Arctic Yearbook 2015 - Page 64

64 Arctic Yearbook 2015 and collaborative work required to produce a governance regime that is inclusive and proactive. The need for this kind of approach has been documented in reports from numerous sources, and has been announced by leaders of organizations and states. The comprehensive, interactive visualization tool we have developed will facilitate future stakeholder-related work, be it more in-depth stakeholder analyses, consultations, engagement efforts, or planning processes. As with all new tools, there are current limitations, but in this case those limitations are also the strengths of the work. The visualization tool is intended to be an evolving and ongoing collaborative tool, rather than a static end-product of a single research project. At this stage the list of stakeholders is not exhaustive; some have been intentionally omitted, others combined into groups for the purpose of simplifying the tool and the analysis. The limitation is that the visualization illustrates the interests and connections of stakeholders as identified by the stakeholders themselves. In other words, in order to improve the tool, stakeholder input is required. When a stakeholder chooses to participate, they not only provide data for the analysis but they become part of the project, thus initiating the desired stakeholder engagement and collaboration process. One example of this is the work we conducted with three domestic shipping companies that operate in the Eastern Canadian Arctic: we gathered information from them and presented it to delegates of the World Maritime University’s ShipArc 2015 Conference, thus connecting two groups that may not necessarily interact on their own (our presentation is available at The data have been gathered in an open-source format (D3.js for the interactive visualization, GitHub to share the code and data), so the users not only have online access to the representation, but they can also freely use the data and expand upon the tool (as long as the original developers’ names are embedded within the code). For example, the scope of the analysis could be focused to study particular areas within the Canadian Arctic (e.g., the Beaufort Sea or Lancaster Sound), or the scope could be narrowed to study specific activities (e.g. search and rescue or fishing). The structure could also be broken down and the study segmented by the type of sailing routes, such as intra-Arctic, destinational, or transit routes. The AMSA report describes the governance of Arctic shipping activities as a “complicated mosaic” (AMSA 2009: 50), and it was our goal to provide a way to visualize this puzzle; a way to gain access to the complex web of stakeholders, their interactions, and the antagonisms of their activities and interests with a single click. The topic of Arctic shipping governance is not new, but documentation has often focused on the legal framework and only those players directly involved in writing and following the rules. There is so much more to the picture, though, and to begin to try to understand it, a more in depth analysis was required. Not only did we engage with numerous stakeholders from varying scales and arenas, we analyzed the information and translated it into a visualization tool to help decode the complexities of maritime Arctic activities in Canada. With further stakeholder support and collaboration, the work we have done can be expanded and improved. Maritime Activities in the Canadian Arctic