended decreasing noise disturbances from ships. Resolute and
Cambridge Bay participants recommended reducing the number of
ships, building quieter ships, and conducting research about the impact
of noise. Gjoa Haven community participants recommended the crea-
tion of a reduced speed zone to minimize the impact on bowhead
whales in the region (See Fig. 11). Pond Inlet and Cambridge Bay also
recommended the creation of reduced speed zones because of the
dangers of ship wake on smaller ships and hunters. Pond Inlet
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 11. Nunavut Reduced Speed Zones.
recommended creating a reduced speed zone through Eclipse Sound as
waves were a danger to local vessels. Cambridge Bay also recommended
the creation of low wake and no wake zones near the community to
keep people safe (Also see Fig. 11).
4.4.3. Kivalliq region of Nunavut/Nunavik
All three communities consulted in this area also recommended the
reduction of noise pollution through, building quieter ships, and
creating reduced speed, sonar, and wake zones. Arviat community
members recommended that the corridor closest to their community
become a reduced speed, sonar, and wake zone. They explained that
noise makes beluga and other mammals flee the area. Salluit commu-
nity members recommended the creation of no-wake zones in Salluit
and Deception Bay as the wake from ship speed was dangerous for local
boaters as they could be capsized (See Fig. 12). One community
member also explained that the waves made by the wake can go over
the ice and disturb ice trails and impact the hunters on these trails on
their snowmobiles. One community member had lost their snowmobile
due to a wave from a ship.
4.5. Charting needed
Four communities identified specific locations where charting was
recommended. Although it is acknowledged that charting is needed in
many other areas throughout the Canadian Arctic. Much of the
Canadian Arctic remains uncharted and the areas that are charted
currently rely on nautical charts created in the late 1800s and early
1900s (Tanker Safety Expert Panel, 2014). According to the Fisheries
33
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
and Oceans Canada, approximately 28 % of the Low Impact Shipping
Corridors are surveyed to either adequate or modern standards (DFO,
2018b). Some of the identified areas that are recommended for en-
hanced charting are located within the current corridors but there are
also areas located in community-preferred corridors as identified above
(see Section 4.1).
4.5.1. Inuvialuit settlement region
Sachs Harbour community members recommended that M’Clure
Strait and Amundsen Gulf should be charted.
4.5.2. Kitikmeot/Qikiqtaaluk regions of Nunavut
Cambridge Bay community members spoke about the need for
charting in a few areas, specifically those near Bathurst Inlet. Gjoa
Haven community members also highlighted areas on the maps where
they recommended charting take place. They described observing
changes over the years that necessitated better mapping to increase
safety of ships. Simpson Strait was an area of focus that has seen a lot of
change over the last 30 years. One community member that corridors
should be clearly marked and if this occurs it could reduce incidents
such as oil spills or groundings.
4.5.3. Kivalliq region of Nunavut/Nunavik
Arviat community members reflected on the preferred corridors that
they had outlined (see Section 4.1.3) and explained that this would
provide a good opportunity to chart these specific areas. They explained
that the creation of a specific highway for ships (such as these corri-
dors) that were adequately charted would increase the safety of the
J. Dawson, et al.
Fig. 12. Salluit No-Wake Zones.
ships using the corridors. Salluit community members recommended
that charting of the new narrower corridors should be conducted to
determine the depth and safety of these areas. One community member
explained that he did not want to suggest recommendations for pre-
ferred corridors without knowing the depth and safety of the areas
under discussion.
5. Discussion and conclusion
This research focused on identifying recommendations from key
maritime knowledge holders about the placement and use of low im-
pact shipping corridors across Arctic Canada. Corridors have been
created as an adaptation strategy that responds to increased shipping
traffic in Arctic Canada that has occurred as a result of climate change.
The findings of the study show that while communities are in favour of
shipping corridors, the current iteration of corridors require changes
that reflect the cultural and local practices of Inuit and northerners in
the region. It is widely acknowledged that the corridor framework
should include insights and recommendations from Canadian Inuit
communities (Chénier et al., 2017; The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016;
Porta et al., 2017). However, the absence of any comprehensive and
methodically consistent research that captured local knowledge of
culturally significant marine areas represented a major information gap
that preventing the proper and rightful inclusion of Inuit knowledge
into the corridors framework from occurring. Thus, the results of this
study not only represent an advancement in scientific understanding of
the region, it also generated important information that can be used by
policy makers and leaders in the region to make decisions about the
placement and management of the corridors. It is acknowledged by all
study participants and the research team that the results of this study
should not be used in isolation, but rather should be considered among
other data and factors (i.e. bathometry, charting quality and avail-
ability, prevailing weather conditions, etc.), when decisions are made
about the prioritization and management of the low impact shipping
corridors. The study and the recommendations made by community
34
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
members also demonstrate ways in which Inuit knowledge can be in-
corporated into the corridor framework in more meaningful ways in
order to ensure that the corridors are effective and potentially become a
global example of sustainable shipping governance in the global Arctic.
Discussions with community members about the corridor frame-
work revealed that there are ongoing concerns about increased shipping
through the Canadian Arctic and that this is a key area of interest
needing collaborative research and governance. While communities
recognized that shipping can and does provide benefits to their com-
munities – as many of them rely on ships to bring in essential supplies –
they more often reflected on the potential negative impacts of shipping.
The main concerns identified among communities about the current
corridors including the negative impacts on hunting, travel, marine
animals, and other sensitive ecosystems considering the existing cor-
ridor network currently overlaps with areas that are considered to be
important for hunting and travel as well as key animal denning and
calving areas. Icebreaking in particular, was identified as having sig-
nificant impacts on Arctic communities and 10 communities made re-
commendations to limit or prevent icebreaking in some areas of the
existing corridors at certain times of the year. In addition, the majority
of the communities made recommendations to alter some sections of
the corridors (as can be viewed in the summary Fig. 2) and created a
suite of recommendations for areas to avoid in order to minimize the
impacts on local communities and marine animals. Community mem-
bers also raised concerns about the potential impacts of increased noise
on marine animals and subsequently on their livelihoods as it could
negatively impact hunting. This finding reiterates Halliday et al.’s
(2017) researchfindings about the impact of shipping noise in the
proposed shipping corridors. The findings of this research also build on
the Pew Charitable Trusts report (2016) that found that much of the
current proposed corridors overlap with ecologically and biologically
significant areas, this research has found that the proposed corridors
also overlap with areas of cultural and social significance to Inuit
communities.
All communities that engaged in this research project recommended
J. Dawson, et al.
additional communication and consultation with Arctic communities
and organizations regarding the corridors placement and governance.
They acknowledged that some recommendations may not be feasible in
some cases and in other cases the recommendations may change over
time as other areas become more or less navigable due to climate
change. For these reasons, it was considered important to have com-
munity involvement in the ongoing management and governance of the
corridors. This research showed that communities felt that current
communication and consultations (about decision-making and policy-
making in the Canadian Arctic) with Arctic communities was in-
adequate. Additional research is required to consider recommendations
from all coastal Canadian Arctic communities (n = 51) potentially
impacted by the corridors and not just the 134 communities partici-
pating in this study. Additional research is also required to consider
recommendations in relation to increased shipping that go beyond the
corridors. This includes recommendations regarding communication
with Arctic communities, legislation and monitoring, and issues with
safety and security. Finally, it is also vital that research be conducted
that supports the safe and sustainable navigation of ships through
Arctic Canada that includes ship operators, industry, and other shipping
experts in order to ensure that all stakeholders and rights holders per-
spectives are considered. This type of focused, applied, and partnered
research that responds directly to 'real-world' problems will be funda-
mental in the future as climate change continues to influence an array
of biophysical and socio-economic changes across Arctic Canada.
Funders information
Marine Environment Observation Prediction and Response Network
(MEOPAR), Irving Shipbuilding Inc. [Grant number 2-02-03-018.1];
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Grant; [Grant number
3209]; The Nunavut General Monitoring Program (NGMP) [Grant
number 1718-HQ-000080]; Oceans North; Pew Charitable Trusts
[Grant number: 32331]; ArcticNet, Oceans North, Student for Canada’s
North; Northern Scientific Training Program, Clear Seas, World Wildlife
Fund.
Author contribution statement
Jackie Dawson: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources,
Writing-Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision,
Project administration, Funding acquisition Natalie Carter:
Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project ad-
ministration Nicolien van Luijk: Formal analysis, Data Curation,
Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing Colleen Parker:
Investigation Melissa Weber: Investigation, Data Curation,
Visualization Alison Cook: Investigation, Data Curation, Visualization
Kayla Grey: Investigation Jennifer Provencher: Investigation
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the skill, expertise and generosity of the 126 key
knowledge holders who participated in the group discussions and in-
terviews, and the 14 communities and 59 community researchers who
facilitated this work. We also thank our community partners for their
support and guidance. We appreciate the technical and general in-kind
support provided by Canadian Coast Guard, Canadian Hydrographic
Service, Carleton University, Dalhousie University, Environment and
Climate Change Canada, Government of Nunavut, Kivalliq Inuit
Association, Nunavut Arctic College, Nunavut Research Institute,
Oceans North, Parks Canada, Polar Knowledge Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit
Association, SmartICE, Transport Canada, University of Ottawa
35
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
Geographic, Statistical and Government Information Centre, University
of Ottawa Department of Geography, Environment, and Geomatics,
University of the Sunshine Coast, and WWF-Canada. We are grateful for
the financial support provided by ArcticNet, Clear Seas, Department of
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Irving Ship Building Inc., Marine
Environment Observation Prediction and Response Network
(MEOPAR), Northern Scientific Training Program, Nunavut Arctic
College, Nunavut General Monitoring Program (NGMP), Nunavut
Research Institute, Oceans North, Pew Charitable Trusts, Students for
Canada’s North, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council (SSHRC) of Canada, and WWW-Canada..
References
Arctic Council. 2009. Arctic marine shipping assessment report, April 2009, second
printing.
Arctic Council 2017. Arctic Council Status on Implementation of the AMSA 2009 Report
Recommendations, May 2017.
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, 2018. Adaptation Actions for a Changing
Arctic: Perspectives from the Baffin Bay/Davis Strait Region. Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. Retrieved:. . https://www.amap.
no/documents/download/3015/inline.
AMSA, 2009. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment. . https://www.pame.is/images/03_
Projects/AMSA/AMSA_2009_report/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf.
Brunet, N.D., Hickey, G.M., Humphries, M.M., 2016. Local participation and partnership
development in Canada’s Arctic research: challenges and opportunities in an age of
empowerment and self-determination. Polar Rec. 52 (3), 345–359.
Bush, E., Flato, G., 2019. About this report. In: Bush, E., Lemmen, D.S. (Eds.), Chapter 1 in
Canada’s Changing Climate Report. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, pp.
7–23. Retrieved. https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/.
Carter, N., Dawson, J., Joyce, J., Ogilvie, A., 2017. Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices:
Governing Marine Transportation in the Canadian Arctic – Gjoa Haven, Nunavut.
Retrieved. University of Ottawa. http://www.arcticcorridors.ca/wp-content/
uploads/2019/02/CH_GJOA_HAVEN_ARCTIC_CORRIDORS_CARTER_2017.pdf.
Carter, N.A., Dawson, J., Simonee, N., Tagalik, S., Ljubicic, G., 2019. Lessons Learned
Through Research Partnership and Capacity Enhancement in Inuit Nunangat (the
Inuit Homeland in Arctic Canada). Arctic. .
Castleden, H., Garvin, T., Huu-ay-aht First Nation, 2008. Modifying photovoice for
community-based participatory Indigenous research. Soc. Sci. Med. 66 (6),
1393–1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.030.
CBC News, 2018. Coast Guard Rescues 2 Passengers of Sinking Sailboat Stranded on Ice
Floe. August 29, Retrieved. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/
coast-guard-sail-boat-rescue-1.4804102.
Chénier, R., Abado, L., Sabourin, O., Tardif, L., 2017. Northern marine transportation
corridors: creation and analysis of northern marine traffic routes in Canadian waters.
Trans. Gis 21 (6), 1085–1097.
Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A.K.H.S., Young, S., 2008. Building and maintain
trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. Am. J. Public Health
98 (8), 1398–1406. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.125757.
Council of Canadian Academies, 2016. Commercial Marine Shipping Accidents:
Understanding the Risks in Canada. Workshop Report. Retrieved. . https://
clearseas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CCA_Marine_Shipping_Risks_EN_
FullReport_April-2016.pdf.
Cunsolo Willox, A., Harper, S.L., Ford, J.D., Landman, K., Houle, K., Edge, V.L., 2012.
“From this place and of this place:” climate change, sense of place, and health in
Nunatsiavut, Canada. Soc. Sci. Med. 75 (3), 538–547.
Dawson, J., Johnston, M.E., Stewart, E.J., 2014. Governance of Arctic expedition cruise
ships in a time of rapid environmental and economic change. Ocean Coast. Manag.
89, 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.12.005.
Dawson, J., Stewart, E.J., Johnston, M.E., et al., 2016. Identifying and evaluating adap-
tation strategies for cruise tourism in Arctic Canada. J. Sustain. Tour. 24 (10),
1425–1441. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1125358.
Dawson, J., Copland, L., Johnston, M.E., Pizzolato, L., Howell, S.E., Pelot, R., Etienne, L.,
Matthews, L., Parsons, J., 2017. Adaptation Strategies and Policy Options for Arctic
Shipping. A Report Prepared for Transport Canada. Ottawa, Canada. .
Dawson, J., Pizzolato, L., Howell, S., Copland, L., Johnston, M., 2018. Temporal and
spatial patterns of ship traffic in the Canadian arctic from 1990 to 2015. Arctic 71 (1),
15–26.
Department of Justice Canada, 2018. Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s
Relationships with Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved. . https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/
csj-sjc/principles-principes.html.
DFO, 2019. Anguniaqvia niqiqyuam Marine Protect Area (n.d.), Retrieved. . http://
www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa-zpm/anguniaqvia-niqiqyuam/index-eng.html.
DFO, 2014. Re-evaluation of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) in the
Beaufort Sea. Retrieved. . https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/364414.
pdf.
DFO, 2015. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area in Canada’s Eastern
Biogeographic Region, 2015. Retrieved. . https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/
Library/365111.pdf.
DFO, 2018a. Biophysical and Ecological Overview of the Southampton Island Area of
Interest (AOI). Retrieved. . http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Schedule-
J. Dawson, et al.
Horraire/2018/12_05-06-eng.html.
DFO, 2018b. Arctic Charting. Retrieved. . http://www.charts.gc.ca/arctic-arctique/
index-eng.asp.
Dunmall, K.M., Dawson, K., Chambers, C., Johnson, M., Juliano, K., MacDonell, D., 2018.
Ecological Overview Summary for the Peel Sound Ecologically and Biologically
Significant Area (EBSA). Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 3163. Retrieved. . http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/
mpo-dfo/Fs97-4-3163-eng.pdf.
Durkalec, A., Furgal, C., Skinner, M.W., Sheldon, T., 2015. Climate change influences on
environment as a determinant of Indigenous health: relationships to place, sea ice,
and health in an Inuit community. Soc. Sci. Med. 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socscimed.2015.04.026.
Eguíluz, V.M., Fernández-Gracia, J., Irigoien, X., Duarte, C.M., 2016. A quantitative as-
sessment of Arctic shipping in 2010–2014. Sci. Rep. 6, 30682. https://doi.org/10.
1038/srep30682.
Haas, C., Howell, S.E.L., 2015. Ice thickness in the northwest passage. Geophys. Res. Lett.
42, 7673–7680. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065704.
Halliday, W., Insley, S., Hilliard, R.C., de Jong, T., Pine, M.K., 2017. Potential impacts of
shipping noise on marine mammals in the western Canadian Arctic. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
123, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.09.027.
Hassol, S.J., 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Cambridge University Press, UK.
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, 2018. Toward a New Arctic
Policy Framework. Retrieved. . https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/
1499951681722/1537884604444.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 2009. Good Practices in
Participatory Mapping. . http://www.iapad.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ifad_
good_practice_in-participatory_mapping.pdf.
Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada (ICC), 2008. The Sea Ice Is Our Highway an Inuit
Perspective on Transportation in the Arctic. A Contribution to the Arctic Marine
Shipping Assessment. . http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/uploads/3/0/5/4/
30542564/20080423_iccamsa_finalpdfprint.pdf.
IRC (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation), 1984. Inuvialuit Final Agreement.
ITK, 2007. Negotiating Research Relationships with Inuit Communities: a Guide for
Researchers. . https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Negotitiating-
Research-Relationships-Researchers-Guide_0.pdf.
ITK (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami), 2013. Nilliajut: Inuit Perspectives on Security, Patriotism
and Sovereignty. Inuit Knowledge Centre., Ottawa.
ITK (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami), 2018. National Inuit Strategy on Research (NISR). .
https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/National-Inuit-Strategy-on-
Research.pdf.
Kelley, K., Ljubicic, G., 2012. Policies and practicalities of shipping in arctic waters: Inuit
perspectives from Cape Dorset, Nunavut. Polar Geogr. 35 (1), 19–49. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1088937x.2012.666768.
Kue, J., Thorburn, S., Keon, K.L., 2015. Research challenges and lessons learned from
conducting community-based research with the Hmong community. Health Promot.
Pract. 16 (3), 411–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839914561515.
Laidler, G.J., Ford, J.D., Gough, W.A., Ikummaq, T., Gagnon, A.S., Kowal, S., Qrunnut, K.,
Irngaut, C., 2009. Travelling and hunting in a changing Arctic: assessing Inuit vul-
nerability to sea ice change in Igloolik, Nunavut. Clim. Change 94, 363–397. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9512-z.
Lajeunesse, A., 2012. A new Mediterranean? Arctic shipping prospects for the 21st
Century. J. Marit. Law Comm. 32 (4).
Levitt, M., 2019. Nation-Building at Home, Vigiliance Beyond: Preparing for the Coming
Decades in the Arctic: Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Development. Retrieved. House of Commons, pp. 68. http://www.
ourcommons.ca/Content/ommittee/421/FAAE/Reports/RP10411277/faaerp24/
faaerp24-e.pdf.
Makivik Corporation, 2007. The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement. . www.makivik.
org.
Meier, W., Hovelsrud, G., Oort, B., Key, J., Kovacs, K., Michel, C., Haas, C., Granskog,
M.A., Gerland, S., Perovich, D.K., Makshatas, A., Reist, J., 2014. Arctic sea ice in
transformation: a review of recent observed changes and impacts on biology and
human activity. Rev. Geophys. 52 (3), 185–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2013rg000431.
36
Environmental Science and Policy 105 (2020) 19–36
Ng, A.K.Y., Andrews, J., Babb, D., Lin, Y., Becker, A., 2018. Implications of climate
change for shipping: opening the Arctic seas. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 9
(2), e508. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.507.
NG (Nunatsiavut Government), 2005. Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. . www.
nunatsiavut.com.
Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E., Moules, N.J., 2017. Thematic analysis: striving to
meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int. J. Qual. Methods 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.
1177/1609406917733847.
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act (NLCA), 1993. SC 1993. c 29. . http://canlii.ca/t/
j0fs.
Oceans Act, 2016. Anguniaqvia Niqiqyuam Marine Protected Areas Regulations. .
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2016-280/page-1.html#h-3.
Olsen, J., Carter, N.A., Dawson, J., 2019. Community perspectives on the environmental
impacts of Arctic shipping: case studies from Russia, Norway and Canada. Cogent
Soc. Sci. 5 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1609189.
Panikkar, B., Lemmond, B., Else, B., Murray, M., 2018. Ice over troubled waters: navi-
gating the Northwest Passage using Inuit knowledge and scientific information. Clim.
Res. 75, 81–94. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01501.
Parks Canada, 2018. Tallurutiup Imanga: a Final Boundary for Canada’s Largest Protected
Area in Nunavut. Parks Canada. . https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/amnc-nmca/cnamnc-
cnnmca/tallurutiup-imanga.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016. The Integrated Arctic Corridors Framework: Planning
for Responsible Shipping in Canada’s Arctic Waters. https://www.pewtrusts.org/
∼/media/assets/2016/04/the-integrated-arctic-corridors-framework.pdf. .
Pizzolato, L., Howell, S.E., Dawson, J., Laliberté, F., Copland, L., 2016g. The influence of
declining sea ice on shipping activity in the Canadian Arctic. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43
(23). https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl071489.
Pizzolato, L., Howell, S.E., Derksen, C., Dawson, J., Copland, L., 2014. Changing sea ice
conditions and marine transportation activity in Canadian Arctic waters between
1990 and 2012. Clim. Change 123 (2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-
013-1038-3.
Porta, L., Abou-Abssi, E., Dawson, J., Mussells, O., 2017. Shipping corridors as a frame-
work for advancing marine law and policy and the Canadian Arctic. Ocean Coastal
Law J. 63.
Prime Minister of Canada, 2016. United States-Canada Joint Arctic Leaders’ Statement.
Dec 20, Retrieved. . https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/12/20/united-states-canada-
joint-arctic-leaders-statement#section2.
Smith, L.C., Stephenson, S.R., 2013. New Trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable by mid-
century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110 (13), E1191–E1195. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1214212110.
Stephenson, S.R., Smith, L.C., Brigham, L.W., Agnew, J.A., 2013. Projected 21st-century
changes to Arctic marine access. Clim. Change 118 (3–4), 885–899. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10584-012-0685-0.
Stewart, E.J., Dawson, J., Johnston, M.E., 2015. Risks and opportunities associated with
change in the cruise tourism sector: community perspectives from Arctic Canada.
Polar J. 5 (2), 403–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2015.1082283.
Tanker Safety Expert Panel, 2014. A Review of Canada’s Ship-source Spill Preparedness
and Response: Setting the Course for the Future, Phase II. Transport Canada.
Retrieved. . http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/tc/T29-114-
2014-eng.pdf.
Tobias, T., 2009. Living Proof: the Essential Data-collection Guide for Indigenous Use-
and-occupancy Map Surveys. Ecotrust Canada, Vancouver.
Transport Canada, 2017. Government of Canada Introduces New Measures to Protect the
Marine Environment and Coastal Communities in Canada’s Arctic. Retrieved. .
https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2017/08/government_of_
canadaintroducesnewmeasurestoprotectthemarineenvir.html.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015. Truth and Reconciliation
Commission of Canada – Calls to Action. Retrieved. . http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/
Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf.
UNDRIP, 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples.
Retrieved. . https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-
content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf.
Wesche, S., Chan, H.M., 2010. Adapting to the impacts of climate change on food security
among Inuit in the western Canadian Arctic. EcoHealth 7, 361–373.