2. Understanding Area-Based Management in Shipping

Defined in basic terms and not limitedly to shipping, an ABM tool “is an approach that enables the application of management measures to a specific area to achieve a desired policy outcome” (UN Environment, 2018). We would add that the chosen management measures are designed to perform designated functions to achieve higher order policy goals. In the context of shipping, ABM tools consist of a wide range of measures adopted by different public authorities at various geographical and temporal scales for the setting and management of the standards, operations, and impacts of shipping and the provision of services to navigation and shipping.

ABM measures may also be defined for specific applications, for example, to address the needs of a particular instrument. For example, the BBNJ Agreement, defines “area-based management tool” to include “a marine protected area, for a geographically defined area through which one or several sectors or activities are managed with the aim of achieving particular conservation and sustainable use objectives in accordance with this Agreement” (BBNJ Agreement, 2023, art 1(3)). In this chapter, we use the broader definition in the previous paragraph to include a wider range of ABM tools than simply for conservation and sustainable ocean use but at the same time include the BBNJ definition within our scope.

Given the wide range of ABM tools used in shipping, we propose a high-level classification that divides these measures in two major groups. The definitions of terms are set out in the glossary appended to this chapter. At the highest level of classification, a distinction may be maintained between (a) shipping-specific measures and (b) non-shipping-specific measures that have an impact on shipping. The first group consists of tools adopted under the authority of international maritime law instruments and Canadian maritime legislation to regulate navigation and shipping represented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. The second group in Table 2.3 consists of tools mandated mostly by Canadian environmental law to enable marine spatial planning and marine conservation.

In a shipping context, ABM tools as defined in Sect. 2.1 can be readily interpreted as measures to mitigate risks associated with the operation of ships in marine areas. Referring to the sociological conceptualization of present-day societies as “risk societies” in Chap. 1 of this book, ABM tools can be seen as an illustration of how societies concerned with risks and uncertainties conceptualize, organize, and operationalize concerns related to risks in ocean spaces. The functions of the various legal and policy tools presented in Sect. 2.2 (maritime safety, marine conservation, environmental protection, public health, and security) can be considered as high-level classes of risk-related objectives relating to ships and marine areas, necessitating risk characterization, management, and governance.

The basic definition of an ABM tool presented above shares the preoccupation on achieving a desired outcome with the widely used ISO 31000:2018 standard’s risk definition as “the effect of uncertainty on objectives” (ISO, 2018). Conceptually, compared to the ABM definition, risk stresses the importance of uncertainty in achieving the desired outcomes, as highlighted also in the proposed definitions of risk by the influential Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) and the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) as “uncertainty about the consequences of an activity or event with respect to something that humans value” (SRA, 2018; IRGC, 2017).

This conceptual focus on uncertainty and values in the definition of risk provides a nuanced perspective on ABM tools in two ways. First, the “uncertainty” dimension highlights that ABM measures often are decided upon based on incomplete information about the severity of the possible negative consequences of events occurring in various marine spaces. This uncertainty also relates to the possibility that ABM measures are not as effective after implementation as believed at the time they are decided upon. Second, the “values” dimension, which concerns principles or qualities that individuals or groups consider important and desirable, highlights the fact that different societal groups may prioritize different values, so that, for instance, some groups will prioritize environmental protection, while others will prioritize economic development.

Due to the multidisciplinary nature of risk research, there are various ways in which risk can be conceptualized (Althaus, 2005; Aven, 2012). For the present purposes, three risk lenses are selected as a basis for exploring ABM tools in terms of risk: (i) the risk object, (ii) the risk management phase, and (iii) the risk problem type for governing ABMs. These different conceptualizations are illustrated for selected ABM tools in the following sections. Selected implications and issues for the design and operational use of ABM tools are next discussed through a risk governance lens.

A first risk lens concerns the risk object which the ABM tool intends to manage. In general, two interrelated objects can be focused on when analyzing a system: the “risk agent” (the object causing the harm) and the “risk absorbing system” (the object being harmed). In a context of shipping and area-based management, the system can be conceived as consisting of a vessel (or vessels) operating in a particular marine space. Depending on the risk the ABM measure aims to address, either the vessel or the marine space can be regarded as risk agent or as risk-absorbing system. This is sometimes simplified as “risks to ships,” for example, wave or ice conditions posing risks to the stability of a vessel, or its structural integrity, and “risk from ships,” for example, risks from ship-induced oil pollution, or from ship-source noise to marine species (Kujala et al., 2019; Halliday and Dawson, 2021).

Some ABM tools aim to protect the vessel (here, the risk-absorbing system) from the environmental context of the marine space (here, the risk agent). An example of an internationally applicable ABM tool concerns the system of load line zones as mandated by the ICLL described above. This convention aims to prevent ships from being overloaded by requiring a minimum freeboard, ensuring the stability and safety of the ship, the people on board, and the cargo. Hence, the ICLL divides the world’s waters into several zones, which are used to determine a ship’s maximum allowable draft based on physical factors of the marine environment in those zones. Factors considered to delineate these zones include the water density, which varies with temperature and salinity and which affects a ship’s buoyancy, and the seasonal variations in weather and sea conditions, which affect the ship’s stability (Lewis, 1988). An example of an ABM tool in Canadian waters intended to protect the vessel concerns the SSCZ. The division of Canadian Arctic waters into 16 zones is accompanied by a tabulated zone/date system prescribing the opening and closing dates for each zone and distinguishing nine Arctic class ships and five ship types. These zones are based on typical prevailing ice conditions in different periods in the year, which consider the challenging ice conditions that can cause damage to a ship’s hull and appendages and loss of stability (Riska et al., 2007).

Other ABM tools aim to protect the marine space (here, the risk-absorbing system) from the operation of a vessel in that space. An example of an internationally applicable ABM concerns MARPOL ECAs. The emission restrictions are established to reduce the impacts on the marine environment, for example, to prevent acidification and eutrophication, and to reduce health impacts of populations living near the ECAs (Maes et al., 2006). Ships can comply with these regulations through various means, including operationally switching to low-sulfur fuels before entering an ECA and installing exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers) and selective catalytic reduction systems (Hassellöv, 2023). An example of an ABM tool in Canadian waters aimed to protect the marine space from vessels operating therein concerns the oil tanker moratorium, which prohibits the mooring, anchoring, loading, unloading, and transport to and from ports of vessels carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude or persistent oil in marine areas in northern British Columbia. With the environmental and sociocultural impacts of oil spills well-documented (Chang et al., 2014) and recognizing that accidental spills from smaller tankers are generally smaller than from larger ones (Klanac et al., 2010), limiting the size of tankers allowed to trade in this area clearly protects the marine environment while also having risk-reducing effects on economic and sociocultural activities in the related marine and coastal areas.

A second risk lens through which ABM tools can be approached concerns the risk management phase(s) that the ABM measure aims to affect. It is common to distinguish four (often interrelated) phases of managing risks: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Meyer and Reniers, 2022). Mitigation focuses on the activities and design and operational measures taken to identify, prevent, eliminate, or reduce the likelihood of an unwanted event occurring and/or to reduce its impact, should it occur. Preparedness focuses on actions taken to prepare for emergency response and recovery, that is, improving the readiness and capability of response systems in case an unwanted event occurs. Response addresses the risk management phase in which actions are taken in direct response to an imminent or already occurring unwanted event. This phase focuses on operational activities aimed at minimizing the loss of life, environmental, economic, and sociocultural impact of the emergency. A final risk management phase is recovery. For organizations, this phase concerns measures taken to restore operations and return to normalcy, which can be achieved through prioritizing the restoration of critical functions, assets, and systems. For marine environments, the recovery phase addresses the process of restoring ecosystems, habitats, and environmental services following a disruptive event, contamination, or prolonged degradation.

The Polar Code is an example of an ABM tool to mitigate shipping risks (Polar Code, 2014/15). The Code requires vessels intending to operate in Arctic and Antarctic waters to obtain a Polar Ship Certificate, which classifies vessels into three categories depending on the severity of sea ice conditions for which they are designed to operate. The Code includes various provisions aimed at mitigating risks to increase the safety of vessels and crew and protect the marine environment. An example of a ship design measure aimed at reducing the likelihood of accidents is the requirement for bridge windows to have means to clear melted ice, freezing rain, snow, mist, and spray. An example of an operational measure is the requirement for bridge crew to have completed appropriate training for operation of vessels in ice conditions. A measure aimed to eliminate certain types of environmental pollution includes the prohibition to discharge oil or oily mixtures, as well as sewage, unless an approved sewage treatment plant is installed: then discharge may occur only if far sufficiently far away from land, fast or shelf ice, or areas with specified ice concentration.

An example of an ABM tool aimed at preparedness and response risk management phases is search and rescue (SAR) zones, which are internationally agreed upon through the SAR Convention (1979) and implemented in Canada through the CSA 2001. State parties establish rescue coordination centers (RCCs) to coordinate SAR operations and facilitate appropriate preparedness and response capacities. Examples of preparedness measures to achieve this include emergency planning, establishing communication protocols, training and exercises, and stakeholder education, whereas response activities include firefighting, search and rescue, and provision of emergency medical assistance.

An example of an ABM tool which addresses recovery is the designation of critical habitats under SARA (2002, s 2). Aimed at protecting wildlife species at risk in their habitats, this is a non-shipping-specific ABM that can have implications for maritime shipping. For instance, in cases where critical habitats overlap with shipping routes, speed limits, navigation restrictions, or special reporting requirements may be put in place to facilitate the recovery of species at risk from past anthropogenic disturbances.

A final risk lens through which ABM tools can be framed is the risk governance problem type. The IRGC risk governance framework (IRGC-RGF) is a comprehensive framework for understanding, analyzing, and managing risks in pluralistic democratic societies in cases where various actors are involved. This framework is based on extensive academic work (Renn et al., 2011) that has been introduced by the IRGC (2017) and has been applied in various contexts, including in the maritime domain (Goerlandt and Pelot, 2020).

The first phase of the IRGC-RGF concerns pre-assessment, which frames the problem in relation to issues that different societal actors may associate with the risk, setting the boundaries to achieve a common understanding of the risk issue, or to establish awareness of different risk perceptions. In the context of ABM in shipping, this implies gaining an understanding of what risks different stakeholders are concerned about in relation to a given marine space. This phase also includes performing prescreening to assign a risk to a suggested risk governance strategy. This is done by agreeing whether a risk is “simple,” “complex,” “uncertain,” or “ambiguous,” which is then used to devise risk governance strategies.

This is followed by a risk appraisal phase, which aims at enhancing understanding about the risk through knowledge-focused activities. This can concern a technical/scientific assessment of the risk, providing knowledge about causes and consequences of the risk and/or vulnerabilities, possible mitigation measures, and associated uncertainties. In an ABM context, use can be made of a variety of risk analysis techniques depending on the problem at hand, for example, those proposed in the IMO Formal Safety Assessment Guidelines (IMO, 2018) for ship design and equipment related risks, the Risk Management Toolbox by the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) (2022) for navigational risk assessment in waterways, or using marine conservation analysis techniques such as Marxan (Ball et al., 2009). This phase also can include a concern assessment, providing insights into risk perceptions and addressing questions from societal actors about social and economic implications of the risk and identifying possible mitigation measures. For these aspects, social science research methods and economic analysis techniques can be applied (IRGC, 2017).

In the characterization and evaluation phase, a judgement is made about the acceptability of risk, bridging the knowledge and value dimensions of risk governance. Risks are considered acceptable when their occurrence likelihood and the consequence severity are limited, such that no risk reduction measures are required. If the risk is not considered acceptable, additional measures are required to reduce the occurrence likelihood or the consequence severity. In an ABM context, the type of risk, along with the knowledge from the risk appraisal phase, can be used to decide which ABM tool to implement or to decide on what specific measures should be implemented as part of the ABM.

The risk management phase addresses the concrete design and implementation of actions and measures to prevent, reduce, transfer, or increase preparedness for the risk. In an ABM context, this may, for instance, consist of developing and implementing a warning system for communicating whale sightings so that a ship’s officers can decrease speed to lessen the occurrence of ship strikes and lower their severity should a strike occur. Risk management can also include implementing monitoring systems to ensure compliance with the ABM measures, for example, through aerial surveillance campaigns to monitor compliance with SOx and NOx emission requirements (Van Roy et al., 2022).

As mentioned above, in the pre-assessment phase, a risk prescreening is performed by categorizing the risk problem as “simple,” “complex,” “uncertain,” or “ambiguous.” In this context, complexity is a characteristic of the analyzed system and refers to a condition where it is difficult to identify and analyze the causes of events and consequences. This can be due to the large number of causal factors with (possible) relevance to the event occurrence and its consequences, interactive effects among the causal factors including nonlinear feedback loops which modify the relative importance of causes as the system under study evolves over time, or long delay periods between cause and effect. Uncertainty refers to a state of knowledge of an assessor or group of assessors in which the likelihood of adverse consequences, or the severity of these consequences, cannot be accurately described. This uncertainty can manifest due to limited relevant data being available, the existence of wide variations of expert estimates, significant simplifications and inaccurate results of models, or the important role of assumptions in the evidence base. Finally, ambiguity concerns the condition where there are significantly different concepts about what can be regarded as tolerable, acceptable, or equitable among the relevant stakeholder groups. A condition of ambiguity emerges where there are difficulties in agreeing on the appropriate values, priorities, or boundaries in defining possible consequences and analyzing risk, which is rooted in different stakeholder groups adhering to different worldviews and value systems. If none of these characteristics are present, a risk can be considered simple.

The main purpose of categorizing a risk in a risk governance problem type is to achieve a consensus among stakeholders about what risk governance strategy should be pursued. ABM tools have an effect on marine spaces, addressing risks about which multiple user and stakeholder groups likely have different concerns, views, and understanding. Decision-making and management of risks in such situations require interaction, coordination, and possibly reconciliation between various roles, perspectives, goals, and activities. In the IRGC-RGF, this is approached through a risk governance escalator, which suggests using different strategies for developing the mechanisms for the risk appraisal, characterization and evaluation, and management phases. Depending on the dominant risk category (simple, complex, uncertain, ambiguous), different approaches are recommended for the type of discourse to focus on, what actors to include in the risk governance processes, what types of conflicts may be expected to underlie different views on the risk severity and the acceptability of the risk, and what role is given to risk perception. The risk governance escalator is shown in Fig. 2.1 based on which a set of example ABM tools and measures are explored for the different routes associated with selected problem risk types to illustrate the concepts.

A table has 5 columns and 5 rows. The row headings are role for risk perception, type of conflict, actors, type of discourse, and dominant risk characteristic. Dominant risk characteristic comprises simple, complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity.

A risk in an ABM context may be characterized as complex, if there is a large number of causal factors, interindividual variations, interactive effects among causal factors, and/or long delay periods between cause and effect. However, the evidence for analyzing the risk is strong, involving good models, relevant expertise, and good data to analyze event occurrences and associated consequences. Moreover, there is a broad agreement among the key societal actors in framing the risk and what constitutes acceptable risk. An example ABM tool could be the design and implementation of ship routeing systems and reporting requirements. As evident from accident analyses (Puisa et al., 2018) and waterway risk methods (see Chap. 7 this volume), many factors can affect the occurrence of navigational accidents and control mechanisms to ensure navigation safety involves multiple actors and information flows. Available models and expertise can be applied to understand risks and propose mitigation measures. The main purpose of the analytical work is to understand causal mechanisms and obtain insights into the complexity, that is, the challenge is cognitive and the governance approach focuses on ontological and epistemological discourses. These involve various stakeholders, primarily regulatory bodies (e.g., aids to navigation authorities, port authorities) and industry experts (e.g., pilotage authorities, commercial fishing companies, and commercial ship operators). External scientists can support the analytical work by proposing new analysis techniques or by performing risk analysis and investigating the effectiveness of risk control measures.

The northern low-impact Arctic shipping corridors mentioned above are another example of an ABM tool in a risk governance context. In this context, Indigenous peoples are rightsholders and have a right to be involved in matters affecting their sovereignty, including impacts of shipping related to environmental and sociocultural aspects of marine space and the related use and spiritual connection of Indigenous peoples to that space (Boyd and Lorefice, 2018). Indigenous worldviews differ substantially from standard western scientific paradigms, view humans as indivisible from nature, include values related to relational accountability in knowledge systems, and rely on participatory and knowledge-inclusive methodologies, to understand multiple socially constructed realities to achieve collective well-being. In contrast, western scientific worldviews often see humans as detached from or in control of nature, focus on aiming to understand a single knowable reality, aim to exclude non-epistemic values in the pursuit of knowledge, and rely on experimental and deductive methods. In such contexts, shipping risks can be categorized as ambiguous. While scientific models can be used to understand complexities and risks of operating vessels in Arctic environments (see, e.g., Fu et al., 2021), there is a need to address the Indigenous and local community concerns, knowledge, perspectives, and priorities, for example, through community-based participatory mapping work (Dawson et al., 2020).