Challenges and Opportunities in
Progress towards
Canada’s Commitment to a
National Network of MPAs
by 2012
CPAWS
Canadian Parks & Wilderness Society
Challenges and Opportunities in
Progress towards
Canada’s Commitment to a
National Network of MPAs
by 2012
Prepared for
CPAWS-BC
by
Julie Gardner, Ph.D., Dovetail Consulting Inc.
Sandra Bicego, LLB, MA, PacificaBlue Consulting
Sabine Jessen, CPAWS, and Megan Baker, CPAWS-BC
April, 2008
Printed on paper made with 100% postconsumer waste. Please recycle.
ii
Table of Contents
Summary
vii
Introduction
viii
Canada and the 2012 MPA network commitment
ix
The slow pace of the MPA establishment process
x
The role of the federal government
xi
The role of the provinces and territories
xii
MPA roles beyond the Federal and Provincial governments
xiii
The Role of First Nations
xiii
Roles of other players
xiv
Acknowledgements
xvi
1 Introduction
1
1.1 Rationale
2
1.2 Objective, scope and terminology
2
1.3 Organization of the report
3
1.4 Approach
4
1.4.1 Information sources
4
1.4.2 Use of interview data
4
2 Canada and the 2012 MPA Network Commitment
2.1 Canada’s MPA commitments
5
6
2.1.1 Canada’s international MPA commitments
6
2.1.2 Canada’s national MPA commitments
7
2.1.3 The incentive provided by targets
8
2.2 The slow pace of progress to date – Planning to fail?
2.3 Lack of a shared vision – What is a national MPA network?
2.3.1 How much is enough?
9
11
12
2.3.2 What counts? – Lack of clarity on the role of protected area designations in an MPA network 12
2.4 Clarifying the network target
3 Federal MPA Designations
14
17
3.1 Fisheries and Oceans Canada
18
3.2 Environment Canada
19
3.3 Parks Canada
19
4 The slow pace of the MPA establishment process
4.1 Information gathering and assessment
21
22
4.1.1 Adequacy of data
22
4.1.2 Understanding ecological/conservation benefits
23
iii
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
4.1.3 Understanding socio-economic benefits
24
4.1.4 Mineral and energy resource assessments
25
4.1.5 Evaluating socio-economic and ecological values
25
4.1.6 Preparation through information gathering
26
4.2 The consultation process
4.2.1 Lengthy public process
27
4.2.2 Requiring a realistic level of support
27
4.2.3 Improving the consultation process
28
4.3 The regulatory process
30
4.4 Learning from experience
31
4.4.1 Building on experience
31
4.4.2 The power of models – and negative experience
32
4.5 Options for fast-tracking
5 The role of the Federal Government
33
37
5.1 Lack of federal government leadership
38
5.2 Bureaucracy in the federal agencies
40
5.3 Capacity challenges across government departments
41
5.4 Fisheries and Oceans Canada role
42
5.4.1 Progress in establishing Oceans Act MPAs
43
5.4.2 Leadership in Fisheries and Oceans Canada
45
5.4.3 Capacity in Fisheries and Oceans Canada
46
5.4.4 Organizational issues in Fisheries and Oceans Canada
47
5.5 Parks Canada Agency role
49
5.5.1 Progress in establishing National Marine Conservation Areas
49
5.5.2 Leadership in Parks Canada Agency
51
5.5.3 Capacity in Parks Canada Agency
52
5.5.4 Organizational issues in Parks Canada Agency
52
5.6 Environment Canada role
53
5.6.1 Progress in establishing Environment Canada MPAs
53
5.6.2 Leadership and capacity in Environment Canada
54
5.6.3 Organizational issues in Environment Canada
55
5.7 Inter-agency challenges
55
5.8 Complexity in the array of national MPA designations
56
5.9 National direction for an MPA network
57
5.9.1 Direction provided to an MPA network by federal policies
iv
27
57
Table of Contents
5.9.2 “Untying” MPA designation from network design and integrated oceans management
60
6 The role of the Provinces and territories
63
6.1 Provincial government leadership
64
6.2 Jurisdictional challenges
65
6.3 Other challenges in federal-provincial/territory relations
66
6.4 Regional direction for an MPA network
68
6.4.1 Direction provided to an MPA network by regional and sub-regional planning
68
6.4.2 Tension between regional and national initiatives
70
6.5 Working with the provinces and territories
7 MPA roles beyond the Federal and Provincial governments
7.1 Role of First Nations
71
73
74
7.1.1 Relevance of treaties, rights and title
74
7.1.2 First Nations interest in marine conservation and MPAs
75
7.1.3 Working with First Nations
76
7.2 Role of the general public
78
7.2.1 Lack of understanding and awareness
78
7.2.2 Public interest in marine conservation and MPAs
79
7.2.3 Building awareness and support
80
7.3 Role of local communities
82
7.3.1 Community interest in marine conservation and MPAs
82
7.3.2 Working with communities
83
7.4 Role of fishing industry
84
7.4.1 Fishermen’s interest in marine conservation and MPAs
85
7.4.2 Working with fisheries stakeholders
86
7.5 Role of environmental, non-government organizations
88
7.5.1 ENGO role in building public support
88
7.5.2 ENGO role in building government support
89
7.5.3 ENGO role in MPA planning and other technical areas
89
7.5.4 Working with ENGOs
91
7.6 Role of research organizations and scientists
92
7.6.1 Contributions of research organizations and scientists to various aspects of MPA network
advancement
92
7.6.2 Working with research organizations and the science community
94
8 Conclusions: Challenges and Opportunities in the Pursuit of the 2012 Commitment
8.1 Canada and the 2012 MPA Network Commitment
95
96
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
8.2 The slow pace of the MPA establishment process
96
8.3 The role of the Federal Government
100
8.4 The role of the provinces and territories
104
8.5 MPA roles beyond the Federal and Provincial governments
106
8.5.1 The role of First Nations
106
8.5.2 Other players
108
9 References
113
9.1 Reports, publications and websites
114
9.2 Interviews and personal communications
118
Acronyms
122
Appendix 1: Approach
125
Interviews
126
Literature review
127
Interview technique, and analysis
128
Appendix 2: Questionnaire
129
Appendix 3: Maps 133
Pacific coast
135
Arctic coast 137
Great Lakes 139
Atlantic coast 141
Parks Canada Marine Regions 145
Large Ocean Management Areas 147
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Number and area of federal marine areas protected in Canada
9
Table 2: Where do the federal agencies anticipate being in 2012? (Landry et al. 2007)
10
Table 3: Provincial Protected Area Designations in BC with a marine component
13
Table 4: MPAs established to date under the Oceans Act
43
Table 5: Candidate MPAs under the Oceans Act
44
Table 6: Candidate NMCAs
49
Table 7: Candidate Environment Canada MPAs
54
Table 8: Challenges and opportunities related to basic components of the designation process
97
Table 9: Federal government challenges and issues
101
Table 10: The role of players outside of government, related challenges and suggestions for working together
108
vi
Summary
vii
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Introduction
Ocean conservation is one of the most important global concerns of our time and marine protected areas
(MPAs) are a significant part of the toolkit for addressing this imperative. The critical value of MPAs has been
recognized not only by scientists but by heads of state and has resulted in internationally-binding agreements,
including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to complete national networks of MPAs. Canada is a
party to these commitments, recognizing that MPAs are vital to the health of the oceans and the future wellbeing of its citizens.
While many countries are establishing individual MPAs and MPA networks Canada has made little progress
towards an MPA network, even as the urgency increases. Habitat, species, and, consequently, resource
harvesting opportunities are being lost in the face of over-fishing, industrial development, pollution from
various sources, and climate change. As human uses of the oceans intensify, the task of creating an MPA
network will become more difficult. The costs of completing the network will continue to escalate, while
opportunities decline. And as ocean ecosystems become steadily more degraded, more severe and extensive
conservation measures will be needed.
All of these factors are converging to make more rapid progress towards the completion of an MPA network
in Canada a vital and pressing need. Accordingly, the British Columbia Chapter of the Canadian Parks and
Wilderness Society (CPAWS) decided to assess the challenges which are delaying Canada’s progress towards
its international commitment to establishing a network of MPAs by 2012, and to identify opportunities
for reaching the 2012 goal. This report is the result. CPAWS encourages governments, environmental
organizations (ENGOs), and other MPA proponents to apply the lessons from the experience reported here,
to pick up the pace towards the 2012 target. While the primary audience is the federal government and its
three agencies with specific MPA mandates, other MPA proponents can also benefit from the opportunities
to further marine conservation identified by this research. Furthermore, the federal agencies cannot possibly
achieve their MPA mandates without provincial/territorial and First Nations collaboration and commitment.
CPAWS has generated recommendations and strategies based on this research which are set out in the
document, Myth and Madness: conquering the tragedy of marine protection in Canada
The report is based on interviews with 59 experts – mainly from government and ENGOs, as well as literature
and web research.
See section 2.1.1 for further discussion of Canada’s international commitments.
viii
Summary
Canada and the 2012 MPA network commitment
Canada’s commitment to a network of MPAs by 2012 was made in various international forums, especially in
connection with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The key text is:
“Target: By … 2012 in the marine area, a global network of comprehensive, representative and effectively
managed national and regional protected area system is established ...” (UNEP/CBD/COP 2004)
Other, national MPA commitments have also been made on the domestic front: in federal government
budgets at least since 2004; in the 1992 Statement of Commitment to Complete Canada’s Networks of
Protected Areas; in Canada’s Ocean Strategy, launched in 2002; and in Canada’s Oceans Action Plan (OAP),
2004.
The targets set out in these various declarations provide some incentive for action on MPAs but unless
progress towards them increases considerably they will not be met.
Only 0.5% of Canada’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is set aside in protected areas. Despite having the
longest coastline in the world, Canada’s MPA system remains among the least developed compared to other
countries and to our land-based protected area system (Government of Canada 2006). Based on a global
review of MPAs, Canada is at 70th place among 228 countries (Wood, pers. comm. 2007).
In 2005 Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reported a “lack of progress
on a national system of marine protected areas” in her assessment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO)
performance. The same can be said two years later, and not just relative to DFO, but for Parks Canada Agency
(PCA) and Environment Canada (EC) as well. The marine workshop at the 2007 Science and Management of
Protected Areas Association (SAMPAA) conference concluded: “Although Canada will make progress towards
its international commitment by the year 2012, this is likely, based upon government projections, to amount
to between 17% and 33% of the required network by that time. This is a significant shortfall” (Roff and Dearden
2007).
One of the reasons for the lack of progress on a national system of marine protected areas is a lack of clear
and specific direction. Canada’s Oceans Agenda has only broad level targets and the Federal MPA Strategy
has no timelines or clear outcomes. Work has been underway for some time between the headquarters of the
three agencies on “Guidelines for the Establishment of a Federal Marine Protected Areas Network,” but there
continues to be a lack of clarity, definitions or vision of what is required in an MPA network or what the 2012
target really means. Related questions are “How much is enough?” and “What counts, in terms of the various
protected area designations in an MPA network?”
Mechanisms for clarifying the network target:
•Canada, as a member of the IUCN, could adopt the recommendations and definitions outlined in the
recently-released “Establishing networks of marine protected areas: A guide for developing national and
regional capacity for building MPA networks” (WCPA/IUCN 2007).
•The Guidelines for the Establishment of a Federal Marine Protected Areas Network (under review in the
regions at the time of writing) may facilitate a coordinated national approach.
•DFO’s Oceans Action Program provides some guidance for networks at the LOMA level.
•Regional or sub-regional marine/ocean/coastal planning initiatives also provide frameworks for
combining and implementing MPA designations.
ix
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
The slow pace of the MPA establishment process
Federal government officials give the most optimistic estimates of the time span from date of identification to
establishment of an MPA by law at 4-5 years, and suggest that it is difficult to take an MPA from idea to design
in less than 6-7 years. Ten years would not be unexpected. These officials generally feel they are moving as fast
as possible on MPA designation, given the complexities of the process and the resources available, but at the
same time they regard the lengthy time frame of MPA designation as a serious problem.
Many challenges to faster results are posed by the complexities of the designation process itself:
•Data gathering, mapping, etc. to build a scientific rationale and set boundaries on areas of interest (AOI)
takes 1-2 years or more. Identification of the AOI leads to the allocation of funding for the lengthy process
of socio-economic assessment, working with industry and agencies such as Natural Resources Canada.
It can take another 1-2 years for the various agencies to sign off on their reviews of the assessments.
Understanding and evaluating ecological and socio-economic values is issue-laden, and questions also
surround the adequacy of data.
•The time and resources that agencies require to consult the public, communities and stakeholders
effectively is the most frequently-identified cause of slow progress on MPA designation. For participants
to accept the results of a process, they need to have been working with shared information in a process
that builds trust and agreed-upon, broad-based goals. The fewer resources dedicated to the process, the
longer it can take.
•The regulatory and parliamentary approval process is a significant challenge on the path to designating
an MPA, although it varies among agencies. The process is essential but highly legalistic and largely
outside the control of the individual departments.
Opportunities and options for increasing the pace of designation:
•Build on experience, and embed learning in policies and guidelines.
•Establish positive models to demonstrate benefits and build momentum.
•Consider fast tracking by altering the designation process – e.g. move interim planning forward relative to
the feasibility study; move designation forward relative to management planning.
•Create a “not so perfect” MPA and expand conservation provisions or boundaries over time, and/or
establish interim protection prior to designation.
•Institute effective project management.
Regarding information gathering and assessment:
•Prepare thorough information gathering to avoid delays at later stages of the process.
•Improve the knowledge base through cooperation among agencies, academics and ENGOs.
•Build a compelling economic or “business case” for MPAs as well as an ecological case.
•Increase attention to ocean uses and values other than fisheries and be assertive in promoting MPAs
based on their ecological benefits.
Regarding the consultation process:
•Dedicate sufficient budget and personnel.
•Aim for a realistic level of support rather than unanimous agreement.
•Create a template or foundation to guide agencies as to what constitutes success.
Summary
•Follow best practices for public engagement and consultation.
Regarding the regulatory and parliamentary approval process:
•Streamline the regulatory process.
•Prepare carefully for the parliamentary approval process.
•Build support among Members of Parliament.
The role of the federal government
To increase progress towards the 2012 goal, Canada’s government has to show strong leadership at the
highest levels. The federal government and the three departments with MPA mandates are not currently
showing strong enough leadership to increase progress on MPA network growth sufficiently to meet the
2012 goal. In DFO, which has the role of setting direction across MPA programs, the commitment to the
oceans program is weak relative to fisheries and aquaculture, and there is no MPA program per se. In PCA, the
institutional bias is towards terrestrial protected areas.
The lack of federal commitment is reflected in part in a lack of champions for MPAs – from Parliament to senior
positions in PCA, EC and DFO, and in insufficient allocation of staff and funding resources across the agencies.
Resource limitations cause projects to slow down and mean that MPA programs are not fully implemented.
Yet, while a shortage of resources is an impediment, more money is not the answer to all challenges.
A lack of federal commitment is also reflected in weaknesses in organizational structure and vague MPA
mandates. Bureaucratic issues such as problematic region-headquarters dynamics are a hindrance to progress
on an MPA network. At least two of the three agencies have suffered from frequent changes in political and
director/CEO leadership (PCA and DFO), and in DFO there has also been a high turnover in MPA-related staff.
Within the bureaucracies, inertia needs to be overcome in taking action towards MPA establishment, by
adopting a more impatient attitude to moving the process along, pushing the envelope rather than being
complacent, letting go of perfection, taking a business-like approach with timelines and targets that are set
publicly, undertaking tasks concurrently rather than in a linear sequence, and being open to change and
innovation.
Inter-agency challenges seriously compromise progress, and effective coordination of government programs
is lacking. Symptoms include inconsistent communication and collaboration, and “silo” behaviour expressed in
unilateral approaches.
Federal policies currently provide some direction for a national MPA network and forthcoming guidelines
should help. Yet there has never been a national level dialogue bringing interested ENGOs, research
organizations, provinces, territories, First Nations and others into the Federal Marine Protected Area Strategy,
and this is not happening with the new guidelines.
Integrated management planning in Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs) led by DFO has much to offer,
though it is uncertain to what extent integrated management (IM) and LOMA planning will act as a foundation
for MPA planning for all three agencies. At the same time, the potential of large initiatives such as LOMAs to
slow progress in designation of individual MPAs causes concern.
Perceived risks in the application of integrated management the LOMA
framework:
•The focus of IM is on reaching agreement among stakeholders, with no guarantee that any areas will
receive a high level of protection.
xi
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
•The systematic, IM approach may preclude the establishment of further MPAs legitimately driven by
community interest.
•There are gaps between the LOMAs, and some may encompass priority sites for MPAs which will not
receive the attention they deserve.
•LOMAs (and some provincially-driven IM initiatives) are taking such a long time to study and plan that the
time frame for their generation of MPAs reaches beyond 2012.
•The LOMA program has not received consistent and adequate funding nationally.
•The LOMA framework may not sufficiently allow for innovation and tailoring to regional circumstances.
Suggestions for preventing delays in MPA designation while working out a
comprehensive IM approach or other MPA network design:
•Move forward with individual sites based on ecological values. Use IM later to fill gaps.
•Provide interim protection to key areas while IM proceeds.
•Continue work on the science of network design and building baselines while establishing the first MPAs
identified through the planning process.
•Establish MPAs in places that need protection now and tend not to be controversial.
The role of the provinces and territories
Provinces can lead with their own MPA initiatives, and they can hinder, by prioritizing extractive uses of the
oceans, and/or in resisting the implementation of federal MPA designations in coastal waters.
Many factors weaken federal-provincial collaboration, with jurisdictional challenges being the most
significant. It is only through provincial involvement that coastal and estuary habitats under provincial
jurisdiction can be protected (while the provinces play a much smaller role in the establishment of MPAs
in offshore federal waters). Challenges from provinces over jurisdiction of the seabed or refusal to transfer
ownership of the seabed are a serious barrier, especially for NMCAs, which require federal ownership of the
seabed.
Significant oceans, coastal and MPA planning initiatives on the coasts have furthered MPA network
development, but this can lead to tensions between federal and regional initiatives. As national and regional
MPA initiatives continue to parallel one another, issues of reconciling federal and provincial programs arise.
Regional approaches can better account for unique regional considerations, while national frameworks are
claimed to be more rational, more stable and more efficient in the long term.
A “middle ground” can be found between bottom-up approaches and top-down approaches. The middle
ground falls somewhere between an approach primarily based on strategic science priorities and one
primarily based on socio-economic priorities guided by science (Jones 2001 p.212). Agreements like the BCCanada MOU on implementation of the Oceans Strategy could provide the forum for defining this middle
ground.
Attention to scale can also help reconcile the tension between regional and national initiatives. From this
perspective planning and implementation of MPA systems is hierarchical, and higher level targets are
interpreted and tailored to circumstances at the lower scales (Agardy 2005). Conversely, projects in the regions
could be seen as the building blocks to a national strategy.
The federal government can do much to improve its working relationship with coastal provinces and
xii
Summary
territories, based in positive as well as negative experience to date. The same can be said in reverse, for
reluctance and willingness to move ahead on MPAs seem to fluctuate between federal and provincial/
territorial governments.
Suggestions for working with the provinces and territories:
Some federal-provincial/territory initiatives around oceans management and MPAs are working well, but the
myriad challenges in federal-provincial/territory relations regarding MPAs need to be addressed for progress
towards the 2012 goal to accelerate. Suggestions include:
•Take an inclusive, collaborative approach and build relationships with the provinces and territories.
•Enhance the role of the regions.
•Seize opportunities when elected Governments are supportive and senior provincial/territory officials are
engaged to move ahead on agreements related to MPAs.
•Sign the Pacific MOU and sub-agreements to complete the groundwork for the Pacific coast MPA
network.
•Consider an approach or alternative to MOUs (e.g. letter of agreement) with Atlantic provinces that is
practical and action-oriented.
MPA roles beyond the Federal and Provincial governments
The Role of First Nations
The challenge of seeking to understand First Nations roles in the protection of the marine environment in
relation to the work of MPA proponents is large, and a separate research project is dedicated to this theme in
BC. Coverage of the First Nations theme in this report is only at the general overview level.
First Nations have a critical role to play in coastal and marine resource decision-making as another layer of
government, and they also have strong connections with marine conservation as individual users and as
stewards of ocean resources since time immemorial. Like the provinces, they have a make-or-break role
in progress towards a national network of MPAs. Consultation with First Nations adds a significant layer
of complexity to the designation process, especially when more than one First Nation is involved. Federal
agencies have had difficulties in gaining First Nations support for several MPA proposals.
Aboriginal rights and title lead to the following “givens”:
•Aboriginal rights to fish, protected by the constitution, will continue in MPAs, subject to justifiable
regulation for conservation purposes.
•Aboriginal assertions of title and jurisdiction over marine areas reinforce the need for consultation,
accommodation and cooperation with First Nations in selecting, designating and managing MPAs.
•In areas with treaties/land claim settlements, any MPA agenda has to dovetail with and be implemented
by or connected with implementation of the agreements. Where treaties are in progress, or claims
unsettled, there may persist an environment of uncertainty.
First Nations have a profound interest in marine conservation. Currently, many are particularly interested in
ensuring food fisheries are protected now and for future generations, and in recovering depleted species.
Some may see an advantage in management zones that would exclude commercial and recreational fishing in
areas of importance for traditional fishing.
This research project is also funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and led by CPAWS-BC.
xiii
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Suggestions for working with First Nations:
•Follow the example of the NMCA Reserve designation, which allows for NMCA establishment in a way
that does not prejudice future claims.
•Improve cultural literacy as a foundation for communicating with First Nations.
•Consult First Nations on a government-to-government basis.
•Build relationships in the area of MPA proposals or related initiatives.
•Listen, and engage with First Nations on their terms. Adapt processes and designations to suit First
Nations and build on First Nations’ aims for marine use and conservation rather than imposing measures.
•Take the time and make the effort (with dedicated personnel and budget) to consult First Nations on a
meaningful level.
•Ensure that MPAs will benefit First Nations and make this clear to First Nations members.
Roles of other players
Various players, while lacking authority to establish MPAs, have significant influence in determining success or
lack of success in building an MPA network.
General public
The general public has the potential to be supportive or aware, but their support is needed to pressure
politicians to provide leadership, mandates and capacity to MPA agencies. While the general public is said to
lack knowledge or understanding of MPAs, the marine environment, and the need for oceans conservation,
the extent of public apathy should not be exaggerated. Polls show that there is support for marine
conservation in the Canadian public, and specifically for MPAs.
Suggestions for raising public awareness and support:
•Facilitate public debate over the use and conservation of ocean resources.
•Work with ENGOs in awareness raising.
•Establish model MPAs in coastal areas where people can experience them directly and see their benefits.
•Accept that building momentum for public awareness may take continued effort over a protracted period
of time.
Local communities
Local communities and stakeholders can make or break an MPA in the area of their interest – MPA agencies
will not go ahead with an MPA without local community support.
Suggestions for building community support:
•Use best practices in community consultations.
•Build relationships and trust.
•Educate community members to build local understanding of MPAs.
•Keep momentum up once an MPA planning and designation process has begun.
xiv
Summary
Fishing industry
The fishing industry is also highly influential in the success or failure of MPA proposals. The industry tends to
be opposed to MPAs based on fear of loss of access and infringement on perceived entitlement to fish, yet
individual fishermen, fishermen in particular communities, and certain fisheries are increasingly expressing
support.
Suggestions for building support in the fishing industry:
•Work with the fishing industry to build relationships and reach mutual aims.
•Take an incremental approach toward industry buy-in to MPAs.
•Educate/raise awareness among fishermen of the benefits of MPAs.
•Explain MPAs and their functions, counteracting misperceptions.
•Carefully consider the full range of commercial fisheries stakeholders, beyond the large organizations.
Environmental, non-government organizations
Non-government organizations can support progress in the establishment of an MPA network by raising
public awareness, holding government accountable, providing technical assistance, funding research, and
assisting with MPA planning.
Suggestions for ENGO roles to supplement government activities in furthering MPAs:
•ENGOs could meet the Oceans Directorate nationally and feed into a public engagement strategy.
•There is potential for more effective partnerships on messaging around MPAs.
•ENGOs can complement the efforts of federal agencies in the regions, where the agencies have less of a
presence.
•ENGOs can build relationships with interests in MPA proposals who mistrust government.
•ENGOs can counteract incorrect information being spread by opposing stakeholders.
Research organizations and scientists
Research organizations and scientists also have an important role, supporting MPA network planning and
the designation and management of MPAs with expertise, research and information. Government agencies
recognize that they are on a learning curve and, with limited staff, MPA experience and budgets, they need to
access expertise and information from scientists and academia.
The scientific community has an important role to play in building a science-based argument to make the
case for MPAs to opposing stakeholders or reluctant governments. Scientists also contribute to MPA network
design, candidate identification, and information gathering and assessment during the designation process.
Communication of science on oceans conservation can raise Canadians’ level of awareness about the need for
MPAs.
Government agency collaboration and partnerships with research organizations is growing, but there is no
coordinated strategy to support collaboration in MPA research. A targeted, systematic and adaptive research
strategy for MPA designation and management would help.
xv
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the many individuals who contributed to ‘Challenges and Opportunities in
Progress towards Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012.’
Interviews with Canadian and international experts were a vital component of this report, and we are
grateful to all of the interviewees who provided their time, knowledge and expertise. Thank you to Cheri
Recchia, Wayne Bourque, Derek Thomson, Tundi Agardy, Mike Orbach, Phil Dearden and Peter Jones for their
contributions as peer reviewers. This report benefits immensely from their comments and insights.
Thanks to Megan Baker of CPAWS-BC for her assistance in coordinating interviews and arranging travel.
Thank you to Meaghan Calcari for coordinating the peer review process and her guidance and suggestions
throughout the project, and to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for their support.
The opinions in this report are those of the authors. The authors assume responsibility for any remaining errors
or omissions.
xvi
1
Introduction
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
1.1 Rationale
Ocean conservation is one of the most important global concerns of our time and marine protected areas
(MPAs) are a significant part of the toolkit for addressing this imperative. The critical value of MPAs has been
recognized not only by scientists but by heads of state and has resulted in internationally-binding agreements,
including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to complete networks of MPAs. Canada is a party
to these commitments, recognizing that MPAs are vital to the health of the oceans and the wellbeing of its
citizens.
Many countries are moving forward to establish MPAs, following through on their international commitments;
for example Europe takes these commitments seriously and has taken concrete actions to implement them
(Ardron, pers. comm. 2006) Canada has made little progress towards an MPA network, even as the urgency
increases. Habitat, species, and, consequently, resource harvesting opportunities are being lost in the face of
over-fishing, industrial development, pollution from various sources, and climate change. As human uses of
the oceans intensify, the task of creating an MPA network will become more difficult. The costs of completing
the network will continue to escalate, while opportunities decline. And as ocean ecosystems become steadily
more degraded, more severe and extensive conservation measures will be needed. A recent study of the full
extent of human stressors on the marine environment of Canada’s west coast concluded, “Given that a very
large percentage of BC’s marine environment is already exposed to human activity, the need to provide more
protection is urgent” (Ban and Alder 2008). In the words of an MPA practitioner interviewed for this research:
“There’s urgency behind [establishing a national network of MPAs] due to the loss of biodiversity – we’re just
not giving space to other species on this planet.”
All of these factors are converging to make more rapid progress towards the completion of an MPA network in
Canada a vital and pressing need.
1.2 Objective, scope and terminology
The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) decided to assess the challenges delaying Canada’s
progress towards its international commitment to establishing a network of MPAs by 2012, and to identify
opportunities for speeding progress. This report is the result. CPAWS encourages governments, environmental
organizations (ENGOs), and other MPA proponents to apply the lessons from the experience reported here,
to pick up the pace towards the 2012 target. While the primary audience is the federal government and its
three agencies with specific MPA mandates, other MPA proponents can also benefit from the opportunities
to further marine conservation identified by this research. Furthermore, the federal agencies cannot possibly
achieve their MPA mandates without provincial/territorial and First Nations collaboration and commitment.
CPAWS has generated recommendations and strategies based on this research which are set out in the
document, Myth and Madness: conquering the tragedy of marine protection in Canada.
In this report, an MPA is understood to be an area with long term legal status designated to protect marine
ecosystems, processes, habitats and species including marine biodiversity and which can contribute to
the restoration and replenishment of resources for social, economic, and cultural enrichment. The term
MPA is used generically to include a wide range of designations for protected areas in the ocean. It is also a
designation specific to conservation measures provided for by the Oceans Act, administered by Fisheries and
See section 2.1.1 for further discussion of Canada’s international commitments.
The IUCN definition is as follows: “Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and
cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment.” (Kelleher and Kenchington
1992).
1 Introduction
Oceans Canada (DFO). Because of the focus on the federal commitment to an MPA network by 2012, the roles
of three key federal agencies are the center of attention. In addition to DFO, these are Parks Canada Agency
(PCA) and Environment Canada (EC).
For the purpose of assessing progress, the research relied on the CBD commitment as a point of reference:
“Target: By 2010, terrestrially and 2012 in the marine area, a global network of comprehensive, representative and
effectively managed national and regional protected area systems is established as a contribution to (i) the goal of
the Strategic Plan of the Convention and the World Summit on Sustainable Development of achieving a significant
reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010; (ii) the Millennium Development Goals – particularly goal 7 on
ensuring environmental sustainability; and (iii) the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.” (UNEP/CBD/COP 2004)
CPAWS uses the following formal definition for an MPA Network:
A proper national or regional network of MPAs must consist of multiple sites with replicates of all habitat
types that are oceanographically connected; individually or in aggregate they are of sufficient size to sustain
minimum viable populations of the largest species in a region (including those of seasonal migrants to the
region) and their resident species can sustain their populations by recruitment from one MPA to another.
1.3 Organization of the report
This report begins, in section 2, by reviewing various national commitments to MPAs in Canada which are
parallel or additional to the CBD commitment. Section 2 also describes the slow pace of progress towards
these commitments, which is partly connected with the lack of a clear definition of the network target. Section
3 explains the various federal MPA designations. The time-consuming aspects of the designation process for
individual MPAs are described in section 4.
The role of the federal government in the establishment of a Canadian network of MPAs is explored in section
5 at some length, since the 2012 commitment was made by the federal government on behalf of the people
of Canada. Challenges facing each of the three key federal agencies, as well as broader leadership and interagency issues are investigated.
The role of the provinces and territories is analyzed in section 6 because some coastal provinces have also
taken on a marine conservation mandate, and because federal-provincial/territorial cooperation is essential to
progress on a national MPA network.
A number of players outside of federal and provincial/territorial governments also have roles to play. Those
of the general public, local communities, the fishing industry, environmental non-government organizations
(ENGOs) and research organizations are assessed in section 7.
First Nations are the third level of government with a major interest in marine conservation and a strong
influence on progress towards MPA implementation, and their role is also explored in section 7. Note, however,
that the First Nations theme is so complex and pivotal that it is being investigated in a separate, parallel
research project. The treatment of the topic here is at a highly generalized level, pending the results of the
more in-depth study.
The context indicates which usage of MPA is intended.
See Smith et al. 2006, ‘A Policy and Planning Framework for Marine Protected Area Networks in Canada’s Oceans,’ Chapter 5 for a review of key
international references for guidance on MPA network planning, and a broader list of references.
Under Goal 1.1 http://www.cbd.int/decisions/?dec=VII/28 in the Programme of Work on Protected Areas
Palumbi, S. 2002. Marine Reserves: A Tool for Ecosystem Management and Conservation. Pew Oceans Commission. Arlington, Virginia
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Section 7.6.2 draws together challenges and opportunities in the pursuit of the 2012 target, in connection
with all of the above areas of investigation.
1.4 Approach
The approach to the research and analysis is explained in detail in Appendix 1. A summary is provided here.
1.4.1 Information sources
The primary source of information for this project was interviews. Effort was made to include people working
on MPA themes in all regions of Canada that have MPAs, including the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes.
Of the 59 interviewees, 34 were from federal agencies and 8 were from provincial/territory agencies. Most of
these were with public servants holding managerial positions. The focus on federal agencies allowed for a
close examination of challenges and opportunities from an “insider” perspective – those with the hands-on
responsibility for making progress on a national network of MPAs in DFO, PCA and EC, as mandated by the
federal government.
Twenty-four ENGO representatives were interviewed, targetting WWF and CPAWS because these are the two
national ENGOs that have the strongest focus on oceans conservation across the country.
The remaining interviewee is a student undertaking Ph.D. research on a closely related topic. Opinions of
other academics and scientists were gathered from the literature and from presentations at the 2007 Science
and Management of Protected Areas Association (SAMPAA) conference. Many reports by governments and
environmental non-government organizations were also drawn upon.
It was beyond the scope of this project to interview stakeholders, community representatives and First Nations
representatives for their opinions on factors affecting progress on MPAs. CPAWS is currently examining the
First Nations role in marine conservation more closely through a separate project in BC.
1.4.2 Use of interview data
Interviewees were told that they would not be quoted; therefore points made in interviews are not attributed
in the text of this document. In cases where the type of interviewee (e.g. federal agency, provincial, ENGO)
is relevant to the discussion, this distinction is made in the text. Overall, the diagnoses of challenges and
opportunities were remarkably similar across all types of interviewees.
The unattributed quotations in the report listed in italics after “Interviewee comments included:” are close
to verbatim. Some changes were made to protect the anonymity of the interviewee. In any given list of
quotations, each quote is from a different interviewee, and the authors strived to draw quotations from the full
suite of interviews rather than quoting any single interviewee extensively throughout the document.
2
Canada and the 2012 MPA
Network Commitment
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Canada’s commitment to a network of MPAs by 2012 was made in various international forums, and other,
national MPA commitments have also been made on the domestic front. These are described below. The
analysis in section 2.2 shows that targets set out in these various declarations, budgets and policies provide
some incentive for action on MPAs, but unless progress towards them increases considerably they will not
be met. Lack of a shared vision is part of the problem, and the meaning of the network target needs to be
clarified, as explained in sections 2.3 and 2.4.
2.1 Canada’s MPA commitments
2.1.1 Canada’s international MPA commitments
Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993 and subsequent commitments by the Parties
Led by the United Nations Environment Programme, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was
opened for signature at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED,
also known as the Rio Conference or the Earth Summit) and entered into force in 1993. To date, 187 countries
including Canada have ratified the Convention and thereby become Parties. The CBD is a binding international
agreement (under Articles 6-20) that seeks to achieve three objectives; the two related to MPAs are the
conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components. Article 8(a) of the CBD states
that each contracting party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, establish a system of protected areas or
areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity.
At the Seventh Conference of the Parties of the CBD in 2004, a Programme of Work on Protected Areas was
agreed to by Canada under Decision VII/28. As a Party to the Programme of work, Canada committed to
establish comprehensive MPA networks within an overall ecosystem approach by 2012. In the “Suggested
activities of the Parties,” Canada committed, by 2009, to designate protected areas as identified through a
national or regional gap analysis, and to complete, by 2012 in the marine environments, the establishment
of comprehensive and ecologically representative national and regional systems of protected areas (section
1.1.6 of the Programme of Work on Protected Areas, in Programme Element I, under Goal 1.1 on systems of
protected areas10).
At the Eighth Ordinary Conference of the Parties to the CBD held in 2006, a percentage target was agreed to:
that “at least 10% of each of the world’s ecological regions [including marine and coastal areas] be effectively
conserved [by 2010].”
World Summit on Sustainable Development, 2002
The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) took place in Johannesburg, South Africa in 2002,
marking the 10th anniversary of UNCED. The WSSD Plan of Implementation, paragraph 31(3), Section IV, affirms
the global commitment to establish MPAs consistent with international law and based on science, including
representative networks by 2012. As a party to the WSSD Implementation Plan, Canada has also committed to
this goal (United Nations 2002).
World Parks Congress, 2003
At the fifth World Parks Congress held in 2003, a recommendation was made to increase MPAs, with specific
targets. This recommendation, endorsed by Canada, was as follows:
“Establish by 2012 a global system of effectively managed, representative networks of marine and coastal
protected areas, consistent with international law and based on scientific information, that: a. Greatly increases
http://wwwcbd.int/decisions/?dec=VII/28
10 For the target associated with goal 1.1. see section 1.2 of this report.
2 Canada and the 2012 MPA Network Commitment
the marine and coastal area managed in marine protected areas by 2012; these networks should be extensive and
include strictly protected areas that amount to at least 20-30% of each habitat, and contribute to a global target
for healthy and productive oceans” (IUCN 2003).
2.1.2 Canada’s national MPA commitments
Canada’s interest in establishing protected areas in the marine environment dates back to the 1970s, following
on international considerations expressed at the First World Conference on National Parks in Seattle in 1962.
Mondor provides an early history of these efforts in a report prepared by the National and Provincial Parks
Association of Canada (now known as CPAWS) in 1985. He notes that a report prepared for Parks Canada in
1970 recommended the establishment of a national marine park program in Canada. In 1971, the Honourable
Jean Chretien, then Minister responsible for national parks and the Honourable Jack Davis, the Minister for
Fisheries and Forestry, jointly recommended to Cabinet that Canada establish national marine parks and
specifically recommended one for the Strait of Georgia. Cabinet approved these recommendations and
established a task force, which did not lead to the establishment of any national marine parks. This is how
Canada’s odyssey on MPAs began. More recent national commitments made by the Canadian government are
described here. (Mondor 1985)
Statement of Commitment to Complete Canada’s Networks of Protected Areas, 1992
In 1992, Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Environment, Parks, and Wildlife signed “A
Statement of Commitment to Complete Canada’s Networks of Protected Areas.” These Ministers agreed to
make every effort to complete Canada’s networks of protected areas representative of Canada’s land based
natural regions by the year 2000 and to accelerate the protection of areas representative of Canada’s marine
natural regions.
Canada’s Ocean Strategy, 2002
In July 2002, the Government of Canada released Canada’s Oceans Strategy: Our Oceans, Our Future, which
outlines how the Oceans Act will be implemented. The Strategy affirms the Government of Canada’s intention
to shift its approach to managing Canada’s ocean resources from a sector-based approach toward integrated
ocean management. It provides a national policy framework with the overarching goal to ensure healthy, safe,
and prosperous oceans for Canadians. The strategy is intended to guide the coordination and integration of
management activities in or affecting Canada’s estuarine, coastal, and marine environments.
The Strategy specifies 55 existing and new activities that were to be implemented over a four-year period
(to 2007) by the approximately 20 departments and agencies involved. In the section, “Strategic Directions
for Implementing Canada’s Oceans Strategy,” the government commits to develop a strategy for a national
network of MPAs (under Objective 1: Understanding and Protecting the Marine Environment, Activity:
Conservation and protection of the marine environment).
Canada’s Oceans Action Plan (OAP), 2004
In the 2004 Speech from the Throne the Government of Canada announced its intention to develop the
OAP as follows: “The Government will also move forward on its Oceans Action Plan by maximizing the use
and development of ocean technology, establishing a network of marine protected areas, implementing
integrated management plans, and enhancing the enforcement of rules governing oceans and fisheries ...”
The OAP describes a government-wide approach to implementing Canada’s Oceans Strategy, consistent
with the intent of the Oceans Act. The OAP rests on four inter-connected pillars: International Leadership,
Sovereignty and Security; Ocean Science and Technology; Integrated Oceans Management for Sustainable
Development; and Health of the Oceans. The latter two are the main pillars related to MPAs.
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Regarding the Integrated Oceans Management for Sustainable Development pillar, the OAP provides for
the implementation of integrated management plans. Commitments were made in the OAP to advance
ecosystem based management in five priority Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs): the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, Grand Banks/Placentia Bay, Scotian Shelf, Pacific North Coast and Beaufort Sea.
In connection with the Health of the Oceans pillar, the government committed to the development of
a Federal MPA Strategy to better plan and coordinate the establishment and management of the various
instruments Canada has at its disposal to build a network of MPAs.11
Federal Government Budget, 2004
In the budget speech of 2004, the federal government stated that in order to better protect marine
ecosystems and ensure the sustainable use of marine resources, it was committing to establishing ten new
MPAs under the Oceans Act and five new National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCAs).12
Federal Government Budget, 2005 and OAP Phase 1 (2005-2007)
The 2005 budget announced federal government investments in Canada’s oceans that included a total of
$28.4 million over two years to be invested in the first phase of the OAP.
OAP Phase 1 was composed of 18 commitments grouped under the four pillars, to be completed within 24
months. OAP I was to build on progress made to date with a focus on improving oceans management and
preserving the health of marine ecosystems.
Key targets included five MPAs to be established by 2007 totaling 980,360 ha.
Federal Government Budget, 2007
In its March 2007 budget the federal government identified a budget of $19 million over two years to advance
the health of the oceans, now under a “National Water Strategy.”13 The other three pillars of the OAP did not
receive additional funding, including the LOMAs which were under the Integrated Oceans Management for
Sustainable Development pillar. As part of this budget, the government committed to “creating additional
marine protected areas around the Scott Islands on the Pacific Coast, Sable Island on the eastern Scotian
Shelf, and Lancaster Sound in the eastern Arctic. The budget also states that six other MPAs will also be
created along Canada’s coasts, with the specific location to be determined after consultations with coastal
communities, environmental groups, industry and other governments.
In October 2007 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced that the Government was increasing the
budget commitment to five years of funding. The Government has now committed $61.5 million to improve
the health of Canada’s oceans as part of Canada’s National Water Strategy.
2.1.3 The incentive provided by targets
Targets are an important way of expressing commitments, and international ones reflect a serious obligation.
Some observers feel that the original commitment to the 2012 target was uneven among the three federal
agencies. Nonetheless, each of these federal agencies is bound by national policy. Among the provinces and
territories, BC is the most assertive about its role in sharing the commitment to a national network of MPAs,
looking at the commitment as a federal-provincial one rather than just federal. A forthcoming implementation
plan for the MPA sub-agreement of the 2004 federal-provincial MOU on the Pacific coast will have timelines
and targets.
The advantages of targets are that they can: provide something to aim for or work towards, act as incentives
11 See section 5.9.1 for more information on the Strategy.
12 See section 3 for an explanation of the different types of MPA in Canada.
13 Under the National Water Strategy, Canada will work with its provincial, territorial, Aboriginal and international partners to co-operatively manage
its marine environment.
2 Canada and the 2012 MPA Network Commitment
or motivation, reflect ministerial support, give external players (e.g. ENGOs) something to hold government
accountable to, and acknowledge the urgency of the aim – protecting the marine environment. Wood et al.
(2007) emphasize the role of broad scale marine conservation targets in garnering the political will required
to “mobilize support for, and schedule, conservation intervention in the face of limited resources, ongoing
biodiversity losses, and inadequate protection.”
The incentive that targets may provide is, however, nothing but unrealized potential if decision-makers pay
little heed to the targets in practice. The slow pace of progress on MPAs in Canada to date suggests that this
may be the case here.
Interviewee comments included:
“We want a working network; that is, one that is functioning with integrity, but we are 97% far from this goal.”
“Targets are important but depends on who is accepting responsibility – if it isn’t the decision-makers but those
on the delivery end then it becomes a liability.”
2.2 The slow pace of progress to date – Planning to fail?
The area of Canada’s existing MPAs under federal jurisdiction totals 26,662.27 sq km (2,666,227 ha.) of marine
waters.14 This total is broken down by agency in the table below.15
Table 1: Number and area of federal marine areas protected in Canada
Administrator
Type of MPA
No. of Marine Areas
Approximate MPA size
(ha)
Parks Canada
National Marine Conservation Area
1
11,500
Parks Canada
National Park (Marine Portion)
15
716,305
Joint Parks Canada/ Québec
Saguenay - St. Lawrence Marine Park
1
113,800
Environment Canada
National Wildlife Area (Marine Portion)
13
152,317
Environment Canada
Migratory Bird Sanctuary (Marine Portion)
51
1,417,145
Fisheries and Oceans
Marine Protected Area
6
255,160
Totals
87
2,666,227
Sources: Government of Canada 2006; Updates for DFO from M. Landry, September 12, 2007.
See Appendix 3 for maps
This appears to be a significant area; however, it amounts to only 0.5% of Canada’s oceans set aside in
protected areas. Despite having the longest coastline in the world, Canada’s MPA system remains among the
least developed compared to other countries and to our land-based protected area system (Government of
Canada 2006). Canada lags behind OECD colleagues like Australia and the US. Based on a global review of
MPAs, Canada is at 70th place among 228 countries (Wood, pers. comm. 11 September 2007).
By all accounts, this is not good enough. In 2005 Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development reported a “lack of progress on a national system of marine protected areas” (p. 15) in her
assessment of DFO’s performance on Canada’s Oceans Management Strategy (as part of the Auditor
General’s report). The same can be said two years later, and not just relative to DFO, but for Parks Canada and
14 See section 2.3.2 for a discussion of the question as to what areas should be included in this total, especially provincial MPAs.
15 For a more detailed review of progress by each agency see sections 5.4.1, 5.5.1 and 5.6.1.
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Environment Canada as well. The pace of MPA network expansion was variously described by the people
interviewed in this research as: “very disappointing,” “not good,” “barely perceptible,” “too slow,” “very much too
slow,” “far too slow,” “absolutely, abysmally,” “ridiculously,” “excruciatingly,” and “embarrassingly” slow. Given that
federal MPA initiatives began over 25 years ago there should be more results by now.16
Meeting the 2012 target will be a huge challenge, at best. Based on forecasted MPA designations by the
three federal agencies with MPA responsibilities (see Table 2), a participant at the 2007 SAMPAA conference
observed that “Canada is planning to fail,” and most agreed that this was a reasonably accurate statement,
if not literally true. The workshop report concluded: “Although Canada will make progress towards its
international commitment by the year 2012, this is likely, based upon government projections, to amount to
between 17% and 33% of the required network by that time. This is a significant shortfall” (Roff and Dearden
2007). A status report on protected areas led by Environment Canada also concluded that the country will fall
short of meeting the 2012 CBD objective at the current rate of progress (Government of Canada 2006).
Table 2: Where do the federal agencies anticipate being in 2012? (Landry et al. 2007)
Federal agency
Current Status
By 2012
Fisheries and Oceans
Canada
• 6 MPAs
• 4-5 proposed MPAs in progress
• 6 new sites to be identified
• 16-17 MPAs
Environment Canada
• No Marine Wildlife Areas
• 64 “marine” National Wildlife Areas and
• 1 MWA
• 64 NWAs/MBSs +4 new “marine” NWAs
Migratory Bird Sanctuaries
Parks Canada
• 2 National Marine Conservation Areas*
• 4 proposed NMCAs in progress
• 1-3 proposals pending
• 6-9 NMCAs
* Other sources report one National Marine Conservation area established to date. See Table 1 and section 5.5.1.
See Appendix 3 for maps
This is not to say that no progress is being made. Government agency representatives claim that “a network
will happen” even if the 2012 target is missed. But if not in 2012, when? Regionally, interviewees on the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts expressed some optimism that the 2012 target possibly could be reached in a
decade – five years late – if provincial/territory MPA designations can be included in the system. No such
confidence was voiced in the North or Quebec, and nationally, the prognosis was dismal.
For a target to be achievable, it must be realistic with respect to current capacity, or the necessary
infrastructure of legislation, policy, staffing, budget, information, etc., must be put in place to enable those
sharing the commitment to meet the target. The 2012 target may be an example of a generic policy which,
according to Agardy (2005 p. 243) “lead nowhere” if they are “unrealistically ambitious or not supported by
financial commitments.” Many MPA agency employees feel they are working as hard as they can to establish
the MPA network, and making as much progress as possible with current resources, but this will not be
enough. Some feel that the 2012 target was adopted naively, is overambitious, and over-commits the federal
agencies. However, given that Canada undertakes significant preparation before making international
commitments, and that the MPA commitment has been reaffirmed in various forums, the target must have
been set with some care and forethought..
The analysis in this report proceeds under the assumption that the shortcoming is not with the target. Many
16 See section 2.1.2.
10
2 Canada and the 2012 MPA Network Commitment
factors slowing the pace of progress towards an MPA network are examined in following sections of the
report, not least of which is the lack of financial commitment by the federal government.
Interviewee comments included:
“We’ve hardly moved in 10-14 yrs!”
“Canada’s work in dealing with this critical need is still in its infancy and our pace continues to be far too slow.”
“Government is still saying it is targeting to complete our international commitment for 2012. There is no way
under existing conditions we will make it. The problem here is that government is making a commitment but with
no resources to make it happen.”
“It’s unlikely we will get to everything people read into 2012 but that’s not to say we won’t make substantial
progress.”
“The targets we set in the past didn’t take into account what we know now – it’s a learning process.”
2.3 Lack of a shared vision – What is a national MPA network?
In the opinion of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (2005), one of the
reasons for the lack of progress on a national system of marine protected areas was a lack of focus. WWFCanada also pointed out that the oceans agenda has only broad level targets and the Federal MPA Strategy
has no timelines or clear outcomes (Laughren 2005). Three years after these reports there continues to be
a lack of focus, clarity, definitions or vision of what is required in an MPA network or what the 2012 target
really means. Canada lags behind countries such as New Zealand, with its Marine Protected Areas Policy
and Implementation Plan ,17 and Australia, which has a National Representative System of Marine Protected
Areas.18 The New Zealand policy and plan “provides an integrated process, including regional consultation, for
establishing a network of marine protected areas around New Zealand.”
Agardy (2005 p. 244) notes that a network linking MPAs has “a dual nature: connecting physical sites deemed
ecologically critical (ecological networks), and linking people and institutions in order to make effective
conservation possible (human networks).” Without clarity around the design of a national MPA network for
Canada, the following drawbacks are encountered:
•government officials lack guidelines on what they are working towards;
•regions lack direction from headquarters;
•misperceptions may arise (e.g. that a network requires protected corridors between MPAs);
•MPA establishment is ad hoc rather than systematic (e.g. not taking into account connections between
sources and sinks); and
•the three federal agencies lack a unifying mission.
17 http://www. biodiversity.govt.nz/pdfs/seas/MPA-Policy-and-Implementation-Plan.pdf
18 http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/index.html
11
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
2.3.1 How much is enough?
While some desire a specific percentage area, such as 12% or 20%, others, as argued at the 2007 SAMPAA
workshop, feel it is more important to be guided by ecological objectives (e.g., protecting structure and
function in ecologically significant areas). Agardy (2005 p.243) uses percentage targets as an example of
interventions “that are too generic to fit the particular circumstances at a site.” Wood et al. (2007) caution that
“the political success of reaching a numerical target may not yield the desired ecological success.”
PCA has aims that will eventually result in a “complete” system, based on representivity; the same cannot
be said for EC or DFO. How else will it be determined if the network is “complete”? How many important, if
not representative, areas such as DFO’s “ecologically and biologically significant areas” have to be included?
The question of what constitutes an effective network for the conservation of marine biodiversity is broad,
and has received much consideration by the scientific community, including at the SAMPAA workshop (Roff
and Dearden 2007). Dearden asserts that “A more explicit and comprehensive systems plan, based on sound
ecological criteria, is needed that all agencies with MPA interests can adopt” (2002).
Interviewee comments included:
“The biggest impediment to completing any system is the lack of clarity on what we want our system to look like
and what contributes to the system.”
“Lots of information exists, and we can keep adding sites, but how a network functions, and what is the end game
is … it is one of our biggest challenges to get that vision.”
“We are progressing towards the objectives but how will we judge when the network is complete? This is a difficult
question.”
“If pollution continues from land based sources, we’ll see a growing need for MPAs. The system will never be
complete.”
2.3.2 What counts? – Lack of clarity on the role of protected area designations in an MPA network
What is meant buy a national system of MPAs? Related issues include:
•Would the federal system (i.e. designations under the three national MPA programs) be acceptable as a
national system?
•Which protected area types should be included in the system (e.g., fisheries closures, provincial parks)?
•Do different networks on different coasts together make a national network?
•Does a national vision have to be implemented differently on Canada’s three coasts?
An area of debate surrounds the roles that various protected area designations, or other conservation tools,
have in a national system of MPAs. Would a national network include all the protected areas with marine
components and oceans conservation measures on all coasts? The resolution to this debate could have
significant implications if not “counting” certain areas, based on yet-to-be-determined criteria, would mean
not meeting the 2012 target.
Issues around the role of provincial/territory designations are demonstrated in BC, where the province has
almost 150 protected area sites with a marine component. This example is detailed in the following table.
12
2 Canada and the 2012 MPA Network Commitment
Table 3: Provincial Protected Area Designations in BC with a marine component19
Provincial Designations
Number of Sites
Marine Waters ( ha)
Ecological Reserve
20
52,505
Class A Park
91
64,541
Class B Park
0
0
Class C Park
0
0
Conservancies
28
38,280
Recreation Area
1
0.8
Environment and Land Use Act designations
2
57,517
Wildlife Management Area
6
19,692
148
232,535.8
Total
A question posed by critics is whether these provincial sites provide a reasonable level of marine ecosystem
protection, with most allowing activities such as dredging, bottom trawling and commercial harvest (Jessen
and Symington 1996). Many systems plans, internationally, include or require no-take MPAs as a key system
component. Furthermore, provincial MPAs do not, on their own, explicitly protect the water column or seabed
(although the seabed may be protected in “inland seas”).
Nevertheless, there is general overall support (including from the above commentators) that at least some
provincial protected areas are a legitimate part of the MPA tool kit, and should be evaluated for their
conservation values. Provincial protected areas have the advantage of a more straightforward design process
– their perimeters are relatively easily defined and gazetted.
Fisheries closures under the Fisheries Act are especially controversial. Some would count these as MPAs and
others would not, largely because of their time-limited regulations. They do not qualify as MPAs according to
the definition used in this report and similar designations are not considered as MPAs in the European Union.
Yet some feel that the ability to move MPA boundaries over time is worth considering because of the effects
of climate change and the fact that some migratory species requiring protection change their migration
patterns or uses of an area. Fishery Act closures do meet some of IUCN criteria for protected areas, and Coral
Conservation Areas are currently protected this way on the east coast. Nevertheless, because of the essentially
temporary nature of fisheries closures, they should generally be viewed as interim conservation measures
rather than true MPAs.
Whether terrestrial designations with coastal/marine components should be enumerated as MPAs is
another area of debate. There are National Parks with significant coastal components, and National Wildlife
Areas (NWAs) often include coastal areas – even out to 12 nautical miles from shore. Some believe that it is
misleading not to include NWAs in inventories of MPAs.
Other types or locations of designations that may or may not (eventually) qualify as MPAs include:
•Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories, which is comparable in size to the southern Great Lakes,
•areas for critical habitat of marine species under the Species at Risk Act,
•marine areas protected as a result of measures intended for other purposes, such as security around
military installations, or zones around pipelines.
19 Morrison, pers. comm. September 27, 2007
13
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Interviewee comments included:
“What’s the definition of MPAs – a place to park boats? These are among the questions for the federal bureaucracy
to work through.”
“The ultimate requirement for MPA status is that some agency has legislative responsibility on behalf of some
government to protect that area, enforce it and bring forward penalties if rules are broken.”
2.4 Clarifying the network target
The federal MPA Strategy (Parks Canada et al. 2005) defines an MPA network as follows:20
“a set of complementary and ecologically linked marine protected areas, consisting of a broad spectrum of marine
protected areas, established and managed within a sustainable ocean management planning framework and
linked to transboundary, global and terrestrial protected area networks”.
This is not specific enough to guide network design, and work has been underway for some years between the
headquarters of the three agencies on “Guidelines for the Establishment of a Federal Marine Protected Areas
Network” (under review in the regions at the time of writing) that may address some of the questions posed
above. In the meantime, DFO’s Oceans program provides some guidance through integrated management.
Other regional or sub-regional marine/ocean/coastal planning initiatives also provide frameworks for
combining tools to protect what needs to be protected.21 Some believe that “knowing what a network is” or
“identifying an MPA system” would be a sufficient accomplishment by 2012, rather than actually completing
the system with designated MPAs. Smith et al. (2006) offer some building blocks in “A Policy and Planning
Framework for Marine Protected Area Networks in Canada’s Oceans.”
Principles or guidelines for considering MPA designations in relation to one another and to other marine
conservation tools could include:
•Existing IUCN categories of protected areas could be used as a standard. These could help determine
what will be acceptable internationally in Canada’s reporting on progress towards its CBD commitments.
•A “real” MPA could be required to have restrictions on use that come with legislation and resources to
enforce the restrictions appropriately, including follow up with permitting etc.
•A large range of MPAs could be accepted and the best designation or combination of tools used to suit
the values being protected and the management objectives for the specific area.
•Provincial and federal designations can be layered in a marine site, and complementary designations can
be applied adjacent to each other – e.g., a province can protect land bordering MPAs to provide a buffer
against impacts of terrestrial origin.
•A focus on MPAs and the three federal types of MPAs could give way to a more encompassing perspective
of “marine managed areas” (under exploration within the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management
Initiative on the east coast) or “marine protection areas” (a term used in BC).
•MPAs should be viewed as just one approach to marine conservation – one of an array of means to
achieve a consistent set of objectives, all contributing to healthy oceans. Approaches to conservation
other than MPAs may particularly appeal on the grounds of efficiency and cost.
Scale is highly relevant to the pursuit of MPA network targets. Planning and implementation of MPA systems
is hierarchical, and higher level targets (e.g. global or national) have to be interpreted and tailored to
20 This was discussed and agreed upon without changes at the SAMPAA Marine Workshop (Roff and Dearden 2007)
21 See sections 5.9 and 6.4 for discussion of these programs/initiatives.
14
2 Canada and the 2012 MPA Network Commitment
circumstances at the lower scales (e.g. regional) (Agardy 2005). Part of the answer to “how much is enough?”
depends on the scale of concern, as well as on the criteria defining the network (e.g. representation of
biodiversity).
Systematic conservation planning is not easy but it is mainstream, well-supported by guidance and experience
in various countries and states, and feasible in Canada. With political commitment, definitional issues could
be solved. In the meantime, debates on a network definition should not substitute for moving forward “in
the water.” Rules of thumb can be employed to establish MPAs, which are themselves a “hedge” in the face of
uncertainty, while work on a network definition continues apace. That said, researchers studying terrestrial
protected area networks discovered drawbacks in an incremental approach to network plan implementation,
once design is complete. Meir et al. (2004) concluded that “relatively simple rules for deciding which areas to
protect outperform both ad hoc investment strategies and comprehensive conservation plans, especially …
when degradation rates and uncertainty are high.” These results could be taken as further strengthening the
imperative of completing both network design and implementation quickly – e.g., by 2012.
While the year 2012 is clear enough, expeditious implementation of an MPA network will also require target
dates or milestones to provide incentives subsidiary to that provided by such a major target. Smith et al. (2006)
state that “In each network planning process, a timetable and milestones will be needed to measure progress
and ensure that these processes collectively deliver on our commitments by 2012.” These critical tools have
been lacking in Canada, where commitment tends to be expressed as sweeping, large scale declarations
followed by tentative forays into possibilities, rather than through diligent implementation of publicly
declared actions and adherence to deadlines.
Interviewee comments included:
“The feds need to recognize that various designations have value and that they do not need to start from scratch.
They can support the provincial marine protected areas where values are warranted.”
“If you don’t set ‘here’s where we’re going to be’ you’re not going to get there. Do say ‘accomplish so much by a
certain date’ and find a way to get there.”
“A common shared vision of what do we want to achieve needs to be bought into by government, industry, by
the ocean community. Without this, we stagger along the path of least resistance. Trying to tip toe through this is
so typically Canadian.”
“We need to really think these things through and make sure the managers on the ground – from the Regional
Director to the manager to the region – decide where we want to be in a year, two years and so on.”
15
16
3
Federal MPA Designations
17
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Notwithstanding the lack of clarity on the definition of a national MPA network, and which designations
qualify, it is clear that designations under the jurisdiction of DFO, EC and PCA all have a central role to play.
These designations and the related establishment processes are described below.
3.1 Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Oceans Act MPAs
The 1996 Oceans Act came into force in 1997, making Canada the first country in the world to have
comprehensive oceans-management legislation. Under the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
is mandated to lead and co-ordinate the development and implementation of a national system of MPAs on
behalf of the Government of Canada within the context of integrated management.22
Oceans Act MPAs are intended to be a flexible conservation tool with a focus on the protection of significant
marine ecosystem features or functions. Specifically, they are established to conserve and protect:
•unique habitats,
•endangered or threatened marine species and their habitats,
•commercial and non-commercial fishery resources (including marine mammals) and their habitats,
•marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity, and
•any other marine resource or habitat requiring special protection.
In Oceans Act MPAs prohibitions are imposed only on those activities that are incompatible with conservation
objectives. These MPAs are designated by regulation through the Federal Regulatory Process.
Establishment process
The size and location of MPAs are directly related to specific conservation needs. Representivity is not a factor
and there is no target for a completed system of MPAs; however, DFO does facilitate a systematic approach
within regions, in the Large Ocean Management Area (LOMA) planning context.23
Oceans Act MPAs are established through a step-by-step process which begins with site identification and a
series of assessments. Eventually a regulation is developed to formally establish the area and to delineate any
zoning and lay out key protection measures. Throughout this process, there are opportunities for participation
by interested and affected stakeholders and Aboriginal peoples.
The six step process to establish Oceans Act MPAs is as follows (Yurick and Mageau 2006):
1. Identify and select Areas of Interest – Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas
2. Overviews and assessments – ecological, cultural social, economic
3. Development of conservation objectives and management approach
4. Broad public consultation on management approach
5. Development of regulations and designation MPA under the Oceans Act
6. Ongoing management, monitoring and enforcement
22 See section 5.4.2 for more discussion of DFO’s leadership role.
23 See section 0.
18
3 Federal MPA Designations
3.2 Environment Canada
Marine Wildlife Areas, National Wildlife Areas, and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries
Environment Canada has the authority to establish three types of marine protected area. The Department’s
focus is on the protection of marine migratory birds and species at risk, and areas can contain the combination
of terrestrial and marine habitats deemed necessary.
The focus and extent of the three designations are:
•National Wildlife Areas (NWA) are established under the Canada Wildlife Act for the purpose of wildlife
research, conservation or interpretation. NWAs can extend up to the 12-nautical mile limit of the territorial
sea.
•Marine Wildlife Areas (MWA) are established to protect marine areas for the purpose of wildlife research,
conservation or interpretation. Amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act in 1994 allow the establishment
of MWAs beyond the 12-nautical mile territorial sea out to the 200-nautical mile limit. The Canada Wildlife
Act places no restriction regarding terrestrial or marine portions.
•Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (MBS) protect migratory birds, their nests and eggs through the authority of the
Migratory Bird Convention Act.
In these areas restrictions are imposed on those activities that are prohibited and/or incompatible with
conservation objectives. Sites are designated by regulation through the Federal Regulatory Process.
Regulations for designated sites will be developed through public consultation.
Establishment Process
Environment Canada is aware of a number of important sites across the country that require protection for
migratory birds or species at risk. The department does not set a target or limit on the number or extent of
MPAs and instead continues to add areas as needed.
Environment Canada has a four-step establishment process:
1. Identification and Selection
2. Feasibility Assessment
3. Securement and Agreement
4. Regulatory Process (Yurick and Mageau 2006, p. 10)
3.3 Parks Canada
National Marine Conservation Areas
In 2002, the Government of Canada enacted the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act. While Parks
Canada had legislative authority to establish MPAs for many years, the NMCA Act provides an important
tool. This legislation enables the establishment of a system of national marine conservation areas (NMCAs),
and provides for the protection and conservation of areas that are representative of the 29 natural marine
regions of Canada in the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans and the Great Lakes. The Act ensures that Canada
contributes to the establishment of a global network of representative marine protected areas (McNamee
2006).
19
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
NMCAs include the seabed, the water above it and any species that occur there. They may include wetlands,
estuaries, islands and other coastal lands.
NMCAs have zones ranging from highly protected areas to cooperatively managed multiple-use areas where
activities such as commercial fishing and shipping would be appropriate. The NMCA Act states that NMCAs will
be managed and used in a “sustainable” manner and does not have the specific requirement for ecological
integrity that the National Parks Act has with respect to terrestrial parks. Waste disposal,24 mining, and oil and
gas exploration and exploitation are prohibited throughout NMCAs.
Establishment process
The long-term goal is to represent each of Canada’s 29 marine regions with at least one NMCA.
The 1994 National Marine Parks Policy states that there is no rigid process for establishing marine protected
areas. Each situation is unique and the steps leading up to their creation will reflect individual circumstances.
The normal sequence for establishing NMCAs, however, is characterized by the following five steps. With the
passage of the NMCA Act in 2002, step 5a was mandated.
1. Identify areas representative of a natural region or marine region
2. Select a national park or NMCA potential area
3. Assess potential park or NMCA feasibility, including consultations
4. Negotiate new park or NMCA agreement(s)
5a. Develop an interim management plan
5b. Formally designate the national park or NMCA (reserve) in legislation
24 Disposal can be permitted by permit if Parks Canada Agency and the Department of Environment are in agreement that it can.
20
4
The Slow Pace of the MPA
Establishment Process
21
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Getting an MPA network implemented depends on getting its component MPAs designated. In Australia two
years is considered a long period from identification of an MPA candidate site to establishment of the MPA
by law. In Canada a much longer average suggests that even a clear network design based on a shared vision
would not result in quick implementation. Those involved within federal government agencies give the most
optimistic estimates for individual MPA establishment at 4-5 years, and suggest that it is difficult to proceed
from idea to design in less than 6-7 years. Ten years would not be unexpected. The process to establish
the Gwaii Haanas NMCA was started in approximately 1988 and is said to be finally nearing completion. A
provincial bureaucrat expressed “bafflement” at how long designation of MPAs under federal programs takes.
Similarly to their views on the pace of network completion, federal government officials generally feel they
are moving as fast as possible on MPA designation, given the complexities of the process and the resources
available. The vast majority, nevertheless, see the lengthy time frame of MPA designation as a serious problem.
Other sections of the report investigate delays due to challenges that cut across various stages of the
designation process (e.g., leadership, resourcing and coordination). Here, challenges posed by the
complexities of the designation process itself are explored. The basic components are: information gathering
and assessment, the consultation process, and the regulatory and the parliamentary approval process.25
Opportunities for learning from experience and for fast-tracking the designation process are also described.
4.1 Information gathering and assessment
Data gathering, mapping and other research to build a scientific rationale and set boundaries on areas
of interest (AOI) takes 1-2 years or more. Identification of the AOI leads to the allocation of funding for
the lengthy process of socio-economic assessment, working with industry and agencies such as Natural
Resources Canada. It can take another 1-2 years for the various agencies to sign off on their reviews of the
assessments. In this section, issues associated with information gathering and assessment that hinder progress
in the establishment of an MPA network are explored. Note that scientists and academics have much to
contribute to information gathering and assessment, and their role is examined in section 7.6.
4.1.1 Adequacy of data
The Canadian Protected Area Status Report (Government of Canada 2006) stated that “limited inventory of
marine ecosystems” and “the sheer fluidity of our oceans” are constraints on MPA network advancement.
Issues related to the knowledge base are dominant in the marine environment where a lower level of analysis
is possible than in the terrestrial environment because it is more difficult to do research under water, survey
work costs much more, safety in research activities is more complex, and sites can be more remote and more
difficult to access. In many areas data is insufficient and/or outdated. Making matters worse, the utility of
existing data is not maximized, as it is not always shared (e.g. between federal agencies and provinces) or
stored in accessible repositories, and sources or formats of data can be inconsistent.
A core challenge is thus the determination of what research is deemed “necessary” and by whom, and at
what point in the process the “necessary research” must be done. Government MPA officals, especially in
DFO, emphasize the importance of designing networks and establishing MPAs based on sound science and
traditional/indigenous/local ecological knowledge. Yet, while it “always can help to have a stronger body
of information,” the pursuit of solid understanding delays designation. This is especially counterproductive
from the perspective that MPAs themselves are a precautionary measure to ensure protection of the marine
environment in the face of uncertainty.26 Some feel that scientists ought to be willing to take risks in favour
25 Steps in the designation process for each of the three agencies are included in section 3.
26 Canadian federal departments are required to take a precautionary approach, and this approach is mandated in NMCA and Oceans Acts.
22
4 The Slow Pace of the MPA Establishment Process
of moving the process along, such as interpolating whether a value is present or not based on surrogate
information. Furthermore, other influences on MPA establishment such as community and stakeholder input
are also legitimate, even if they result in less scientifically defensible MPA design in some instances (Jones
2001).
MPA-related research is underway in many places, e.g. through the identification of environmentally and
biologically significant areas (EBSAs) in Ecological Overview Reports – a process led by DFO within LOMAs.
Different agencies bring different experience, such as Parks Canada’s knowledge of system planning and
Environment Canada’s data on prioritized bird habitat. While agencies are building expertise, they continue to
draw on the academic community, such as the Ocean Management Research Network (see section 7.6). ENGOs
also contribute much in the way of data, information and analytical frameworks, such as the application of
MARXAN on the Pacific coast (see section 7.5.3).
Interviewee comments included:
“We need to close the gap between science and decision-making.”
“It takes a long time to get from information gathering to management.”
“A lot of data sits in DFO and does not see the light of day.”
4.1.2 Understanding ecological/conservation benefits
Two suites of interrelated benefits may be expected from MPAs: the conservation or ecological benefits
for which they are usually established; and social and economic benefits which they may contribute to
stakeholders and local communities. This section addresses the former, which includes protection of physical
habitat, recovery and protection of species and populations, rebuilding ecosystem resilience, safeguarding
against management uncertainty and benchmarking sustainability (Smith et al. 2006). Another possible
conservation aim that is not a federal agency priority is the reduction of risk to an area from a specific
industrial development or use, such as vessel traffic. Day and Roff (2000) summarize how MPAs can benefit
endangered, threatened or rare species. This is a role that government officials at the 2007 SAMPAA workshop
emphasized as an underappreciated “national level accomplishment” that should increase federal support for
MPAs.
While the literature is clear that MPAs are a key tool for achieving marine biodiversity conservation (Jones
2007), some players in Canada still doubt whether MPAs deliver the intended benefits. For example, an
interviewee questioned the extent to which MPAs in the north can address key environmental issues
surrounding climate change and migratory species. Opposition, or weak support, is often based on the
erroneous assumption that there is no scientific proof that reserves work or that “MPAs may be effective
elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean they will work here” (Day and Roff 2000 p.18). Skeptics in some provincial
and federal agencies continue to express uncertainty around the merits of MPAs, despite the weight of
evidence for their benefits and the fact that other countries have concluded that MPAs are essential and are
moving forward on that basis.
ENGOs are less equivocal. They emphasize the point that a strong science case has been building for the MPA
as conservation tool – and has moved into the public realm with the collapse of fisheries, which is increasingly
recognized as an environmental, not just an economic, disaster.
The effectiveness of Canadian MPAs in achieving their objectives should be analyzed. However, there can be
a time lag between the establishment of an MPA and the realization of its beneficial effects, so conclusions
regarding effectiveness should not be drawn hastily.
23
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Interviewee comments included:
“I don’t think there is a compelling case that can stand the test of scrutiny to get people to want to spend time and
energy (particularly senior bureaucrats, or politicians). Someone has to bring in the best science to put a picture
out of what the academic, environmental community with partners are saying is required to start to maintain and
recover marine biodiversity.”
“We should be way beyond questioning the value of doing MPAs now even within government.”
4.1.3 Understanding socio-economic benefits
Globally, the evidence is compelling that MPAs are an indispensable tool for protecting and restoring an
important public resource, with many socio-economic benefits including the provision of ecological services
that support human life, cultural benefits, fisheries enhancement, employment and income opportunities,
recreation and education.
Many argue that “proving” economic benefits should not be necessary, and MPAs should be appreciated for
their ecological merits alone. For example Jones (2007) states that no-take marine protected areas “may not
be a fisheries panacea but nor are they a red herring, as they reflect the extension of scientific and ethical
concerns for the wider health of marine ecosystems, including their component populations and habitats, the
processes that sustain them and the functions they provide.” Yet the alternative opinion is also widely held
– that a convincing economic or “business case” should be made for MPAs as well as an ecological case, in the
way that economic benefits of national parks have been emphasized. If persuasive studies were undertaken
showing positive impacts of MPA designation on local communities, other communities would be more
receptive to MPA proposals in their areas.
Benefits to fishing are hotly debated and often connected to MPA design and siting. Some observers are
optimistic – “if you select the right areas you will get benefits,” but others expect the opposite scenario – siting
can be wrong such that fisheries do not benefit, and support can be lost. Another concern is that closing areas
can cut off the supply of data for managing fisheries. Regardless of these arguments, the scientific literature
is increasingly definitive regarding the effectiveness of MPAs in enhancing marine ecosystems, protecting
species and habitats, and increasing the density, biomass, individual size, and diversity of organisms protected
in MPAs, including many species valued for fisheries. These benefits are most clearly realized in marine
reserves i.e MPAs where no fishing is allowed. (e.g., Norse and Crowder 2005, Halpern 2003, Gell and Roberts
2003, Hoffman 2003, Palumbi 2002).
In the face of perceived uncertainties around fisheries benefits, one argument for MPAs is based on precaution
– an “insurance policy” or a capital investment, but this rationale does not always work for the fishing industry.
Again, the question of whether benefits should have to be proven arises. Jones (2007) notes that “terrestrial
conservationists do not have to convince hunters that protected areas will produce a surplus of wildlife that
spills over and supports surrounding hunting communities.”
Socio-economic benefits of MPAs other than fishing, especially recreation and tourism, are often under-played.
In communities suited to ecotourism, MPAs may seem more relevant, and the tourism industry is a potential
ally. A quandary may arise as to whether recreation and tourism benefits can be recognized if commercial
fishing continues in multiple-use MPAs at pre-designation levels.
Interviewee comments included:
“The best thing I could come up with as to why MPAs should be established is because it’s the right thing to do
– we have to protect the marine environment.”
“If you allow fishing to continue what does that mean? If it’s the same as what was before then what difference
does the MPA make – what’s in it for people?”
24
4 The Slow Pace of the MPA Establishment Process
“It shouldn’t be necessary to prove MPA effectiveness with certainty – this is a higher standard than that used for
terrestrial parks.”
4.1.4 Mineral and energy resource assessments
The Minerals and Metals Policy of the Government of Canada requires that full consideration be given to
mineral potential in the area of proposed MPAs.27 DFO has worked with Natural Resources Canada to interpret
and apply this policy for Oceans Act MPAs.
For NMCAs, which require clear title to the seabed, policy requires a Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment
(MERA) by Natural Resources Canada, so that Cabinet can be informed of the resource opportunity trade-offs
in MPA designation. Other players involved are industry, the provinces and territories, and, in the North, Indian
and Northern Affairs Canada. Departments that have to sign off on resource assessments may not place a high
priority on completing these referrals. The process takes 2-3 years, can cost millions, and can stop an NMCA
project or change proposed boundaries.
Environment Canada also has to work with stakeholders and provinces interested in access to oil and gas
resources.
On all three coasts, pressure for oil and gas development is strong and prolongs the MPA designation process.
WWF-Canada (2003) went so far as to say that oil and gas exploration and development on Canada’s east coast
and in the Beaufort Sea, and proposed exploration on Canada’s west coast, threatens to foreclose options to
establish a network of marine protected areas.
On the Pacific coast, industry made the point during a federal review of the oil and gas moratorium that
investment in exploration and development is predicated on knowledge of which areas will be off limits.
Interviewee comments included:
“Parks Canada has to contend with a major exercise in each place where the seabed is under federal jurisdiction
– mineral and energy assessment can be very time-consuming.”
“Extractive-focussed provincial agencies do not want access impeded even if the reality is that it will be centuries
before they can extract anything.”
4.1.5 Evaluating socio-economic and ecological values
Quantifying the values of MPAs, considering socio-economic impacts, weighing economic tradeoffs, and/or
realizing sustainable development priorities are time-consuming processes in the establishment process. The
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (2005) found that the evaluation process
in the steps towards MPA designation takes five to seven years. The Canadian Protected Area Status Report
(Government of Canada 2006) stated that competing interests in oceans use are the most severe constraint on
MPA networks. The degree of potential impact on access to fisheries and energy resources is a key determinant
of how much time and effort will be required to achieve MPA establishment.
Provincial and territorial interests were often portrayed as being most pro-development, including by
provincial government interviewees on the east and west coasts. At the same time, growing interest in the
ecological and sustainable development benefits of MPAs has been observed by some interviewees in coastal
regions. Even where fisheries interests are still front and centre, there is increasing attention to other ocean
uses and values.28
Integrated management in Large Ocean Management Areas provides a context for balancing costs and
27 http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/policy/mmp-e.pdf p. 15-16
28 See section 6 for more discussion of the provincial/territory role.
25
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
benefits of various management activities.29 More specifically, DFO is developing a framework for weighing
socio-economic values against ecological values. The Department has commissioned a report by Gardner and
Pinfold called “Developing an Economic Benefit-Cost Valuation Framework and Identification of Best Practices
for Implementing Designated Marine Protected Areas” (Landry et al. 2007).
While the need for tools such as the above for studying and discussing trade-offs is recognized, some believe
that federal agencies should simply be more assertive in pushing MPAs based on their ecological benefits. The
establishment of MPAs should affect change if the protected areas are to make a difference, and the changes
usually will include restrictions on human use of resources.
Interviewee comments included:
“From DFO’s perspective, we have a large group of clients in the fishing sector, so we have to do things in
consultation and factor in socio-economic considerations.”
“In the inshore area what is important are implications of restrictions applied to the MPA and how that affects
socio-economic activities there. In offshore MPAs, from [this province’s] perspective, unless major fish habitat is in
the area, there are not many impediments to MPAs.”
“People are starting to see an MPA as a mechanism for protecting a valued resource – not always fisheries – it’s
about sustainable development.”
4.1.6 Preparation through information gathering
A key lesson that several agency employees take from their experience of slowly moving MPA proposals
through the evaluation process is that pre-designation studies are important to meet legislative requirements,
and that “having your homework done” can avoid delays at later stages of the regulatory and parliamentary
approvals processes. The bureaucracy has to be prepared with information for briefings, and “to give fearless
advice.” Interviewees emphasized readiness, even at the regional level, with baseline information collected
and analysis done as quickly as possible, so that when an agreement is eventually signed, or senior approval is
given, the next stages of the process can move forward promptly.
Interviewee comments included:
“Department of Justice will tell you the regulations will take 18 months, so you need everything in the bag before
you go talk to them.”
“At the political level it either happens or not because the important thinking, science and collaboration has been
done by the bureaucracy – for a willing receptor.”
29 See section 5.9.1.
26
4 The Slow Pace of the MPA Establishment Process
4.2 The consultation process
The time and resources that agencies require to consult the public, communities and stakeholders effectively
is probably the most frequently-identified cause of slow progress on MPA designation. (First Nations, provinces
and territories, and other federal and provincial/territory agencies also have to be involved in MPA projects
– their role is discussed in subsequent sections of this report.)
4.2.1 Lengthy public process
According to Guénette and Alder (2007), one reason it has taken a long time to achieve MPA initiatives in
Canada is that “consultation and consensus-building take more time than expected and create large demands
for information and preparation of activities.” Offshore MPAs can be more straightforward than coastal ones
due to a smaller number of stakeholders being involved – the coast tends to be an area of higher human
interaction with the marine environment.
Consultation does take time, especially when practitioners are aiming for an approach that they variously
describe as: meaningful, comprehensive, complete, respectful, responsive, accountable, accessible,
collaborative, open, transparent, fair and equitable, informed, inclusive; having integrity, true collaboration
and stakeholder input; and that reaches agreement. For participants to accept the results of a process, they
need to have been working with shared information in a process that builds trust and a common vision, or at
least agreed-upon broad-based goals and objectives.
The fewer resources dedicated to the process, the longer it can take – despite the hard work of employees like
one who hosted 73 public meetings in a year. Other factors that affect the length of the consultation process
include the experience of the agency and personnel involved, the complexity of the situation and the initial
level of support. When there is much at stake (especially fisheries) and the number of stakeholders is high,
challenges in gaining support and participation increase, and the process demands more time and resources
(Guénette and Alder 2007). The corollary to this is that, as investments in the process diminish, the risk of loss
of interest and support increases. Leading Tickles on the east coast is an example of an area of interest that is
likely to be abandoned due to loss of interest over time, as DFO was unable to sustain attention and effort in
the area due to competing demands on departmental resources.
Interviewee comments included:
“I liken this to wanting the apple – you must first sow the seeds, wait for the tree to grow, flower, be pollinated and
bear fruit. If you pluck that apple before it ripens, it will have a bitter taste. I am thinking the gestation period for
an NMCA to be about the same – in process and in time.”
“This is taking a lot of time and energy but it insures that projects are strong and well accepted.”
“If you can’t demonstrate that you have local support then you aren’t going ahead – parliament won’t support
you.”
4.2.2 Requiring a realistic level of support
Dearden (2002) decries the tendency of agencies to appease local stakeholders at the sacrifice of the interests
of a broader range of stakeholders and the agencies’ broader social responsibilities. A former DFO employee
similarly asserted in correspondence that “the Department wouldn’t go ahead with an MPA designation until
all of the stakeholders were fully supportive, which in many areas, simply isn’t realistic.” This person’s opinion
was that instead of showing leadership to ensure a healthy marine environment for the future, DFO gives
power to stakeholders to drive and sometimes halt the process.
27
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Despite the strong support for thorough and meaningful involvement processes described above, many
practitioners are aware that the standard of full consensus or virtually unanimous support for an MPA proposal
is too high – it is a target that is not realistic or achievable. Even the most collaborative approaches should not
be expected to achieve full agreement.
Yet determining the acceptable level of consultation can be difficult. One suggestion is that a template be
provided to guide agencies as to what they need to demonstrate. For example, agencies should be satisfied if:
•they have carried out a meaningful process (reflecting the qualities described in the previous section);
•they have adhered to clear terms of reference set out early in the process;
•people feel they have been heard – even if some disagreement remains;
•an increase in support through the process is evident;
•the majority of people are at least willing to try going forward with the MPA;
•the level of support is reasonable relative to the diversity of opinion in the array of parties/interests
consulted.
In the end the new management regime implemented in an MPA will likely mean some stakeholders have
to sacrifice something, and they may continue to express opposition. Political leadership is required to move
forward under these circumstances. In the long term, everyone stands to gain from an effective network of
MPAs. (Later sections explore issues of leadership and politics.)
Interviewee comments included:
“There is a lingering perception that you have to give everyone what they want, reconcile every single bit of
opposition, because ‘we do things differently in the water.’ This is a weird mindset – e.g. thinking we need to get
fishing industry support.”
“There are expectations that you please all the stakeholders – you can have everyone in the room and you won’t
have consensus on everything but that doesn’t mean you don’t go ahead.”
4.2.3 Improving the consultation process
Regardless of perspectives on how long and ambitious the MPA consultation process should be, the
importance of consultation is rarely questioned. Effective consultation can build support, establish longlasting relationships, contribute valuable information, increase understanding and appreciation, increase the
legitimacy of the MPA planning process, and enhance compliance with MPA regulations post-designation.
Furthermore, it is an ethical imperative because the days of forcible expropriation characteristic of early
terrestrial park creation are past.
Recognizing the importance of effective consultation, DFO commissioned a report on Best Practices Related
to Public Engagement and Consultation in the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas in Canada (Hedley and
Willison 2007). The report explains that there is no “one-size fits all” approach to public engagement in the
establishment of a marine protected area, but that agencies should undertake certain practices. An example is
providing multiple, accessible engagement mechanisms. At the same time, practitioners within government
are building experience with tools such as advisory committees and sharing their knowledge with colleagues.
Some qualities of effective consultation recognized by government officials were listed above – i.e. that it
should be meaningful, comprehensive, complete, respectful, collaborative, open, accessible, responsive,
accountable, fair and equitable, informed and inclusive. A good process will also show participants that
they were listened to and that decisions reflect their input. Some of the negative impacts of delays in the
designation process (e.g. loss of support) could be partially alleviated through explanations and greater
transparency in the process.
28
4 The Slow Pace of the MPA Establishment Process
Suggested mechanisms for speeding up the process identified in the interviews include:
•Provide sufficient funding to support the process.
•Have realistic expectations for the level of support required, as described above – know what constitutes
success.
•Study culture change and understand what motivates change – look at social engineering.
•Start early, e.g. have discussions with key players even before bringing forward the proposal.
•Have a clear consultation plan with targets and milestones.
•Use high quality communications tools and processes, and have a strategy to get the message out.
•Be well prepared, with scientific research, stakeholder analysis, knowledge of key people and their views,
information on benefits of the proposal, how to mitigate losses, etc.
•Ensure key opinion leaders are closely engaged – “get the movers and shakers around the table.”
•Combine interests so that participants learn first hand of the different priorities and become less set in
their own agendas as they see the need for compromise.
•Multi-track consultation of different interests (e.g., simultaneous or interspersed rather than sequential
consultations with stakeholders, communities and government agencies).
•Accept that the resolution of some stakeholder issues can continue after MPA designation, rather than
expecting all issues to be fully resolved prior to designation.
•Invest more human resources such as communications and public engagement specialists.
PCA in particular has been reflecting on ways of speeding up the consultation process, possibly by aiming for
a less ambitious level of engagement. At the more detailed level techniques such as having fewer but more
informed open houses are being considered.
Interviewee comments included:
“Try a pre-feasibility stage in which you look at things to see what could cause problems; see who you have to talk
to early.”
“Present the audience at hand with something specifically of interest to them – the approach may be different for
each meeting based on who is there, their interests and biases.”
“It would be helpful to have someone in government say ‘here’s why it’s delayed and here’s what we’re doing’, but
instead it’s just ‘we’re doing the best we can’ – you see what’s going on through a fog.”
“Without the support you’ll end up with a paper park. You end up spending years fixing the problems you created
by bulldozing through local people, e.g., changing boundaries – putting things at risk.”
29
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
4.3 The regulatory process
Interviewees in PCA and EC did not highlight the hurdle of producing regulations as much as officials from
DFO did. EC has a set of regulations that are applied to National Wildlife Areas, whereas in the case of Marine
Wildlife Areas regulations will be site-specific so as to optimize the management of impacts.
DFO’s regulatory process
The regulatory process is a significant challenge on the path to designating an MPA, particularly for DFO. The
process is essential, but highly legalistic and largely outside the control of the department. It starts with a
Regulatory Impact and Assessment Statement (RIAS), as soon as the proposed management regime, decisions
on uses allowed and consultations are complete. The aim of the RIAS is to minimize the regulatory burden on
Canadians by avoiding duplication of permits required, and minimizing enforcement costs, fisheries closures,
etc. A challenge identified in connection with the RIAS can predispose assessment results against MPA
establishment, in that dollar figures for the cost of a regulation are easily generated relative to measuring the
benefits of protected biodiversity.
The Department has to perform “a balancing act to jump through the right legal hoops” in creating detailed,
defensible regulations, working with various agencies. Each agency takes time for their review of draft
regulations. Further time is involved in the production of English and French versions and communications
with a drafter from Department of Justice. DFO sends the regulations that have been through the agency
review process and Justice Department drafters to Treasury Board. Questions posed by Treasury Board
analysts must be answered (in one case the analyst had over 100 questions). Then the regulations are put on
Canada Gazette Part I for pre-publication. There is a 60 day period for public comment between Gazette I and
II. Eighteen months is the deadline to reach the second gazetting step, and work has to be re-done if this is
missed. If no comments are received the regulations are submitted for the Minister’s signature; if comments
are received that require changes to the regulations, the process goes back to the Justice Department review
stage.
A government document titled “Timeframes for the federal regulatory process” states that the time required
averages from 8 to 16 months; experience indicates it takes up to two years or more. The length of the process
partially depends on the context and complexity of the MPA. Unexpected issues can arise, such the discovery
that MPAs can only extend up to the low water mark, which posed a major constraint in the designation of the
Musquash MPA.
Increasing the pace of the regulatory process
Several approaches to streamlining the regulatory process were mentioned by government employees,30
including the following (note that there were caveats around the amount of difference some of these
measures could make):
•be well prepared through stakeholder and policy work;
•pay Justice Canada lawyers with DFO budget;
•build on experience from the pilot projects;
•use the same template for regulations for MPAs with similar circumstances;
•use the same drafter in the Justice Department “so we don’t have to re-educate each one”;
•provide drafting instructions to help drafters write regulations;
30 An internal workshop was held on this topic but the results of the workshop are not included here.
30
4 The Slow Pace of the MPA Establishment Process
•notify agencies in advance;
•following triage guidelines.
On the latter point, there is a “Framework for the Triage of Regulatory Submissions” designed by Treasury
Board (July 2006) to provide early assessment of the potential impacts of proposed regulations (both positive
and negative).31 With guidance from a DFO document that provides questions to work through,32 the triage
process can help engage the central agencies involved in the regulatory process at an early stage.
Parliamentary approval
For NMCAs regulations are required for management following designation. However, when PCA establishes
an NMCA it has to go to committees of both houses of Parliament to be placed under designation because
new NMCAs must be added to the schedule of the Act (meaning a change in legislation). The submission must
include interim management guidelines and a report on the consultation process. Committees of the House of
Commons and/or Senate schedule reviews, and witnesses are called forward at the committees’ direction.
A key reason given by interviewees for undertaking all steps in preparing for MPA designation with great care
– from information gathering through consultation to regulation drafting – is that good preparation increases
the chance of smooth sailing through the parliamentary approval process. This is a potentially problematic
step, largely because some interests look at the MPA more critically at the parliamentary approval stage,
and opposition from stakeholders can in turn be taken seriously by elected officials. Other than thorough
preparation, there are few options for speeding up the parliamentary approval process. Other sections of this
report discuss themes of building support for MPAs that could lead to stronger buy-in from parliamentarians.
Interviewee comments included:
“The more done ahead of time with stakeholders and policy thinking the better the chance of not hitting snags to
slow the regulatory process down.”
“After the management plan arrives in Ottawa the promulgation time starts to tick. Justice Canada is looking at
it Canada-wide, asking ‘How does it compare to the past?’ and ‘Are we trying to have provisions that aren’t legally
enforceable?’”
“We have no a priori ideas for what goes into regulations and management planning for a Marine Wildlife Area.”
“There’s consultation during Gazette 1 and 2 and a lot of MPAs get into trouble then because it’s the first time
people see the actual draft.”
4.4 Learning from experience
Progress on an MPA network in Canada may speed up as experience builds. Many involved in the MPA field
expect that having some MPAs successfully designated will provide models and build momentum.
4.4.1 Building on experience
Some legislation and programs are new – DFO started with no experience of protected areas per se, and EC
and PCA experience was dominantly terrestrial. Policies, action plans and frameworks all had to be developed,
and the additional challenges of working in the marine environment had to be faced. Experience varies
regionally as well as across agencies, with the least in the north.
31 http;// www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/0708/guide/guide05_e.asp
32 http:// www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/ra-ar/docs/aboutregs/process/imgtriage_e.pdf
31
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
DFO intentionally sought experience from MPA pilot projects, and it is to be expected that some of
these would fail. Learning by doing – adaptive management – is a widely accepted approach to building
effectiveness and capacity. Breaking new ground can be slow-going but worth the hard work. At the same
time, learning needs to be purposeful and lessons need to be embedded in guidelines and policies so that the
collective memory is utilized and built. DFO is still solidifying lessons learned from the pilots.
The pace of MPA designation is picking up somewhat and there is hope that creation of MPAs may “snowball.”
Employees commented that “the bugs have been worked out,” “the wheels are greased” and “cruising speed
has been attained.” Themes on which understanding has increased include:
•federal agencies have a better understanding of provincial jurisdictional issues;
•we now know what an MPA is;
•we’ve learned how to make an Oceans Act MPA;
•we are more familiar with what is required in terms of science, players, process, the regulatory framework,
and information needs (mineral assessment, surveyor needs, etc.);
•regulatory agencies understand better what is involved in MPAs and agencies understand more about
regulatory processes.
Growing pains are not over yet. Less optimistic views were that “we are still wrestling with basic concepts” and,
with new players and locations, the lessons will not all be transferable. It was argued that the off-shore pilots
were relatively easy targets and “it will become more difficult as we get closer to the coast with more interests
and stakeholders.” Furthermore, roadblocks will never be entirely predictable and a careful approach is still
necessary.
Interviewee comments included:
“National Parks are straightforward compared to protected areas in the marine environment because of the
smaller number of stakeholder and legal issues.”
“During the first years, the objective was to ‘test the legislation,’ by means of pilot projects. DFO was going in many
directions at the same time. This is quite understandable, as it was a new program, a new legislation and DFO had
little experience in conservation.”
“We are better equipped now because we know what can or can’t be written in a regulation for Oceans Act MPAs
– the pilot projects have taught us this.”
4.4.2 The power of models – and negative experience
Successful models are needed, generally to build support, and more specifically, to:
•de-mystify MPAs;
•anchor a network;
•show the public what MPAs are like and what they can do – rather than just “informing” people;
•demonstrate socio-economic as well as ecological benefits;
•show higher level decision-makers that MPAs are success stories;
•build momentum by celebrating progress;
•show coastal communities and other users of the marine environment what an operating MPA is like;
•demonstrate the different roles of various MPA designations and how they can work together.
Yet the notion of what constitutes a model is not straightforward: If a situation is unique – e.g. the transfer of
32
4 The Slow Pace of the MPA Establishment Process
provincial authority at Musquash, or the dual legislation at Saguenay – then should the approach taken be
emulated? Are areas with few prohibitions (e.g. the marine component of Pacific Rim) worth replicating? Can
MPAs in other countries be used as models for Canada or is the setting too different (e.g. in warm, shallow
tropical reefs)? Models do need to be selected carefully and the transferability of their characteristics should
be kept in mind, but the power of experience to advance awareness and understanding of MPAs is undeniable.
The opposite of a successful model is a bad experience. Stakeholders and communities can get a bad
impression of what MPAs mean for them, and withhold support for future proposals. Some communities still
harbour resentment from past experience of loss of access, or appropriation, upon the creation of terrestrial
parks. Bonavista, an NMCA proposal in Newfoundland, is the negative MPA example most often held up as
something to avoid.33 It is possible, however, that negative experience weighs more heavily on government
players than is warranted – one interviewee observed that Bonavista had become “the Alamo” and that it was
time to “get over it.”
Interviewee comments included:
“Get existing ones done before planning 18 more – get the low hanging fruit where we could demonstrate the
tools and how they fit together.”
“I remain convinced that if we can get only a few major commitments finished we will succeed in sparking public
enthusiasm and then be on our way toward that elusive dream of MPA networks.”
“For years it was ‘you know what happened at Bonavista’ – it had repercussions – created a pall over Lake Superior
and the legislation.”
“In small communities rumours fly so if one has a bad experience news travels.”
4.5 Options for fast-tracking
Risks and benefits of increasing the pace
There is an underlying sense shared by many government officials that the designation process “takes as long
as it takes.” The consultation process in particular, they feel, cannot be rushed or shortened without great risk,
so deadlines are either not set or not adhered to. Guénette and Alder (2007) also suggest it is unlikely that the
consultation phase will ever be shortened. One interviewee stated that “fast-tracking the Scott Islands process
led it to blow up,” and others suggested that “a damn the torpedoes approach” contributed to the failure
of Bonavista. On the positive side, it was reported that taking time at Lake Superior helped turn negative
opinions around into support for the NMCA.
Nevertheless, the costs of a slow pace, overall, outweigh the benefits. The probability of the following issues
all increase over time: loss of momentum, dropping off of interest, changes of personnel and participants
leading to discontinuity in trust and relationships, breakdown of agreement/consensus, frustration, loss of
commitment, fatigue, missed opportunities, increasing costs, discouragement among supporters, fear caused
by uncertainty, increase in opposition and spread of misinformation. Most importantly, under-utilization
of this essential conservation tool means that the integrity of the marine environment continues to be
compromised by myriad threats.
33 It can be argued that there is a “silver lining” to the Bonavista experience in that it helped cultivate a conservation ethic that later supported fisheriesbased MPAs related to the lobster fishery.
33
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Fast tracking by altering the designation process
Stepping back from a focus on the consultation process, there are other options for altering the sequence
of steps in the designation process in ways that might speed it up (some of which could require legislative
change):
•Undertake interim planning earlier relative to the feasibility study so that as the plan evolves people can
get a picture of what the NMCA looks like.
•Follow the Australian example, where they proceed through the regulatory process to establish the
MPA first and negotiate with stakeholders on the management regime after designation; i.e., achieve
protection before threats and ecological damage increase; then further develop management
prescriptions collaboratively.
•Be less perfectionist in the package taken forward into the regulatory process.
•Aim for only general agreement on the zones and the fully protected areas at the point of designation for
NMCAs, identifying points for more work post-designation.
•For DFO MPAs implement the essential management measures quickly and create the management plan
later.
•Create a “not so perfect” MPA and wait for public awareness to build.
An advantage of the fast-tracking approach is that stakeholders and communities are likely to take more
of a “make it work” attitude once the MPA is designated. At least they have a clearer picture of what the
management challenge looks like, with a definite area to focus on. The idea is to get a foundation of
conservation started based on a reasonable level of local support and strive for greater acceptance in the
longer term.
Increasing protection over time, and interim protection
Protection can increase over time from the initial level at designation. With this expectation, a less ambitious
MPA in terms of size or level of protection can provide a reasonable starting point. Conservation provisions or
boundaries can be expanded, and complementary mechanisms can protect surrounding or adjacent areas.
However this option should not be taken lightly: it is often no easier or quicker to expand an MPA than to
achieve the initial designation, which most involved will have assumed is a long-term decision. At the least,
the initial designation must be seen to have real value in maintaining biodiversity and healthy ecosystems.
Interim protection is an option that serves conservation ends prior to designation even if it does not hasten
designation. While some have argued that interim protection for Areas of Interest should be legislated under
the Oceans Act, there are existing legal tools for conservation that can be applied prior to designation (Easter
2001). Rules and restrictions were implemented in cases such as Gilbert Bay and Musquash prior to full
protection. Interim protection is especially important in Canada given the lapse of time between candidate
area identification and final protection.
The importance of effective project management
There are also ways to speed up the designation process for individual MPAs at the micro-process level
through effective project management.34 Project management expertise should be applied to develop and
implement a well-thought out project plan. Timelines and milestones need to be set strategically and then
tasks undertaken in a timely way. Publicized deadlines should be diligently pursued, predicated on the public
commitment to move ahead. Multiple ends should be pursued on parallel tracks – e.g. negotiating with
government agencies while reaching out to communities and meeting with stakeholders. The different players
34 Note that additional influences on pace of establishment such as budget, politics, bureaucracy, public support, First Nations rights and inter-agency
relations are discussed in later sections.
34
4 The Slow Pace of the MPA Establishment Process
whose support is required need to be “tended” rather than ignored for months on end while other objectives
are the focus of activity. Careful tracking allows issues to be dealt with as they arise so that possible obstacles
do not become overly influential.
Interviewee comments included:
“Parks Canada has a mandate for conservation and our legislation has potential in its flexibility to get things going
and build trust over time – e.g. as mining was taken out of terrestrial parks.”
“The Musquash Estuary MPA took 6-7 years, but in reality, for those years it has been protected by departments
recognizing it as a special area anyway.”
“There are opportunities to be more efficient at all phases, including the regulatory phase in headquarters, but the
gains you make are small.”
“Have your target end date and figure out what has to happen between now and then – and things can happen at
the same time in a variety of places – that is nerve-racking for linear thinkers.”
35
36
5
The Role of the Federal
Government
37
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
To increase progress towards the goal of an MPA network by 2012, Canada’s government has to show strong
leadership at the highest levels, and at senior levels in PCA, EC and DFO. The lack of such commitment is
demonstrated by a shortage of MPA champions and insufficient allocation of resources, and expressed in
weaknesses in organizational structure and vague MPA mandates. Bureaucratic issues such as problematic
region-headquarters dynamics are another hindrance to progress on an MPA network. These themes are
explored in this section as cross-cutting challenges, and on an agency-by-agency basis.
Inter-agency and inter-jurisdictional challenges, analyzed in section 5.7, seriously compromise progress. In
section 5.9, sources of direction for a national MPA network are described and assessed, with key tools such as
integrated oceans management proving to have both advantages and disadvantages in moving the network
forward.
5.1 Lack of federal government leadership
Strong leadership is required at senior levels in the agencies responsible for MPAs to commit to MPA targets
and provide the necessary support to managers and staff. Senior level positions in turn need support from
Cabinet. The bureaucracy has limited ability and incentive to push the MPA agenda without sustained
political pressure. Thus, lack of political will, in the form of strong commitment to MPAs at the highest levels of
decision-making, is regarded by most interviewees as a serious obstacle to progress.
Indicators of lack of political will are:
•lack of budget allocation for MPAs in the three agencies;
•lack of any Director-level MPA position;
•lack of programs and policies to implement new legislation;
•a ten-year lag in finalizing the federal-provincial MPA strategy on the west coast, since the strategy was
publicly released in 1998;
•lack of specific statements in throne speeches, budgets, etc. that the government is systematically
working towards the 2012 target.
Views are mixed on budgets as an indicator of commitment. A common opinion is that the level of funding for
MPAs is not adequate. At the same time, the budget associated with the first phase of the Oceans Action Plan,
and funding for MPAs in the last federal budget – though still considered inadequate by most MPA proponents
– are signs that MPAs are “on the Government’s radar screen,” and an opportunity for progress. The current
Government was likely motivated to target funding for specific MPAs because it was looking for “concrete
announce-ables” to provide evidence of its “green” priority.35
Explanations for lack of support at the federal level include:
•competing priorities within agencies;
•assumption that MPAs do not attract votes;
•Members of Parliament (MPs) from ridings away from the coasts (most ridings) putting commitments on
terrestrial issues above marine issues;
•a “frontier mentality” in the federal government which places an emphasis on industrial use of the oceans
and avoids “sterilization of areas from economic opportunity”;
•lack of a niche for the MPA agenda in Prime Minister Harper’s five point plan;
35 There is further discussion of the funding issue in section 5.3.
38
5 The Role of the Federal Government
•difficulties in getting elected officials “up to speed” on MPA priorities, etc. due to frequent changes in
players at the political level;
•frequent changes of personnel, lack of champions, and power politics (these three factors are discussed
below).
A common refrain in discussions of leadership is the call for MPA “champions.” Agardy (2005) also emphasizes
as key to the development of strategically planned MPA networks “true leadership and ‘the power of one’ …
individuals with the vision, commitment, and power to move forward.” There is a lack of champions for MPAs
in the decision making groups in government, especially on the federal Cabinet bench. Former Fisheries and
Oceans Minister David Anderson’s support for marine conservation and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s
current leadership on an MPA network for the California coast are possible models. A government interviewee
emphasized four qualities in marine leaders: they should have a vision and know where they’re going, have a
passion to motivate others, be in a position where they can take risks, and have the ability to communicate.
Related to political will are issues of power, political agendas and influences on elected decision-makers
largely outside of the public processes of MPA designation. Negative effects of politics on MPA progress can
take the following forms:
•The desire of both Federal and Provincial Governments to get credit for an MPA designation has led to
stand-offs in the application of conservation tools. Elected officials might be competing for a legacy by
having their name associated with a particular MPA or suite of MPAs.36
•Fisheries bodies are strongly represented in Ottawa, and fishing interests in coastal communities capture
the attention of elected representatives. The fishing industry, with its historically close links with DFO and
its industrial-sized fleets on all coasts, exerts considerable influence on the Department and on provincial
governments and agencies (Guénette and Alder 2007).
•Elected officials may take a negative stance on a particular MPA for ulterior motives: e.g. an Atlantic MP
might look at a west coast NMCA as setting a precedent and therefore could try to capitalize on small
notes of opposition – with the aim of prioritizing industrial activities in his or her Atlantic riding. Or, an
MP might express opposition to an MPA proposal in order to broker favour with another MP or Cabinet
member whose support could be needed on an unrelated issue (“political horsetrading”).
•Members of Parliament or the Legislature may not want to be the one who makes a tough decision in
favour of conservation because they may “get slammed by fishery associations and interests of regional
economic development,” and not get voted in again.
•Decision-makers may bow to “in your face opposition” from individual stakeholders or industry
organizations that receives high media coverage and/or verges on threatening.
A key way to remedy the dearth of federal leadership on MPAs is to increase public pressure on politicians. The
constituency of support for MPAs– from the voting public to stakeholders and coastal communities – needs to
speak in such a loud voice that elected officials cannot ignore it. Government agencies and ENGOs have roles
to play in this regard. These are explored in section 7 of this report.
Interviewee comments included:
“In the absence of sustained political pressure the department will take as long as it has to do anything – whatever
time you give them they’ll consume.”
“If the minister or government could care less then a Deputy Minister (or enthusiastic bureaucrats) can’t help.”
“Currently, the ocean is open for industrial venturing, usually via a rubber stamp after a token environmental
assessment provided by the federal government.”
36 See section 6.3 for more on issues in federal-provincial relations.
39
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
“Nobody has the guts, vision, determination, oomph to say let’s just cut this going around in circles and do
something.”
“We have been asking people what they believe in and want to see in their region for marine conservation, and
then one MP decides it is not good and stops everything.”
“MPA plans, policies and regulations may be adequate but are often trumped by old fashioned connections and
politics.”
5.2 Bureaucracy in the federal agencies
“Leadership” issues tend to assign blame to elected officials and cabinet. “Bureaucracy” issues lay it at the
feet of public servants. Leadership at senior levels in MPA agencies depends both on the attitudes of the
people involved, and on whether or not there are even positions at senior levels – e.g., Director level positions
oriented to MPAs. If there are people in influential positions at the middle, senior and executive levels of the
federal departments who do not unequivocally support MPA initiatives, they can pose a serious impediment
to moving forward.
In terms of motivation, some feel that “things will languish in the bureaucracy” without a driving force from
above, while others say that bureaucrats are enthusiastic and just need support. Managers and staff at lower
levels are constrained in how much initiative they can take in the absence of strong direction from their
superiors. Their advice could fall on deaf ears, or worse, their advocacy could be career threatening: “people
get shuffled if they make too much noise.”
Even when leadership, legislation, funding, programs and policies are in place, processes can get mired down
in bureaucracy. Provincial interviewees on both coasts identified federal agency bureaucracy as a barrier to
progress.37 Federal MPA agency employees raised the following issues:
•Public servants do not feel a sense of urgency, so they take their time “to make it perfect,” sometimes only
aiming for completion by the end of their career.
•The internal document review and signing process is slow, with people wanting to go back and change
things, and with changes in who is signing and at which level.
•There is a lack of initiative, partially caused by a sense of futility.
•Organizations resist taking action if they do not see policies or laws working within their mandate or for
their benefit.
•Months can pass with no activity as a result of difficulties in scheduling, or lack of attention from a
minister or other signing authority – e.g., waiting for the public announcement of an MPA.
Ways to alleviate bureaucratic inertia include:
•Adopt a more impatient attitude to moving the process along, pushing the envelope rather than being
complacent, and letting go of perfection.
•Undertake tasks concurrently rather than in a linear sequence.
•Be open to change and innovation.
•Take a business-like approach with timelines and targets that are set publicly.38
•Keep the time line in mind, while “taking it off in bite sized chunks,” with milestones against which to
measure progress.
37 Discussion of federal-provincial issues follows in section 6.
38 See also section 2.1.3 for a discussion of the importance of targets.
40
5 The Role of the Federal Government
An additional challenge shared by all three agencies is that of region-headquarters dynamics. Problems in this
area include:
•With the coasts being so far removed from Ottawa both geographically and organizationally it can be
difficult to “connect the dots.”
•Regional offices are responding to opportunities, engaging in initiatives and implementing programs
on the coasts while the national offices are taking a methodical, linear approach to developing policy,
leading to a disconnect.39
•Policies and guidelines from headquarters impose uniformity, constraining regional ability to respond to
opportunities and constraints.
•Conversely to the preceding point, the uniqueness of each region means that national guidelines and
policies have to be so generalized that they do not provide the detailed direction needed.
Interviewee comments included:
“You’ll work on the wording of a particular document and it will go through judicial review and it takes time and
we’re working with a lawyer … and then someone comes in and wants to change everything you’ve been working
on for three months.”
“In a way, it is easier for an organization to resist putting in place the policies and laws of the elected government,
especially if they are vague enough.”
“Find the right level of impatience and convey that to the people we are trying to bring along.”
“We need someone with some clout in the organizational structure and some incentive for the regions and
national office to work together better; then we can get a collegial view and move forward into the future.”
5.3 Capacity challenges across government departments
Insufficient budgets for MPA programs were mentioned above in connection with lack of federal leadership.
This was a pervasive theme in the interviews, and it is further explored for each of the three federal agencies
in the following sections. Here, issues of staffing and funding that cut across government departments are
summarized.
Financial and staff resources for MPA programs amount to roughly 1% of the amount spent on terrestrial
protected areas programs (Government of Canada 2006). Given that fiscal constraints have been a significant
challenge in Canada’s terrestrial protected areas over the past decade (Dearden and Dempsey 2004), this
number is alarmingly small.
Interview results for this research are consistent with findings of WWF-Canada in 2003: lack of funding is
frequently cited, from within and outside government, as the greatest impediment to meeting the 2012 goal.
The general opinion is that the federal government has not adequately resourced an oceans conservation
program. Yet the assessment of inadequacy is not in relation to any solid figures on what it costs to establish
an MPA, much less what it would cost to reach the 2012 goal. DFO has carried out some calculations in this
regard and developed a general costing model based on experience in various countries.40 They found that
it costs approximately $500,000 to bring an Oceans Act MPA on line, from identification as an Area of Interest
to designation, not including science which is funded separately. In contrast, it has been estimated that each
NMCA costs Parks Canada $5 million to establish. The cost differential is due to many factors – for example,
according to one estimate DFO can get by with a desktop resource assessment at around $50,000 while
39 Tension between national and regional MPA network initiatives is explored in section 6.4.2.
40 A couple of interviewees asserted that the details of this costing research should be shared with all three of the federal agencies with MPA mandates.
41
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Parks Canada has to do a multi-year resource study that could cost two million dollars. Given the order of
magnitude differences in these estimates, a more accurate study of establishment costs is called for – some
believe this would result in much higher costs for an Oceans Act MPA than the $500,000 mentioned above.
When funding is lacking, projects slow down and certain processes within MPA programs are not actively
pursued. Momentum may be difficult to reestablish when funding becomes available. Lengthy periods
between Advisory Committee meetings for pilot MPAs in the Pacific, possibly related to budget and staffing
shortages, resulted in a loss of momentum that partially explains slow progress on that coast (Wood et al.
2005).
Several interviewees asserted that there are simply “not enough people to do what needs to be done.” A
robust MPA program would not only have a director with clout; it would have dedicated positions in areas
such as regulations, policy, science, planning and project management.
Related to shortage of staff are issues of changes in staff, retaining “good personnel,” and the need for staff to
have requisite skills and experience. When positions are filled with new people, continuity and knowledge is
lost, whether at the local level or as people change desks in Ottawa. In communities, building trust is crucial,
and this takes years of close work. An interviewee in St. John’s stated that in Labrador even a Newfoundlander
may be seen as an outsider.
Public servants are cognizant of the need for post-designation funding as well, because “lines on maps are
not good enough,” and some claim that there is insufficient budget to care for areas already designated.
Awareness of the high costs of monitoring and managing MPAs may be another factor behind the hesitancy of
government decision-makers to expand the MPA network more quickly.
Despite the serious constraints posed by shortage of government resources for MPAs, the role of funding
might be over-emphasized, and more money is not the answer to all the challenges facing the establishment
of an MPA network.
Interviewee comments included:
“Progress is entirely dependent on receiving the mandate and resources as granted by Parliamentary budgets.”
“What would it cost to have a network of MPAs – with LOMAS, and getting work done elsewhere – mapping, using
best available science, doing consultations, identifying sites, securing them – over 5 years – has that question been
considered?”
“Every time you get someone new they want to go back and do it a different way – this is a problem throughout
the bureaucracy.”
“Ongoing costs for established MPAs are a factor influencing how quickly you can go; you want a network you can
manage and run in the long term.”
5.4 Fisheries and Oceans Canada role
DFO has two roles in the creation of a network of MPAs. Not only is it mandated to establish MPAs under the
Oceans Act, the Minister is to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of a national system
of marine protected areas on behalf of the Government of Canada. Leadership in these two roles is considered
below, after a review of progress to date in establishing Oceans Act MPAs. Then issues of DFO’s capacity and
organization are examined.
42
5 The Role of the Federal Government
5.4.1 Progress in establishing Oceans Act MPAs
The following tables show DFO’s progress in terms of Oceans Act MPAs established to date and progress on
candidate areas.
Table 4: MPAs established to date under the Oceans Act
MPA
Approx. Yr
Initiated
Year
Established
Purpose
Endeavour
Hydrothermal
Vents (BC)
1998
2003
Protect unique and biologically diverse habitat within
vent fields
The Gully (NS)
1998
2004
Protection of whales from boat collision; includes an
at-risk population of northern bottlenose whales, and
habitat protection of submarine canyon with high
diversity of deepwater corals
Basin Head (PEI)
Community
driven process
1999
2005
Protect globally unique strain of Irish Moss and
its surrounding habitat; potential commercial
application
Gilbert Bay (NL)
2000
2005
Protect genetically unique cod population and its
habitat
Eastport (NL)
1999
2005
Conserve commercially significant fishery resources
and their habitats, including lobster, scallop, cod and
lumpfish
Musquash (NB)
2000
2007
Protect the last ecologically intact and highly
productive estuary in the Bay of Fundy
See Appendix 3 for maps
43
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Table 5: Candidate MPAs under the Oceans Act
MPA
Candidate
Purpose
Approx. Yr
Initiated
Manicouagan
Peninsula
(QC)
Protect biologically
productive salt
marshes, sea grass
beds, spawning
grounds and seal
habitat
1998
Saint
Lawrence
Estuary
(QC)
Provide protection
to the beluga in
their marine range
(non coastal) to
complement the
Canada-Québec
marine park
2000
Tarium
Niryutait
Beaufort
Sea
(NWT)
Conserve and protect
the Beluga whales
and supporting
ecosystem (critical
both socially and
culturally to the
Inuvialuit)
1998
Race Rocks
(BC)
Protect the significant
biodiversity of this
area and the habitat
of the threatened
northern abalone
1998
Progress to Date
• One of DFO’s original 13
identified AOIs.
• Step 4 being finalized:
Development of Manicouagan
MPA Regulations – Regulatory
Impact Analysis Statement.
• One of DFO’s original 13
identified AOIs. Currently at
Steps 1 and 2 – identification of
AOI and overview.
• One of DFO’s original 13
Steps to Complete*
Step 5 to be
completed. DFO
hopes to establish
the MPA formally
some time in 2008.
If there is support
from Quebec, move
forward with steps
3, 4, and 5. There is
no target date for
designation.
Step 5 - designation
identified AOIs. Closest to
being designated. At Step 4:
Development of Regulation.
DFO prepared regulatory intent;
waiting for Minister to formally
approve intention to go to
regulatory process.
• One of DFO’s original 13
identified AOIs.
• Achieved Gazette I status (step
4) but this would need to be redone due to elapsed time.
Step 4 Development of
Regulation
Step 5 - designation
• On hold due to need to develop
a cooperative management
arrangement between the
governments of BC, Canada and
the local First Nations in the
region.
• DFO in process of bilateral
discussions with First Nations.
Gabriola
Passage
(BC)
Protection of the
abundance and
diversity of marine
life.
* See section 3.1 for an explanation of the steps.
44
1998
• Not actively moving forward
• Not yet public; may be
n/a
subsumed as part of the
feasibility study for the NMCA of
SSG
Continued on next page
5 The Role of the Federal Government
MPA
Candidate
Purpose
Bowie
Seamount
Chain
(BC)
To conserve and
protect the unique
and fragile habitats
and ecosystem of
the seamount chain,
its high biodiversity
and biological
productivity, and the
commercial and noncommercial fisheries
of the area.
Approx. Yr
Initiated
Progress to Date
Steps to Complete*
• One of DFO’s original 13
Hoping to finalize
step 4 with Gazette
I publication and
designation in 2008.
identified AOIs.
• Close to designation.
Consultation completed;
consensus on management
approach.
• Completed negotiations with
First Nation; Haida Gwaii signing
ceremony.
• Agreement with one commercial
fishing group; some resolution is
being achieved.
• At Step 4: Development of
Regulation and Designation of
MPA.
• Regulatory statement going to
Ottawa with zone approach.
Leading
Tickles
(NL)
Hecate
Strait
Sponge
Reefs
(BC)
Establish
conservation and
protection measures
for fishery resources
and their supporting
habitat.
2001
To protect the sponge
reef assemblages
in Hecate Strait and
Queen Charlotte
Basin.
2002
• Under development. Part of
n/a
DFO’s original 13 identified AOIs.
• Appears to have dropped off
the list; there has been a drop in
community interest.
• Being promoted for MPA
candidate status by ENGOs
Interim protection
via fisheries closures
See Appendix 3 for maps
5.4.2 Leadership in Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Guiding a team of three federal agencies (PCA, EC and DFO) to work together to implement MPAs is a complex
challenge. According to the Oceans Act, DFO should be the leader in setting direction, but many conclude that
the agency is not fulfilling this role. A partial explanation is that the department does not yet have sufficient
expertise in conservation. More significantly, vision and political will are lacking. The Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development questioned DFO’s leadership on oceans issues in her 2005 report:
Is the Department, through its Oceans Directorate, properly structured to play this leadership role? Can a
department that has historically dedicated most of its resources to managing one of the key ocean-sector
industries – the fishery – transform itself to represent and integrate a broader oceans interest? These are
difficult questions that must be answered. (section 1.29)
Worse than not leading, some feel the department even gets in the way of the MPA initiatives of the other two
agencies as it prioritizes service to its clients in the fishing industry. The Commissioner of the Environment and
45
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Sustainable Development noted this issue as a significant barrier to effective implementation of a national
oceans strategy (2005: sec 1.29).
Some DFO interviewees pointed out that DFO is slowly building conservation experience and is “moving in
the right direction.” This change might not be fast enough for observers like WWF-Canada, which concluded
in a 2005 report that the solution is for the oceans agenda to become a government-wide priority rather than
being situated in DFO. Another option would be to assign the overarching responsibility for MPA coordination
to an agency with a history, mandate and expertise more oriented to conservation through protected areas.
With regard to DFO’s own MPA program, Wood et al. (2005) observe that one cause of delay in the designation
of DFO’s pilots on the west coast has been changes in political leaders, with more recent Ministers (since
David Anderson) taking less and less interest in MPAs. There is a lack of obvious MPA champions in the regions
as well as Ottawa, and fisheries managers tend to wield more power than employees in the oceans sector.41
Stakeholder support rather than MPA designation tends to be the measure of success. Another issue has been
lack of guidance to the regions from senior levels in DFO headquarters, although the current Director General
is said to be providing more direction. High level policies such as the Oceans Action Plan are respected, but do
not provide specific guidance on MPAs.
Interviewee comments included:
“It comes down to a major failure in DFO – they had the lead under the Oceans Act and didn’t provide leadership.”
“In DFO the idea that a network of MPAs will cover a significant part of the region is not on the board – they seem
to have a mandate for very small, coastal MPAs and no broader vision.”
“The Oceans Act, Canada’s Oceans Strategy and the Oceans Action Plan provide the foundation for modern oceans
management and the domestic impetus for a fundamental shift away from small scale, single species sectoral
management, towards an integrated, ecosystem-based management approach.”
5.4.3 Capacity in Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Insufficient funding has been a significant challenge for DFO over the years. Wood et al. (2005) concluded
that the DFO Pacific Region budget is insufficient to carry out the activities required under its conservation
mandate generally, to the extent that budget cuts have compromised basic conservation activities. This
pattern is reflected at the national level, in that no new funding was provided for implementing the Oceans
Act. As a result, actions on the oceans agenda initially came at the expense of existing programs, to the tune
of $100 million, leading to mistrust and resentment in other program areas. The funding that was provided for
implementing the Oceans Action Plan was for only two years, while integrated management processes require
at least 4-5 years.
On the personnel side, staffing related to MPAs in DFO regions is very low. For example, the oceans group
for the Pacific region is tiny, at 7 people, relative to the tasks they are engaged in. The Atlantic region is also
lacking personnel resources, with only 6-7 staff. In Canada’s north, there are no staff available to work on the
eastern Arctic. For comparison, National Marine Sanctuaries in the US have 6-7 staff at each site. Regional
staff members do not have the time required to build relationships with the myriad interests involved in MPA
designation. Their skills and training may also be inappropriate for various MPA tasks, with social scientists and
planners being in short supply relative to biologists in this department.
Exacerbating the low numbers of staff is the fact that individuals are pulled in many directions and are
challenged to keep MPAs at the forefront. DFO’s matrix structure makes it difficult to “follow the money” and
headquarters cannot ensure that regional employees are working on MPA responsibilities rather than being
drawn away to other tasks. Oceans staff were embedded throughout the Pacific region for the delivery of
41 The challenge of the dual mandate – conservation and commercial fisheries – is further discussed in section 5.4.4.
46
5 The Role of the Federal Government
services on an area approach rather than being situated in regional headquarters. This assumed that the time
of DFO staff with fisheries and habitat management responsibilities already located in the areas along the
coast would be tapped as well. Instead, the reverse has occurred. Consistent with the overall “crisis orientation”
of the Department mentioned above, the oceans staff in the areas tend to be put to use in non-oceans
oriented work such as referrals concerning freshwater habitat and “putting out fires.”
Interviewee comments included:
“How is DFO supposed to lead and coordinate the MPA initiative if it has no money?”
“With so few staff in the region … we need to have enough people, experts, that can do something or else we
can’t move forward.”
“A lot of time and energy have to be put into looking for money, time that is not invested in conservation.”
5.4.4 Organizational issues in Fisheries and Oceans Canada
In this section and the two parallel sections on PCA and EC, themes related to agency structure, policy and
legislation, and organization culture are addressed.
Central to the issues of leadership and capacity is the notion of DFO’s dual mandate, for conservation and
development of marine resources. Under the Fisheries Act, originally passed in 1868, it is the Minister’s duty to
manage, conserve and develop the fishery on behalf of Canadians. The Oceans Act, passed in 1996, expands
the emphasis of DFO’s conservation mandate beyond commercial fisheries, commercially viable species and
their habitat. The fisheries and oceans mandates are intertwined, with fisheries sustainability depending
on conservation. However the conservation focus is towards fisheries production ends, with attention to
ocean ecosystems in and of themselves being relatively minor.42 Though connected to fisheries, MPAs are
organizationally situated within oceans management. The third sector in DFO – science – is pulled between
the other two but largely attends to fisheries and aquaculture research needs. A couple of interviewees
described the bias towards the fishing industry in DFO as a “juggernaut.”
Some indications of DFO’s lack of orientation towards MPAs are:
•the low level of funding for oceans management and conservation mentioned above;
•lack of inclusion of DFO in organizations like the federal-provincial council of parks ministers and the
IUCN;
•92%43 of letters to the minister arrive on the desk of the director of resource assessment in Fisheries
Management;
•the Director General of Oceans has huge issues demanding his attention, reflecting a crisis-orientation,
while integrated management and MPAs are proactive approaches;
•policy for MPAs is vague;
•98%44 of DFO employees work in programs mandated by the Fisheries Act;
•lack of an MPA program in the department.
Some of these factors are explored further here. The opinions summarized were as commonly held by
interviewees internal to DFO as by external observers.
Regarding the lack of an MPA program, the loss of the “central voice” that existed when there was an MPA
program and a national MPA coordinator in DFO is a barrier to progress on MPAs. The program provided a
42 See Wood et al. 2005 for an extensive analysis of DFO’s conservation mandate.
43 The interviewee probably put this number forward as an estimate.
44 The interviewee probably put this number forward as an estimate.
47
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
coordinating role and helped with interactions with the regions and interests including ENGOs. The new
organizational arrangement separates MPA policy from operations, with Ottawa focused on policy, and
program implementation largely delegated to the regions. At the same time, there are three regional desks at
DFO headquarters concerned with MPA establishment, management and monitoring. Some feel this structure
causes duplication of effort and a disjunction between “what’s happening on the ground and grand thinkers in
Oceans Headquarters.” For DFO employees in the regions it is now less clear who to contact on specific oceans
themes like MPAs in Ottawa. In the Atlantic region confidence was expressed in the Oceans Committee of the
Regional Management Committee which has people from the oceans, science and policy sides and “ensures
that Oceans proceeds in lock step with the other DFO sectors.” In the Pacific region, some feel the placement of
Oceans in the regional bureaucracy is awkward: Oceans falls in the “Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement Branch,”
but fish habitat protection is mainly about fresh water and enhancement largely concerns hatcheries. This has
implications for staffing discussed above.
To some extent, the allocation of effort within DFO is not at the discretion of the bureaucracy. For example,
departmental science resources must be applied to advise the Minister on total allowable catch limits for
fisheries allocation and regulation. Thus, the science branch’s capacity to contribute to conservation and
ecosystem-based management questions such as EBSA identification is limited. Despite an internal service
agreement including transfer of funds for oceans work, MPA tasks are still seen as a burden on top of other
responsibilities.
If a shift towards more of an oceans focus can be achieved, it is bound to be gradual, given the huge
reorientation needed to transition the organization’s frame of reference from one driven by fish harvesting and
single species management, to one that includes the establishment of protected areas within an ecosystembased management setting. Internal learning has been accumulating during the past “trial period,” which
has focused on building a small number of LOMAs effectively. A well-functioning Oceans team is emerging,
and new policies that will capture lessons learned and ensure greater clarity in standards and processes are
under development. Optimists suggest that the relationship of the Oceans Directorate within the department
is building and maturing, and “direction change is starting to happen really slowly.” They feel that Fisheries
Management is now at the stage where they see how important the Oceans mandate is.
A less optimistic view is that it could be another 10-15 years before DFO can “do something about” the
Oceans Act. Progress has been stymied in part by frequent staff changes, turnover in the Director General of
Oceans position, reorganization, departure of knowledgeable employees from their positions in integrated
management, and the burden of “getting better at what we’re doing internally and at the same time being
asked to advance with the other agencies.”
Several interviewees questioned whether the MPA responsibility should fall within the department,
suggesting that EC or PCA might be more appropriate, or that “we may need a collective organization outside
of Fisheries to deliver on MPAs.” This perspective assumes that the DFO structure is unworkable for MPAs
and cannot be “tweaked around the edges” – the task of shifting the organizational structure, allocation of
resources, ministerial level priorities and intellectual orientation of the department is simply too vast.
Interviewee comments included:
“The culture is changing away from a sole focus on fishing industry – e.g. using language of ecosystem based
management – but is this change in language reflected in policy and approach yet?”
“DFO is about fishing, it’s fish, fish, fish and fish.”
“There was a policy conflict imposed on DFO and the resource harvesting policy so big and powerful the Oceans
Act hasn’t been able to break through and may never.”
“People in the areas in the region are not working on MPAs. On a day to day basis, they are working on regional
fisheries projects or crises.”
48
5 The Role of the Federal Government
“To me, ultimately, it is the wrong organization working on conservation and protected areas.”
“Like Parks Canada, people within Oceans have to struggle to get DFO to regulate fisheries in MPAs but at least
with Oceans being part of DFO it is easier to convince them of the value of closing fisheries.”
5.5 Parks Canada Agency role
After a review of progress to date in establishing NMCAs, issues related to leadership, capacity and
organization in Parks Canada Agency (PCA) are examined.
5.5.1 Progress in establishing National Marine Conservation Areas
To date, the only fully legislated MPA under Parks Canada’s jurisdiction is the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine
Park. This was initiated in approximately 1990, and protected under special legislation – not the NMCA Act, in
1997. Its purpose is protection of the ecosystem and beluga whales.
The following table shows Parks Canada’s progress in establishing a system of NMCAs in terms of candidate
NMCAs. This includes Fathom Five National Marine Park, which has been operating since 2002 under a variety
of federal and provincial authorities.
Table 6: Candidate NMCAs
NMCA
Candidate
Purpose
Approx.
Progress to Date
Steps to Complete*
Year
Initiated
Southern Strait
of Georgia
(Pacific Ocean,
BC)
Conservation of a
highly urban, coastal
ecosystem known for
SCUBA diving, whale
watching, sea kayaking
and coastal cruising;
supporting coastal
communities and the
ecosystem.
1995
• Step 3 is underway:
Feasibility Study/Interim
Management Planning is
ongoing through public
consultations.
• Discussions with First
Nations continue.
• Ecological and economic
studies have been in
progress.
• Parks Canada hopes to
reach a decision at the
end of 2008.
* See section 3.3 for an explanation of the steps.
• Recommendations of
the feasibility study
will be forwarded
to governments
of Canada and BC
for Negotiation of
agreement(s). (step 4).
• If the decision is made
to proceed, PCA will
develop Integrated
Management
guidelines (step 5a).
Continued on next page
49
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
NMCA
Candidate
Purpose
Approx.
Progress to Date
Steps to Complete*
Year
Initiated
Gwaii Haanas,
(Pacific Ocean,
BC )
Protect one of the
only places in the
world where a
representative marine
area is protected from
mountaintop to the
ocean.
1988
• Currently in step 3 and
5a: Feasibility Study and
Interim Management
Planning.
• Discussions continue
with the Council of the
Haida Nation (CHN) for
a protocol agreement
to permit the Interim
Management Plan
process to proceed (step
4).
• Draft vision statement
for the management
plan in place. Public
consultations will take
place in 2008.
Magdalen
Shallows, Iles
de la Madeleine
(Atlantic,
Québec)
Conservation of
natural and cultural
features as well as
representation of the
characteristics of the
Magdalen Shallows
Marine Region
2004
Fathom Five
National Marine
Park (Ontario,
Great Lakes)
Protection of
shipwrecks and several
historic light stations
and Fathom Five’s
freshwater ecosystem
1987
Western Lake
Superior
(Ontario, Great
Lakes)
Representation of the
largest freshwater MPA
in the world
1998
• Currently at step 3, the
Feasibility Study stage.
Has received a budget as
well as two committed
officers.
• Step 4 Negotiation
of agreement(s):
Currently negotiating
a cooperative
management marine
agreement with the
CHN.
• Once completed,
PCA will present the
Interim Management
Plan as part of a report
to Parliament for the
purpose of protecting
the area under the
NMCA Act. (Step 5b)
• It is expected that the
Interim Management
Plan will be completed
in 2008.
• The feasibility study
will continue.
• Process is held up
in federal-provincial
discussions.
• Operating since 2002
under a variety of
federal and provincial
authorities.
• Agreement between
federal and provincial
governments reached in
2007.
• Establishment is
pending resolution
of outstanding
First Nations treaty
issues. Still requires
a plan to be tabled
with parliamentary
committees.
• Step 5a interim
management plan;
Step 5b establishment
in legislation.
Continued on next page
50
5 The Role of the Federal Government
NMCA
Candidate
Purpose
Approx.
Progress to Date
Steps to Complete*
Year
Initiated
Lancaster
Sound
– Nunuvut
(Arctic)
Eastern entrance to
Northwest Passage.
Most important polyna
in Arctic waters.
Important for whales
and polar bears.
2007
Discontinued:
Bonavista
/Notre Dame
Bays
Conservation of an
area of fishing, scenic
and rugged shores,
diversity of wildlife,
including whales and
seabirds
1997
• Step 2 - Selection of
a potential NMCA
– announced in 2007
federal budget
• Government
discontinued the
study process in
1999, following
recommendations by
the Advisory Committee
on behalf of the local
communities.
To help restore and
sustain the commercial
fishery, and promote
new tourism and
marine research
opportunities
Discontinued:
West Isles
Accessibility by visitors
1975
• Depending on public
and political support,
will move forward to
Step 3 – feasibility
study.
• Other options for
representing this
marine region to be
investigated in due
course.
• The process stalled
in 1985 due to strong
and unanticipated
opposition from the
fishing and aquaculture
industries.
See Appendix 3 for maps
5.5.2 Leadership in Parks Canada Agency
A few observers hold the opinion that leadership and true commitment for NMCAs are insufficient in PCA.
They feel that the lack of a suitable organizational structure and dedicated position at the director level
suggests NMCAs are not a high priority. A contrasting view is that there is currently strong leadership at the
Director General level and executive levels in PCA – though there are few full-time staff dedicated to NMCAs.
Changes in players at the political level have been a particular challenge for PCA. Since the Oceans Action Plan
was announced in 2002, the agency has experienced five ministers of Environment and two CEOs.
Interviewee comments included:
“There are still people even in Parks Canada who are not convinced MPAs are needed, while there are some that
are …”
“Parks Canada has no vision for MPAs; no one in the agency in a senior position has a vision and therefore can’t lay
the path to get there.”
51
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
5.5.3 Capacity in Parks Canada Agency
PCA’s own “State of Protected Heritage Areas” report of 2005 stated that “no additional progress was made
toward the establishment of NMCAs in the other 22 unrepresented regions, as Parks Canada has limited
capacity to advance these marine conservation areas proposals.” NMCAs are particularly expensive to take
through to designation, yet the 2007 federal budget only funded the Lancaster Sound project, so shortage
of funding is an ongoing challenge to the delivery of NMCAs. The current budget may be enough for the
feasibility studies but is likely not sufficient for the implementation of 5 NMCAs by the end of 2008.
The main concern expressed by interviewees with respect to capacity in PCA is that there is no NMCA program
support funding and therefore no dedicated staff. Project staff are often term staff, or have been redirected
from the national park program.
Some feel that compared to DFO and EC, PCA has clearer direction with regard to budget and staff for MPAs,
and that the agency is relatively well-resourced at the regional level. For example, the Vancouver arm of PCA’s
Western Canada Service Centre is very much marine focused – albeit on Pacific coast projects rather than
feeding into a full-fledged NMCA program.
The agency needs to ensure that staff are equipped to pursue PCA’s marine mandate. The kind of staff
expertise currently lacking includes environmental economists, socio-economic analysts and ecosystembased fisheries expertise.
Interviewee comments included:
“Staff at Parks Canada are heavily loaded; people think they can do MPAs on the side, and it can’t happen off the
side of one’s desk.”
“Parks Canada has never been funded to have the capacity it needs to push NMCAs.”
“We need to look to other successful models like the Great Barrier Reef where they have some highly respected
fishery management people on their staff who can negotiate with fishermen.”
5.5.4 Organizational issues in Parks Canada Agency
If DFO’s “juggernaut” is fisheries, PCA’s is terrestrial protected areas. A marine orientation is not completely
new to PCA since it manages marine areas around some terrestrial parks. The NMCA Act gives the agency a
clear mandate for establishing MPAs, and the agency could be seen to have an advantage over the other two
in having a system plan, which lends it a uniquely proactive attitude towards the establishment of protected
areas. Nevertheless, PCA recognizes the need to gear up for the designation and management of NMCAs, and
an internal workshop in 2007 discussed the direction of marine programs generally.
Several organizational issues were raised by interviewees as possible hindrances to progress in NMCA
establishment:
•Negativity in the agency due to experience at the Bay of Fundy, Bonavista and West Isles, together with a
“long memory within the bureaucracy” has lead to a risk-averse approach.
•Action by public servants has at times been discouraged rather than encouraged by senior officials.
•While PCA has many actions related to NMCAs underway, these actions need to be made more open to
other players such as other agencies and NGOs.
•An NMCA directorate is needed to give the program some structure – “this is a 20 year old initiative – not
in its infancy.”
52
5 The Role of the Federal Government
•With the Director General for Western Canada based in Calgary, senior Parks Canada positions in the
region (Vancouver and Victoria) are mid-level, and people in these positions sometimes lack the standing
they need to interact with more senior executives in other federal departments.
Many interviewees feel PCA policy for NMCAs is inadequate. They identified a pressing need for an up-dated
policy to replace the 1994 version and support principles in the five-year-old legislation. Some also called for a
body of regulations to guide management of NMCAs. For example, existing guidance on zoning is insufficient,
especially if consistency across the country is desired.
Interviewee comments included:
“Parks is a terrestrial organization, now moving to greater marine involvement and so what does the agency have
to do to get ready for that?”
“The policy is almost irrelevant; the Act and Policy do not tie up together.”
“A program provides the concepts, definitions (e.g. ecologically sustainable use), and basis for responses to
issues. If you don’t have a program it is pretty difficult to sell a proposal to people who don’t want an MPA in their
backyard.”
5.6 Environment Canada role
After a review of Environment Canada’s progress to date in establishing MPAs of three types, issues related to
EC’s leadership, capacity and organization are examined.
5.6.1 Progress in establishing Environment Canada MPAs
No Marine Wildlife areas have so far been established. Other types of protected areas with marine components
established to date by Environment Canada, too numerous to list by name, are as follows:
•National Wildlife Areas (NWAs) with marine components: 13
•Migratory Bird Sanctuaries with marine components: 51
The following table shows Environment Canada’s candidate MPAs of the three types provided for under the
Canada Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Continued on next page
53
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Table 7: Candidate Environment Canada MPAs
MPA Candidate
Purpose
Approx.
Year
Initiated
Igaliqtuuq
(Isabella Bay)
NWA (Nunavut)
Sanctuary for
the endangered
bowhead whale.
1980
• “Very close” to designation.
Proposal stage due to
Nunavut Land Claims
Agreement, birth of Nunavut
and negotiations required
by an Inuit Impact Benefit
Agreement.
Qaquluit (Cape
Searle) NWA
(Nunavut)
Largest northern
fulmar colony in
Canada.
2000
• Baseline ecological data has
Step 3: securement and
agreement
Step 4: regulatory process.
Akpait (Reid
Bay)
Supports two
colonies of thickbilled murres,
comprising
about 200,000
breeding pairs.
2000
NWA (Nunavut)
Progress to Date
been gathered.
• A community knowledge
Steps to Complete*
study has been conducted.
• In June 2001 and 2002
a census and mapping
project was conducted at
Cape Searle.
• A NWA Boundaries
Committee was appointed
in 2001 and as of 2004,
recommended boundaries
were under review as part
of the Inuit Impact and
Benefit Agreement process.
•
Scott Islands
MWA
Significant
seabird habitat.
1995
• Once the Canada BC MOU
is signed the Scott Islands
Action Planning will
commence.
(British
Columbia)
Step 3: securement and
agreement
Step 4: regulatory process.
• An Oct. 2007
announcement committed
$1 million to work to ensure
seabird populations are
protected at the Scott Is.
Sable Island
NWA (Atlantic
Ocean)
Significant
seabird habitat
2005
• On the short list and is
part way through step 2:
feasibility assessment
* See section 3.2 for an explanation of the steps.
Step 3; securement and
agreement
Step 4: regulatory process
See Appendix 3 for maps
5.6.2 Leadership and capacity in Environment Canada
Many hold the opinion that lack of capacity in EC is delaying implementation of MWA legislation, although
a contrary perspective is that “defeatist attitudes” based in lack of political will rather than capacity issues
are hindering progress. Several areas of interest are reported not to be under active development for MWA
designation because of capacity issues.
54
5 The Role of the Federal Government
The 2007 federal budget provided the funding necessary for taking the next steps at Sable Island and the
Scott Islands, moving forward into a meaningful consultation and engagement process for these areas.
Interviewee comments included:
“The Canada Wildlife Act offers possibilities for MPAs but the funding to implement it this way is missing.”
“The biggest gap is perhaps the capacity to sustain the process so we can work with ENGOs, industry, and
potentially affected communities on the potential designation.”
5.6.3 Organizational issues in Environment Canada
A Canadian Nature Federation report stated that a factor slowing progress in identifying potential MWAs is
legislative ambiguity over MWA control. While the Canada Wildlife Act authorizes EC to establish MWAs out
to the 200-mile limit, the agency’s authority to “administer and control” marine areas remains restricted to
the territorial sea (out to 12 nautical miles) until appropriate regulations are developed. A majority of priority
marine habitats within the 12 mile limit might be adequately protected under NWA or MBS designation
(Canadian Nature Federation 2002). This report also pointed out the lack of a national framework to guide
the regions on the identification and development of MWAs. A 1996 report prepared for the Canadian
Wildlife Service on an Environment Canada strategy for coastal and marine protected areas also called for the
development of guiding documents for program accountability and a regulation for MWAs (Zurbrigg 1996).
Recently, a policy and procedures manual has pulled together advice from practitioners on how to carry
out effective processes for protected areas. There are still no standardized NWA regulations, which will be
developed through public consultation.
The department has been going through a period of transition and reorganization, and this bureaucratic
process may be as much to blame for slow progress on MWAs as lack of budget.
Interviewee comments included:
“EC has been having a big transformation in how they operate and their approach has changed – this is part of the
bureaucracy and milieu that bogs down a process.”
5.7 Inter-agency challenges
There are over 20 federal departments with oceans-related responsibilities (Yurick and Mageau 2006).
Significant challenges to progress on MPAs stem from the relationship between the three federal agencies
with MPA responsibilities and the relationship between these agencies and other federal agencies.45
Collaboration is critical in virtually every aspect of MPA network progress: assembling data and sharing
information, building support with stakeholders outside of government, reaching agreement on governance
arrangements, and establishing a suite of regulations using the appropriate pieces of legislation. Strong
cooperation among an array of federal agencies is required, including Natural Resources Canada and Transport
Canada as well as the three agencies with MPA responsibilities.
Several researchers have highlighted challenges in interactions between agencies, together with jurisdictional
complexity, as a delaying force in the establishment of MPAs in Canada (Guénette and Alder 2007,
Government of Canada 2006, Wolf and Macfarlane 2002, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development 2005). The various factors involved (mainly referring to interactions between the three MPA
agencies) include:
45 The relationship between federal and provincial agencies is the focus of section 6.
55
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
•inconsistent, opportunistic communication and collaboration;
•lack of will/incentive, reluctance to share power;
•resistance to policies, laws and regulations not felt to be in the interest of an agency;
•differences in legislation and objectives;
•differences in structures (e.g. centralized or decentralized);
•unilateral traditional approaches;
•lack of national headquarters support;
•insufficient resources;
•lack of knowledge of other agencies.
Interviewees for this research reinforced the following inter-agency challenges:
•silo behaviour and structure of government departments;
•agency self-interest;
•difficulty in harmonizing priorities, goals and mandates;
•lack of influence of EC and PCA relative to DFO.
Increased harmonization is essential to the horizontal initiative of establishing an MPA network. For example,
PCA and EC need cooperation from DFO because of the dependence on fisheries legislation for many of the
protective measures that would be applied in all types of MPAs. Wolf and Macfarlane (2002 p. 38) state that
“Former competitors must be seen as partners. Collegiality and trust must develop. …Agencies still have their
own jobs to do, but they must see their partners as co-workers rather than hurdles to jump.”
Interviewee comments included:
“The three agencies need to stand more shoulder to shoulder despite different legislation and different
perspectives, to move the work forward in the most integrated fashion we can.”
“Regional and national DFO colleagues need to continue to build the relationship between DFO and Parks Canada
that will be so critical to National Marine Conservation Areas across the country.”
“Our whole mandate is conservation but I’m not sure if this is common among all three agencies, and in this
shared process I see some folks interested in protecting their own interest rather than the environment.”
5.8 Complexity in the array of national MPA designations
Testimony to a parliamentary committee indicated that witnesses felt “the variety of protected marine area
designations caused confusion over the responsibilities of the various agencies and their planning processes
for the marine environment, resulting in overlap and duplication of effort” (Easter 2001). Within government
the view is that the three programs, driven by different mandates, are complementary. Distinctions between
the three types of MPAs mean that they have different roles to play, different requirements for establishment,
different restrictions on use, and bring different benefits.
The logic of the distinctions is, however, often lost on the public. Public confusion ranges from being “a
distraction” to a serious source of misperception, skepticism and negativity. For example, it is often assumed
that federal MPAs are “no go” areas. Clarifying the functions of the different MPA types is a topic for awarenessraising by government communications, complemented by ENGO work (see section 7.2.3). ENGOS point
out that this job would be much easier if all MPAs had a consistent, basic set of prohibitions. They have been
56
5 The Role of the Federal Government
advocating for a clear set of such prohibitions which would include no bottom trawling and no non-renewable
resource development, and would require a no-take component within each MPA. Without a common set of
prohibitions each issue must be discussed for each individual MPA which also leads to longer consultation
with stakeholders.
The main substantive challenge in terms of coordinating the three programs is perhaps that of reconciling the
aims of Oceans Act MPAs and EC’s MWAs, etc., with PCA’s imperative to establish representative NMCAs.
Interviewee comments included:
“We at DFO are supposed to lead an MPA network but we don’t call it a representative network – we’re leading an
MPA network for the heath of the oceans.”
“No one is complaining that there are too many terrestrial designations. But confusion around the programs is out
there and has to be addressed.”
5.9 National direction for an MPA network
A critical driver of a coordinated approach is the need to ensure the three programs are delivered in a manner
that will result in a rational, national network of MPAs. The need for clear network targets was discussed in
section 2.3. Dearden (2002) observes that a lack of national level systematic planning for MPAs opens up
various risks flowing from an ad hoc or opportunistic approach. The National Roundtable on the Environment
and Economy (2003 p.83) stated that “The lack of a national coordinated plan for MPAs has led to uncertainty
among resource users that in some cases has translated into fear and diminished support for conservation
initiatives.”
In this section, direction provided by national policies, etc., and integrated oceans management are reviewed
as potential sources of coordination. Potential disadvantages of integrated management are also analyzed.
5.9.1 Direction provided to an MPA network by federal policies
High level policy statements, strategies and guidelines do play a role in coordinating the activities of the three
federal agencies with responsibility for MPAs. The OAP, described in section 2.1.2, provides the broad umbrella
for helping the agencies to work together. Two interdepartmental bodies contribute to coordination: the
Director Generals’ Steering Committee on Marine Protected Areas and the Interdepartmental Working Group
on Marine Protected Areas. The Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy (FMPAS) and forthcoming Guidelines
for the Establishment of a Federal Marine Protected Areas Network are key. Integrated Oceans Management
and Large Ocean Management Areas provide important context. These various possible sources of direction
for an MPA network are described here.
Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy, 2005
Announced in May 2005, the FMPAS (Parks Canada et al. 2005) was a key deliverable under the “Health
of the Oceans” pillar of Canada’s Oceans Strategy and the OAP. The strategy was developed as part of the
government’s global commitment towards the establishment of a national network of MPAs by 2012 (Yurick
and Mageau 2006).
The Strategy includes an agreement on broad objectives for a MPA network. The goal of the FMPAS is the
establishment of a network of marine protected areas, within an integrated oceans management framework,
that contributes to the health of Canada’s oceans and marine environments. In support of this goal, this
Strategy sets out four objectives:
57
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
1.
Establish a more systematic approach to MPA planning and establishment.
2.
Enhance collaboration for management and monitoring of MPAs.
3.
Increase awareness, understanding and participation of Canadians in the MPA network.
4.
Link Canada’s network of MPAs to continental and global networks.
The FMPAS was complimented by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
(2005 p. 16) as “the first step to getting the federal house in order.” The FMPAS does not, however, constitute a
comprehensive federal approach to MPAs. As one public servant put it, “we need more coordination to meet
the 2012 commitment.”
Guidelines for the Establishment of a Federal Marine Protected Areas Network
As a means of implementing the FMPAS, DFO has been leading the development of national guidelines for the
planning of the national network of MPAs for some time. In late 2007 the draft Guidelines for the Establishment
of a Federal Marine Protected Areas Network were under internal review. The pursuit of the best options for
the three departments, via an ecosystem-based approach, has been a time-consuming bureaucratic task.
Participants at national headquarters have felt the need to tread carefully in working towards agreement from
all the agencies on the picture of a network “or it might not be the system we want.” They are unapologetic
that the process has been internal to the central offices of the three agencies, only recently including regional
offices and scientists (the latter at SAMPAA 2007). Once agreement is reached federally, ENGOs and the
provinces are expected to be consulted.
The draft guidelines include a vision, goals, guiding principles, and a “how to” process to build the federal
MPA network. The intended planning process includes building on existing MPA processes and using the
information generated by current integrated oceans management work to inform the network building
process.The vision being proposed is a network of MPAs established within an integrated oceans management
framework, which contributes to the health of Canada’s oceans for present and future generations. The draft
goal of the federal network is to conserve, protect, enhance and restore marine biodiversity, habitats and
ecological functions (Landry et al. 2007).
The guidelines are expected to provide more specific direction for building an MPA network. The challenge
they face is how to create an MPA selection process that accommodates the different ways of doing business
of the three agencies, incorporating, for example, DFO’s EBSAs, Parks Canada’s ecological regions and
candidate sites, and Environment Canada’s analysis of migratory bird habitat. All three agencies had expressed
interest in an array of sites prior to the development of the guidelines. The guidelines will not be site specific
– that work will occur in the regions – but they should ideally accommodate work done by each agency in
MPA planning while also ensuring that “MPAs connect and are not islands.”
There has never been a national level dialogue bringing interested ENGOs, research organizations, provinces,
etc. into the FMPAS, and this is not yet on the horizon in connection with the new guidelines. Greater
transparency and collaboration could inform tools for providing direction while building buy-in and cohesion.
ENGOs themselves have made significant contributions to MPA network planning, as described in section
7.5.3.
Integrated management and Large Ocean Management Areas as the context for MPAs
The Oceans Act, Canada’s Oceans Strategy, and Canada’s OAP promote an integrated oceans management
approach to MPA planning and establishment.46 The Oceans Act requires the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
to lead and facilitate the development and implementation of Integrated Management (IM) Plans for all
activities or measures affecting estuaries, coastal and marine waters. In developing and implementing these
plans, DFO is directed by the Act to collaborate with other federal and provincial agencies and the broader
46 See section 2.1.2 for an explanation of these policies.
58
5 The Role of the Federal Government
oceans community to ensure that the plans respect existing provincial, territorial or Aboriginal authorities and
existing federal departmental mandates.
Integrated management planning incorporates an ecosystem-based management approach. As part of IM
planning, ecological overview and assessment reports (EOARs) and the identification of ecologically and
biologically significant areas (EBSAs) are carried out. Potential future MPA sites can be based on EBSA and
EOAR work and other research conducted as part of the IM planning process in Large Ocean Management
Areas (LOMAs). DFO will use this approach to identify most MPAs for designation under the Oceans Act. For
DFO, IM provides a sufficient policy framework for MPA planning and will continue to be a priority despite lack
of renewed funding for IM in the 2007 federal budget.
Compared to the IM approach, the more ad hoc approach taken to MPA identification at the pilot stage risks
being disjointed, reactive to “who makes the most noise,” and resulting in sites that were not necessarily
based on their ecological significance in relation to the other parts of the ocean and that may not have been
as nationally important as they could have been. Furthermore, one-off MPA proposals may be vulnerable
to opponents fighting them on principle as “the thin edge of the wedge.” (The alternative view, that MPA
designation should forge ahead regardless of the completion of integrated management plans, is explored in
the next section.)
Advantages of the IM approach include:47
•It is a scientifically rigorous framework.
•Starting at the LOMA scale, identification of MPA sites in collaboration can help ensure connectivity.
•It is efficient in bringing interests together to plan for sustainable use and management of economic
activities as well as conservation.
•Pulling all the key baseline information together in LOMAs, including EBSAs and ecologically significant
species, will expedite future MPA designation steps.
•It creates a situation where MPAs become an active part of management of the marine zone.
•It facilitates the application of other conservation measures where MPAs would not be appropriate.
•It establishes governance structures that get the right people at the table (e.g., on committees) to
continue with action planning.
•It has potential to educate coastal residents and build knowledge about ocean ecosystems and how to
keep the system healthy.
•It can build support for MPAs by showing people that systems of protected areas within IM can continue
to provide economic benefits.
•It can address stakeholder interests by showing spatially where activities can continue after MPA
designation.
•“Thinking big,” planning for large areas and identifying multiple MPAs at the same time can make the
news and capture the interest of decision-makers.
•It can help federal and provincial/territory agencies collaborate.
Some interviewees from provinces and territories on all coasts also expressed preference for an integrated
approach to oceans planning that would lead to MPA identification. DFO and the Province of BC have agreed
to work on a coastwide MPA network, going beyond LOMAs (see section 6.4.1). But the question remains, to
what extent does the appeal of integrated management under the Oceans Act as a foundation for an MPA
network extend beyond DFO? Perceptions vary as to whether the LOMA process will drive MPA planning by
47 Disadvantages of the IM approach are explored in the following section.
59
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
the other agencies. All three agencies are expected to contribute information to the identification of EBSAs. EC
and PCA acknowledge the role of LOMAs in contributing to a federal network of MPAs. PCA aims to coordinate
NMCA planning with LOMAs where the two overlap, with other MPA designations complementing the values
protected within the NMCA. (NMCAs are themselves a type of IM planning tool, but at a different scale than
LOMAs.) PCA can identify candidate NMCAs in a LOMA and then wait for the LOMA process to evolve before
selecting a preferred one – piggybacking on the LOMA process. EC has a number of sites of key interest and
intends to work in a similar manner. EC and PCA will also continue to pursue candidate areas based on their
own priorities outside of the LOMAs.
Whether IM will ensure MPA network establishment is doubtful. EBSAs are identified for a variety of reasons
including environmental assessment and fisheries management, and there is no guarantee that they will
become MPAs. Smith et al. (2006 p.63) recommend that, where MPA networks are planned through an IM
process, “MPA network goals, objectives, and design criteria that relate to or are directly derived from the goals
of the larger IM process” should be developed.
Interviewee comments included:
“It’s extremely difficult for three different agencies with different priorities to meet in a common network
development.”
“The challenge is to make sure we achieve our mandates and use public funding in an efficient way, building up
an efficient ecological network, recognizing we can work together but not changing the fact that we all have to
report on how well we’re doing with what we were told to be doing.”
“We’re working towards an outcome for the country the same as they’ve done elsewhere – e.g. Australia. The three
agencies should be about to get agreement on what a federal system of MPAs under current authorities could look
like using existing areas, and what you bring into place between now and 2012.”
“With scarce resources the one-off approach is a miserable way to do it. It ties up all resources without knowing if
that’s the ideal site for the MPA.”
“Integrated management bodies are set up with senior level bureaucrats and prominent stakeholder and oceans
planning people. All the right people are at the table so that is where direction for MPAs should come from.”
5.9.2 “Untying” MPA designation from network design and integrated oceans
management
Those working on the Guidelines for the Establishment of a Federal Marine Protected Areas Network recognize,
as a starting point, that this new federal approach will not be implemented in isolation. Speaking at SAMPAA,
the authors explained that it will recognize and respect existing marine protected areas, and create a federal
network as a “ network of networks,” building on existing MPA planning processes (Landry et al. 2007). Yet the
perceived emphasis on a federally-driven framework for MPA establishment within IM raises the following
fears:
•Waiting for progress on the IM processes and the federal network guidelines is stalling progress on
specific MPA candidates.
•An emphasis on IM in headquarters has marginalized MPAs, including the management of existing MPAs.
•The focus of IM is on reaching agreement among stakeholders, with no guarantee that any areas will
receive a high level of protection.
•The systematic, IM approach may preclude the establishment of further MPAs legitimately driven by
community interest.
•There are gaps between the LOMAs, and some may encompass priority sites for MPAs which will not
receive the attention they deserve.
60
5 The Role of the Federal Government
•LOMAs (and some provincially-driven IM initiatives) are taking such a long time to study and plan that the
time frame for their generation of MPAs reaches beyond 2012 – “The perfect becomes the enemy of the
good.”
•The LOMA program has not received consistent and adequate funding nationally. If IM processes stall (e.g.
due to loss of funding) there may be few opportunities to move forward on MPAs by stepping outside of
the process.
•Not all provinces/territories have committed to fully engaging in specific LOMA processes.
•The LOMA framework may not sufficiently allow for innovation and tailoring to regional circumstances.
Waiting for progress on the IM processes and the federal network guidelines has likely contributed to the
slow pace of MPA designations. (Likewise, the time-consuming process of NMCA planning can hold back
the designation of smaller MPAs within the area of interest for the NMCA.) IM proponents argue that oceans
management is nevertheless the most appropriate context for MPAs – “we need to work systematically rather
than be rushed.” As the IM process evolves to provide a strong foundation for MPAs, the pace can increase.
Those who feel that working out a comprehensive IM approach or other network design should not delay MPA
designation suggest the following alternatives:
•Move forward with individual sites based on ecological values, especially “where we would obviously not
wait for a LOMA.” Use IM later to fill gaps.
•Provide interim protection to key areas while IM proceeds.
•Continue work on the science of network design and building baselines while establishing the first MPAs
identified through the planning process.
•Take a triage approach at the start of the IM process and move to protect places that need protection and
tend not to be controversial.
Proponents of these alternatives argue that the risks of one-off MPA designation are exaggerated, especially
given the currently low levels of marine protection: the risk that reasonable candidates for MPA status will be
designated in “the wrong places” is small compared to the likelihood that they will contribute to a network to
support biodiversity conservation. More is known about network design now than at the time of establishing
terrestrial systems, and there are some basic rules related to network requirements such as distancing and
representation that can minimize the risk of poorly siting an MPA.
Interviewee comments included:
“MPAs were the first thing to be developed under the Oceans Act. In the last couple of years, IM started as a means
for proper oceans management, and it consequently slowed progress on MPAs because of the energy and effort
being put into the IM process. We are better off not just riding the MPA bandwagon; we’ve thought about this in a
bigger sense.”
“With MPAs pigeonholed as a tool in IM, IM supercedes the importance of MPAs as a program – we have lost
tangible, successful emphasis on a very positive type of program which is now off to the side.”
“Regardless of our understanding of the ‘network’ we know enough that there are these absolutely vitally
important sites – secure them, then let science use the tools to make the links to connect the different areas.”
61
62
6
The Role of the Provinces and
Territories
63
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
This report centres on the role of the three federal agencies with MPA mandates, yet there is also an essential
role for the provinces. The governments of coastal provinces and territories are geographically closer to MPAs.
As explained in the following section, they can lead – as BC has taken ownership of the 2012 goal – and they
can hinder, by prioritizing extractive uses of the oceans, and/or in resisting the implementation of federal MPA
designations in coastal waters.
Many factors weaken federal-provincial collaboration, with jurisdictional challenges being the most
significant. These are described in sections 6.2 and 6.3.
Some regional planning initiated on the coasts, outlined in section 6.4, has furthered MPA network
development, but this can lead to tensions between federal and regional initiatives, as described in section
6.4.2. Ways in which the federal government can improve its working relationship with coastal provinces and
territories, based in positive as well as negative experience to date, are set out in section 6.5. (The same can be
said in reverse, for reluctance and willingness to move ahead on MPAs seem to fluctuate between federal and
provincial/territorial governments.)
Because MPA initiatives on the west coast are more extensive than on the east or north coasts, BC receives
more attention in this analysis than the other provinces or territories.
6.1 Provincial government leadership
Some maintain that because the provinces have a heightened responsibility for the coastal community
viability and resilience, and the health of provincial economies generally, they tend to have more of a resource
development perspective on the ocean environment than do federal agencies. Thus they are more agreeable
to MPA proposals when costs to activities such as commercial fisheries are low. Another perspective is that
because of their smaller remit than national agencies provincial and territorial bodies are more disposed
to influence by local interests, which makes them less likely to apply a long-term planning horizon in
safeguarding the health of coastal resources. The balance of emphasis around protection or exploitation of
marine resources is also connected to the political stripes of the elected Government.
Canada’s coastal regions are very different from each other, and dovetailing the provincial agendas and
priorities with government of Canada priorities is challenging. In BC, political will around MPAs is relatively
strong. The liberal Government made a commitment in 2005 which is reflected in the service plan of the
Ministry of Environment as follows: “leading, in collaboration with the federal government, the development
of a marine protected area system for the Pacific coast.”48 Federal agency interviewees observed that “BC
is on board” but that support may be stronger among some dedicated people in the public service than
at the political levels. They regard provincial/territory concern over access to offshore oil and gas as a key
impediment to the establishment of the Scott Islands MWA, and a possible barrier to the protection of the
glass sponge reefs in Hecate Strait.
Levels of support for MPAs from Quebec and Ontario governments are relatively low. Quebec is said to
be seeking a leadership role on MPAs rather than encouraging federal proposals, but is not showing a
commitment in allocation of resources to MPA initiatives. Initial lack of support from Ontario delayed the
designation of the Lake Superior NMCA. While an agreement has been signed for the establishment of Lake
Superior, outstanding issues such as the taking of water remain to be resolved before the federal government
can move ahead.
The Atlantic provinces generally support or are neutral regarding MPAs as long as costs to the provinces – in
the form of loss of resource access or commitment to ongoing MPA management responsibilities – are not
48 http:// www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2007/sp/env/default.aspx?hash=7
64
6 The Role of the Provinces and Territories
significant. The Atlantic provinces were described by interviewees as “not so much into marine conservation”
as BC. More specifically, New Brunswick was reported to have “no opposition but no real strong support
either.” In the case of Musquash, there was no champion for the proposal in the provincial government, and
senior bureaucrats were late to take an interest. Ultimately, however, the province was key to the designation.
Government interviewees in Newfoundland expressed enthusiasm for involvement in federal MPA initiatives.
Interviewee comments included:
“In BC the Province is putting a priority on environmental issues, and marine issues are part of that environmental
approach. We are getting some momentum going now.”
“The province did not argue because the MPA was easy to agree to since fisheries were not going to be disturbed.”
“For the Scott Islands… the whole dance around offshore oil and gas – decisions have to be made at a political
level based on what an adequate regulatory regime would look like.”
“Quebec says ‘wait a minute, we’re not sure.’ For Quebec it’s even more sensitive like any other file.”
“A federal-provincial MOU was required to launch the feasibility study (for the Northern Lake Superior NMCA), and
Ontario wasn’t ready.”
6.2 Jurisdictional challenges
It is only through provincial involvement that coastal and estuary habitats under provincial jurisdiction can
be protected (while the provinces play a much smaller role in the establishment of MPAs in offshore federal
waters). Under the National Marine Conservation Areas Act, establishment of an NMCA requires federal
ownership of the seabed, so if a province contests ownership and is unwilling to work cooperatively with the
federal government it can prevent NMCA designation. Under the Oceans Act, MPAs do not extend higher than
the low tide mark. This could prevent the protection of important marsh and intertidal areas at the landward
border of an MPA, unless provinces supplement the MPA designation with additional protective mechanisms.
Compounding the challenge is the difficulty of obtaining the involvement of the upper hierarchy of relevant
agencies in resolving jurisdictional problems during the preparatory work in MPA proposals (e.g., Race Rocks,
Gully) (Guénette and Alder 2007).
Examples of some jurisdictional issues follow in relation to three provinces: New Brunswick, Quebec and
British Columbia.
New Brunswick
New Brunswick is the location of recent experience in resolving inter-jurisdictional challenges with respect
to the Musquash MPA. New Brunswick claims provincial ownership of submerged lands out to the mid-bay
area of the Bay of Fundy (where it meets the Nova Scotia claim). Even though the province has no formal
marine management regime, the fear that “the federal government was trying to apply a federal statute
over provincial land” meant that the province had to be involved. On studying the Musquash proposal, New
Brunswick bureaucrats recognized that the development potential for aquaculture and fisheries would not
be impacted by the MPA, so the province could support the MPA designation. The eventual resolution was
the “transfer of administration and control,” in which the transfer of provincial submerged crown lands to the
government of Canada is expected to streamline management and regulatory processes (Duggan 2007). The
province reserved the rights to the minerals and there is a proviso that if the lands are not being managed as
an MPA they will come back to the province. These and other details such as surveys and locations of visible
boundaries took some time to resolve. In the end, the MPA regulation does not include the intertidal area and
DFO has to find some way to manage it.
65
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Quebec
In Quebec, the sovereignty issue exacerbates jurisdictional wrangling. Canada recognizes that Quebec has
jurisdiction over the seabed in the St. Lawrence estuary west of a line extending northward from the end of
the Gaspé Peninsula. Because of this and Quebec’s long-standing refusal to transfer provincial lands to the
federal Crown, Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park in the estuary was established in the 1990s under a unique
agreement enabling retention of the seabed by the province, co-management of the park, and the passage
of mirroring federal and provincial legislation. The Quebec Premier has recently indicated that provincial
endorsement of or participation in Les Îles de la Madeleine project would be conditional on adopting the
Saguenay-St. Lawrence model. While Les Îles was announced as an area for a feasibility study some time
ago, little progress has been made. The Manicouagan MPA proposal is also peppered with federal-provincial
challenges.
British Columbia
An early Supreme Court ruling established that BC owns waters within the “jaws of land” (bays, inlets, fjords)
and a more recent decision (1984) clarified that the province owns the seabed of Johnson Strait and the Strait
of Georgia because these are inland waters. Other areas of the BC coast such as Dixon Entrance and Queen
Charlotte Sound remain a subject of debate between the two governments. To address this uncertainty for
the Gwaii Haanas NMCA proposal, the province agreed to transfer the land “insofar as we own it” and Canada
agreed to accept it on those terms.
In the Southern Strait of Georgia, the federal-provincial relationship over the seabed threatens to stall progress
on the NMCA. Issues include BC’s reluctance to transfer ownership, the question of whether a specific act of
Parliament will be necessary, management of existing tenures that would fall within NMCA boundaries, and
ways of ensuring that revenues or rents from tenures such as docks, log booms, cables (utility corridors) and
fish farms continue to flow to the province.
Interviewee comments included:
“Where the province doesn’t want to move forward we’re stymied, especially where the province is the owner of
the seabed.”
“What happens to existing tenures if an NMCA is established? The province wants to continue to see revenues, so
the question is how to work out an appropriate agreement.”
6.3 Other challenges in federal-provincial/territory relations
Regardless of jurisdictional debates, all three federal agencies at times must cooperate with provinces to apply
an appropriate array of protective measures in an individual MPA, and, ideally, in a network of MPAs. In the
marine environment federal-provincial interactions take on a level of complexity that is not usually seen on
the terrestrial side. The high levels of cooperation required to resolve jurisdictional issues, align regulations
and coordinate system planning depend on positive federal-provincial/territory relations –apparently an
elusive situation in Canada.
Outlooks vary on the strength of particular relationships. One interviewee stated that DFO’s relationship with
BC has been improving, while another said that the provincial government’s mistrust of DFO is delaying MPAs
on the Pacific coast. Support from one level of government might appear strong at first and then dwindle at a
later stage of the designation process, for reasons unclear to other participants. Despite such nuances, virtually
all observers agree that the time and effort necessary to foster agreements between the provincial and federal
governments is a central reason it has taken a long time to achieve MPA initiatives in Canada.
66
6 The Role of the Provinces and Territories
Circumstances, issues or dynamics that have been constraining federal-provincial/territory relations include
the following:
Reconciling federal and provincial interests:
•Continued access to hydrocarbons – oil and gas resources – is a central issue on all coasts stalling progress
on MPAs, and this priority is often voiced by provincial/territory officials – e.g., regarding Les Îles de la
Madeleine project.
•An area of debate is what place provincial MPA designations have in a national system of MPAs.49
This issue mainly applies in BC, where the province has almost 150 protected area sites with a marine
component and the province feels strongly that its marine protection areas have a place in the national
network. Federal-provincial discussions towards a sub-agreement support this perspective.
Politics:
•Individual bureaucrats may have a defensive attitude – “you’re not going to do that in my territory.”
•Intergovernmental conflicts are often related to power politics at high levels, not influenced even by
senior bureaucrats. MPAs may be used as a negotiable item within larger deal-making.
•Inter-governmental competition over “who gets credit” and who will have the main management
responsibilities can delay the overlaying of provincial and federal conservation measures in an MPA.
Disruptions in relationship-building:
•Changes in staff, or retirement of key participants, can disrupt continuity in relationship-building.
•Elections also interrupt relationship-building and decision-making – e.g., the two federal elections and
provincial election were delaying factors in the Scott Islands proposal.
•One level of government might run short of resources when priorities change and/or budgets for MPArelated initiatives are not renewed, disrupting collaborative processes, or, worse, not following through
on commitments and incurring costs to the other level of government. For example, if a federal agency
commits that it will provide resources to manage an MPA on an ongoing basis but then is not allocated
the funds to do so, this can diminish the province’s confidence in future commitments.
•One level of government may make public announcements that appear to be ahead of where the other
level of government understood the status of agreements/progress to be, leading to mistrust.
Role of agreements:
•It is time-consuming to reach agreement on the details of agreements and MOUs, finding language that is
acceptable to both levels of government – e.g. formalizing the governance mechanism for collaborating
in the Pacific Marine Protection Area subagreement and Implementation Plan.
•A lack of agreements, MOUs, etc. may impede progress due to the lack of a strong framework for
cooperation.
•Progress towards agreements may be put on hold when one level of government decides another
process or policy has to be completed first. This happens at various levels/scales, as when an individual
MPA designation has to await the signing of a higher level MOU, or when a regional inter-agency
initiative stalls as drafting of a national plan or policy becomes the focus of attention for the federal
representatives.
49 See section 2.3.2.
67
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Inclusiveness:
•DFO is not seen to be leading in a way that calls on the provinces and territories to follow in forwardmoving planning processes.
•Lack of inclusion of provincial/territory input until late in the development of federal plans and policies
can be viewed as un-collaborative. Similarly, provinces may pursue MPA-related planning initiatives
without including federal agencies.
•Even if an invitation to participate in an MPA-related initiative is extended by one level of government
to another, the overture may not be taken up for various reasons – e.g. BC’s Central Coast Land and
Resource Management Planning process did not extend to the marine environment partially due to lack
of engagement by DFO.
•First Nations governments may also be part of the inter-governmental mix, adding to complexity of
communications, cooperation and relationship-building.50 Alliances may be struck between First Nations
and provincial/territory or federal interests, leaving behind the interests not included.
Interviewee comments included:
“Every time we get close, the Province or Federal Government or First Nations puts the kibosh on it – it’s a lack of
political leadership to say ‘we’re doing this’. It depends on the day of the week as to which government is saying ‘I
can’t do this right now.’”
“Federal MPA policy is typically made in Ottawa by civil servants looking at academic literature etc. without
consulting provinces or even federal agency regions until the last minute.”
“If you combine federal closures with different provincial designations, your level of protection rises, but then it
becomes ‘whose MPA is it?’’
6.4 Regional direction for an MPA network
6.4.1 Direction provided to an MPA network by regional and sub-regional
planning
In section 5.9, the sufficiency of, and issues related to national direction for an MPA network were explored,
including integrated oceans management and LOMAs under the Oceans Action Plan. The lack of a
comprehensive federal approach to MPAs was mentioned. While network planning strategies have been slow
to develop at the national level, more detailed systems for network design have been emerging at the regional
level. A few examples are provided here.
BC-Canada MOU on implementation of the Oceans Strategy
In BC, the advantages of a coast-wide approach to MPA planning are recognized by both provincial and federal
bureaucrats51. These include the efficiencies gained by doing analysis across a larger area, the ability to design
a comprehensive system, and an increased chance that the importance of potential MPA sites would be
appreciated at a sub-regional level.
In 2004, the governments of British Columbia and Canada signed a Memorandum of Understanding
“Respecting the Implementation of Canada’s Oceans Strategy on the Pacific Coast of Canada.” The purpose
of the MOU is to provide for further collaboration among all key government parties with marine-related
mandates to advance the implementation of specific activities and objectives identified in Canada’s Oceans
Strategy aimed at “Understanding and Protecting the Marine Environment” and “Supporting Sustainable
50 See section 7.1.
51 Some ENGOs also support this approach. See section 7.5.3
68
6 The Role of the Provinces and Territories
Economic Opportunities” on the Pacific coast of Canada (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2004). The goal is to
increase cooperation to work towards formalizing a system of MPAs on the coast.
This MOU sets out the requirement for subsidiary agreements to be developed for:
•a marine protected areas framework for the Pacific coast that will aim for the coordinated establishment
of marine protected areas;
•the roles and responsibilities of the Parties in coastal planning and integrated oceans management
planning and a method by which they will collaborate in undertaking their respective responsibilities;
•the cooperative development of an integrated ocean information management system to support
science-based decision-making and sustainable development.
Still under negotiation, the sub-agreement on an MPA framework for the Pacific coast is intended to set out
how the government will work together towards the achievement of the 2012 commitment. It is expected
to outline appropriate mechanisms, processes and structures to coordinate the review and establishment
of new MPAs (Government of Canada 2006). The sub-agreement will require the parties to complete an
implementation plan within four months of the signing of the MOU.
Those involved are frustrated with long delays in completing the sub-agreements, but at the same time they
are optimistic that agreements will have an important role in setting direction. Work on the implementation
plan for MPAs is well underway and there is enough of a shared understanding to move ahead. The service
plan of the BC Ministry of Environment identifies marine protected areas as a priority.52
BC Marine Conservation Analysis (BCMCA)
Meanwhile, cooperative technical analysis for the coast-wide approach is being developed by a team of
representatives from academia, First Nations communities, ENGOs, the federal government and the provincial
government, who are engaged in the BC Marine Conservation Analysis project (BCMCA), using MARXAN.
ENGOs are largely driving the BCMCA initiative; the province is dedicating resources to it; and federal agencies
are involved but are less committed.53
Coastal planning
A suite of planning initiatives which BC has had underway for some time may contribute regional context for
MPA planning on sections of Canada’s west coast. Coastal planning was completed by the province in some
regions (e.g. the north end of Vancouver Island) before funding ran out. Land and resource management plans
(LRMPs) are completed on most of the terrestrial side of the coast, but emphasis stayed on the terrestrial side
(largely forestry-oriented) even though there had been some initiative to extend strategic planning into the
coastal zone.
In the Northwest Territories there is a Protected Areas Strategy that aims to protect areas of cultural value,
special natural area value and representative areas. While it is predominantly a terrestrial strategy, it does call
on federal institutions to collaborate with “communities, regional organizations and/or land claim bodies to
prepare plans that define their intentions for establishing protected areas in the NWT’s marine and freshwater
ecosystems” (The NWT Protected Areas Strategy Advisory Committee, no date).
In New Brunswick, the Musquash area was part of a joint federal-provincial exercise implemented under the
Oceans Act. DFO provided a budget and took a Coastal Management Area (CMA) approach. Some feel that,
regionally, CMA planning is more important than LOMAs, although both involve integrated oceans management.
There are five coastal management areas nested within the LOMAs on the east coast, and one, the Bay of Islands,
is an Atlantic Coastal Actions Program site. This is a community-based program initiated by Environment Canada
52 http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2007/sp/env/, http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2005_Sept_Update/sp/env/env.pdf, http://www.bcbudget.gov.
bc.ca/2007/sp/pdf/ministry/env.pdf
53 See section 7.5.3 for more information on the BCMCA and MARXAN.
69
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
in 1991 to help Atlantic Canadians restore and sustain watersheds and adjacent coastal areas.
The Gulf of Maine Council provides another organizational arrangement for coastal planning on the east coast,
as part of broader oceans commitments set out in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
One goal of the Council is to protect and restore coastal and marine habitats to a healthy, productive, and
resilient condition.
Interviewee comments included:
“The national network is a collection of regional networks that you hope achieves national goals.”
“We’re going at it coast-wide to identify candidates, and then, where integrated planning exists, that provides a
good mechanism for more detailed examination of tradeoffs, boundaries and comparison to other candidates.”
“The rationale for setting an area aside for protection could be provided under a Coastal Management Area plan.”
6.4.2 Tension between regional and national initiatives
A decade ago, Zacharias et al. (1998) pondered whether Parks Canada’s or BC’s system to achieve
representation in a system of MPAs would be the best. As national and regional MPA initiatives continue
parallel to one another, issues of reconciling federal and provincial programs persist. There is a lack of incentive
for the provinces to join federal integrated management initiatives and vice versa. The provinces may feel they
have more to gain from their own coastal planning processes focused on tenuring54 than on larger, complex
planning forums such as LOMAs. A perspective from BC is that the province has more regional planning
experience and capacity than DFO and that federal agencies should build on this experience.
Arguments for a national focus
Arguments for keeping the coordination of MPA network initiatives in the hands of the federal government are
that national guidelines will be more rational, more stable and more efficient in the long term for the public.
Only the federal government can set priorities in different regions in relation to other parts of the country. This
perspective holds that initiatives like the BCMCA have value but need to tie in with national modes of analysis
such as the identification of EBSAs. Contributions from the regions may be more welcome at head offices of
the federal agencies once the national approach under development in Ottawa is complete.
Arguments for a regional focus
The other perspective, that a higher priority should be placed on regional (i.e. BC) MPA planning initiatives,
was promoted as much by federal agency interviewees as by provincial interviewees. They called for “the
centre” to buy into, catch up with, encourage and give latitude to regional initiatives such as the BCMCA, in
part because “unique regional considerations” need to be accounted for, and partly because there is extensive
experience in the regions. Projects in the regions could be seen as the “building blocks to a national strategy”
rather than as a loss of control for the federal government. This line of thought ties into the negative regionheadquarters dynamics mentioned in section 5.2. Federal agency employees in the regions (on east and
west coasts) tend to support more flexibility at the regional level. BC’s pre-treaty environment and attendant,
complex First Nations relationships were offered as an example of a unique situation that “headquarters
needs to be cognizant of.” Research by Agardy (2005) supports this perspective in observing that large
marine regions such as regional seas, semi-enclosed seas or eco-regions may be a more effective focus of
management than nationally-generated approaches because at the regional level “multilateral agencies can
cooperate to address the full spectrum of threats and embark on developing integrated, holistic solutions
… based on a better understanding of costs and benefits accruing from shared responsibilities.” LOMAs may
qualify as an “effective focus,” but the regional initiatives originating on the coasts rather than in Ottawa are
also significant.
54 Siting coastal uses such as docks and aquaculture requiring leases or licences.
70
6 The Role of the Provinces and Territories
Reconciling the two
Jones (2001) argues for a “middle ground” between bottom-up approaches (e.g. BCMCA), and top-down
approaches (e.g. the Guidelines for the Establishment of a Federal Marine Protected Areas Network). The
middle ground described by Jones falls somewhere between an approach primarily based on strategic science
priorities and one primarily based on socio-economic priorities guided by science. Agreements like the BCCanada MOU on implementation of the Oceans Strategy could provide the forum for defining this middle
ground. Attention to scale can also help reconcile the tension between regional and national initiatives.
From this perspective, as mentioned earlier in this report,55 planning and implementation of MPA systems is
hierarchical, and higher level targets (e.g. global or national) are interpreted and tailored to circumstances at
the lower scales (e.g. regional) (Agardy 2005). Conversely, projects in the regions could be seen as the building
blocks to a national strategy (rather than as a loss of control for the federal government).
Interviewee comments included:
“The frustration is you have the headquarters coming in and dictating a federal approach but the regions are
getting ahead and you’re doing catch up while pulling back and trying to come up with national standards.”
“There’s a federal strategy between the three agencies emerging in Ottawa while on this coast we’re far out ahead
of them. We’re frustrated that people in Ottawa aren’t willing to take things that are already happening and build
best practices from that.”
“One of the province’s challenges in working with the federal government is the regions’ lack of autonomy to
move ahead on things – when we get ready to sign an agreement, the federal agencies say it doesn’t meet
the parameters of national policy – they come out with global standards without considering the different
complexions of the regions.”
6.5 Working with the provinces and territories
Intergovernmental cooperation in MPA planning and management is occurring frequently across the country
(Government of Canada 2006). Federal-provincial cooperation has been good in some instances, as in the
resolution of seabed issues in the Gwaii Haanas NMCA reserve and the Saguenay-St Lawrence Marine Park
(WWF-Canada 2003). Also on a positive note, some feel that federal and provincial interests on the west coast
are convergent, both in terms of emerging consensus as to what areas need protection, and in a commitment
to a collaborative approach to a joint system of MPAs using legislation of both orders of government.
On the east coast as well, there is some optimism. Federal-provincial working committees under the CanadaNewfoundland Regional Oversight Committee have been successful. For example, the Committee on Oceans
Management is working well, without a formal agreement, “hand in glove with the provincial government.”
Yet the myriad challenges in federal-provincial/territory relations regarding MPAs need to be addressed
for progress towards the 2012 goal to accelerate. Federal collaboration with provincial and territorial
governments has to be a priority for implementation of the Federal MPA Strategy to advance comprehensive
MPA networks on the three coasts, and to support the provincial/territory role in preserving coastal and
estuary habitats (Government of Canada 2006).
A mix of positive and negative experience points to the following options for federal agencies to improve the
way they work with the provinces and territories:
•Clarify the role of provincial designations.56
55 See section 2.4 on clarifying the network target.
56 See section 2.3.2.
71
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
•Take an inclusive, collaborative approach:
•View the commitment to a national network of MPAs as a federal-provincial/territory commitment – not
just a federal commitment.
•Engage with provinces and territories earlier and more fully in MPA and related oceans planning. Maintain
communications with provincial jurisdictions in a spirit of collaboration.
•Include EC and PCA as well as DFO and provincial/territory agencies in regional projects.
•Enhance the role of the regions:
•Have some national guidelines but let the collaborative activity take place at the regional level –
especially in the area of shared jurisdiction.
•Have the regional desks of DFO in headquarters take an advocacy role on the region’s behalf.
•Ensure that federal agencies are represented in the regions by personnel in senior positions with
sufficient authority to negotiate with people in parallel positions in other federal and provincial agencies.
•Build understanding of regional issues in Ottawa through the regional desks and two-way
communications with the regions.
•Acknowledge provincial/territory interests:
•Acknowledge shared jurisdiction of the coastal zone.
•Acknowledge the provinces’ central interest in economic development and provincially managed,
tenured activities on the coast in the context of integrated management.
•Build relationships with the provinces and territories:
•Manage existing protected areas and related programs on the coasts in a way that builds trust with
people in relevant provincial/territory agencies.
•Treat relationship-building as a learning process, recognizing that each region is different.
•Seize opportunities when elected Governments are supportive and senior provincial/territory officials are
engaged to move ahead on agreements related to MPAs.
•Complete signing of the Pacific MOU sub-agreements to get the groundwork done.
•Consider an approach or alternative to MOUs (e.g. letter of agreement) with Atlantic provinces that is less
technical, legalistic and cumbersome than the norm, focusing on “what we want to achieve.”
Interviewee comments included:
“The people in the large federal agencies who are in the regions understand the regional issues and know
that the federal agencies cannot go it alone.”
“The subsidiary agreements should get us beyond all the federal-provincial bickering which has been a
reason for lack of progress in the past; it should set a course for collaboration.”
“Given we don’t open the constitution here in Canada, it comes down to cooperation – and how to do that
without getting too much red tape, to reduce imposition on how you govern and do business.”
“I would put a priority on having all three federal agencies with provinces at our federal-provincial
meetings. In an ideal world, we would come up with a collaborative network for MPAs.”
72
7
MPA Roles beyond the Federal
and Provincial Governments
73
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
In addition to provincial governments, the federal agencies must work with First Nations governments. The
difficulty of seeking to understand First Nations roles in the protection of the marine environment in relation
to the work of MPA proponents is such that a separate research project is dedicated to this theme in BC.57
Coverage of First Nations topics below is only at the general overview level.
Relationships with those outside of government are also important. Various players, while lacking authority
to establish MPAs, have significant influence in determining success or lack of success in building an MPA
network. The general public has the potential to be supportive or aware (section 7.2); local communities and
stakeholders, especially the fishing industry, can make or break an MPA in their area of interest (7.3 and 7.4);
and non-government organizations can influence public opinion on MPAs, push government to implement its
MPA mandate and contribute in other ways (7.5). Research organizations and scientists also have an important
support role (7.6).
7.1 Role of First Nations
The role of coastal First Nations in marine conservation is pivotal. Like the provinces, they have a make-orbreak function in progress towards a national network of MPAs. Federal agencies have had difficulties in
gaining First Nations support for several MPA proposals, including Race Rocks and Scott Islands in BC and Lake
Superior in Ontario.
It is important to note that the following commentary on the role of First Nations does not include
perspectives on MPAs related by people from within First Nations. It is also highly generalized and does not
portray the reality of diverse First Nations along the coasts and between the coasts. As noted above, a separate
research project on the role of First Nations is underway.
7.1.1 Relevance of treaties, rights and title
Boyd provides an overview of the legal complexities in the interaction between First Nations and MPAs and
summarizes as follows:
•Aboriginal rights to fish, protected by the constitution, will continue in MPAs, subject to justifiable
regulation for conservation purposes.
•Aboriginal assertions of title and jurisdiction over marine areas reinforce the need for consultation and
cooperation with First Nations in selecting, designating and managing MPAs (Wallace and Boyd 2000).
The situation of treaties in progress, or unsettled claims, produces an environment of uncertainty. One tool
that takes the ambiguity of the situation into account is the NMCA Reserve designation, which allows for
NMCA establishment in a way that does not prejudice future claims. This is the designation proposed for the
Southern Strait of Georgia NMCA.
Rights and title are critical to aboriginal groups not engaged in treaty processes such as the Haida as well
those in treaty. The MOU between the Haida and the Government of Canada with respect to the proposed
Gwaii Haanas NMCA in Haida territory took years to complete.
First Nations consultation adds a significant layer of complexity to the designation process, especially when
more than one First Nation is involved. This is the case for Race Rocks, where complications in relations with
First Nations have put the proposal on hold. In 2000, when the proposal went to the Gazette 1 stage, there
was an intervention by a First Nation in the area of the Douglas Treaties who felt they had not been consulted
and that there would be an infringement on their rights. A similar situation arose in connection with the Lake
57 This research project is also funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and led by CPAWS-BC.
74
7 MPA Roles beyond the Federal and Provincial Governments
Superior NMCA proposal when a treaty group unexpectedly came forward expressing opposition late in the
process, in 2002. Over the past five years relations here have improved.
The completion of northern land claims agreements span a period of over 30 years.58 During that time the
government of Canada has advanced policy and legislation on oceans management and Marine Protected
Areas. The differences among these agreements reflect this evolution in policy. For example, the most recent
agreement, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, has a specific chapter on oceans management and
provisions for marine protected areas. However, even in the case of the Inuvialuit, who completed their land
claims agreement in the early 80s, the lack of specific provisions for marine protected areas has not prevented
them from pursuing a marine protected area through the Beaufort Sea Oceans Management Planning
Initiative.
Certainly, future implementation of any type of marine protected area, like other protected areas, must be in
keeping with the provisions outlined in the land claim agreements, and these vary.
Interviewee comments included:
“If the First Nation doesn’t want it to happen it won’t – individual stakeholders don’t have that role.”
“In the area of First Nations, and (Northern Lake) Superior brought the issue home, you can look at an area with a lot of
clarity and see there’s an aboriginal right, treaty or claim, but not be sure whether treaty rights extend into the water.”
“We’re trying to do this in the middle of Treaty – we have a number of land and ocean claims that are going before
the courts soon; we’re in a different social environment than when the parks were made in BC; we’re on a learning
curve on how to move on conservation in that new environment.”
7.1.2 First Nations interest in marine conservation and MPAs
First Nations roles in connection with MPAs are multiple and complex. First Nations have a role to play in
coastal and marine resource decision-making as another layer of coastal government, and they also have
strong connections with marine conservation as individual users and as stewards of ocean resources.
First Nations communities have some interests parallel to other coastal communities such as the need for
economic development,59 and among First Nation members are commercial harvesters – who may share
interests with those of other fishermen.60 Yet the context is significantly different because of treaties, rights and
title, as discussed above, and because of the connection of First Nations with their territories, including coastal
and marine areas, since time immemorial. For example, the value of seafood harvesting has the deepest
roots in First Nations (including food, socio-economic and ceremonial aspects). Even the language of use and
management is somewhat inappropriate, in that First Nations see themselves as part of the ecosystem.
The lack of First Nation support for MPAs expressed by some First Nation leaders does not indicate a lack of
interest in marine conservation. Aboriginal people have governed the use of, and drawn on marine resources
through fishing, hunting, gathering of marine foods and other activities over thousands of years, so they
could be regarded as having the biggest stake of all in the sustainability of oceans ecosystems. Case study
research by Ban et al. (2007) found that First Nations are particularly interested in ensuring food fisheries are
protected now and for future generations, and in recovering depleted species. They also see an advantage
in management zones that would exclude commercial and recreational fishing in areas of importance for
traditional fishing. An example where a First Nation is anticipating benefits is an MPA proposal initiated
by the James Bay Cree. Local Cree support for the MPA is a result of commitment to the area’s cultural and
subsistence economic value, jurisdictional challenges to de facto Cree control of the area which designation
58 Nunavut - Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, 1993; Inuvialuit - The Final Agreement, 1984; Nunavik - The James Bay and Northern Quebec
Agreement, 1975; Nunatsiavut - Labrador Inuit Land Claim Agreement, 2005
59 Community interests are discussed in section 7.3.1.
60 Fishing interests are addressed in section 7.4.1.
75
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
may alleviate, and awareness of the potential for intrusive industrial use if the area is not protected (Mulrennan
et al. 2007).
Interviewee comments included:
“The benefit of engaging First Nations in collaboration with coastal communities is increased understanding of
First Nations culture and issues, processes, and acceptance and accommodation of their interests.”
“The Bands are certainly interested in marine conservation but they only have so many people available to discuss
these things – it can fall apart so easily.”
“Race Rocks got tied up with larger First Nations issues; it is no longer about making a couple of MPAs. It is about
the impact to the community and what other things can be done in those areas.”
7.1.3 Working with First Nations
Working with First Nations in MPA planning is time-consuming, yet essential: “we don’t get very far if that
doesn’t happen – it’s just the way it is.” Most levels of government, based on recent case law, will “consult” First
Nations on asserted rights but beyond that their relationships with First Nations vary widely.
Some government agencies have more developed policies and more extensive experience in engaging with
First Nations than others. A learning process is underway, especially for agencies with little experience. PCA
has experience in working with First Nations in terrestrial parks, and DFO has experience working with First
Nations in fisheries management. The nature of past experience is relevant as success in the MPA setting
largely depends on the level of trust that has been built over time between First Nations and agencies in the
regions.
Capacity is an issue for both government agencies and First Nations. If each had more resources, particularly in
terms of personnel who could engage in planning committees, etc., there might be a better chance of finding
ways that MPA proposals can accommodate First Nation interests.
The Manicouagan MPA and Gwaii Haanas NMCA proposals are possible examples where initiatives in working
with First Nations on individual proposals have yielded good results. In the Western Arctic (Beaufort Sea) and
on the BC coast (Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area – PNCIMA), there has been some success
in working with First Nations in LOMA integrated management planning. The governance structure for the
Beaufort Sea LOMA is a Regional Coordination Committee which is co-chaired by the Inuvialuit and DFO.
Collaboration there has led to the development of a marine protected area which is currently going through
the regulatory stage.
In PNCIMA, an organization called Coastal First Nations, in collaboration with the Tsimshian Stewardship
Committee, has been working with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. From late 2003 to early 2005 the Coastal
First Nations leadership worked closely with the Oceans executive in Ottawa through a government-togovernment process to harmonize objectives outlined in the Oceans Strategy with the interests of the Coastal
First Nations. This work culminated in a framework agreement which outlines planning and governance
structures necessary to implement marine planning within PNCIMA.61 An Aboriginal Aquatic Resource and
Oceans Management (AAROM) agreement between the Coastal First Nations and DFO supports Coastal First
Nation consultations with other First Nations within PNCIMA. (The First Nations in the Race Rocks area also
established an AAROM.)
A mix of positive and negative experience points to the following options for federal agencies to improve the
way they work with First Nations:
•Improve cultural literacy as a foundation for communicating with First Nations:
61 http://www.coastalfirstnations.ca/print/activities/marineuse.html
76
7 MPA Roles beyond the Federal and Provincial Governments
•Continuously seek an improved understanding of Aboriginal issues, including application of rights and
title in the MPA setting.
•Recognize that First Nations, bands, etc. are each distinctive.
•Consult First Nations on a government-to-government basis:
•Do not assume that First Nation members or representatives will wish to join a multi-stakeholder or public
forum.
•Consider a partnership approach to working with First Nations in MPA planning.
•Work with First Nations umbrella organizations as a way of streamlining communications but not to the
exclusion of engaging with individual bands and Nations as appropriate. Be aware that the membership
of treaty groups and other First Nation alliances can change over time.
•Ensure the First Nations appropriate for the proposal area are consulted, and ensure the appropriate
leaders/spokespersons from each First Nation are contacted.
•Build relationships in the area of MPA proposals or related initiatives:
•Strive to establish a positive relationship with First Nations early, even prior to launching a feasibility
study.
•Work together in places and on projects of importance to First Nations.
•Tap into existing positive relationships with First Nations, recognizing that one government agency may
have a positive history from a First Nation perspective while another does not.
•Include First Nations in processes with other players where possible (e.g. on advisory committees) to help
build understanding and share knowledge, acknowledging that this does not replace government-togovernment consultation.
•Listen, and engage with First Nations on their terms:
•Adapt processes and designations to suit First Nations.
•Build on First Nations’ aims for marine use and conservation rather than imposing measures.
•Recognize and accommodate First Nations rights and interests in the areas of MPA proposals and related
initiatives:
•Recognize Aboriginal harvesting rights. If this means there cannot be any no-take areas, then work with
First Nations to manage the core area to high conservation standards, using TEK and science together. In
some cases, First Nations may agree not to exercise their rights in core areas.
•Make shared, fundamental objectives clear, e.g., “these are conservation areas where traditional uses and
subsistence activities will continue.”
•Ensure that MPAs will benefit First Nations and make this clear to First Nations members.
•Explore mutually beneficial options for collaborative management of MPAs.
•Take the time and make the effort (with dedicated personnel and budget) to consult First Nations at a
meaningful level:
•Consider developing a broader strategy at a high level for engaging with First Nations around MPAs that
could provide additional direction to that coming from the courts.
•Carefully plan and implement the consultation process so as to build trust along the way.
•Ensure all three federal agencies have policies to guide engagement with First Nations on MPAs.
77
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
•Reconcile differences between federal agencies on how to consult and collaborate with First Nations and
how to accommodate First Nations interests.
•Accommodate First Nations’ need to consult with their own members and communities within an MPA
planning process – e.g. the Haida had a series of meetings to discuss the proposed MPA.
•Consider the potential to access DFO’s Aboriginal Aquatic Resource and Ocean Management program
(AAROM).62 First Nations that group together can access support and organize in a way that might
facilitate the pursuit of shared marine conservation objectives. The objectives of AAROM include:
• assist Aboriginal groups in acquiring the administrative capacity and scientific/technical expertise to
facilitate their participation in aquatic resource and oceans management;
•encourage the establishment of collaborative management structures that contribute to integrated
ecosystem/watershed management and planning processes;
•facilitate representation of member communities in interactions with DFO at the multi-stakeholder level
and potentially with other government departments;
•strengthen relationships through improved information-sharing between Aboriginal communities, DFO
and other stakeholders and among Aboriginal communities.
Interviewee comments included:
“You need a highly protected zone but at the same time we can’t restrict existing harvesting – we wouldn’t go
down the track of trying to get them to stay out.”
“The north is extraordinarily different than the southern part of Canada, on ethnic, political, constitutional,
and geographic aspects. To get an MPA agenda going requires knowledge of the north.”
“Keep listening until the telling is over, so that at the chiefs’ review and decision time you already have
knowledge of their views.”
7.2 Role of the general public
A key barrier to faster progress towards the 2012 goal lies in a three part phenomenon: public pressure is not
strong enough and consistent enough to build the political will to create effective MPAs; public awareness
is too weak to lead to public pressure; and a clear and compelling oceans story has not been communicated
to build public awareness (Dearden 2002, Government of Canada 2006, Commissioner on Environment and
Sustainable Development 2005).
Lack of public pressure weakens the MPA mandate in relation to other government priorities, and this is
reflected in insufficient allocation of resources to MPA programs. At a political level, without support from the
general public regional issues can dominate in areas of MPA proposals:63 Opponents to MPA proposals from
stakeholder groups and coastal communities tend to be vocal, while few members of the public contact their
elected representatives in support of MPAs anywhere in Canada.
7.2.1 Lack of understanding and awareness
The general public lacks knowledge or understanding of MPAs, the marine environment, and the need for
oceans conservation generally. More specifically, the public doesn’t know how the government is working
towards MPAs, how to get involved, how MPAs are important to them and why the government picked 2012
as the target. Certainly many Canadians are in favour of MPAs, including those involved in ENGOs. However,
62 http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/tapd/aarom_e.htm
63 The role of local communities is explored further in section 7.3.
78
7 MPA Roles beyond the Federal and Provincial Governments
politicians are not likely to react if only a small percentage of the public becomes involved by seeking out
information or responding to the campaigns of ENGOs.
The public cannot see the underwater environment, so it is especially difficult to make an environment that is
“out of sight – out of mind” real for people. As Jones (2001) points out, people are more likely to be indifferent
to adverse effects of human activity on marine life than on terrestrial species because of their lack of familiarity
and empathy with most marine life. Other reasons that public understanding of the need for MPAs is low,
related to this “lack of familiarity,” were identified by the interviewees. These include the following:
•MPAs seem to be amorphous. Proposals that focus on a special feature like the glass sponge reefs are
easier for people to grasp. Similarly, it is easier for people to conceptualize inshore MPAs because they
have a spatial component people can relate to.
•The public does not know what the different MPA designations represent, and the process for
establishing MPAs is unclear.
•The marine environment is foreign to many Canadians.
•Ocean use seems simple to many people who assume there has been one resource – fish, one
department – DFO, and a simple management regime – open access. The public is accustomed to
resource management complexity on land but not in the sea.
•Canadians on the whole do not share a marine-oriented culture. Most Canadians:
•do not live near the oceans;
•have lost touch with their marine heritage through urbanization;
•are not visibly connected to the ocean’s resources and dependent on them as people are in many
developing countries.
•Ottawa does not do a good job of articulating its agenda for offshore responsibilities.
•The case for marine conservation has not been compelling enough. Fisheries issues – even the collapse
of the cod fishery – are not seen as unique to Canada and therefore “we’re not embarrassed enough by it
internationally yet.” People can still easily buy fish to eat.
•There is not enough information on marine conservation available to the general public.
•Terrestrial conservation is well established while marine conservation relatively new.
Interviewee comments included:
“Until you get over the hump of general public support, the pace is dictated by the local situation.”
“Governments don’t take marine conservation seriously because the public’s not demanding it.”
“Public awareness is the best way to force the hand of politicians and government.”
“We don’t educate ourselves about the oceans and their importance; most of the Canadian public does not live
anywhere near an ocean – we’re not a coastal country.”
7.2.2 Public interest in marine conservation and MPAs
In general, the public is not demanding action on MPAs from politicians, federal government agencies,
provinces and territories or the bureaucracy. Pressure for action on climate change, for example, outpaces that
for oceans conservation.
Public interest in marine conservation varies across Canada. In the North and in Quebec interviewees pointed
to a particular lack of interest in MPAs. On the east coast the cod collapse was seen as an opportunity for
79
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
building a case for marine conservation, and interest in marine resource conservation is growing. The west
coast was viewed as having the strongest conservation culture; however marine environmental problems
tend to be local or regional, and not directly experienced by the majority of the population in Vancouver and
Victoria.
Building public support, or even creating a groundswell of public interest is a challenging task. Lack of public
awareness and understanding is a central factor – as discussed above. Other factors include:
•The public has not had the debates related to marine conservation that are necessary to set the agenda
for public policy.
•There is a lack of success stories connected with designated MPAs that would build public support.64
•There is a lack of champions or “cheerleaders” for MPAs to influence public opinion.
•There has not been an obvious place with an MPA proposal threatened by development that has had
continued, focused media attention and would help build momentum.
While lack of public awareness does relate to lack of public pressure for MPA establishment, the extent of
public apathy should not be exaggerated. Polls in 2001 and 2002 on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts showed
strong public support (75%) for marine conservation, and specifically for MPAs, in the Canadian public
(CPAWS-BC 2001, CPAWS-NS 2002, Curtis 26 November 2001). Jessen and Ban (2003) suggest that the reason
for the lack of public pressure on politicians to push forward the establishment of MPAs is that the public is
unaware of how little of the ocean is protected, and not that it is uncaring. Interviewees also noted possible
signs of public support, from “a wave of green in Canada,” to a “subliminal” desire among most Canadians to
protect the oceans. A “slow build” may be occurring, due to growth in media coverage of MPA themes and
more articles on fisheries depletion over recent years.
The importance of public awareness and support can be exaggerated. One observer pointed out that even
with public support the designation process moves slowly – as at the Southern Strait of Georgia NMCA
proposal.
Interviewee comments included:
“There is a lack of interest and MPA knowledge on part of northerners and northern governments, so
MPAs are not on the agenda. Many people in the north and in organizations that have decision making
authority – government and Inuit organizations included, have no idea about the conservation agenda.”
“There is no public sentiment to do something for the oceans here and create MPAs, especially compared
to the Great Barrier Reef which is a proud thing for Australians.”
“There’s a perception of increasing enthusiasm showing up at the political level on the environment but
this is intuitive with people rather than translating to support for getting things done like MPAs.”
7.2.3 Building awareness and support
Much work has to be done to increase public support for marine issues and thereby speed up the
implementation of MPAs. Wolf and Macfarlane (2002) suggested that the agencies responsible for MPAs
can, working together, build partnerships with marine stakeholders, build support within the bureaucracies
of the three agencies, and work together on common communications programs. One of the goals of the
2005 Federal MPA Strategy is “to increase awareness, understanding and participation of Canadians in the
MPA network.” A pilot project has been launched by the three agencies that reflects these priorities – it is a
collaborative model to develop common public education and awareness materials for the Saguenay-St.
Lawrence Marine Park (PCA), the adjacent proposed St. Lawrence Estuary MPA (DFO) and several national
64 See section 4.4.2 on the power of models.
80
7 MPA Roles beyond the Federal and Provincial Governments
wildlife areas/migratory bird sanctuaries in the area (EC). The project will engage ENGOs, academics and other
communities to identify the best vehicles to engage public interest in the network establishment process
(Landry et al. 2007).
ENGOs have a key role in raising public support.65 Government agencies cannot take political action, and there
are limits to the extent that government can take a proactive role in education in advance of policy decisions.
Politicians can limit the extent to which an agency can take a message to the public. However, educational
initiatives coming from government do have a role in explaining why oceans need protection – given that
government MPA programs have education as a central purpose.
Possible ways of building public awareness and support suggested by interviewees include the following:
• “Deliver a strong campaign for MPAs,” but choose messages carefully:
•Get the message out about the problems of the oceans. Make the public aware that “what is left in the
oceans is nothing like what it used to be.”
•Educate the public about ecological issues in the ocean and threats to the ocean environment (e.g.
bottom trawling) – “ring alarm bells.”
A converse view expressed was that we should engage the public with positive messages “rather than
doomsday end of the world scenarios.” Government agencies are not in a position to communicate “the
nasty side” of resource management issues such as fisheries depletion. As well, “screaming crisis” and
urgency may cause eco-anxiety and lead to people giving up.
•Present a clear rationale for MPAs based in science, that explains the benefits of MPAs66 and the logic of a
network of MPAs.
A converse view expressed was that the public should be encouraged to appreciate MPAs for their
ecosystem and biodiversity values rather than needing a connection with their daily lives.
• Inform the public about MPA designations:
•Explain to the public the general steps in MPA establishment, highlighting opportunities for involvement.
•Explain to the public the differences between the various MPA designations and the implementation
of the federal MPA strategy, because a lack of knowledge about what designations imply can lead to
misunderstanding.
A converse view is that the message should be about the ocean and everything in it, rather than the
different categories.
• Use existing resources and build capacity:
•Apply Parks Canada’s experience and resources for public education (based in terrestrial protected
areas) to public education about marine biodiversity, especially at NMCA visitor interpretation centres.
Interpretation centres in national parks on the coast could also be used.
•Build capacity for ocean conservation education in DFO and EC in connection with their MPA programs.
•Take a collaborative approach among federal and provincial/territory governments, First Nations, ENGOs
and industry.
•Ensure that MPA project managers have communications skills.
• Use various media and seek to reach various audiences:
•Get out in the communities with pictures, videos and presentations. Use images, since the public
otherwise cannot see the underwater environment.
65 This is explored further in section 7.5.
66 See section 4.1.
81
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
•Use television.
•Use arts as well as science.
•Find champions from among famous Canadians to help influence public opinion and politicians.
•Seek to reach young people.
•Seek to appeal to the general public at regional and national scales as well as the local level of
communities near MPA proposals.
• Facilitate public debate over the use and conservation of ocean resources.
• Establish model MPAs in coastal areas where people can experience them directly and see their benefits. Sell
MPA proposals based on existing successes.67
• Accept that building momentum for public awareness may take continued effort over a protracted period of
time – “It’s not a process you can rush.”
Interviewee comments included:
“If we could get some traction and money in Parks Canada with an NMCA model people could see – with an
interpretive centre – to demonstrate the kind of thing you can do, people would start to say ‘I get it.’”
“Strategic communications from government have to turn around the out of sight out of mind issue, with a sense
of honesty – it can’t always be nice happy things about oceans.”
“The public needs to better understand the benefits of MPAs – ‘this isn’t about stopping activities or closing off
areas; this is about maintaining something that’s of benefit to you and the public at large.’”
7.3 Role of local communities
Currently, communities in the vicinities of MPA proposals strongly influence the success or failure of the
proposal. This is partially due to the lack of expression of broader public support, discussed above. For NMCAs,
it is also a result of the demands of the gazetting process. Parliament requires a summary of consultations,
and parliamentary committees can focus on negative input. If opposition from local interests is expressed at
the hearing stage, this can hold disproportionate weight compared to support and consensus resulting from
lengthy consultation processes – “at the end of the day politicians will pull the pin if they think it’s taking them
into deep trouble.”
7.3.1 Community interest in marine conservation and MPAs
Kearney et al. (2007) point out that across the country, coastal communities and coastal resource users face
immediate challenges to their livelihoods from declining resources as well as economic and social factors
(such as limitations on access to resources). Whether a community looks at MPAs as a remedy for declining
resources or as a limitation on access to resources largely determines their level of support. In the case of
Parks Canada’s Western Isles proposal local resident opinions were divided, but the threat posed by no take
zones to aquaculture development in the end slowed the process down. More recently, fears of infringement
on commercial fisheries have played a role in slowing the designation process at Environment Canada’s Scott
Islands MWA proposal.
Yet economic costs and benefits to communities can be overplayed. People in local areas can be convinced
of the appropriateness of marine conservation on an intuitive basis, because “it’s the right thing to do.” A
67 See section 4.4.2.
82
7 MPA Roles beyond the Federal and Provincial Governments
prevailing attitude of simply caring about the environment can be sufficient to counterbalance opposition
from people who risk losing something as a result of MPA designation.
Other factors influencing levels of support from local communities include the community’s level of
understanding of MPAs, past experiences, and degree of trust in the government agencies involved. On
the east coast communities have had generations of negative experience with government, leading to
a distrustful attitude towards new initiatives. Major opposition to MPA proposals in the past can taint
community receptiveness to new proposals. Fear of the unknown comes into play when local understanding
of the implications of an MPA designation is poor.
Community interest in marine conservation varies from site to site, and levels of support for MPAs are place
specific. Even on a given shoreline, opposing views from neighbouring communities may arise, adding further
complexity to the challenge of building local support. Conversely, complexity diminishes offshore, where
there are fewer local interests. There, expressions of opposition tend to come from industry organizations
rather than communities.
Champions of MPA proposals from local communities can be invaluable. Local champions were pivotal at
Musquash and Lake Superior. These committed individuals can plant the seeds for and maintain community
support, build bridges with stakeholders such as fishermen, keep the proposal as a constant presence within
both provincial/territory and federal agencies, serve as a watchdog ensuring that existing and proposed
activities do not degrade the area while awaiting MPA designation, help gather data/compile information, and
provide government agencies with contacts in stakeholder groups.
Interviewee comments included:
“It may be that the MPAs agenda is seen in part as anti-development. There are hundreds of people
underemployed and desperate to get jobs. The question is therefore where MPAs fit into this agenda.”
“If coastal communities were asking their MPs to establish MPAs then it would happen – we need the support
from the communities that are going to be affected.”
“Unless the community is there and really championing the proposal it won’t happen. Champions within the
community who are passionate have to show that communities want it.”
7.3.2 Working with communities
Letting communities lead, rather than trying to get them on board with an externally initiated MPA, can
increase the chance of success. Gilbert Bay is an example of such success on the East coast, contrasting
with the Bonavista proposal which failed, and was driven by Parks Canada. Lessons from failures are being
deliberately applied, using approaches less likely to alienate people. At the same time, it is worth noting that a
community driven approach may lead to different results than a science driven approach, with benefits from
the latter perhaps being more certain (Ban et al. 2007).
For Oceans Act MPAs, the impetus was originally expected to come from communities, whereas current policy
uses integrated management and LOMAs as the generator of MPA proposals. Kearney et al. (2007) have
observed that “The implementation of the Oceans Act and oceans policy … has not adequately provided the
mechanisms for a strong role for communities in integrated coastal and ocean management.”
Interviewees offered many ideas for working with communities, including the following:
• Use best practices in community consultations68, e.g.:
•Make sure the key groups are included in discussions.
•Listen to the community after presenting the agency perspective.
68 See section 4.2.3.
83
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
•Go door to door in small communities if possible – otherwise host open houses and attend community
events.
•Bring people along rather than forcing them.
•Invest the time, resources and people necessary to build support.
• Build relationships and trust:
•Tap contacts in other agencies who have longer-term, positive relationships with local communities and
can make introductions or play an ambassador role.
•Build personal relationships between public servants in the region and local communities over time, “so
local people at least see you as someone to dialogue with and not to confront.”
•Support and participate in community activities and projects.
•Get local people involved in the research associated with the MPA proposal (e.g., summer students, “green
teams”).
• Educate community members to build local understanding of MPAs:
•Provide communities access to the experience of other communities associated with MPAs (e.g.
WWF funded a visit to the Lake Superior Steering group by people from the community of Burgeo in
Newfoundland near a possible future NMCA).
•Base the messages around protection on the stories of the area.
•Make sure people know the benefits and constraints that the MPA will create,69 and how they will be
affected – “let them know the negatives up front so they aren’t surprised later.” (This can be part of the
interim management planning process.)
•Keep momentum up once an MPA planning and designation process has begun. (E.g., at Lake Superior,
public support and participation have been fundamental to the process, but government virtually
stopped engaging with the local communities for years after the feasibility study was completed.)
Interviewee comments included:
“Work within the smaller communities on a one-to-one basis to reduce fears – and talk to them about the benefits.
Don’t let the bureaucracy get in the way.”
“Do things in the place – go help anybody and then anybody would help us – if it’s in this place, everyone will
benefit.”
“There is value to presenting the values of protected areas to local people but then it’s up to them whether they
want to protect it or not.”
7.4 Role of fishing industry
Competing interests for access to and use of the oceans was recently reported by federal MPA agencies as the
most severe constraint on their MPA networks (Government of Canada 2006). Dearden (2002) puts the blame
on the agencies: “In their efforts to appease local stakeholders, protected area agencies are now reluctant to
emphasize their responsibilities to a broader range of stakeholders. As a result, MPAs frequently are stymied
… due to objections from local resource extractors.” Perhaps surprisingly, several government agency
interviewees concurred with Dearden’s analysis and one went so far as to say that “100% of the reason for
dropping MPA proposals is stakeholder opposition.”
69 See section 4.1.5.
84
7 MPA Roles beyond the Federal and Provincial Governments
There is a growing variety of marine resource users. Among these, the fishing industry usually has the highest
profile in MPA processes. The second use with the most impact on the pace of MPA designation to date is oil
and gas. Only these two interests were addressed to any degree by the people interviewed for this study. The
latter, oil and gas interests, were seen as represented by coastal provinces to an extent,70 and in the mineral
and energy resource assessment stage of the designation process. Therefore, this section of the report focuses
on the fishing industry.
7.4.1 Fishermen’s interest in marine conservation and MPAs
The strength of the opposition to MPAs from commercial fisheries interests
Among commercial fisheries there is a pervasive sense of threat from MPAs. The fishing industry is deeply
suspicious of MPAs due to potential loss of opportunity, and is deeply suspicious of integrated management
due to potential loss of access and influence (Laughren 2005). Guénette and Alder (2007) observed that
“Even when fisheries are small or the proposed MPA is small compared to the fishing grounds, the battle
to keep the fisheries open or to keep future rights to fish into protected areas is inevitable and fierce.” For
example, fishermen in New Brunswick are reportedly extremely concerned with the implications of no take
areas. At Bonavista there was “a tangible fear that MPAs mean shutting down all fishing.” These east coast
experiences represent a broader misperception in the industry that no fishing is allowed in MPAs and they
always constitute a lost opportunity. The sense of threat also mirrors a widespread attitude of entitlement or
traditional right to fish and make a living from fishing, described by interviewees as follows: “for the species
they fish on these licences they assume they own the whole coast,” and “pre-empting chunks of the oceans
from a fleet is, from their perspective, moratorium creep.”
Fishing industry interests and local community interests are often considered to be highly congruent, but
this is an over-generalization. In BC the fishing industry has concentrated in a couple of key ports, so that,
currently, the vested interests of most coastal communities in local commercial fishing opportunities are
lower than they were before fleet restructuring. First Nation harvesting, sport fishing and aquaculture are
more closely associated with particular communities. In the Atlantic the coastal/inshore commercial fisheries
are more locally-based. In Newfoundland for example, fisheries issues are in the local daily news. In parts of
Quebec as well, such as Les Isles de Madeleine, the marine culture is still active among local people.
Fishing organizations present a strong political lobby which has sway over the provinces as well as influence
over parliamentary committees and fisheries critics’ offices. Regional MPs typically deal with fisheries issues,
and fishing industry interests have strong influence in the regions. Given the power of fisheries interests,
where they are willing to discuss MPA proposals, negotiations are typically long and drawn out. Proposals for
MPAs in areas with less commercial fishing are expected to follow an easier path.
Increasing signs of support from fishing interests
Despite the substantial opposition to MPAs from commercial fisheries, interviewees on both coasts noted
increasing support for marine conservation, including MPAs. This has tended to be expressed by individual
fishermen – especially younger fishermen, by particular communities, and by certain fisheries.
On the east coast many fisheries closures were based on the advice of fishermen – e.g. some no trawl
areas were driven by fisheries management agreements (the same has occurred on the west coast). A
Newfoundland newspaper reported that in Leading Tickles, Eastport and Gilbert Bay, communities and
fishermen supported the pursuit of MPA designations. They were motivated to conserve fish and lobster
stocks for the long term sustainability of the fisheries and wanted legislative security for their efforts (Wescott
2003).
70 See section 6.1.
85
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
The general assumption is that the hook to gain support for MPAs from commercial fisheries is anticipated
benefits. While some are skeptical that there is good evidence for the benefits of MPAs to fisheries, at least for
pelagic stocks related to offshore MPAs, an interviewee stated that there is “enough research to say you get
bigger, more and higher diversity of fish and more spawning biomass outside of reserves.” A 2002 statement
from BC’s United Fisheries and Allied Workers Union strongly supported this perspective, as follows:
WHEREAS, there is increasing evidence that a properly designed network of marine protected areas (MPAs) can
help rebuild depleted stocks, prevent the depletion of healthy stocks and protect fish habitat, and
WHEREAS there is increasing momentum within government to move ahead with the establishment of MPAs and
WHEREAS incorporating the knowledge of fishermen is the best guarantee that MPAs will work to benefit
fishermen.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this convention of the UFAWU-CAW endorse in principle the establishment of a
network of MPAs with core no-take zones.
Interviewee comments included:
“There is general resistance in the fishing industry to MPAs anywhere, even based on the presumption that fish
might be there because they travel or that a new species might take on commercial importance.”
“There are so many ongoing struggles over federal-provincial issues it’s constant trading chits and politicians don’t
want to use up capital, e.g. on resource revenue sharing for offshore oil, by saying no to commercial fishing.”
“At the level of individual fishermen people very much recognize the logic of leaving areas aside – like a troke as
something you leave aside in a woodlot.”
“A lot of the areas that are protected have evolved from closures supported by fisheries interests.”
7.4.2 Working with fisheries stakeholders
One crucial reason for building positive relationships with fisheries interests is that their cooperation will
eventually be essential to the success of the MPAs in the region of their fishing activity – as one interviewee
put it: “there’s not much enforcement out there.” Another is the fact that it will be a slow process to turn
fisheries attitudes away from the basic assumption of entitlement. At the same time, this set of stakeholders
is coming to realize that the oceans conservation train has left the station and they will have to be seen to be
contributing to conservation objectives.
Interviewees offered many ideas for working with commercial fishery stakeholders, including the following:
• Work with the fishing industry to build relationships and reach mutual aims:
•Continue to work with industry in providing the fisheries science needed for MPA establishment.
•Work with fishermen on projects of shared interest; e.g. a partnership with the three federal agencies in
Quebec is working on nurseries for lobsters.
•Work with fishermen to tap their local knowledge (e.g. in collecting information during feasibility studies).
•Find solutions through meaningful consultations, following best practices:71
•Include fisheries stakeholders in discussions about options for MPA management.
•Explore the kinds of restrictions or closures that are most acceptable in an area.
•Work with fisheries stakeholders to find options for resolving specific issues– e.g. ways of providing
licence holders with access to catch outside of MPA areas from which they are excluded.
• Take an incremental approach toward industry buy-in to MPAs:
71 See section 4.2.3.
86
7 MPA Roles beyond the Federal and Provincial Governments
•Consider sequential conservation measures in an area, e.g., start with a voluntary closure, then seek
regulatory closures and later eliminate certain gear types.
•Build on the tradition of working through the fisheries sector to set up fisheries closures. Move from
fisheries closures to MPAs.
•Get the fishing industry accustomed to marine conservation by involving them in integrated
management and the identification of sensitive areas, and bring in MPAs later, placing them in context.
• Educate/raise awareness among fishermen of the benefits of MPAs:72
•Also explain what is known scientifically about the threats to the marine environment from activities such
as trawling – “talk about the whole picture.”
•Strive to gather data about proposed MPAs that make clear their beneficial effects to fisheries.
•Emphasize non-fisheries benefits such as tourism income and employment as NMCA staff.
•Look at MPAs as a new fisheries management tool.
Conversely, do not raise expectations of MPAs as fisheries management tools when the objectives of an
MPA are not about fisheries enhancement.
• Explain MPAs and their functions, counteracting misperceptions:
•Clearly communicate what an MPA is.
•Clarify zoning and how regulations may affect access.
•Communicate the activities that can continue in the various types and zones of MPAs.
•Explain how boundaries will be identified so that users know whether they are within the MPA or not.
• Carefully consider the range of commercial fisheries stakeholders:
•Ensure all significant users of a proposed MPA are involved in consultations.
•Engage with the fishing industry in its constituent parts rather than allowing “a wave of opposition as at
Bonavista.”
•Talk to fishermen “at the wharf” as well as representatives of organizations.
•Consult discrete fisheries interests within large organizations (e.g. the smaller, locally based fishing fleet as
well as large, off-shore trawlers within the east coast Gear Enterprise Allocation Council; regional fishing
interests as well as the national Fisheries Council of Canada).
•At the same time, seek agreement from “the big players because the others might then walk away.”
•Connect with the more progressive sectors of the fishing industry.
• Get the right people involved in working with fisheries interests:
•Work with allies such as ENGOs, local communities or First Nations to win over or counterbalance
opponents to MPAs from the fisheries sector.
•For offshore sites with bigger, fewer players in industry, apply sustained attention from more senior
bureaucrats (requiring the full support of the regional bureaucracy).
•Encourage junior public servants to closely engage with fisheries interests at the local, coastal scale.
•Build on learning and experience from the offshore pilot MPAs.
Stepping back, some question whether agreement from the fishing industry is realistic if commercial fishing
72 See section 4.1.
87
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
is to be excluded from, or restricted in MPAs. It can be argued that wider community/public support at a
provincial or national level could provide reasonable justification for MPAs despite fishing industry objectives:
“the seas are not just the fishermen’s.”
Interviewee comments included:
“We have to talk to the fishing groups and work together – if the habitat’s destroyed they’re not going to have a
future either.”
“I am working with fishermen on a study that will help us understand biological features; where do you fish, etc.?
The fishermen know where the resources are.”
“In the long run they don’t make the call; we need to start getting over the fear that came with losing Bonavista
– the fishing industry is not a show stopper, though you have to watch your back …”
7.5 Role of environmental, non-government organizations
Many advocates of speeding up progress towards the 2012 Canadian MPA network goal are found in
environmental, non-government organizations (ENGOs). Government agency interviewees emphasised
the role of ENGOs in building public support for MPAs, and recognized their increasing role in MPA network
planning.
7.5.1 ENGO role in building public support
Earlier,73 the challenge of building support for MPAs in the general public was discussed. Government
interviewees emphasized limitations on governments’ capacity and role in this regard. They pointed to ENGOs
as being appropriate for “getting the message out” to raise awareness and concern, and to build a broader
constituency of support, especially in rural areas.
But the challenge of building support is hardly less daunting for ENGOs than for government. Due to the “out
of sight out of mind” issue it takes more effort, media attention, etc. than is required on land to move forward
on marine conservation, and funders do not take this into account in their granting to ENGOs. An ENGO
representative stated that it would have helped if the capacity had been sufficient to launch a major oceans
campaign over five years “rather than jumping into MPAs as a solution in search of a problem.”
Like the federal MPA agencies, ENGOs have to communicate with First Nations, coastal communities and
stakeholders as well as the general public in their advocacy role – to build alliances, understand opposition
and promote support. Most of the imperatives on government for building relationships with these entities
also apply to ENGOs – e.g., having a solid understanding of the culture and circumstances of the people who
they are striving to influence. A positive example is in Alaska, where ENGOs worked over several years with
the fishing industry and built support for MPAs. One government interviewee expressed appreciation for
support from ENGOs who have gone into communities to counteract opposition to MPAs in Canada. Another
cautioned that when ENGOs prescribe MPAs as the solution to marine conservation issues they are seen to be
coming from an inherent bias, and that their stronger role would be in raising awareness of the need for MPAs.
ENGOs themselves need to be able to demonstrate public support in order for government to view them as
speaking in the broader public interest in their call to prioritize MPAs among other competing interests in the
allocation of ocean resources.
Interviewee comments included:
73 See section 7.2.
88
7 MPA Roles beyond the Federal and Provincial Governments
“More and more people are coming around to MPAs in fishing communities – given the collapses, and because
ENGOs are pushing.”
“Everybody knows if we waited for the public to scream on every item we wouldn’t be moving on all this, yet a
vocal few ENGOs aren’t enough…. there needs to be an oceans ethic among the broad public.”
“Government agencies aren’t in the position to do the public awareness raising – we rely on ENGOs for the
messaging.”
7.5.2 ENGO role in building government support
While government agencies have some role to play in raising public awareness about oceans conservation,
the ability of bureaucrats to influence their political leaders is severely limited. Thus, many interviewees called
for ENGOs to play an advocacy role in this respect. Some felt that ENGOs are influential, and successes such as
the Saguenay St. Lawrence NMCA were at least partially attributed to ENGO campaigns. One noted that DFO is
increasingly willing to “give the fishing industry bad news because conservationists are as much of an alligator
as the industry biting at their heels.”
Specifically, interviewees hoped that ENGOs would:
•get the Minister on side when there is an MPA in the works,
•help pressure politicians/facilitate political leadership,
•frame the need for MPAs in a national context – not just in the regions,
•pressure decision-makers to get the Canada-BC Oceans MOU sub-agreements signed,
•urge government to provide sufficient funding (e.g., via the Green Budget Coalition, or in newspaper
editorials),
•create a political champion,
•take a central government focus and lobby standing committees of house and senate rather than
government departments individually,
•drive government to keep the MPA agenda at the top of their constituents’ thoughts,
•apply pressure at the final announcement stage to keep momentum through to legal designation,
•create a sense of urgency.
Interviewee comments included:
“ENGOs are the best ones to rally the troops – government people can’t do that … rally a minister or executive
director.”
“The consequence of not taking care of seabed and ocean resources need to be laid out clearly and related to
accountability, including internationally.”
7.5.3 ENGO role in MPA planning and other technical areas
Some ENGOs can offer technical assistance and/or fund MPA research, complementing limited government
capacity and stretched resources. For example, local groups knowledgeable about areas of interest contribute
information as they did at Musquash and as they are doing in the Southern Strait of Georgia NMCA process.
ENGOs further MPA planning by drawing interests together and contributing data and analysis at different
89
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
scales. They also help facilitate exchange of information across government departments in challenging,
horizontal planning initiatives.74
Planning initiatives initiated or led by ENGOs include:
•CPAWS Newfoundland is producing a Marine Areas Atlas to help determine ecoregions in Newfoundland
and Labrador that are designated as important and deserve protection in future MPA campaigns75
•The WWF-Conservation Law Foundation’s Marine Ecosystem Conservation for New England and Maritime
Canada (2006) outlines a flexible approach to mapping that can help decision makers in Canada and
the United States identify a network of priority areas for conservation. The authors believe this approach
could also play an important role in helping Canada meet the 2012 target.
•CPAWS-BC is working with the community-based Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine
Conservation Area Network and Dr. Rosaline Canessa of the University of Victoria to develop a
conservation-based zoning vision for the proposed Southern Strait of Georgia NMCA.
ENGOs have also published reports aiming to support MPA network planning at a national scale, including:
•WWF, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and others published a Vision, Goal, Objectives and
Guiding Principles for the Collaborative Delivery of a BC MPA Network in 2006.
•A Policy and Planning Framework for Marine Protected Area Networks in Canada’s Oceans was produced by
WWF-Canada in 2006 (Smith et al.).
•Also in 2006 Living Oceans Society and WWF-Canada produced a report, Recommendations for Effective
Marine Planning Processes: Lessons Learned from Case Studies in Canada, the USA and Australia which looked
at several MPA planning processes, identified success factors and “ideal conditions for proceeding with
marine planning.”
•WWF-Canada also published a volume in 2000 titled Planning for Representative Marine Protected Areas:
A Framework for Canada’s Oceans. The authors are a Canadian Professor of zoology – John Roff, and the
Director of Conservation from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority – Jon Day.
Earlier in this report the tensions that can develop between regional and national MPA planning initiatives
were described.76 The same is possible for ENGO network planning initiatives in their interplay with
government initiatives. Opinions on the extent of this risk varied. One interviewee was optimistic that regional
initiatives driven by government and ENGOs can be on the same path. At the other extreme, another felt
that “ENGOs try to duplicate rather than collaborate with government efforts” and one said DFO had not
been invited to an MPA planning workshop hosted by an ENGO, even though ENGOs had been welcomed
to have input into draft EBSAs. A fear was that the ENGO initiatives have the potential to “get out in front” of
government processes.
Interviewee comments included:
“The knowledge and expertise of these local groups was crucial in determining the final location of zones and
boundaries in the Musquash MPA.”
“The use of MARXAN to identify hotspots will go a long way to set direction. It will advertise the hot spots.
Government will follow.”
“There needs to be some degree of consultation with each other – if you are going to get out in front of them
especially – though neither wants to be seen to be in bed with the other.”
74 See also section 7.6.1, which includes other marine conservation initiatives in which ENGOs are involved.
75 “Repairing Newfoundland’s coastal ecosystems” in Canadian Wilderness, newsletter of CPAWS, Spring/summer 2007
76 See section 6.4.2.
90
7 MPA Roles beyond the Federal and Provincial Governments
7.5.4 Working with ENGOs
ENGO representatives are actively meeting with MPs and senior agency officials in all three of the departments
with MPA responsibilities, but relationships are not altogether positive. A government interviewee remarked
that responding to demands from ENGOs (usually on behalf of the Minister or Director General) is a drain
on the time of bureaucrats that could otherwise be spent working constructively towards the 2012 goal.
As mentioned above, some public servants feel the work of ENGOs is overlapping with government
responsibilities, instead of “getting on with the job.”
Local ENGOs, in turn, have expressed frustration with feeling shut out of government-driven MPA processes.
Their concerns included:
•NMCA planning proceeds for too long “in a black box” so the supporters in local ENGOs do not have the
information they need to strategize around impediments to progress and apply pressure in the right
places. Ignorant of the stumbling blocks, they cannot tackle key issues in support of the MPA – e.g. by
targeting their lobbying efforts.
•Local ENGOs are asked to “stay out of it” when government agencies feel progress is being made but
relationships may be delicate. Again, this works against potential ENGO assistance in moving things
forward.
•Regional processes sometimes pass over local ENGOs, turning to provincial or national level ENGOs.
•Local ENGOs are left out of some LOMA planning processes, especially as compared with fisheries
interests.
While it can be assumed that ENGOs and government agencies “don’t want to be in bed with each other,”
interviewees did make suggestions for improving working relationships:
•ENGOs should meet the Oceans Directorate nationally and feed into a public engagement strategy,
working with oceans users and scientists to review the products of OAP 1.
•Collaborative agreements such as the one between WWF-Canada and DFO can be productive. There is
potential for more effective partnerships on messaging around MPAs.
•ENGOs can complement the efforts of federal agencies in the regions, where the agencies have less of a
presence, perhaps finding local champions.
•ENGOs can sometimes build relationships with interests in MPA proposals who mistrust government but
are open to communicating with ENGOs.
•ENGOs could be strategically enlisted by government agencies to deal with incorrect information being
spread by opposing stakeholders.
Interviewee comments included:
“There’s a need for an engagement strategy that ENGOs could feed into – if they are going to help with public
awareness raising they have to know what’s going on.”
“The agencies don’t have the capacity to capitalize on the opportunity that the NGOs offer to bring.”
“We’re not that good yet at finding good mechanisms for involving non-government entities in moving ahead
on MPAs – they are turned down in providing help or don’t know how to help or are expecting a role that’s not
appropriate for a non-government person.”
91
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
7.6 Role of research organizations and scientists
Rigorous information and data are required at every turn in MPA processes. First Nations have a wealth of
relevant indigenous knowledge, and fishermen and local communities hold useful local knowledge. MPA
agencies are striving to various degrees to work with these players in the application of this knowledge. Here,
the role of scientists – both natural scientists and social scientists – in informing MPA topics is explored.77
The role of academics and consultants as analysts and critics of MPA and oceans management processes,
policies, etc. is also evident in the list of references at the end of this report.
7.6.1 Contributions of research organizations and scientists to various aspects of
MPA network advancement
Science for network design and candidate identification
Establishing criteria to define an MPA network has extensive science and social science requirements, and it is
getting the attention of the scientific community – possibly even to the detriment of attention to other topics,
such as the feasibility of different types of marine protection measures.
The shift to integrated management and a focus on LOMAs as a generator of MPAs was largely driven by
DFO’s desire to take a scientific rather than community-driven approach. OAP 1 enabled the implementation
of a rigorous scientific review and initiation of EBSA identification. At the LOMA level, scientists are included
among stakeholders – or are sometimes the focus of participation – in planning exercises and on committees.
The Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association (PacMARA), based in BC, seeks to develop and encourage
the use of cross-disciplinary marine science in ecosystem-based decision-making.78 It has conducted
international workshops and case studies. Its directors come from government, academia and ENGOs.
PacMARA may be able to maintain momentum in the face of cutbacks to government funding for PNCMA
– identifying core areas, working with communities, etc.
The BC Marine Conservation Analysis (BCMCA) aims to collaboratively to identify areas of high conservation
utility and human use in BC’s marine waters.79 The project emphasizes a scientific approach, using the
MARXAN analysis tool. Experts have been contributing data and ensuring their appropriate application to
identify areas of high conservation interest/utility (Royle et al. 2007). The outputs of the BCMCA are expected
to inform the implementation of the MPA sub-agreement under the federal-provincial MOU, although the
BCMCA itself does not advocate for MPAs. A government interviewee felt that the MARXAN analysis “may
help build a compelling case for MPAs through a clear vision of what is needed along BC’s coast.” The BCMCA
project is being led by a Project Team whose members include representatives from DFO, Parks Canada,
the Province of BC, the University of British Columbia, and ENGO groups. First Nations and the West Coast
Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board representatives participate in the Project Team in an observer
capacity.
Science for the designation process
Both social and natural sciences are critical at various stages in the designation process for MPAs. For example,
scientists are needed to review proposed MPA sites and review mineral-hydrocarbon assessments. Consultants
are often hired to do research in the feasibility stage. Communities in the vicinity of MPA proposals may also
desire scientific advice – to this end, resources in universities are sometimes available. Similarly, provinces and
territories wish to be fully informed about MPA proposals on their coasts. In at least one instance, a federal
77 See also section 4.1.
78 http://www.pacmara.org/about.html
79 http://www.bcmca.ca
92
7 MPA Roles beyond the Federal and Provincial Governments
agency convened a science meeting especially to facilitate a joint federal-provincial review of the science
behind an MPA proposal.
An Oceans Management Research Network (OMRN) workshop identified a suite of social science research
priorities relevant to the designation process in 2006 (Woodrow and Wilson). The federal MPA agencies
recently commissioned work in two of these areas, where they considered expert advice was needed.
Academic researchers at Dalhousie University were asked to prepare a report on Best Practices Related to Public
Engagement and Consultation in the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas in Canada (Hedley and Willison
2007), and a consulting agency (Gardner Pinfold) was contracted to prepare an Economic Benefit-Cost Valuation
Framework and Identification of Best Practices for Implementing Designated Marine Protected Areas. Early results
from the latter study, reported by Landry et al. (2007), stated that:
•Experts from across natural and social science disciplines should be engaged during the early
development of surveys to ensure that marine protected area scenarios are presented that are as realistic
as possible.
•There is a need to link socio-economic research with MPA science so that oceanographers, ecologists and
fisheries scientists can provide advice on ecological linkages and uncertainties in models.
Further along in the designation process, interim management plans and zoning schemes for MPAs also
benefit from natural and social science input.
The OMRN is currently working on refinement and implementation of a research agenda for MPAs with a
stated goal that lack of understanding should not form a barrier to MPA establishment. The task then becomes
to identify gaps in understanding, prioritize them, and address them in a systematic and adaptive manner.
Science for raising level of public awareness80
Scientists could be key to raising Canadians’ level of awareness about the need for MPAs, and ENGOs have
already begun to work with the oceans science community in this regard. One suggestion is that SAMPAA
facilitate a coalition for environmental education on MPAs and contribute to explaining the relevance of MPAs
to Canadians.
A government-sponsored, collaborative project mentioned earlier aims to include academics as well as
ENGOs, communities, etc. in a pilot project to prepare shared communications materials for education and
awareness raising in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.
Science to assess MPAs
The role of science most often mentioned by interviewees was to justify the need for MPAs and assess their
benefits so as to make the case for MPAs to opposing stakeholders or reluctant governments. Science also has
a role related to MPA benefits post-designation, in developing the plans that will ensure benefit streams do
materialize.
Science can conduct research on existing MPAs and draw reliable conclusions as to their effectiveness. In turn
this will strengthen the case for future MPAs. A specific priority put forward was for scientific monitoring, “to
better understand what might happen when fisheries are displaced from existing or proposed sites.”81
Interviewee comments included:
“Bring in the best science to put a picture out there of what is required to start to maintain and recover marine
biodiversity. The academic community has to come together to bring compelling facts that can stand the test of
scrutiny.”
80 See also section 7.2.3.
81 Earlier in this report (section 4.1) the challenges of clarifying ecological effects and socio-economic costs and benefits of MPAs was discussed, and
the argument was put forward that “proving” economic benefits should not be necessary, as MPAs should be appreciated for their ecological values in
their own right.
93
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
7.6.2 Working with research organizations and the science community
Early in this report it was mentioned that government agencies recognize that they are on a learning curve
and have to access expertise and information from scientists and academia. Later, analysis of the capacity of
government agencies for leadership in MPAs showed that shortage of resources for research is a constraint.
Guénette and Alder (2007) also concluded that one reason it has taken a long time to achieve MPA initiatives
in Canada is that projects stall when necessary research cannot be undertaken due to budget constraints.82
A related issue is that while DFO has a science sector, it is far more oriented towards serving the needs of
fisheries and aquaculture management than Oceans. This is due in part to the culture of DFO and in part to the
regulatory burden on the agency related to the need to advise the minister on total allowable catch numbers,
and to the Species at Risk Act. Carrying out research related to integrated oceans management, e.g., the
identification of EBSAs, is viewed as burdensome by DFO scientists due to limited capacity.
Capacity issues are exacerbated at the regional level. Federally there very few government scientists focusing
on MPA themes on the coasts (outside of Parks Canada in BC), though budgets allow for some hiring of
consultant experts and contracts for field work.
Due to the limited capacity for science within the federal MPA agencies, collaboration and partnerships with
research organizations are especially important, although even these initiatives require some funding. The
agencies are building their science networks, including through participation in the OMRN and in SAMPAA.
Specific to PCA, there is an NMCA Science Network on the Pacific coast. This organization recently furnished
to Parks Canada an evaluation of information availability in relation to Pacific coast NMCAs. As noted above,
ENGOs also play a role as they draw scientists together in regional planning exercises.
Currently, there is no coordinated strategy to support collaboration in MPA research. A targeted, systematic
and adaptive research strategy for MPA designation and management would help.
Interviewee comments included:
“The whole DFO culture is oriented around research that will help manage consumptive use of the resources.”
“Ask academic colleagues, what is more interesting? They’ll want to write about MPA system design, and show
very little interest in conservation areas such as fishery closures.”
82 See also section 4.1 re. information gathering and assessment in MPA establishment, which includes the cautionary point that the pursuit of
thorough scientific understanding runs the risk of unduly delaying MPA designation.
94
8
Conclusions:
Challenges and Opportunities
in the Pursuit of the 2012
Commitment
95
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Following are the main messages on progress towards a network of MPAs in Canada as provided by the over
50 interviewees and the literature which largely confirmed their views. The content of this section is comprised
of summary points from sections 2 to 7.
8.1 Canada and the 2012 MPA Network Commitment
As a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada has committed to establishing an MPA network
by 2012. Various more specific targets for MPAs have been set by Canada’s federal government in budgets and
oceans programs. Targets can be powerful motivators. The incentive they may provide is, however, nothing
but unrealized potential if decision-makers pay little heed to the targets in practice. Regarding the 2012
commitment, at this point the federal agencies responsible for MPAs are effectively “planning to fail” unless
sweeping changes are made.
Part of the problem is the lack of a shared vision for a national MPA network in Canada. There is no sense of
what the ultimate extent of a network would be and no agreement on what marine conservation tools or
protected area designations qualify as components of the network.
Mechanisms for clarifying the network target:
•Canada, as a member of the IUCN, could adopt the recommendations and definitions outlined in the
recently-released “Establishing networks of marine protected areas: A guide for developing national and
regional capacity for building MPA networks.” (WCPA/IUCN 2007)
•Existing IUCN categories of protected areas could be used as a standard for considering MPA designations
in relation to one another and to other marine conservation tools.
•The Guidelines for the Establishment of a Federal Marine Protected Areas Network (under review in the
regions at the time of writing) will likely address some challenges through a coordinated national
approach.
•DFO’s Oceans Action Program provides some guidance for networks at the LOMA level.
•Regional or sub-regional marine/ocean/coastal planning initiatives also provide frameworks for
combining and implementing MPA designations.
8.2 The slow pace of the MPA establishment process
It takes at least 4-5 years, and can easily take 10 or more years to bring an MPA on line from the time it is
recognized as needed until it is designated.
Challenges related to a lengthy designation process:
•loss of momentum, interest, community support and commitment;
•increase in frustration, fatigue, discouragement among supporters, fear caused by uncertainty, opposition
and spread of misinformation;
•missed opportunities;
•increasing costs;
•changes of personnel and participants leading to discontinuity in trust and relationships;
96
8 Conclusions
•breakdown of agreement/consensus.
Challenges related to drawing on experience in MPA designation:
•Some legislation and programs are new so experience is lacking.
•Experience in marine conservation areas is small relative to fisheries management and terrestrial parks
experience.
•Experience may not be transferable from one MPA setting to the next.
•Failed MPA efforts can set progress back.
•Some communities harbour resentment from past experience of loss of access, or appropriation, upon
the creation of terrestrial parks.
Table 8: Challenges and opportunities related to basic components of the designation process
Components of the
designation process
Information
gathering and
assessment
Collecting data
Challenges
• Data gathering, mapping, etc. to
build a scientific rationale and set
boundaries on areas of interest;
socio-economic assessment, working
with industry and agencies such as
Natural Resources Canada; and signoff on reviews of the assessments by
various agencies takes 2-4 years.
• It is difficult to do research in the
marine environment with the limited
resources available (e.g. funding, ship
time) so data is often insufficient.
• The pursuit of solid understanding
delays designation.
Opportunities and Options for moving
forward
• Preparation through information gathering
can avoid delays at later stages of the
processes.
• Readiness, with baseline information
collected and analysis done, allows the next
stages of the process (including regulatory
and parliamentary approvals) to move
forward promptly when an agreement is
finally signed, or senior approval is finally
given.
• Research is underway, e.g. through the
identification of EBSAs in Ecological
Overview Reports.
• Cooperation among agencies, academics
and ENGOs can improve the knowledge
base (e.g. using MARXAN in BC).
• Accept less than perfect knowledge as a
basis for moving forward to protect marine
areas, adhering to federal policy for a
precautionary approach.
Continued on next page
97
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Components of the
designation process
Understanding
costs and benefits
Challenges
• Some question whether science
provides proof of ecological and
pelagic fisheries benefits.
• Socio-economic benefits of MPAs
other than fishing, especially
recreation and tourism, may not
be realized if commercial fishing
continues at pre-designation levels.
• Mineral and Energy Resource
Assessment takes 2-3 years, can cost
millions, and can stop an NMCA.
Balancing socioeconomic and
ecological values
• Quantifying the values of MPAs,
considering socio-economic impacts,
weighing economic tradeoffs, and/or
realizing sustainable development
priorities are time-consuming.
• There is a need for tools for studying
and discussing trade-offs.
Consultation
process
• Effectively consulting the public,
communities and stakeholders on
MPA proposals requires government
departments to invest large amounts
of time and resources.
• Lack of support from some
stakeholders can halt the process.
• The consultation process cannot be
rushed or shortened without great
risk.
Opportunities and Options for moving
forward
• Analyze the effectiveness of existing MPAs
in achieving their objectives.
• Make a compelling economic or “business
case” for MPAs as well as an ecological case.
• Increase attention to ocean uses and values
other than fisheries.
• Be assertive in promoting MPAs based on
their ecological benefits.
• Draw on the growing interest in the
ecological and sustainable development
benefits of MPAs in coastal regions.
• Integrated management in LOMAs provides
a context for balancing costs and benefits.
• DFO has commissioned a report on an
Economic Benefit-Cost Valuation Framework.
• Link economic research with MPA science
so that oceanographers, ecologists and
fisheries scientists can provide advice on
ecological linkages and uncertainties in
models.
• Aim for a realistic level of support (do not
expect unanimous agreement).
• Create a template or foundation to guide
agencies as to what constitutes success.
• Follow advice in the DFO report, Best
Practices Related to Public Engagement and
Consultation in the Establishment of Marine
Protected Areas in Canada.
• [See further suggestions for speeding up
consultations, below]
Continued on next page
98
8 Conclusions
Components of the
designation process
Regulatory process
Challenges
Opportunities and Options for moving
forward
• The complexity of the regulatory
• Streamline the regulatory process by:
process is time consuming, taking up
to 20 months.
–
• Meeting legal requirements
–
for Oceans Act MPAs can cause
significant delays.
• Taking NMCAs through the
–
parliamentary approval process can
be time-consuming, especially if
opposition is expressed in hearings.
–
–
–
being well prepared through
stakeholder and policy work;
using the same template for
regulations for MPAs with similar
circumstances;
using the same drafter in the Justice
Department each time;
providing drafting instructions to help
drafters write regulations;
notifying agencies in advance;
following Treasury Board triage
guidelines.
• Prepare carefully for the parliamentary
approval process.
• Build support among MPs.
Further suggestions for speeding up the consultation process:
•Provide sufficient funding to support the process.
•Study social engineering and understand what motivates change.
•Start early, e.g. have discussions with key players even before bringing forward the proposal.
•Have a clear consultation plan with targets and milestones.
•Use high quality communications tools and processes, and have a strategy to get the message out.
•Be well prepared, with scientific research, stakeholder analysis, knowledge of key people and their views,
information on benefits of the proposal, how to mitigate losses, etc.
•Ensure key opinion leaders are closely engaged.
•Combine interests so that participants learn first hand of the different priorities and become less set in
their own agendas as they see the need for compromise.
•Multi-track consultation of different interests.
•Accept that the resolution of some stakeholder issues can continue after MPA designation.
•Invest more human resources such as communications and public engagement specialists.
Options for fast-tracking the designation process as a whole:
•Draft the interim plan earlier relative to the feasibility study so that as the plan evolves people can get a
picture of what the NMCA looks like.
•Follow the Australian example, where (to over-simplify) they designate MPAs first and negotiate with
stakeholders on the management regime after designation.
•Be less perfectionist in the package taken forward into the regulatory process.
99
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
•Aim for a general agreement on the zones and the fully protected areas at the point of designation for
NMCAs, identifying points for more work post-designation.
•For DFO MPAs get the essential management measures in place and do the management plan later.
•Create a “not so perfect” MPA and wait for public awareness to build. Then expand conservation
provisions or boundaries.
Key components of effective project management to speed the process:
•implement a well-thought out project plan;
•set timelines and milestones strategically;
•undertake tasks in a timely way;
•track progress and deal with issues as they arise;
•pursue multiple ends on parallel tracks.
Opportunities for building on experience:
•DFO’s MPA pilot projects allow learning-by-doing.
•Embed learning in policies and guidelines.
•Positive models can:
•anchor a network,
•demonstrate the different roles of various MPA designations and how they can work together,
•demonstrate socio-economic as well as ecological benefits,
•show higher level decision-makers that MPAs are success stories,
•build momentum by celebrating progress,
•show the public and users of the marine environment what an operating MPA is like.
8.3 The role of the Federal Government
The federal government and the three departments with MPA mandates are not currently showing strong
enough leadership to increase progress on MPA network growth sufficiently to meet the 2012 goal. Lack of
leadership is in turn reflected in capacity challenges and organizational issues.
100
8 Conclusions
Table 9: Federal government challenges and issues
Jurisdiction/
Agency
Federal
Government,
cross-agency
Leadership challenges
• Lack of political will
in the form of strong
commitment from
Parliament
• Lack of champions
in the decision
making groups
in government
(especially Cabinet)
Capacity challenges
• Very limited financial and
staff resources for MPA
programs cause projects
to slow down and MPA
programs are not fully
implemented
• Lack of solid figures on what
it costs to establish an MPA
or a network of MPAs
• Managers and staff
• While a shortage of resources
have limited ability
to push the MPA
agenda
is an impediment, its role may
be over-emphasized, and
more money is not the answer
to all challenges.
• Political agendas and
influences on elected
decision-makers
work against MPA
designation
DFO
• Not fulfilling role
of setting direction
across MPA programs
• Frequent changes in
political leaders
• Lack of obvious MPA
• No new funding for
implementing the Oceans
Act so actions on the
oceans agenda have come
at the expense of existing
programs
champions in the
regions as well as
Ottawa
• Oceans Action Plan 2 is
• Lack of vision
• Lack of commitment
DFO regions is low
to oceans program
relative to fisheries
and aquaculture
under-funded
• Staffing related to MPAs in
• Headquarters cannot ensure
that regional employees
are working on MPA
responsibilities rather than
tasks related to habitat, etc.
• High turnover in staff and
Director General position
Organizational issues
• MPA processes get mired in
federal agency bureaucracy
• Various problems in regionheadquarters dynamics,
including:
 poor working
relationship between
headquarters and
regions
 communications
disconnect
 policies and guidelines
from headquarters
impose uniformity,
constraining regional
responsiveness
• Major reorientation needed
away from sole focus on fish
harvesting and single species
management to include
the establishment of MPAs
within ecosystem-based
management
• Science mainly attends to
fisheries and aquaculture
management and research
needs
• “Central voice” of MPA
program and national MPA
coordinator in DFO is missed
• Separation of MPA policy
from operations causes
duplication of effort and a
disjunction between HQ and
regions
Continued on next page
101
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Jurisdiction/
Agency
PCA
Leadership challenges
• Lack of dedicated
Capacity challenges
• Limited capacity to advance
MPA position at
Director level
• Frequent changes in
political leadership
– 5 ministers and 2
CEOs since OAP in
2002
NMCA proposals, which are
expensive to take through
to designation
• Limited budget and lack of
• Lack of strong
• Bias towards terrestrial
protected areas
• Risk-averse approach
• Senior positions in the
regions are mid-level, lacking
standing for negotiating
NMCAs
dedicated staff for an NMCA
program
• (Marine focus of Western
Canada Service Centre is
helpful)
EC
Organizational issues
• Several areas of interest not
political will at
senior levels in the
department to move
forward on MWAs
under active development
for MWA designation
because of capacity issues
• Need for an up-dated policy
to replace the 1994 version
• Recent period of transition
and reorganization
• Lack of a national framework
to guide the regions on
the identification and
development of MWAs
Inter-agency challenges:
The challenges to reaching the quality of collaboration needed to move forward in building an MPA network
both at the regional and national levels include:
•inconsistent, opportunistic communication and collaboration;
•reluctance to share power;
•agency self-interest – resistance to policies, laws and regulations not felt to be in the interest of another
agency;
•differences in structures (e.g. centralized or decentralized);
•lack of national headquarters support and insufficient resources for collaboration;
•lack of knowledge of other agencies;
•“silo” behaviour and structure of government departments – unilateral, traditional approaches;
•priorities, goals and mandates of the three MPA agencies are not easy to harmonize; e.g., reconciling the
aims of Oceans Act MPAs and EC’s MWAs, etc., with Parks Canada’s imperative to establish representative
NMCAs.
Options for alleviating bureaucratic inertia:
•Adopt a more impatient attitude to moving the process along, pushing the envelope rather than being
complacent, and letting go of perfection.
•Undertake tasks concurrently rather than in a linear sequence.
•Be open to change and innovation.
•Take a business-like approach with timelines and targets that are set publicly.
102
8 Conclusions
•Keep the time line in mind, while “taking it off in bite sized chunks,” with milestones against which to
measure progress.
Sources of national direction for an MPA network:
A coordinated approach is needed to ensure the three programs are delivered in a manner that will result in a
rational, national system of MPAs. Tools include:
•The 2005 Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy
•Director Generals’ Steering Committee on Marine Protected Areas
•Interdepartmental Working Group on Marine Protected Areas
•Currently under production, the Guidelines for the Establishment of a Federal Marine Protected Areas
Network
•Integrated management planning in Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs), ecosystem overview and
assessment reports, and ecologically and biologically significant area (EBSA) mapping
There has never been a national level dialogue bringing interested ENGOs, research organizations, provinces,
etc. into the Federal Marine Protected Area Strategy, and this is not happening with the new guidelines.
Greater transparency and collaboration could inform tools for providing direction while building buy-in and
cohesion.
Challenges in the application of integrated management the LOMA framework:
It is uncertain to what extent integrated management (IM) and LOMA planning will act as a foundation
for MPA planning for all three agencies rather than just DFO, and it is unclear to what extent IM and LOMA
planning will help, rather than hinder, MPA progress. Perceived risks include:
•Waiting for progress on the IM processes and the federal network guidelines is stalling progress on
specific MPA candidates.
•An emphasis on IM in headquarters has marginalized MPAs, including the management of existing MPAs.
•The focus of IM is on reaching agreement among stakeholders, with no guarantee that any areas will
receive a high level of protection.
•The systematic, IM approach may preclude the establishment of further MPAs legitimately driven by
community interest.
•There are gaps between the LOMAs, and some may encompass priority sites for MPAs which will not
receive the attention they deserve.
•LOMAs (and some provincially-driven IM initiatives) are taking such a long time to study and plan that the
time frame for their generation of MPAs reaches beyond 2012.
•The LOMA program has not received consistent and adequate funding nationally. If IM processes stall (e.g.
due to loss of funding) there may be few opportunities to move forward on MPAs by stepping outside of
the process.
•Not all provinces/territories have committed to fully engaging in specific LOMA processes.
•The LOMA framework may not sufficiently allow for innovation and tailoring to regional circumstances.
Suggestions for preventing delays in MPA designation while working out a comprehensive IM approach
or other MPA network design include:
•Move forward with individual sites based on ecological values. Use IM later to fill gaps.
•Provide interim protection to key areas while IM proceeds.
103
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
•Continue work on the science of network design and building baselines while establishing the first MPAs
identified through the planning process.
•Take a triage approach at the start of the IM process – establish MPAs in places that absolutely need
protection now and tend not to be controversial.
8.4 The role of the provinces and territories
Provinces and territories can lead in MPA planning and establishment, and they can hinder, by prioritizing
extractive uses of the oceans in provincial/territory interests, and/or in resisting the implementation of federal
MPA designations in coastal waters. It is only through provincial/territory involvement that coastal and estuary
habitats under provincial jurisdiction can be protected.
Challenges related to the role of the provinces and territories:
•Levels of support for MPAs vary between provinces/territories and are relatively high in BC and low in
Quebec and Ontario at present.
•Jurisdictional challenges from provinces over ownership of the seabed or refusal to transfer ownership of
the seabed are a serious barrier, especially for NMCAs, which require federal ownership of the seabed.
Reconciling federal and provincial interests:
•Continued access to hydrocarbons – oil and gas resources – is a central issue on all coasts stalling progress
on MPAs, and this priority is often voiced by provincial/territory officials – e.g., regarding Les Îles de la
Madeleine project.
•An area of debate is what place provincial MPA designations have in a national system of MPAs.
Politics:
•Individual bureaucrats may have a defensive attitude – “you’re not going to do that on my territory.”
•Intergovernmental conflicts are often related to power politics at high levels, not influenced even by
senior bureaucrats. MPAs may be used as a negotiable item within larger deal-making.
Disruptions in relationship-building:
•Elections, changes in staff, or retirement of key participants, can disrupt continuity in relationshipbuilding.
•One level of government might run short of resources when priorities change and/or budgets for MPArelated initiatives are not renewed, disrupting collaborative processes, or, worse, not following through on
commitments and incurring costs to the other level of government.
Role of agreements:
•It is time-consuming to reach agreement on the details of agreements and MOUs, finding language that is
acceptable to both levels of government – e.g. formalizing the governance mechanism for collaborating
in the Pacific MOU Marine Protection Area Implementation Plan.
•A lack of agreements, MOUs, etc. may impede progress due to the lack of a strong framework for
cooperation.
•Progress towards agreements may be put on hold when one level of government decides another
process or policy has to be completed first.
104
8 Conclusions
Inclusiveness:
•Lack of inclusion of provincial/territory input until late in the development of federal plans and policies
can be viewed as un-collaborative. Similarly, provinces may pursue MPA-related planning initiatives
without including federal agencies.
•Even if an invitation to participate in an MPA-related initiative is extended by one level of government to
another, the overture may not be taken up for various reasons.
•First Nations governments may also be part of the inter-governmental mix, adding to complexity of
communications, cooperation and relationship-building. Alliances may be struck between First Nations
and provincial/territory or federal interests, leaving behind the interests not included.
Opportunities in regional planning for MPAs initiated on the coasts:
While system planning has been lacking at the national level, more detailed systems for network design have
been emerging at the regional level. Advantages of a coast-wide perspective in BC include the efficiencies
gained by doing analysis across a larger area, the ability to design a comprehensive system, and lowering the
risk that the importance of potential MPA sites would be under-appreciated at a lower level (e.g. LOMA).
Coastal plans, strategic regional and protected area planning (as some provinces/territories have undertaken
terrestrially) and coastal area planning all have potential to provide a regional context for MPA planning.
Reconciling tension between regional and national initiatives:
As national and regional MPA initiatives continue parallel to one another, issues of reconciling federal and
provincial programs arise. Regional approaches have the advantages noted above and can better account for
unique regional considerations. National frameworks set priorities in different regions in relation to other parts
of the country, and are claimed to be more rational, more stable and more efficient in the long term.
A “middle ground” lies between bottom-up approaches (e.g. BCMCA) and top-down approaches (e.g. the
Guidelines for the Establishment of a Federal Marine Protected Areas Network). The middle ground falls
somewhere between an approach primarily based on strategic science priorities and one primarily based
on socio-economic priorities guided by science (Jones 2001). Agreements like the BC-Canada MOU on
implementation of the Oceans Strategy could provide the forum for defining this middle ground.
Attention to scale can also help reconcile the tension between regional and national initiatives. From
this viewpoint planning and implementation of MPA systems is hierarchical, and higher level targets are
interpreted and tailored to circumstances at the lower scales (Agardy 2005). Conversely, projects in the regions
could be seen as the building blocks to a national strategy.
Suggestions for working with the provinces and territories:
Some federal-provincial/territory initiatives around oceans management and MPAs are working well, but the
myriad challenges in federal-provincial/territory relations regarding MPAs need to be addressed for progress
towards the 2012 goal to accelerate. Suggestions include:
•Take an inclusive, collaborative approach.
•Enhance the role of the regions.
•Acknowledge provincial/territory interests.
•Build relationships with the provinces and territories.
•Seize opportunities when elected Governments are supportive and senior provincial/territory officials are
engaged to move ahead on agreements related to MPAs.
•To resolve jurisdictional challenges, transfer of administration and control from the province to the federal
105
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
government is one option. Special legislation enabling retention of the seabed by the province is another.
•Sign the Pacific MOU and sub-agreements to complete the groundwork for the Pacific coast MPA
network.
•Consider an approach or alternative to MOUs (e.g. letter of agreement) with Atlantic provinces that is
practical and action-oriented.
8.5 MPA roles beyond the Federal and Provincial
governments
The federal government cannot reach the 2012 goal working in isolation. In addition to provincial
governments, the federal agencies must work with First Nations governments. The difficulty of seeking to
understand First Nations roles in the protection of the marine environment in relation to the work of MPA
proponents such that a separate research project is dedicated to this theme in BC.83 Coverage of the First
Nations theme in this report is only at the general overview level.
8.5.1 The role of First Nations
First Nations have a role to play in coastal and marine resource decision-making as another layer of coastal
government, and they also have strong connections with marine conservation as individual users and as
stewards of ocean resources since time immemorial. Like the provinces, they have a make-or-break role in
progress towards a national network of MPAs.
Aboriginal rights and title lead to the following “givens”:
•Aboriginal rights to fish, protected by the constitution, will continue in MPAs, subject to justifiable
regulation for conservation purposes.
•Aboriginal assertions of title and jurisdiction over marine areas reinforce the need for consultation,
accommodation and cooperation with First Nations in selecting, designating and managing MPAs.
•In areas with treaties/land claim settlements, any MPA agenda has to dovetail with and be implemented
by or connected with implementation of the agreements.
Challenges related to the role of First Nations:
•Federal agencies have had difficulties in gaining First Nations support for several MPA proposals.
•The situation of treaties in progress, or unsettled claims, produces an environment of uncertainty.
•Consultation with First Nations adds a significant layer of complexity to the designation process,
especially when more than one First Nation is involved.
First Nations interest in marine conservation and MPAs:
•First Nations are particularly interested in ensuring food fisheries are protected now and for future
generations, and in recovering depleted species.
•First Nations may see an advantage in management zones that would exclude commercial and
recreational fishing in areas of importance for traditional fishing.
83 This research project is also funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and led by CPAWS-BC.
106
8 Conclusions
•Nations that have had negative experiences with respect to fisheries management or terrestrial parks may
carry that forward to interactions with the same departments concerning MPAs.
Suggestions for working with First Nations
Working with First Nations in MPA planning is time-consuming, yet essential. Suggestions include:
•Follow the example of the NMCA Reserve designation, which allows for NMCA establishment in a way
that does not prejudice future claims.
•Improve cultural literacy as a foundation for communicating with First Nations.
•Consult First Nations on a government-to-government basis.
•Build relationships in the area of MPA proposals or related initiatives.
•Listen, and engage with First Nations on their terms. Adapt processes and designations to suit First
Nations and build on First Nations’ aims for marine use and conservation rather than imposing measures.
•Take the time and make the effort (with dedicated personnel and budget) to consult First Nations on a
meaningful level.
•Ensure that MPAs will benefit First Nations and make this clear to First Nations members.
Continued on next page
107
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
8.5.2 Other players
Those outside of government, while lacking authority to establish MPAs, have significant influence in
determining success or lack of success in implementing MPAs.
Table 10: The role of players outside of government, related challenges and suggestions for working
together
Sector and
general role
General public
Support needed
to pressure
politicians
to provide
leadership,
mandate and
capacity to MPA
agencies
Challenges
• Lack of public pressure
weakens the MPA mandate
in relation to other
government priorities
and interests represented
by coastal members of
parliament.
• The general public lacks
understanding of MPAs,
the marine environment,
and the need for oceans
conservation.
• There is a lack of champions
for MPAs to influence public
opinion.
• The extent of public apathy
should not be exaggerated.
Polls show that there
is support for marine
conservation in the Canadian
public.
Suggestions for working together
• Educational initiatives coming from government have a
role in explaining why oceans need protection.
• A pilot project has been launched by the three agencies
to develop common public education and awareness
materials for the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park
(Parks Canada), the adjacent proposed St. Lawrence
Estuary MPA (Fisheries and Oceans) and several national
wildlife areas/migratory bird sanctuaries in the area
(Environment Canada).
• Suggestions:




Facilitate public debate over the use and
conservation of ocean resources.
Work with ENGOs in awareness raising.
Establish model MPAs in coastal areas where people
can experience them directly and see their benefits.
Accept that building momentum for public
awareness may take continued effort over a
protracted period of time.
Continued on next page
108
8 Conclusions
Sector and
general role
Local
communities
MPA agencies
will not go
ahead with an
MPA without
local community
support
Challenges
• Opposition from
local interests at the
parliamentary hearing stage
can hold disproportionate
weight.
• Coastal communities have
had negative experience
with government, leading to
a distrustful attitude.
• Major opposition to MPA
proposals in the past
can taint community
receptiveness to new
proposals.
• Fear of the unknown
comes into play when
local understanding of the
implications of an MPA
designation is poor.
Fishing industry
Highly influential
in the success or
failure of MPA
proposals
• The industry tends to be
opposed to MPAs based on
fear of loss of access and
infringement on perceived
entitlement to fish.
• Fishing organizations
present an influential
political lobby.
• Negotiations with the fishing
industry over MPA proposals
are typically long and drawn
out.
• Benefits of MPAs to pelagic
fisheries are uncertain.
Suggestions for working together
• A prevailing attitude of caring about the environment
can be sufficient to counterbalance opposition in
communities.
• Off-shore MPAs are subject to less pressure from local
communities.
• MPA proposals driven by communities have more
support.
• Local champions can be pivotal.
• Lessons from the failures are being applied, using
approaches less likely to alienate people.
• Suggestions:




Use best practices in community consultations.
Build relationships and trust.
Educate community members to build local
understanding of MPAs.
Keep momentum up once an MPA planning and
designation process has begun.
• Individual fishermen, fishermen in particular
communities, and certain fisheries are increasingly
expressing support.
• Suggestions:







Work with the fishing industry to build relationships
and reach mutual aims.
Find solutions through meaningful consultations.
Take an incremental approach toward industry buyin to MPAs.
Educate/raise awareness among fishermen of the
benefits of MPAs.
Explain MPAs and their functions, counteracting
misperceptions.
Carefully consider the range of commercial fisheries
stakeholders, beyond the large organizations.
Build on learning and experience from the offshore
pilot MPAs.
Continued on next page
109
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Sector and
general role
Challenges
Environmental
nongovernment
organizations
• Building support in the
Can support by
raising public
awareness,
holding
government
accountable,
providing
technical
assistance,
funding
research, and in
MPA planning
• ENGOs have not had the
marine environment is
difficult, due to the “out of
sight out of mind” issue.
capacity to deliver a major
oceans campaign.
• Tensions can develop
between ENGO-lead
network planning initiatives
and government planning
initiatives.
• Some government officials
feel that some ENGO
initiatives are duplicating
government work, or getting
ahead of government.
• Local ENGOs have felt shut
out of government-driven
MPA processes.
Suggestions for working together
• ENGOs can raise awareness and concern, and build a
broader constituency of support.
• ENGOs can pressure government in ways that public
servants cannot.
• Local ENGOs knowledgeable about areas of interest
contribute information, and some provide funding for
MPA-related research.
• ENGOs further MPA planning by drawing interests
together, contributing data and analysis at different
scales, and maintaining momentum in the face of
cutbacks to government funding.
• ENGOs have published reports to support MPA network
planning at a national scale.
• Suggestions:





ENGOs could meet the Oceans Directorate
nationally and feed into a public engagement
strategy.
There is potential for more effective partnerships on
messaging around MPAs.
ENGOs can complement the efforts of federal
agencies in the regions, where the agencies have
less of a presence.
ENGOs can build relationships with interests in MPA
proposals who mistrust government.
ENGOs can counteract incorrect information being
spread by opposing stakeholders.
Continued on next page
110
8 Conclusions
Sector and
general role
Research
organizations
and scientists
Can support
with expertise
and information
Challenges
• Government agencies
are on a learning curve
and need expertise and
information from scientists
and academia.
• MPA projects stall when
necessary research cannot
be undertaken due to
budget constraints.
• DFO science sector is
oriented towards serving
the needs of fisheries and
aquaculture management.
• A strong science case is
needed to make the case for
MPAs.
Suggestions for working together
• Government agency collaboration and partnerships
with research organizations is growing.
• The scientific community is contributing to MPA network
definition.
• IM and LOMA planning encourage a scientific approach.
• Scientists inform communities and provincial agencies
as well as federal agencies.
• Scientists can help in raising Canadians’ level of
awareness about the need for MPAs.
• Federal MPA agencies have commissioned expert
reports on topics related to the MPA designation
process.
• Work together to create a targeted, systematic and
adaptive research strategy for MPA network design,
designation and management.
• There is no coordinated
strategy to support
collaboration in MPA
research.
111
112
9
References
113
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
9.1 Reports, publications and websites
Agardy, Tundi. 2005. Global marine conservation policy versus site-level implementation: the mismatch of scale and its
implications. pp. 241-296 in Marine Ecology Progress Series vol. 300.
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, National Representative System of
Marine Protected Areas
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/index.html [accessed 30 January 2008]
Ban, Natalie, Amanda C.J. Vincent, and Chris Picard. 2007. Advancing Community-based marine conservation: A strategy
for success from British Columbia. paper presented at SAMPAA Conference. Wolfville, Nova Scotia.
Ban, Natalie and Jackie Alder. 2008. How wild is the ocean? Assessing the intensity of anthropogenic marine activities in
British Columbia, Canada. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 18: 55–85.
B.C. Ministry of Environment, Strategic Policy Division, Government of Canada, University of Victoria, UBC Fisheries Centre.
2006. Alive and Inseparable: BC’s Coastal Environment website: British Columbia’s Coastal Environment: 2006
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/bcce/images/bcce_report.pdf [accessed 6 November 2007]
B.C. Ministry of Environment and Environmental Assessment Office. 2005. 2005/2006-2007/2008 Service Plan. http://
www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2005_Sept_Update/sp/env/env.pdf [accessed January 28, 2008].
B.C. Ministry of Environment and Environmental Assessment Office. 2007. 2007/08–2009/10 Service Plan, Performance
Plan Summary Table. http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2007/sp/env/default.aspx?hash=7 [accessed 6 November 2007].
British Columbia Marine Conservation Analysis
http://www.bcmca.ca/ [accessed 30 January 2008]
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, BC Chapter. 19 November 2001. Press Release: British Columbians want more
protection in the ocean, says new poll.
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, NS Chapter. 16 February 2002. Press Release: Northwest Atlantic Ocean Needs
More Protection: Poll show the public strongly favors more fully protected marine areas in New England and Atlantic
Canada just as a new scientific study shows how urgently they are needed.
–
Canadian Nature Federation. 2002. Conserving Wildlife on a Shoestring Budget Opportunities and Challenges for
Canada’s National Wildlife Areas, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries and Marine Wildlife Areas. Prepared by the Canadian
Nature Federation. September 2002. http://ibacanada.ca/pdf/NWA_PLAN.PDF [accessed on 6 November 2007]
Coastal First Nations Turning Point Initiative, Integrated Marine Use Planning Underway in Communities, History of
Development. http://www.coastalfirstnations.ca/print/activities/marineuse.html [accessed 6 November 2007]
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. 2005. Report of the Commissioner of the Environment
and Sustainable Development – Chapter 1, Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Canada’s Oceans Management Strategy.
Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
Curtis, Malcolm. 26 November 2001. “British Columbians want coast protected, says poll.” Victoria: Times Colonist.
Day, Jon and John Roff. 2000. Planning for Representative Marine Protected Areas: A Framework for Canada’s Oceans.
Toronto, WWF-Canada.
Dearden, Philip and Jessica Dempsey. 2004. Protected areas in Canada: decade of change. pp. 225-239 in The Canadian
Geographer 48:2.
Dearden, Philip 2002. Marine Parks. pp 354-377 in Philip Dearden and Rick Rollins (eds) Parks and Protected Areas in
Canada – Planning and Management.
Duggan, D. 2007. Legal-political considerations in delimiting the boundaries of the Musquash Marine Protected Area:
Transfer of administration and control option. Paper presented at SAMPAA Conference. Wolfville, Nova Scotia.
114
9 References
Easter, Wayne. 2001. House of Commons Report on the Oceans Act. Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of Parliament
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?COM=216&Lang=1&SourceId=213610 [accessed on 6
November 2007].
Environment Canada. 2003. Environment Canada Performance Report for the period ending March 31, 2003.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/dpr/2003/en/c4b.htm#broader
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region Treaty and Aboriginal Fisheries Programs, Aboriginal Aquatic Resource and
Oceans Management (AAROM) website:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/tapd/aarom_e.htm [last updated June 26 2007].
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2004. Memorandum of Understanding respecting the implementation of Canada’s Oceans
Strategy on the Pacific Coast of Canada. Oceans and Fish Habitat, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/ri-rs/bc-cb/index_e.asp [accessed on 6 November 2007]
Gell, F.R and C. M. Roberts. 2003. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 18(9):448-55.
Government of Canada. 2006. Canadian Protected Areas Status Report 2000-2005. Gatineau, Quebec, Environment
Canada. Ch. 3. Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Planning
http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publications/habitat/cpa-apc/pdf/chap3-4_e.pdf (last updated: 12 April 2007; accessed
on 20 August 2007)]
HTML version: http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publications/habitat/cpa-apc/c3_e.cfm [last updated: 12 April 2007;
accessed 20 August 2007].
Guénette, Sylvie and J. Alder. 2007. Lessons from Marine Protected Areas and Integrated Ocean Management Initiatives in
Canada. Coastal Management. Volume 35 Issue 1 pp 51-78.
Halpern, B. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications
13: S117 – S137
Hedley, Carolyn and Martin Willison. 2007. Best practices related to public engagement and consultation in the
establishment of marine protected areas in Canada. Submitted to Interdepartmental Working Group (Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, Parks Canada and Environment Canada).
Hoffman, J. 2003. Designing Reserves to Sustain Temperate Marine Ecosystems in the Face of Global Climate Change in
L.J. Hansen, J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffman (eds) Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to
Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF
IUCN. 2003. Recommendations of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. World Conservation Union.
Jessen, S., and N. Ban. 2003. Establishing marine protected areas in British Columbia: an NGO perspective. Pp 377-387
in J. P. Beumer, A. Grant, and D. C. Smith, editors. Aquatic protected areas: what works best and how do we know?
Australian Society for Fish Biology, Cairns, Australia.
Jessen, S., and K. Symington. 1996. Toward a representative system of marine protected areas in B.C. BC Parks and
Wilderness Society Quarterly (Fall 1996). Vancouver, B.C.
Jones, P.J.S. 2007. Point-of-View: Arguments for conventional fisheries management and against no-take marine
protected areas: only half of the story? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 17:31–43
Jones, P.J.S. 2001. Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergences and the search for middle ground. Reviews in Fish
Biology and Fisheries 11: 197–216
Kearney, John, F. Berkes, A. Charles, E. Pinkerton, M. Wiber. 2007. The Role of Participatory Governance and CommunityBased Management in Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management in Canada. Coastal Management. Volume 35 Issue
1 pp 79-104.
Landry, Martine, Andrea McCormack, and Doug Yurick. 2007. Planning for Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas
Network. Powerpoint Presentation presented at SAMPAA, Marine Workshop May 24th, 2007. Wolfville Nova Scotia.
115
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Laughren, Josh. 2005. WWF-Canada Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment
and Sustainable Development Regarding the 2005 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and sustainable
Development – Chapter 1, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Canada’s Oceans Management Strategy. Presented on
October 6, 2005. World Wildlife Fund.
Living Oceans Society and Word Wildlife Fund Canada. 2006. Recommendations for Effective Marine Planning Processes:
Lessons Learned from Case Studies in Canada, the USA and Australia. Sointula and Prince Rupert: Living Oceans
Society and Word Wildlife Fund Canada.
McNamee, Kevin. 2006. National Marine Conservation Areas: the next generation? Presentation to the Canadian Parks and
Wilderness Society. Parks Canada Agency. June 12, 2006
Meir, E, S Andelman, and HP Possingham. 2004. Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?
Ecology Letters 7:625-622
Mondor, Claude. 1985. An Historical Overview of the National Marine Parks Concept in Canada. pp 9-19 in Jon Lien
and Robert Graham (eds). Marine Parks and Conservation: Challenge and Promise. Volumes 1 and 2. National and
Provincial Parks Association of Canada. 1985 Ottawa.
Mulrennan, M., V. Bussieres and C. Scott, 2007. Can a marine protected area support Aboriginal Rights in Cree Territory?
Paper presented at SAMPAA Conference. Wolfville, Nova Scotia.
National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy. 2003. State of the Debate - Securing Canada’s Natural Capital: A
Vision for Nature Conservation in the 21st Century. Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.
http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/publications/securing-canadas-natural-capital/index-securing-canadas-naturalcapital-eng.htm [accessed 6 November 2007].
New Zealand Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fisheries. 2005. Marine Protected Areas Policy and
Implementation Plan. Wellington, New Zealand
http://www.biodiversity.govt.nz/pdfs/seas/MPA-Policy-and-Implementation-Plan.pdf [accessed January 30, 2008]
Norse, E. and L. Crowder (eds). 2005. Marine Conservation Biology: the science of maintaining the sea’s biodiversity. Island
Press, Washington, D.C.
The NWT Protected Areas Strategy Advisory Committee. No Date, estimated 1999. NWT protected areas strategy:
A Balanced Approach to Establishing Protected Areas in the Northwest Territories. Government of Canada and
Government of the Northwest Territories.
http://www.nwtwildlife.com/pas/pdf/stratsupp.pdf [accessed 22 January 2008]
Palumbi, S. 2002. Marine Reserves: A Tool for Ecosystem Management and Conservation. Pew Oceans Commission.
Arlington, Virginia
Parks Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada. 2005. Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas
Strategy.
Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association website:
http://www.pacmara.org/about.html [accessed 6 November 2007].
Parks Canada Agency. 2005. Parks Canada Agency: State of Protected Heritage Areas for the period ending March
31,2005:Appendix 2: Status of NMCA Establishment in Priority Unrepresented Regions
http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/rpts/etat-state-2005/app-ann-2_E.asp [last updated 12 April 2007; accessed on 6
November 2007].
Roff, John and Philip Dearden (Workshop Organisers). 2007. SAMPAA VI Ecosystem Based Management: Beyond
Boundaries, Marine Workshop: Establishing a Network of Marine Protected Areas by 2012 – the Path Forward, Acadia
University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia
Royle, K., N. Ban, K. Cripps, D. Nicholson, R. Paynter and K. Willis. 2007. Identifying priority areas for marine conservation in
BC: a collaborative approach, paper presented at SAMPAA, Marine Workshop May 24th, 2007. Wolfville Nova Scotia.
116
9 References
Smith, Jennifer L., Kaaren Lewis and Joshua Laughren. 2006. A Policy and Planning Framework for Marine Protected Area
Networks in Canada’s Oceans. Halifax, WWF-Canada.
Treasury Board of Canada. Guide to the Preparation of Part III of the 2007-2008 Estimates. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/
rpp/0708/guide/guide05_e.asp [accessed 6 November 2007].
Treasury Board of Canada. 2006. Framework for the Triage of Regulatory Submissions. Regulatory Affairs Division, Privy
Council Office. Ottawa, Ontario.
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/ra-ar/docs/aboutregs/process/imgtriage_e.pdf [accessed 6 November 2007].
UFAWU (United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union). 2002. Convention. Quoted in Email from S. Jessen, CPAWS. Subject:
FW: MPAs supported by BC fishermen. Sent: Thu 2/8/2007.
UNEP/CBD/COP. 2004. Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity. Held in Kuala Lampur, 9-20 and 27 February 2004. Report 13 April 2004. UNEP, CBD.
http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-07/official/cop-07-21-part1-en.pdf
Decisions: http://www.cbd.int/decisions/?dec=VII/28
United Nations. 2002. World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation, Section IV, paragraph 31(c).
Conference held 26 Aug to 4 September 2002, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Wallace, Scott and D. R. Boyd. 2000. Out of Sight, Out of Mind and Almost Out of Time - Towards an effective system of
Marine Protected Areas in British Columbia. A brief to the Sierra Club of British Columbia. Sierra Club British Columbia.
Wallace, Scott. 2007. Oceans worth a lot more than Ottawa’s pittance, Vancouver Sun June 8, 2007 p. A13.
WCPA/IUCN. 2007. Establishing networks of marine protected areas: A guide for developing national and regional
capacity for building MPA networks. Non-technical summary report.
Wescott, Craig. 2003. Sea of Much Care: Fishermen look to Marine Protected Areas to Preserve their Futures. St John’s
Express. St John’s, Newfoundland. Page 3, December 13.
Wolfe, Larry D.S. and Victoria Macfarlane. 2002. Towards a National System of Marine Protected Areas – a Discussion Paper.
For Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Parks Canada and Canadian Wildlife Services.
Wood, Allen, David L. Peterson and Julia Gardner. 2005. An Assessment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region’s
Effectiveness in Meeting its Conservation Mandate. Vancouver, B.C., David Suzuki Foundation.
Wood, Louisa J., Lucy Fish, Josh Laughren, and Daniel Pauly. 2007. Assessing progress towards global marine protection
targets: shortfalls in information and action. Fisheries Centre, the University of British Columbia. Working Paper Series.
Working paper # 2007-03.
Woodrow, Maureen and Emily K. Wilson. 2006. Establishing Marine Protected Areas: Social Science Research Priorities.
Ocean Management Research Network.
WWF-Canada and Conservation Law Foundation. 2006. Marine Ecosystem Conservation for New England and Maritime
Canada: A Science-Based Approach to Identifying Priority Areas for Conservation. WWF-Canada and Conservation Law
Foundation. Halifax and Boston.
http://www.clf.org/general/index.asp?id=886 [accessed 6 November 2007].
WWF-Canada. 2006. Press Release. “Study shows how protected areas can be part of the solution to fisheries.” Issued Nov.
22, 2006. Halifax, Nova Scotia.
WWF-Canada. 2003. Chapter IV –Marine Protected Areas Response. In The Nature Audit – Setting Canada’s Conservation
Agenda in the 21st Century. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, Ontario. http://wwf.ca/AboutWWF/WhatWeDo/
TheNatureAudit/TheNatureAudit.asp?page=4.4 [accessed 6 November 2007].
Yurick, Doug and Camille Mageau. 2006. Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy. PowerPoint Presentation
presented at Coastal Zone Canada conference, Tuktoyaktuk, August 17, 2006. Parks Canada and Fisheries and Oceans
Canada.
http://www.czc06.ca/images/PDF/3-1-C%20Yurick.pdf [accessed 20 August 2007].
117
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Zurbrigg, Eleanor. 1996. Towards an Environment Canada strategy for coastal and marine protected areas. Prepared for
the CWS Marine Habitat Working Group. Canadian Wildlife Service Hull, Quebec. 44 pp.
http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection/CW66-201-1996E.pdf [accessed 6 November 2007].
9.2 Interviews and personal communications
Environment Canada
Kimberley Anthony
Formerly Environment Canada, Ocean and Marine Planning; now at Indian and Northern Affairs
Interview by phone May 14, 2007
Michael Dunn
Retired Habitat Conservation Coordinator, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada
Interview by phone July 9, 2007
Andrea McCormack
Protected Areas Project Officer, Habitat Landscape Conservation and Biodiversity Standards, Environment Canada
and
Ken Corcoran, Acting Chief of Habitat Landscape Conservation and Biodiversity Standards, Environment Canada
Interview in Ottawa April 25, 2007
Bob McLean
Director, Wildlife Conservation Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada
Interview by phone May 2, 2007
Stephen Virc
Senior Science Officer, Landscape Inventory and Monitoring, Environment Canada
Interview in Ottawa, April 25, 2007
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Élaine Albert,
Biologist, Protected Marine Areas, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Quebec Region
Interview by phone, August 1 2007
(also short follow-up interview with Guy Cantin in Quebec Region)
Sam Baird
National Advisor, Oceans Programs, Oceans Directorate, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Interview in Ottawa, April 23, 2007
Caroline Bookless
Arctic and Québec Desks, Oceans Directorate, Oceans & Habitat Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Interview by phone, July 27, 2007
Christie Chute
Marine Ecosystem Conservation Advisor, Pacific Region, Oceans & Habitat Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Interview in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, May 24, 2007
Dale Gueret
Area Chief, Oceans & Community Stewardship, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Interview by phone May 22, 2007
118
9 References
Tim Hall
Assistant Regional Director, Oceans and Coastal Management Division, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Fisheries
and Oceans Canada
and
Derek Fenton,
Biologist, Oceans and Coastal Management Division, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Interview by phone May 15, 2007
Ken Huffman
Senior Policy Advisor, Regional Oceans Operations Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Interview in Ottawa, April 24, 2007
Martine Landry
Advisor, Marine Protected Areas/Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas, Oceans Directorate, Oceans Policy and
Planning Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Interview in Ottawa April 25, 2007
Paul Macnab, Biologist, and
Glen Herbert, Biologist
Oceans and Coastal Management Division, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Interview in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, May 23, 2007
Adrienne Paylor
Integrated Management Coordinator, Oceans, Oceans Program, Central & Arctic Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Interview by phone April 13, 2007
Jason Simms
Section Head for Integrated Management, Newfoundland and Labrador Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Interview in St. John’s May 30, 2007
Ray Finn, Regional Director, Oceans and Habitat Management, and
Jason Simms, Section head for Integrated Management, and
Stephen Snow, Acting Oceans Division Manager
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador Region
Interview in St. John’s May 28, 2007
Parks Canada
Jim Barlow
Retired Field Unit Superintendent for Coastal British Columbia Field Unit, Parks Canada
Interview in Victoria, May 11, 2007
Nelson Boisvert,
Heritage Development, Québec Service Centre, Parks Canada
Interview by phone May 1, 2007
Wayne Bourque
Manager, Professional and Technical Services, Parks Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region
Interview by phone May 14, 2007
Richard Carson
NMCA Director, Western and Northern Service Centre, Parks Canada
Interview in Richmond, BC, May 4, 2007
Bill Henwood
Senior Planner, Marine Program Unit, Park Establishment Branch
Parks Canada
Interview by phone May 2, 2007
119
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Gail Jackson
National Marine Conservation Areas Program Advisor, Park Establishment Branch, Parks Canada
Interview in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, May 24, 2007
Steve Langdon
Coastal BC Field Unit Superintendent, Field Unit Office, Parks Canada,
Sidney, BC
Interview by phone May 11, 2007
Kevin McNamee, Director, Parks Establishment, Parks Canada, and
Doug Yurick, Chief, Marine Program Coordination, Parks Canada
Interview in Ottawa, April 25, 2007
Francine Mercier, Senior Planner, Marine Studies, Park Establishment Branch, Parks Canada, and
Bruce Amos, Retired Director General of National Parks, Parks Canada, and
Belinda Jago, Senior Project Manager, Community Partnerships Group, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, seconded
to Parks Canada to work on NMCA zoning
Parks Canada Agency Headquarters
Interview in Ottawa, April 24, 2007
Government of British Columbia
Jamie Alley, Director, Oceans and Marine Fisheries Division, BC Ministry of Environment, and
Baron Carswell, Manager of Ocean Resources, Ocean and Marine Fisheries Division, BC Ministry of the Environment
Interview by phone August 2, 2007
Kaaren Lewis
Director, Ecosystems Branch, BC Ministry of Environment
Interview by phone June 19, 2007
Ken Morrison
Manager, Planning and Land Administration Section, BC Ministry of Environment
Pers. comm. email message to Sabine Jessen, CPAWS BC, September 24, 2007, “Re: update on BC MPAs”
Rob Paynter, Manager, Marine Planning, and
Charles Short, Marine Specialist
Integrated Land Management Branch, BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands
Interview in Victoria, May 11, 2007
Government of New Brunswick
Russell Henry
Senior Policy Advisor
New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Aquaculture
Interview by phone May 25, 2007
Marianne Janowicz
Coastal/Marine Planner, Integrated Planning Section, Sustainable Planning Branch, New Brunswick Department of
Environment
Interview in Fredericton, May 18, 2007
Bernadet Samulski
Manager, Upland and Coastal Planning, New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources
Interview in Fredericton, May 17, 2007
120
9 References
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
Mike Warren, Executive Director, Policy and Planning Branch
Tom Dooley, Director, Sustainable Fisheries Resources and Oceans Policy
Patrick Shea, Senior Policy Planning and Research Analyst
Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
Interview in St. John’s May 30, 2007
Government of the Northwest Territories
Karen Hamre
Managing Director, NWT Protected Areas Strategy Secretariat
Interview by phone May 24, 2007
Environmental Organizations
CPAWS staff meeting at Science and Management of Protected Areas Association Conference, Wolfville, Nova Scotia,
May 22, 2007:
Laura Hussey, Marine Coordinator, Nova Scotia Chapter
Roberta Clowater, Executive Director, New Brunswick Chapter
Danielle Gregory, Marine Coordinator, Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter
Sylvain Archambault, Conservation Assistant, Quebec Chapter
Julie Huntington, Executive Director, Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter & Newfoundland-Labrador Coalition for
Healthy Oceans
CPAWS Staff and Board meeting in St. John’s, May 28, 2007:
Krista Baker, CPAWS Newfoundland and Labrador Board Member
Brooks Pilgrim, CPAWS Newfoundland and Labrador Board Member
Evan Edinger, Associate Professor, Geography and Biology, Memorial University, Newfoundland and Labrador
Dick Haedrich, Professor of Biology, Memorial University, Newfoundland and Labrador
Julie Huntington, Executive Director, Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter & Newfoundland-Labrador Coalition for
Healthy Oceans
Pete Ewins
Director, Species Conservation, WWF Toronto
Interview by phone May 24, 2007
Mary Granskou
Senior Advisor, Canadian Boreal Initiative
Formerly of the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada
Interview by phone May 17, 2007
Lorne Johnson
Director, WWF Ottawa Bureau
Interview in Ottawa June 6, 2007
Josh Laughren
Director, Communications, WWF Canada
Interview in Toronto, April 26, 2007
Ken Millard
Galiano Conservancy Association
Interview on Galiano Island, April 28, 2007
Jeff Ardron, Scientific Advisor on Marine Protected Areas, German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Marine and
Coastal Nature Conservation Unit
Pers. comm. e-mail message to Sabine Jessen, CPAWS-BC, May 17, 2006
121
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
University of British Columbia
Louisa Wood, MSc
PhD candidate, Sea Around Us Project, UBC Fisheries Centre
Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory
Interview by phone June 18, 2007 and personal communication by email to Sabine Jessen, 11 September 2007.
Acronyms
AAROM – Aboriginal Aquatic Resource and Oceans Management
AOI – Area of Interest
BC – British Columbia
BCMCA – British Columbia Marine Conservation Analysis
CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity
CMA – Coastal Management Area
CPAWS – Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
CPAWS-BC – Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society – BC Chapter
CPAWS-NS – Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society – Nova Scotia Chapter
DFO – Fisheries and Oceans Canada
EBSA – Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area
EC – Environment Canada
ENGO – Environmental Non-Governmental Organization
EOAR – Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report
ESSIM – Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management
FMPAS – Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy
IM – Integrated Management
IUCN – The World Conservation Union
LOMA – Large Ocean Management Area
MBS – Migratory Bird Sanctuary
MERA – Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment
MOU – Memorandum of Understanding
MP – Member of Parliament
MPA – Marine Protected Area
NB – New Brunswick
NMCA – National Marine Conservation Area
NWA – National Wildlife Area
122
9 References
OAP – Oceans Action Plan
OMRN – Ocean Management Research Network
PacMARA– Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association
PCA – Parks Canada Agency
PNCIMA – Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area
RIAS – Regulatory Impact and Assessment Statement
SAMPAA – Science and Management of Protected Areas Association
SSG – Southern Strait of Georgia
UBC – University of British Columbia
UNCED – United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
WWF – World Wildlife Fund
WSSD – World Summit on Sustainable Development
123
124
Appendix 1:
Approach
125
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
The primary source of information for this project was interviews. The second source of information was
literature and reports by governments and environmental non-government organizations.
Interviews
Interviewees were identified first through the following request to CPAWS staff in each of the 13 chapters
across Canada:
We would appreciate suggestions for people in your region who the consultants should interview for this
study. We are looking for individuals who have experience with policy and decision making with respect to
marine protected areas within government agencies, as well as individuals outside government with informed
perspectives on MPAs.
Other interviewees were identified by interviewees in a “snowball” process, with each interviewee
recommending other key informants.
The interviews were undertaken between April and August 2007 by telephone or in person, in Victoria,
Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, St. John’s, Fredericton and Wolfville (at the Science and Management of Protected
Areas Association – SAMPAA – conference). Some interviews were undertaken in small groups of people from
the same the agency or organization when the interviewees involved expressed a strong preference for this
approach. Of the 59 interviewees in total, 33 were interviewed individually, 16 were interviewed in groups of 2
or 3 and 10 were interviewed in two groups of 5 (CPAWS staff/volunteers on the East coast). See section 9.2 for
a list of the interviewees.
Effort was made to include people working on MPA themes in all regions of Canada that have MPAs, including
the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes. The regional distribution of interviewees was as follows (with the
10 CPAWS interviewees treated as 2 Atlantic interviews).
Regional distribution of interviewees
Atlantic
14
Pacific
12
North
3
Quebec
3
Ontario (not government agency headquarters)
5
Federal agency headquarters (Ottawa-Hull) 14
Of the 59 interviewees, 34 were from federal agencies and 8 were from provincial/territory agencies. Most
of these were with public servants holding managerial positions. This large government sample allowed
for representation of all three agencies from all of the five regions in addition to headquarters offices in
Ottawa-Hull. The focus on federal agencies allowed for a close examination of challenges and opportunities
from an “insider” perspective – those with the hands-on responsibility for making progress on a national
network of MPAs in DFO, PCA and EC, as mandated by the federal government. Ultimately, most federal
government officials with core MPA responsibilities were interviewed. With assurances that quotations would
not be attributed in the report, they were generous in providing experience-based insights and information.
Interviews with provincial and territorial public servants obtained their view on contributions of provinces and
territories to MPA networks, and on federal government involvement in MPA initiatives on the coasts.
Number of interviewees in Federal agencies (34):
DFO16
PCA12
EC 6
126
Appendix 1: Approach
Regional distribution of Federal agency interviewees (34):
Federal headquarters (Ottawa-Hull) 14
Regions total 20
Atlantic 7
Pacific 8 (and DFO headquarters Pacific desk -former)
Great Lakes 1
Quebec 3
North 1 (and Ottawa DFO headquarters Arctic desk)
Interviewees in provincial/territory agencies (8):
Atlantic
5 (2 groups – NS and NB)
Pacific
2 (1 group – BC )
North
1 (NWT)
Ont, QC
0
Ten of the 17 non-government interviewees were CPAWS staff and board members, in interviews with 5
CPAWS staff in Wolfville, Nova Scotia and 5 staff and board members in St. Johns Newfoundland. The results of
those two group interviews are treated as two interviews rather than 10 interviews in the analysis.
Seven of the remaining 8 interviewees were from other ENGOs. Four were interviews with World Wildlife
Fund (WWF) representatives in Toronto and Ottawa. Three were with people associated with other ENGOs
in Ottawa, the Arctic (based in Ottawa) and the Southern Gulf Islands. The bulk of the ENGO interviews were
with WWF and CPAWS staff because these are the two national NGOs that have the strongest focus on oceans
conservation across the country. (On the west coast, CPAWS input was achieved through staff who assisted
with editing and research logistics, and the involvement of Sabine Jessen, National Manager, Oceans and
Great Freshwater Lakes Program, as an author of the report.)
The remaining interviewee is a graduate student at UBC who is undertaking Ph.D. research on a closely related
topic. Opinions of other academics and scientists were gathered from the literature and from presentations at
the 2007 SAMPAA conference.
It was beyond the scope of this project to interview stakeholders, community representatives and First Nations
representatives for their opinions on factors affecting progress on MPAs.
CPAWS is currently examining the First Nations role in marine conservation more closely through a separate
project in BC.
Literature review
The focus of the literature search was on review-level documents that also sought to describe factors that
appear to be delaying progress or posing challenges in MPA establishment in Canada. Key sources were (in
order of publication date): Canadian Nature Federation 2002, Wolfe and Macfarlane 2002, Jessen and Ban
2003, National Round Table 2003, World Wildlife Fund Canada 2005, Wood et al. 2005, Dearden 2002, and
Guénette and Alder 2007.
Agardy 2005 and Wood et al. 2007 added an international perspective on MPA network-building.
Two of the authors attended the 2007 meeting of the Science and Management of Protected Areas
Association (SAMPAA), including a workshop on MPAs at which preliminary results of this research were
presented. Information from presentations at the SAMPAA conference is incorporated into the analysis.
127
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Interview technique, and analysis
The interview questionnaire is included in Appendix 2 of this report. The questions fell into four categories:
1.
The current status of MPA planning and implementation efforts in Canada
2.
Other initiatives relevant to MPAs supporting progress
3.
Impediments at the regional and federal level to achieving progress
4.
What needs to be done to overcome impediments?
Not all questions were asked of all interviewees. The interview was tailored to the experience of the
interviewee and to specific information needs, filling gaps as the research progressed.
Detailed notes were typed into electronic files during the interview and were “cleaned up” later. When
interviewees requested, or when the interviewer felt the need, the draft notes were provided to the
interviewee for correction. Email communications from interviewees were merged into the notes on their
interviews.
All interview notes were compiled into a 190-page document. They were then coded, point by point, as to the
topics covered and sorted into corresponding categories (a code for the interviewee’s name and affiliation was
also kept attached to each point). These categories are reflected in the structure of this report. Information
from the literature was added to the information from the interviews.
128
Appendix 2:
Questionnaire
MPA Progress Research
129
Canada’s Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012
Introduction:
This year CPAWS-BC is undertaking a project that will look at how Canada can meet its international
commitment to establishing a network of marine protected areas by 2012.
Our study will result in the production of a report that will include suggestions, recommendations and
innovations for achieving the 2012 goal. We will examine progress on each of Canada’s coasts, and how we
can learn from current and past efforts to establish MPAs. Our study is focused on the federal MPA programs of
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Parks Canada, and Environment Canada. This report will be released nationally
in Fall 2007.
We have hired Dr. Julie Gardner of Dovetail Consulting and Sandra Bicego of PacificaBlue Consulting to
conduct the research and write the report. As part of this research, they will be interviewing people across
Canada who are or have been involved with Marine Protected Areas and their establishment in Canada.
This interview aims to draw on your expertise and experience with MPA planning and establishment.
Interview Questions
1. The current status of MPA planning and implementation efforts in Canada: what was the direction set
and what progress has been made in that direction?
1.1a) What plans for MPA systems or networks have been finalized? … are underway?
1.1b) What goals, targets or commitments are set out in these?
1.2a) What other policies, statements, legislation, etc. identify goals, targets or directions for MPAs?
1.2b) What goals, targets or commitments are set out in these?
1.3 What MPAs have been established/designated?
1.4 What MPAs are identified as candidates, pilots, etc.?
1.5a) How close are candidate MPAs to being designated?
1.5b) What activities are complete vs. incomplete?
2. What other initiatives relevant to MPAs are supporting progress?
2.1a) Outside of the policies and laws, what other initiatives are underway that support or further the
planning and establishment of MPAs at the federal level? E.g., initiatives like research, conferences,
consultation processes, that are leading to policies, plans, designations, etc.
2.1b) What have these contributed to progress towards MPA establishment?
2.2a) What other ocean-related planning initiatives are underway that support or further the planning and
establishment of MPAs at the federal level? i.e. initiatives beyond MPAs per se; e.g. Ocean Action Plan,
integrated management planning
2.2b) What have these contributed to progress towards MPA establishment?
3. What are the impediments at the regional and federal level to achieving progress?
3.1 What do you think about the pace and progress of MPA creation in Canada? Do you think it is adequate,
too slow?
3.2a) How complete would you say our system is?
3.2b) How far away do you think we are from meeting the stated goals and commitments?
130
Appendix 2: Questionnaire
3.3 What is slowing or impeding progress towards MPA establishment? What are the obstacles? Why is it
taking so long?
3.4a) Are existing plans, policies, regulations, etc. adequate for enabling and promoting action in
establishing MPAs?
3.4b) If not, what are the inadequacies?
4. What needs to be done to overcome impediments?
4.1 What do you think are remedies to the obstacles to MPA progress?
4.2 What needs to be changed/done to hasten progress on establishing MPAs?
General
Lastly, do you have useful sources of information that documents any of your responses to the questions?
Can you suggest other people to contact for information?
131
132
Appendix 3:
Maps
133
134
Current and Proposed Federal Marine Protected Areas, Pacific Coast
135
136
Current and Proposed Federal Marine Protected Areas, Arctic Coast
137
138
Current and Proposed Federal Marine Protected Areas, Great Lakes
139
140
Current and Proposed Federal Marine Protected Areas, Atlantic Coast
141
142
Environment Canada Protected Areas, Atlantic Coast
143
144
Parks Canada Marine Regions
145
146
Fisheries and Oceans Canada Large Ocean Management Areas
147
CPAWS
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
410 - 698 Seymour Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 3K6
Ph: 604-685-7445 • Fax: 604-629-8532
www.cpawsbc.org