Arctic Yearbook 2015 - Page 53

53 Arctic Yearbook 2015 Arctic maritime activities, the risks, and the potential for development in the changing climate have been widely discussed in the literature, illustrating the extensive range of interests, concerns, and types of activities. Anthropologists and geographers have documented the role indigenous people have to play in developing their territories (Hovelsrud et al. 2012; Kelley & Ljubicic 2012; Flynn 2013); biologists have raised awareness about the risks to the Arctic environment from maritime activities (Erbe & Farmer 2000; Huntington 2009; Reeves et al. 2012; Chan et al. 2013); engineers have studied technological and structural issues with cold-climate navigation (Frankenstein & Tuthill 2002; Liu, Lau & Williams 2006; Kennedy, Simoes Re & Veitch 2014); and lawyers have described the international and national legal aspects (Pharand 2007; Chircop 2012; Karim 2015). Each of these is an important piece, but putting them together to form a complete picture of the region is challenging. Some reports have endeavoured to provide an overview of the situation. Many organizations, for example, have produced reports addressing aspects that must be considered when trying to develop marine Arctic activities, all providing a broad perspective of their respective topics (Chatham House 2012; Parsons 2012; Conference Board of Canada 2013; Johnston et al. 2013). Most notably, however, is the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) (Arctic Council 2009) by the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working group of the Arctic Council. The AMSA report provides an overview of the aspects that need to be taken into consideration if and when maritime activities progress in the circumpolar Arctic. The working group incorporated the views of a range of stakeholders, and approached the document by ship type, including tankers, bulk carriers, offshore supply vessels, passenger ships, tug/barge combi