A Proposal for Race Rocks Ecological Reserve. : Technology for Sustainability

A Proposal for RACE ROCKS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE: Technology  for Sustainability


CONTENTS:

 


STEWARDSHIP OF A PRICELESS RESOURCE: A window into a unique remote natural world exists on the south western tip of Canada.The Race Rocks archipelago of 9 small islands and a central island dominated by a 137 year old lighthouse was made an ecological reserve in 1980. Under the stewardship of staff and students of Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific it was designated to serve as an area for research and education as well as preservation of a rare assemblage of marine organisms. Almost 20 years later, Pearson College has taken on responsibility for managing the islands and the reserve, and providing for continued staffing on the now automated light station.

Central to this proposal is the concept that the International students on scholarship from 83 countries at Lester B. Pearson College will benefit greatly by the ability to continue to use Race Rocks as an educational resource. Moreover they will be able to be involved in operating this project as a model for ecological stewardship that they will be able to take back with them and apply to sensitive areas in their own countries. The potential for a global network of such education and research areas has exciting possibilities.

BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME– ELECTRONICALLY! With our new responsibilities come a determination to make this unique resource available to the world while at the same time preserving its fragile wild ecosystems. In October of 1992 we had the experience of assisting with the broadcast from Race Rocks of 24 programs in the Underwater Safari television series. We reached by satellite, microwave and cable technology the classrooms and science centers across the nation. Now we have decided to use internet communication technologies to accomplish this task on a wider global scale and a regular basis. The following proposal puts forth some of the wide range of possibilities that could help us to succeed inthis challenging task over the next few years.

THE INTERNET AS A DELIVERY SYSTEM: Central to this plan is internet connectivity from the island of Great Race Rocks via appropriate microwave and/or Satellite technology. This prototype could be a valuable experiment in the provision of educational research images,sound and video to educational institutions around the world. Moreover it would be a valuable model for others to use in the stewardship process with unique and endangered environments.

TIDEPOOL MONITORING: N.J. Berril, one of the fathers of marine science in Canada said “If you look into a tidepool and comprehend what you see, you are observing the universe”. We have found in the biology and environmental systems classes at the college,that the tidepools at Race Rocks are a valuable asset for modeling ecosystems. There are a number of these pools of varying sizes and proximity to the water on the South West corner of the island. The physical factors of these pools such as salinity and temperature, fluctuate widely each day. Being able to monitor these changes continuously will lead to a better understanding of the dynamics of the systems. We can envisage electronic monitors that could be installed in certain tidepools that could lead to unique opportunities for students and researchers to pursue studies. It would also be possible to offer a visual image of these pools with the installation of a video imaging system underwater in a pool.

ROBOTIC VIDEO FROM THE LIGHT TOWER: With a series of robotic video cameras installed on the light tower and at other locations around the island, we could attain the possibility of an unrestricted panoramic view of the reserve. These cameras could be controlled by the operator on internet, and the following applications could result:
a) monitoring the marine mammal colonies. Year round there are always some marine mammals in the reserve. The elephant seal population has recently increased , with a possibility that they may form a new breeding colony.
b) Harbour seals are year round residents. Images of delivery of seal pups on the rocky shore right below the tower, and nursing mothers in the shallow water would afford a great advantage for the study of seal behavior.
c) The hundreds of California and Northern Sea lions that frequent the area from fall to spring would be a constant source of interest for internet visitors who could direct robotic cameras to zoom in on the constant activity in the haul out colonies. Feeding in the nearby waters that attracts flocks of birds could also be seen.
d) Orca whales frequent the area and would be visible from cameras scanning the surrounding ocean .
e) Four species of Marine birds: Pelagic Cormorants, Black Oystercatchers, Pigeon Guillemots and Glaucous Winged Gulls nest on the central island of Great Race Rocks. Video coverage of all stages of foraging , courtship and nesting behavior would be possible. Bird predation by frequently visiting bald eagles and falcons could be followed also. In addition , throughout the winter months overwintering populations of sea birds may be observed on the islands.
f) Security of the reserve could be enhanced greatly by cameras with robotic control. Both open ocean and Intertidal resources are at risk.
g) Continual observation of sea conditions would be possible for the environment weather service.

OCEANOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS: Daily measurements of salinity, (since 1936 ) and temperature ( since 1927) have proven invaluable for oceanographic research. We propose to add to this, sea state, and tide and current readings , all available in real time ,as well as in long term records.

UNDERWATER VIDEO RETRIEVAL SYSTEM: The staff and students of the Diving Service at Lester Pearson College have since 1980 been assisting other researchers in the reserve and doing regular monitoring of some of the basic features of the reserve. We have the capability to establish an electronic data bank, accessible by internet , of some of the footage of the organisms underwater at Race Rocks. This will serve as a valuable resource for those studying biodiversity and behavior of marine life. This footage could be updated frequently by our divers asthey do surveys in the reserve. Seasonal changes could be accounted for and a series of baseline ecosystem images could be established .

DEEP UNDERWATER ACCESS: In areas of the reserve too deep for regular diving, footage could be obtained from remotely operated vehicles. When linked to image maps of the reserve this footage could reveal a fascinating account of the underwater ecosystems. Arrangements through existing groups including the military who operate these vehicles should be possible to arrange.

HYDROPHONE RECORDING: Several years ago we participated with whale researchers in helping to install a hydrophone in the water off race rocks. This experience pointed to the possibility of having real time audio available from the underwater world of the islands.Killer whale vocalizations, as well as the murmur of other sounds of fish and invertebrates underwater could be a valuable addition to the web site.

ATMOSPHERIC DATA GATHERING: For many years, the light station served as a meteorological station.. Wind speeds are still transmitted to the weather forecasting services. Real time recording of a number of physical factors could be obtainable by internet. UV radiation,temperature, humidity, sunlight, precipitation and wind speeds could all be included in an array of data.

THE ALTERNATE ENERGY AND WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES: Recently the light and foghorn underwent conversion to Solar energy. We aim to seek an array of solar and wind technologies to be installed to make the island totally energy self sufficient. These energy generators could be monitored on a comparison basis so that a constant set of data on relative efficiencies was available to the internet site. There also exists the possibility of energy from the constant currents running past the island. This would not be an easy task but would be something to investigate for the long term. In addition, a number of technologies could be employed to provide for complete waste recovery in the sewer system of the station so that it no longer discharges into the ecological reserve.


Garry Fletcher: Pearson College faculty member in biology, environmental systems and the CoastWatch program.

November 4, 1997


Return to Contents |

 

An Approach to the Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas Under the Oceans Act: A Discussion Paper

This archival reference originally appeared on the DFO website at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/infocentre/publications/docs/discussion_e.asp

An Approach to the Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas Under the Oceans Act: A Discussion Paper

The purpose of this Discussion Paper is to seek input and comment on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ proposed approach to establishing Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act.

JANUARY 1997

(Ce document est aussi disponible en français)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Back to top

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An Approach to the Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act

Rationale

Canada’s marine resources form an essential part of our economic and cultural heritage, and conserving these resources is a responsibility shared by all Canadians. To help meet this national obligation, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), under the authority of the Oceans Act, has begun work on a Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Program. We believe that this paper, by serving as a basis for preliminary discussion and comment, will help to secure the public consensus and cooperation required to make this program an effective means of sustaining the rich diversity of marine life in Canada.

Description: the Marine Protected Area

According to Canada’s Oceans Act , a marine protected area is:

“An area of the sea that forms part of the internal waters of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada or the exclusive economic zone of Canada and has been designated under this section [35.(1)] for special protection…”

Possible examples of MPAs include:

  • Genetic “seed banks”
  • “Rare species” habitats
  • Polynyas
  • Estuary zones
  • Tidal flats
  • Kelp forests
  • Offshore banks
  • Deep-sea vents
  • Sea mounts
  • Salt marshes
  • Marine mammal habitat
  • Permanent or seasonal upwelling or mixing areas
  • Spawning and nursery areas
Scope of Authority

The Oceans Act authorizes the Government of Canada to establish a “national system of marine protected areas”, and to make regulations that allow MPAs to be designated, zoned, and closed to certain activities.

Focus of Protection

Under the Oceans Act , an area can be designated as an MPA to conserve and protect one or more of the following:

  • Commercial and non-commercial fishery resources, including marine mammals, and their habitats
  • Endangered or threatened marine species and their habitats
  • Unique habitats
  • Marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity
  • Any other marine resource or habitat as is necessary to fulfill the mandate of the Minister
Program Development

The process for developing an MPA Program and individual MPAs will include the steps of area identification, area evaluation and selection, area establishment, and area management.

DFO recognizes that a successful MPA Program will require flexibility enough to allow each MPA to be managed according to its particular needs, as well as coordination of human activities and marine conservation objectives.

Need for Public Action

DFO is now committed to resolving two crucial questions:

1) How to go about establishing a workable MPA Program? 2) How to manage MPAs so as to achieve the goals set forth in the Oceans Act?

DFO is well equipped to provide the science required for a thorough and intelligent consideration of these questions. Science alone, however, cannot produce complete answers. To mount a program that serves both our environment and our citizens, DFO needs the cooperation and practical experience of the Canadian public. In this partnering initiative lies the future of one of our most vital resources. We encourage you to make your ideas available to us without delay.

For more information contact:
Written Comments/ Questions/ Ideas:

Please write to: Marine Protected Areas, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6

Or you may look to the inside of the back cover on the Discussion Paper to find the Marine Protected Areas contact closest to you or e-mail DFO at mpa@dfo-mpo.gc.ca.


Back to top

1. What is a Marine Protected Area?

Marine Protected Area (MPA) is a term used, in slightly different senses, throughout the world. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), for example, defines an MPA as:

“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.”1

More to our purpose, Canada’s Oceans Act (Section 35: see Appendix A) states:

Section 35

(1) A marine protected area is an area of sea that forms part of the internal waters of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada or the exclusive economic zone of Canada; and has been designated under this section for special protection for one or more of the following purposes:

(a) conservation and protection of commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources, including marine mammals and their habitats; (b) conservation and protection of endangered or threatened marine species, and their habitats; (c) conservation and protection of unique habitats; (d) conservation and protection of marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity; (e) conservation and protection of any other marine resource or habitat as is necessary to fulfill the mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

(2) For the purposes of integrated management plans, referred to in sections 31 and 32, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will lead and coordinate the development and implementation of a national system of Marine Protected Areas on behalf of the Government of Canada.

(3) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, may make regulations:

(a) establishing marine protected areas, subject to paragraph 35(1); and (b) prescribing measures which may include but not be limited to:

(i) the zoning of marine protected areas; (ii) the prohibition of classes of activities within marine protected areas; (iii) any other matter consistent with the purpose of the designation.

The diversity of the Canadian ocean environment suggests that each MPA will be unique. Some examples of areas that might be protected as an MPA include: breeding areas, spawning areas, nursery areas, genetic ‘seed banks’, ‘rare species’ habitats, polynyas, estuary zones, tidal flats, kelp forests, offshore banks, permanent or seasonal upwelling or mixing areas, deep sea vents, sea mounts, salt marshes, or marine mammal habitat.

The Oceans Act allows for the establishment of zones within MPAs and for the prohibition of classes of activities. The level of human activities allowed will vary with the area, will depend on the purpose of the MPA in question, and will be decided in consultation with local resource users. Levels of protection can vary from a strict ‘no take’ area, where access is severely limited, to areas where controlled use or resource harvesting is allowed. Zoning could also be temporal; that is, seasonal restrictions could apply. The zoning approach allows for flexibility in planning for an MPA, and recognizes the need to coordinate human activities and marine conservation objectives.

The Oceans Act authorizes the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to work collaboratively with interested Canadians to develop and pursue a national strategy for the management of estuary, coastal and marine ecosystems. Therefore, DFO has been made responsible for untangling the overlapping and complex jurisdictional arrangements; establishing coordination among inland, coastal and marine management regimes; and establishing roles and processes for public and stakeholder involvement in marine and coastal management. The concepts of ‘leading’ and ‘facilitating’ mean a process of convening all interested persons, organizations, and agencies in a cooperative process.

The Oceans Management Strategy (OMS), Part II of the Oceans Act , identifies three complementary initiatives that will be part of a national strategy for managing Canada’s oceans. These legislated initiatives include Marine Protected Areas, Integrated Management of activities in estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters, and Marine Environmental Quality. The OMS will provide the basis for incorporating MPAs into a broader national planning framework for the coastal zone. At the same time, stakeholders will participate in developing the overall vision of MPAs for Canada.

The Oceans Act states that the national strategy will be based on the principles of sustainable development, integrated management, and precautionary approaches. Consequently the application of these principles will be an integral part of developing and implementing the MPA Program. Appendix B provides a more detailed discussion of these principles, and others as they apply to ocean management in general, and MPAs in particular.


Back to top

2. Why are MPAs important for Canada?

Marine protected areas are an important tool for conserving Canada’s oceanic heritage. Our coastline stretches 244,000 km along the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans, making it the longest coastline of any country in the world. Eight of Canada’s provinces and territories are coastal. The oceans have influenced our history, our culture and our nation’s identity, and have been important to aboriginal people for thousands of years.

The richness of Canada’s ocean has enormous potential to benefit both present and future generations. Marine and coastal areas are important for fishing, recreation and tourism, transportation, subsistence, and mineral production. Canada’s continental shelf, covering 3,700,000 km, is the second largest in the world, and represents approximately one percent of the surface area of the world’s oceans. Coastal and marine ecosystems extend from Arctic waters to temperate estuaries to large offshore marine ecosystems. These ecosystems are host to a remarkable diversity of species, from commercial fish to marine mammals to a variety of invertebrate species and plants.

In the past, Canada did not have adequate long-term protection for its ocean environment and resources. Commercial fish stocks have seriously declined in some areas, greatly affecting coastal communities and regional economies. Sensitive habitats are being modified by a wide variety of activities, both inshore and offshore. Ocean waters in some areas are seriously polluted, and persistent organic pollutants are accumulating in pristine environments. As a result, the biodiversity and ecological integrity of the marine system is being threatened. Canada is facing decisions it has not had to face in the past. The nation needs action now – an MPA program is a decisive step in the right direction.

Back to top

2.1 International and Canadian Experience with MPAs

MPAs are not a new concept. The first MPAs were established approximately sixty years ago, and currently there are almost 1,300 marine protected areas around the world. MPAs have been established by a growing number of countries and have been actively promoted by a variety of organizations such as the United Nations Environment Program, IUCN, World Wildlife Fund, and UNESCO. The world leader in establishing marine protected areas is Australia with 303 MPAs, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the largest MPA in the world.

MPAs have been established for a wide variety of purposes: for helping to preserve important fisheries, for protecting historical and cultural resources, for conducting scientific research, for preserving natural communities and freeing them from exploitation, and for establishing parks for diving. By learning from the experiences of the international community, Canada can facilitate the implementation of its own MPA program, in terms of both the management of MPAs and the process of working alongside affected stakeholders.

Canada is gaining experience in protecting the marine environment. Some examples of current formal marine protection initiatives are: the ratification and implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation, implementation of the Ramsar Convention, the Pacific Coast Joint Venture, the Fraser River Estuary Management Program, the Atlantic Coastal Action Program, the Community-Based Coastal Management Project, the Gulf of Maine Council, and policy development in the Canadian Arctic Environmental Strategy. Canada also participates with seven other Arctic nations in the implementation of the International Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. Moreover, Canada is signatory to a range of international conventions concerning the protection of the marine environment.

Federal and provincial agencies have developed, or are developing, MPA programs to provide additional conservation measures of important coastal and ocean areas and resources. These efforts are discussed below.

Back to top

2.2 Federal Government Initiatives

Currently, the Federal government has two formal marine protected area programs. These are administered by Canadian Heritage (Parks Canada) and by Environment Canada. The protected areas designated by each agency serve somewhat different purposes, but each has conservation of the marine environment as a central focus. Appendix C describes the programs in greater detail.

Canadian Heritage is developing a system of protected areas that represent each of Canada’s 29 marine natural regions.2 The Canadian Heritage National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCA) Program is in the process of establishing a number of NMCAs including Gwaii Haanas (3050 km2) on the Pacific Coast and Saguenay – St. Lawrence (1138 km2) located at the confluence of the Saguenay River and the St. Lawrence Estuary.

Environment Canada has three designations available for protecting ocean and land areas to conserve significant habitats and wildlife resources.3 All three designations have a focus on habitat for migratory birds. These protected areas include National Wildlife Areas, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries and, more recently, the development of Marine Wildlife Areas. All told, they protect over 2.9 million hectares of critical wildlife habitat in coastal, estuary, and marine areas.

The Oceans Act will establish a third federal program for marine protected areas. These will be administered by DFO, which already has experience in establishing protected areas, including the recent designation of three Whale Sanctuaries off Nova Scotia. In addition, a number of area closures to fishing activity have been established in order to protect spawning and juvenile concentrations of commercial fish species.

The three federal programs have distinct but complementary purposes. It is incumbent on the federal agencies to coordinate their approach and to take advantage of shared objectives and resources, despite the fact that the three programs are in different stages of development. This coordination will ensure efficiency in establishing protected areas that are complementary, and will also maximize protection of our oceans.

Back to top

2.3 Provincial Government Initiatives

Provincial governments have established a number of coastal and marine protected areas under legislation designed to create provincial parks, ecological areas, and wildlife management areas. In the Canadian context, British Columbia has been the most active in the establishment of MPAs. British Columbia has two pieces of legislation that are used to create MPAs—either the Park Act (designating provincial parks) or the Ecological Reserves Act (designating ecological reserves), both of which are primarily for recreation purposes. The first marine protected areas established by British Columbia, dates back to 1957. Today, British Columbia manages 53 provincial parks and recreation areas and 11 ecological reserves with marine components, totaling about 1,400 km2. This program in British Columbia will be a valuable contribution to the development of a national system of marine protected areas. Furthermore, British Columbia recently established the Marine Protected Areas Strategy, a joint federal-provincial initiative that addresses the need to develop a range of MPAs with multi-stakeholder involvement.

On the east coast, the Province of Prince Edward Island is developing an interagency Marine Conservation Areas Strategy that will also be a valuable addition to the protection of marine resources.


Back to top

3.0 MPAS under the Oceans Act

Back to top

3.1 Overall Goals and Strategies

The Oceans Act designates DFO to lead and facilitate the development of a planning framework for the oceans. The process of development will include goals and strategies to guide the management of ocean resources. At present, goals and strategies relate primarily to individual sectors such as fisheries, transportation, mineral resources, wildlife, and other resources. Without coordination and consistency among these goals, conflicts are inevitable. The development of this planning framework will guide the MPA Program and will consequently assist in the conservation of ocean resources and habitats.

The Oceans Act states a number of conservation goals that bear on the development of an MPA Program. A key goal in DFO’s approach to MPAs is to establish a network of unique MPAs that will reflect the diversity of our oceans. Another key and related goal is to develop an MPA program complementary to those established by Canadian Heritage and by Environment Canada. The work of creating and assessing MPAs and MPA Programs has already begun in some areas. The implementation of the Oceans Act will help to strengthen and focus DFO’s commitment.

Some of the proposed work that DFO will conduct to meet its commitment includes the following (see Sections 5.0 and 6.0):

  • Conduct consultations and develop partnering arrangements with interested stakeholders
  • Coordinate amongst all federal MPA programs
  • Establish procedures for accepting nominations for proposed MPAs
  • Identify possible priority sites
  • Conduct regional overviews of resources and develop criteria for the selection of candidate sites and the MPA network
  • Establish “pilot” MPAs for further assessment
  • Develop national guidelines and strategies which further develop criteria and provides direction for the development of MPA management plans
  • Establish a public information and education program

Back to top

3.2 Overall Purposes for MPAs

The broad purposes for MPAs are presented in the text of theOceans Act, section 35(1). These purposes are discussed in more detail in the following pages.

3.2.1 Purpose A – Conservation of Commercial and Non-Commercial Fisheries Resources

The relationship between fisheries and MPAs is of prime importance. Canada, as a coastal nation, depends heavily on the oceans and their resources, both for commercial commodities and for cultural reasons. In 1994, 165,000 people were employed in the fishing industry in Canada. Families depend on these workers for food, shelter, and income. Healthy communities depend on the families. It is no small tragedy, then, when a fishery is closed because of depleted stocks. Aboriginal communities also have strong cultural ties to the marine resources, and their commercial interest is expanding as a result of land claim agreements and the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. Recreational fishers and tourists (eco-tourism industry) also enjoy the fisheries resources and make a contribution to the economy of coastal communities. MPAs can help preserve and restore the marine environment while ensuring that these activities will continue.

The relationship of DFO, fisheries, and MPAs is one that deserves much attention. Fisheries regulation and management were traditionally the primary focus and expertise of DFO. With MPAs, fisheries science, management, and regulation have a new focus—one that will require working cooperatively with coastal communities to help in the future management and understanding of our valuable and dynamic fisheries. Consequently, the Oceans Act identifies as one of its purposes the need to conserve commercial and non-commercial fisheries. How the MPA Program affects the current fisheries management regime is of critical importance, but, it should be stressed, this does not limit or minimize the value of the other four purposes for MPAs that are listed in the Oceans Act.

The Role of MPAs as a Fisheries Management Tool

There is growing experience, internationally, in the use of MPAs to protect and sustain fisheries resources. Protected areas, or “marine refuges”, may be used in combination with existing management techniques to accomplish a variety of fisheries management objectives. Currently, the regulation of fishing activity can be related to the level of harvest, closures, or gear use. As some major stocks decline and fisheries management becomes more complex, it is important to employ new and innovative approaches, and to continually ask ourselves if there are more effective means available.

MPAs are an effective way of incorporating precautionary and ecosystem approaches into fisheries management. Reduced fishing pressure, in an MPA with fisheries closures, may result in the increased abundance, size, weight and diversity of fisheries resources. Such closures could also be an effective means of protecting fisheries resources for future use. Moreover, MPAs can protect critical habitats from disturbances that would otherwise affect fish production. History shows that many traditional fisheries have enjoyed natural refuges in offshore locations that prevented overfishing. However, new technologies, increased market value, lack of effective restrictions, and expansion of the offshore fishery has lead to the exploitation of these natural refuges. The restoration of some of these refuges through use of MPAs could help contribute to the sustainability of these fisheries.

Protected areas for fisheries management can vary in many ways, depending on the purpose and type of MPA created. The size, location, and activities permitted within a fisheries-oriented MPA will be jointly determined, taking into account the management objectives, current fishing activities, the health of the stock, and input from the area stakeholders. In cases where an MPA involves a fishing closure, fishers may have to forgo access to some of their original fishing territory. Such closures may ultimately result in an increase in harvestable fish in waters outside the MPA. The input from, and partnering arrangements with, fishing stakeholders and coastal communities will be critical in establishing such areas.

Some of the more prominent uses and goals of fisheries-oriented MPAs are listed below.

Adult Recruitment

An MPA could operate as a haven or ‘feeder area’, producing adult fish and large juveniles that will naturally migrate into unprotected areas, thereby replenishing fishery stocks.4 Moreover, it has been demonstrated that MPAs are better at supporting more dense populations of larger individuals.5 Therefore, MPAs may help maintain the number of adult spawners in an area.6

Recovery of Depleted Stocks

The same principles and goals as above apply to the recovery of depleted fish stocks. An MPA can also provide protection of these stocks and habitats during the rebuilding phase of certain fisheries. Key, in this scenario, is establishing an MPA early enough to be of value. If the target population is too small at the time of establishing the MPA, the goal of being a ‘feeder area’ will not be met.

Life Stage Protection

MPAs can be designated to protect fish and their habitats during sensitive or vulnerable life stages, such as critical spawning or nursery areas. Spawning concentrations of fish are particularly vulnerable to over-harvest and need to be protected from over-fishing and other pressures. As well, an MPA would allow more plentiful and often larger and older fish to produce a greater number of eggs with a better survival rate. Protection of relatively sedentary species, such as scallops or lobsters, has a strong potential to enhance the production of populations outside the refuge area, through the increased export of larval recruits.

Critical nursery areas need to be protected from pressures that affect the survival of juvenile populations. Again, this helps replenish fisheries outside the refuge, by increasing the populations through the export of juveniles.

Spawning and juvenile habitat closures, many of which are seasonal, are currently used for managing select fisheries in Atlantic Canada. For example, off Nova Scotia, a harvest closure on Browns Bank protects concentrations of berried female lobsters and contributes significantly to regional egg production.7 An MPA may enhance the capabilities of such sites through broader protection during the specified season. For example, it can regulate not only ‘no take’ during the closed season but it can restrict other activities that may be detrimental to the berried females and young.

Genetic Diversity

Well-designed MPAs can protect critical breeding stocks, maintain the genetic diversity of stocks, and can help preserve the population and age structures of target species. Consequently, MPAs can act as ‘genetic reservoirs’ for conserving the genetic diversity of adjacent stocks. MPAs can be useful in protecting smaller and unique sub-populations, which are particularly vulnerable to fishing and habitat alteration pressures.

Hedge Against Uncertainty

One of the most important uses of an MPA as a tool for fisheries management is to provide a hedge or “insurance” against unexpected events or activities such as climate change. In essence, it provides a direct means of applying principles and objectives common to the precautionary approach and to sustainable development. This is of great need today, for in many cases our understanding of the dynamics of fisheries resources and the marine ecosystem is limited.

3.2.2 Purpose B – Conservation of Endangered or Threatened Species

MPAs can be an important tool for preserving endangered and threatened species and their associated habitats.

The MPAs for threatened or endangered species are different from those established for the conservation and protection of commercial and non-commercial species. They target the protection of an endangered species or the community that supports the endangered species, and do not have the central goal of enhancing harvests elsewhere. MPAs designed for endangered species protection must provide enough suitable habitat and space to maintain the ecosystems and the genetic pools that support viable populations of threatened species. The success of these MPAs is dependent upon the appropriate and complementary use of adjacent lands and water.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) identifies the following as endangered, threatened, or vulnerable in the marine environment:

17 fish species, 15 marine mammal populations, and one species of turtle. Four species of fish are extinct or extirpated (locally extinct), as well as two marine mammal populations. In addition, endangered and threatened species in need of protection can include those considered key to ecosystem functioning and valuable from an economic or ethical perspective.

The role of MPAs in protecting these species is described below.

Loss of a Key Species

MPAs can assist in maintaining or re-establishing key species by protecting them from activities that affect their populations. Current understanding of marine and coastal ecosystems often makes it difficult to anticipate the effects of the loss of a single species on the functioning of an ecosystem.

The disappearance of a ‘keystone species’ can alter and disrupt the functioning of an entire ecosystem. The history of the sea otter is a good example. As the populations of sea otters declined because of trapping, their prey, the sea urchin, exploded in numbers. Sea urchin food—kelp—disappeared, leaving ‘sea urchin’ barrens, a dramatically diminished habitat. In recent decades, re-introduction of the sea otter by conservation agencies to these ‘sea urchin’ barrens has brought about a reversing of the ecological processes and a return of the kelp. With them came other algal species, crustaceans, squid, fish, and other organisms.8

In this case, the blind exploitation of sea otters drastically changed ecosystems along the Pacific Coast. The damage was done before scientists and fur managers were aware of the key role of the sea otter. Remote natural ‘refuges’ offered protection that

ensured the survival of the sea otter and the opportunity to re-introduce them to their former ranges.

Loss of Valuable Species

MPAs can help protect species that have an economic value. The loss of certain species could lead to serious economic losses in the future. There are a number of activities that could adversely effect the gene pool in the flora and fauna of the oceans. Oceans contain the raw material that could provide new sources of food, fibre and medicines, and that could contribute to scientific and industrial innovations. In pharmaceuticals, for example, species that were relatively unknown or thought to be weeds have emerged as potential sources of miracle drugs. The ecological adaptability of this genetic ‘raw material’ also depends on the genetic capability, contained within species, to respond and adapt to changing conditions. If a fish species declines due to global environmental changes, will another be able to replace it? We cannot know in advance which species are likely to be important. For example, species such as sea urchins, sea cucumbers, rock crabs and Jonah crabs were once thought to be of no commercial value, but have developed into locally significant fisheries. MPAs provide the opportunity to address this issue and protect valued resources.

Loss of Intangible Values

The loss of species and the destruction of biodiversity is ethically unacceptable to many people. Some concerned citizens believe that many species are ‘priceless’ and have intrinsic value because of their very existence. Studies show that, in considering habitat restoration, people place a higher value on the existence of a species than on its potential for use.9 MPAs provide the opportunity to protect species and habitats that are considered valuable from these perspectives.

Marine Mammals

Marine mammals and their habitats are specifically identified in the Oceans Actas being worthy of special protection through the establishment of an MPA.

A wide variety of marine mammals are found in Canadian waters. These include whales (gray, bowhead, beluga, narwhal, minke, humpback, and killer whales as well as sperm, northern bottlenose, blue and right whales further offshore), porpoises, dolphins, seals, walrus, sea lions, and sea otters. Some of these species are listed as endangered, such as the beluga, bowhead, and right whale. Threatened species include the harbour porpoise, sea otter, humpback whale, and beluga (Hudson Bay population). Some species have been affected by past whaling or fur hunters, as well as present-day pollution, shipping collisions, fishing practices, and other human activities. Some marine mammal populations that were once exploited commercially and some that are traditionally used by aboriginal people are experiencing difficulty in recovering to viable or manageable levels.

Many marine mammals and their critical habitats can benefit from an MPA in order to limit the impact of detrimental activities. MPA design must focus on temporal and other special considerations related to calving and feeding grounds, which can change over time. Highly migratory species such as whales require national or even international networks of MPAs to protect them throughout their ranges.

3.2.3 Purpose C – Conservation of Unique Habitats

MPAs designated to protect unique habitats have several benefits. Unique habitats can be defined as ‘centres of endemism’, in which rare species are endemic to a single habitat area. In this case, protection of the area is a means of preventing the extinction of a species. However, endemism is generally believed to be rare because of the potential for long-range recruitment of many species, particularly free-swimming marine species.

Unique habitats can also be seen as having intrinsic or existence values—that is, they are especially valuable because they are unique. Many offshore benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms, for example, are relatively restricted in their ranges. Some benthic communities are associated with specialized environments such as hydrothermal vents, isolated seamounts, and oceanic trenches or canyons. These unusual and isolated habitats result in confined ecological communities. The species endemic to these habitats may be at risk because of their limited means of dispersing to recolonize other areas.

3.2.4 Purpose D – Conservation of Productive Ecosystems and Biodiversity

MPAs can provide an important tool for protecting productive marine ecosystems and biodiversity. Many marine areas have a range of biota (the plant or animal life of a region) rivaling or exceeding that of tropical forests. The term “biodiversity” includes genetic, species, and ecological diversity, as well as the variety of responses to environmental change. Several scientists believe that coastal and marine zones are being rapidly depleted of their resources and diversity. Marine biodiversity can be adversely affected in several ways. Serious problems such as the introduction of exotic organisms, habitat alterations, overfishing, or increasing contamination can reduce the diversity and impair the operation of marine ecosystems. Consequently, the ability of the marine environment to support commercial activities is threatened.

A number of highly productive ecosystems can be identified as being in need of protection as an MPA. For example, many estuaries are highly productive, providing critical habitats for the life stages of a variety of fish and other species. Estuaries are under considerable stress throughout Canada, requiring greater levels of protection from both ocean and land-based activities. Similarly, upwelling and mixing areas typically have high productivity and support the life stages of a variety of fish, mammal, and other species. Upwelling occurs under specific conditions in coastal locations, such as the west coast of Vancouver Island, in the St. Lawrence Estuary (at the mouth of the Saguenay River), and on the Atlantic offshore. Other highly productive and diverse ecosystems include offshore banks, kelp forests, and deep sea features such as sea vents.

In order to protect highly productive ecosystems and areas of high biodiversity, an MPA typically needs to be large—encompassing a variety of critical ecosystem components. This presents a unique management challenge, since it is necessary to coordinate protection objectives with a variety of human activities. A wide variety of factors and influences affecting productivity and biodiversity need to be considered in the development of MPAs for this purpose. Often ‘no take’ areas or zones are required in order to ensure that critical ecosystem functions and key species and communities are maintained.

3.2.5 Purpose E – Conservation of Other Marine Resources and Habitats to Fulfill The Mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

The establishment of MPAs will provide a unique opportunity to help fulfill other mandates given to the Minister, including that of scientific research. The Oceans Act (sections 35 and 42) supports this by providing for MPAs to be established to protect marine resources or habitat necessary to fulfill the mandate of the Minister, including the area of marine science.

MPAs can provide a number of opportunities for scientific research because they can range from pristine areas to heavily utilized areas to recovering areas. They can provide opportunities for testing management approaches including those of conservation, restoration ecology, and monitoring. However, of utmost importance is the opportunity to study and compare relatively ‘untouched’ ecosystems with others that have been subject to human contact.

Scientific research within MPAs can further our understanding of how ecosystems function and how conservation strategies contribute to the recovery of marine species and ecosystems. Researchers can assess the effectiveness of MPAs and provide guidance in developing an MPA Program. This is particularly important because of the lack of information on different designs for MPAs (size, boundaries, use restrictions, types of biota, proximity to human activities).

Improved scientific knowledge will aid in coastal management, including fisheries management. It can address major gaps in our current understanding, reduce uncertainty, and provide a basis for adaptive management and future planning. There are a number of researchers within government, universities, and other institutions who have identified potential areas, and who can serve as important players in developing research-oriented MPAs.


Back to top

4.0 HOW WILL MPAs BE IDENTIFIED & ESTABLISHED?

Establishing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ MPA Program will be a complex process of public consultation, information gathering, and building of collaborative arrangements with stakeholders. The process will take many years and will require a ‘learn-by-doing’ approach to program development—an approach that recognizes the need to act quickly on priority sites and issues, while at the same time developing and adjusting the overall MPA Program based on this experience.

At the national level, the overall MPA Program framework and strategy will be developed, defining its goals and standards for operation, creating collaborative arrangements, and the linking of global, national, and regional concerns. The MPA Program will be implemented at the regional level through activities such as the identification of candidate sites, consultation and creating collaborative arrangements with local user groups, governmental and non-government interests, and the establishment and management of individual MPAs.

DFO’s MPA Program will consider the following in its development:

  • that MPAs must be seen as an important means of marine conservation—a means suitable to a national strategy for ocean management and fisheries management as well as provincial and community-based conservation strategies;
  • that the MPA program must be adaptable to and determined by regional and local circumstances and issues;
  • that the process of completing a system of MPAs, as well as establishing individual candidate sites, may require many years; and,
  • that monitoring will need to be established to determine if the program is meeting its goals, and to take advantage of the lessons learned.

A number of principles of conservation, singularly or in combination, will guide the development of the MPA Program. Discussed further in Appendix B, these include the following: ecosystem based approach, sustainable development, precautionary approach, adaptive management, integrated management, regional flexibility, consultation, and partnering.

Back to top

4.1 The Process for Establishing an MPA Program

The development of marine protected area programs around the world, and in Canada, indicates that there are a number of relatively standard stages in a typical process. Potential marine protected areas are identified, evaluated, selected, established, and managed. The process suggested below, and represented in Figure 1, is based on that experience.10 The process for the MPA Program is not necessarily linear. Each

Figure 1: Proposed MPA Establishment Process

missing alt tag
missing alt tag

stage may be conducted on a continuous basis, and stages are often carried out simultaneously.

Back to top

4.2 Area Nomination

There is a balance to be sought between the need to act on critical areas immediately and the need to be systematic in looking at an overall MPA network. The judgment of government staff and users in discussions has been that we do not need to wait for full network systems plans to identify some of the known high priority areas. Indeed, waiting for such plans can delay overdue action. Typically, certain important areas are designated in advance of a systems plan. The best approach is to begin consideration of priority areas while at the same time proceeding on a systematic basis, conducting overviews of marine regions to identify candidate MPAs.

Two complementary processes are being proposed to nominate areas in need of protection as an MPA: i) Nomination by Interested Groups, and ii) Regional Overviews.

Nomination by Interested Groups

The MPA program will accept nominations of areas for designation as MPAs. This route provides a unique opportunity for interested groups to nominate areas for consideration, including those from local resource users, government agencies, industry, non-government organizations (NGOs), research institutions, and private sector organizations. If, for example, a local lobster fisher committee wishes to pursue establishment of an MPA for protection of a lobster nursery area, the nomination process would provide a channel for this purpose. Based on survey and workshop information, various interested groups in Canada have already identified potential MPAs. As well, candidate areas currently under some form of special protection could be identified in this process. As considerable support exists for some of these potential sites, a built-in constituency and potential collaborators exist in many areas.

Regional Overviews

Over the longer term, there is also a need for a systematic approach to identifying a network of MPAs that reflects all the purposes identified in the Oceans Act. The systematic development of an MPA network will be accomplished through regional overviews conducted by an interdisciplinary team. This is complementary to the nomination-by-interested-parties process, with selected sites added to the area identification list (see below). Moreover, the regional overview would identify knowledge gaps that require further research and inventory. Consultation with affected organizations and interested parties will be conducted to identify issues and concerns and to gather information on the valued components of marine systems. The regional overview will cumulate into a working database of MPA-related information, providing a centralized and organized means of assessing candidate sites.

The MPA Proposal

The nomination of an MPA should be accompanied by a stated purpose, objectives, and a proposed plan for management of the area, possibly termed the “preliminary MPA proposal”. The proposal will be prepared through a cooperative process involving coastal communities, organizations, and government agencies. This proposal should be based on existing information and can provide the core elements of a draft management plan, should the site be selected. Appendix D provides an example of the typical information that might be expected for an MPA proposal.

Area Identification List

Nominated areas are placed on an area identification list (AIL), a working list of potential MPAs from which candidates are selected for further evaluation. Inclusion on the AIL is based on an evaluation of preliminary selection criteria, which will need to be defined.

An MPA Program will establish an AIL early on in the process. Those areas on the list will be considered for early establishment. There is already enough information to identify and justify certain priority areas for protection. In the case of unique habitats, offshore sea vents are an obvious example. The spawning areas of many important species are known and may already be identified in existing studies as requiring protection. Appropriate research and monitoring can be carried out within areas that are established early, and the knowledge gained can assist in planning for a full network of MPAs. As well, the public visibility of early MPA initiatives will provide a basis for greater public understanding and input into regional level activities.

Candidate MPAs that have been added to the AIL for a region will need to be monitored to ensure that the potential of the area is not lost while awaiting final decision. Protection can be provided, as necessary, within other regulatory authorities assigned to DFO. This will allow areas and plans to be evaluated during the decision process.

Back to top

4.3 Area Evaluation and Selection

Each MPA proposal will be evaluated on the basis of extensive criteria. One set of criteria are the purposes stated for MPAs in section 35 of the Oceans Act. Areas may rate high on several of these criteria. For example, the area could support rare species within a zone that is high in biological diversity and that supports commercially important species. Other sites not within the scope of the Oceans Act and mandate of DFO would be forwarded to relevant federal and provincial agencies for their consideration.

Other types of evaluation criteria are also important in selecting a site. These include social and economic values, the immediacy of need, practicality, opportunities of partnering arrangements, community support, adequacy of existing regulatory regimes, potential human activity threats to the area, ecological fragility, feasibility of enforcement, scientific importance, educational value, fiscal constraints, and regional, national, or international significance. Provided the candidate area is consistent with the purposes identified in the Oceans Act, these criteria add to the importance of the site. Discussions on specific sites will take place with resource users, governments, affected interests, and the public at large.

It is possible that consideration of the proposals and input from consultation may delay implementation of an important proposal. While a delay may be of concern, establishing inappropriate MPAs or ‘paper’ MPAs without feasibility for implementation would add little in value to marine conservation. A form of interim protection of an area may be necessary for some candidates at this stage.

Back to top

4.4 Development of an Area Management Plan

The management plan for each MPA will be based on the proposal that was developed in the Area Nomination stage, and on additional information from the Area Evaluation and Selection stage. These elements will have to be expanded in the management plan so that all players, particularly if there is a some form of partnering arrangement involved, will clearly understand their roles and responsibilities.

Since each MPA is different, the management plan of each will be unique. Each plan will attempt to reflect the issues and concerns of the stakeholders. An interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral planning team will be assembled to develop the management plan. It will clearly define the purpose of the MPA, its goals and objectives, how the goals and objectives are to be reached, and how the success of the MPA will be measured. Input from a variety of interested parties will be required at this stage in order to identify key management issues and constraints.

In many candidate MPA areas there will be existing and proposed activities and interests, some of which may conflict with the conservation objectives of the MPA. A key component of the management plan will be the development of regulatory actions, including the zoning of activities to be prohibited or limited. The Oceans Act (section 35) allows for the establishment of zones within MPAs and the prohibition of classes of activities. Levels of protection defined in the management plan can vary from a strict ‘no take’ area, where access is severely limited, to areas where controlled use, resource harvesting, and various socio-economic activities are allowed. Buffer areas may be defined around MPAs to ensure that nearby human activities are managed in a manner that conserves the marine resources in the MPA core areas.

Back to top

4.5 Area Establishment

The Oceans Actallows for the establishment and management of MPAs through regulations created under section 35 (3). The form that these regulations will take has not been determined. It has been suggested that each MPA would have its own set of regulations specifying boundaries and the measures that have to be taken to protect the area. Another alternative would be to establish a set of general regulations that would authorize, first, the creation of MPAs on a regional level in support of formal management plans; and second, the permitting of activities within the MPA that do not conflict with the plan. Formal designation of an MPA would in any case define geographic boundaries and all the elements described in the management plan. These regulations would be enforceable by persons appointed under section 39 of the Act and subject to fines specified in section 37.

The Oceans Act(section 36) permits the Minister to designate an MPA on an emergency basis. This power could be used if resources or habitats are at particular risk and require protection on an interim basis.

Back to top

4.6 Area Management

MPAs will typically be managed on a site-by-site basis. This means that each MPA will have its own management plan, tailored to the type of site, and the purposes for which it was established. MPAs will be managed in close cooperation with other agencies and interested parties. Guidance for management will be contained in a management plan and based on the proposal prepared and on the regulations adopted. The key management issues that need to be addressed are discussed below in Section 5.


Back to top

5.0 How will MPAs be managed?

Management challenges for a successful MPA Program include: establishing effective partnering arrangements, providing jurisdictional coordination, developing information, providing management resources, providing an enforcement capability, and developing awareness and education for MPAs. These are discussed below, with possible solutions proposed.

Back to top

5.1 Need for Effective Partnering

The concept of partnering is a driving force in the MPA Program. Stakeholder information, cooperation, and ongoing support is key in creating and managing MPAs. Cooperation and coordination between interested parties and DFO is required to ensure efficiency and to avoid duplication of effort. It has been said that “environmental management is most effective when implemented by those who have the most to lose and the most to gain from the management of the environment”.11 This is particularly true for marine users. By considering their interests early in the process, areas of constraint and potential conflict can be identified and negotiated where appropriate.

The number of interested parties, like the diversity of interests and uses, will vary with sites, regional needs and attitudes and valued resources. The degree of involvement and responsibility of interested parties will depend on the purpose of the MPA and its geographical location. For example, with offshore MPAs such as seamounts, DFO may be solely responsible. However, the MPA will likely involve shipping, mineral resource extraction, and fishing interests. One advantage of establishing effective partnering arrangements with the fishing and shipping community is improved compliance with MPA regulations.

Partnering arrangements in an MPA Program will often involve ‘different’ groups and interestsSome of these groups could include coastal communities, the fishing industry, aquaculturalists, aboriginal organizations, conservationists, ocean industries, and federal, provincial and municipal governments.

Back to top

5.2 Coastal Communities and Non-Government Conservation Organizations

The MPA Program provides an opportunity for communities as well as local, regional and national conservation groups, to be involved in conservation activities in the marine environment. For coastal MPA management, local organizations and communities play a prominent role, ranging from nomination and co-management of sites to consultation activities and public awareness programs. Organizations nominating an MPA could become a ‘sponsor’ for the site. A sponsor is an organization prepared to take a long term partnering arrangement in managing the MPA.

Partnering arrangements with provincial and federal departments are being formed. For many years, conservation organizations have been actively acquiring coastal lands. This practice allows them to preserve the lands, while promoting marine conservation and protected areas. Some MPAs such as the Whytecliff Marine Sanctuary in West Vancouver lend themselves to local management. In Atlantic Canada, several types of community/government partnering arrangements have been formed to study the local resources and economy with an eye to sustainable management and development. Such arrangements would have value in the management of MPAs.

Back to top

5.3 Fishing Interests

Fishing interests have an important investment in MPAs. It is essential to all involved parties that fishing groups, including commercial and aboriginal fish harvesters, recreational fishers, businesses, processing companies, and the fishing-dependent communities, play an active role in the MPA process.

Fish harvesters have been strong proponents for conserving the marine resources upon which they depend. They have much knowledge to add to the scientific information that shapes the management approach. Experience suggests that MPAs need strong support from fishing interests, particularly if the MPAs will remove territory from their traditional fishing areas or affect their application of fishing rights in the area. Support for MPAs grows when harvesters see the results of a successful MPA, or when they become involved in the many stages of the MPA establishment process.12

Currently, the development of the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations in Atlantic Canada complements the MPA process and encourages

collaborative approaches to management of the fisheries resources.

Back to top

5.4 Aboriginal Organizations

Aboriginal organizations have a strong interest in conserving marine resources for cultural, subsistence, and economic reasons. MPAs will be managed in collaboration with aboriginal people in accordance with mutual interests in marine conservation. MPAs will be identified and designated in a manner consistent with Aboriginal land claims and rights.

Co-management provides a means of marine conservation and protection, pending the resolution of aboriginal claims. It provides opportunities for better resource management and for mutual learning among scientific and aboriginal experts. Aboriginal people have extensive traditional knowledge about marine resources and apply customary management practices in maintaining marine resource productivity. Currently, a number of co-management institutions exist in the North, under the Nunavut Final Land Claim Agreement and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Similar land claim agreements are being negotiated between the province of Quebec and the Inuit of Northern Quebec.

Back to top

5.5 Ocean Industries

There are a number of ocean industries that have a direct interest in the development of an MPA Program, particularly in the management of individual MPAs. These industries and interests could include oil and gas companies, marine mining interests, tourism operators, shoreline developers, and shipping agencies. It is important that these interests be included early on in the development of management plans to ensure that conflict with both current and future uses of oceans is avoided where possible. Many of these industries may wish to assume a long-term collaborative role in managing an MPA, assisting in activities such as enforcement and monitoring.

Back to top

5.6 Provinces and Municipal Governments

Effective partnering arrangements between DFO, its federal counterparts, and the provinces are crucial to the success of an MPA Program. This has been clearly demonstrated elsewhere in the world (Australia, the United States, and Spain, to name a few). In Canada, coastal provinces have varying degrees of jurisdiction over the seabed in inshore waters. Moreover, the provinces and municipalities are responsible for managing most of the land-based activities that affect the marine environment and potential MPAs: run-off (pollution), tourism, and shoreline development .

At present, many coastal provinces have specific initiatives that show their interest in MPAs. These initiatives are: considering and/or developing a number of terrestrial protected areas adjacent to potential MPA sites; and establishing coastal zone management initiatives that complement the MPA Program (e.g., Coastal 2000 in Nova Scotia, or ‘conservation easements’ for marine protected areas in British Columbia). In addition, both British Columbia and Prince Edward Island are establishing MPA programs through collaborative arrangements with a variety of government departments, non-government organizations, and the fishing industry.

Back to top

5.7 Federal Departments

With the passage of the Oceans Act , DFO will join two other federal departments—Canadian Heritage and Environment Canada—in having direct responsibility for the identification, designation and management of protected areas in the marine environment (Appendix C). The partnering process has been initiated at the federal level, where a steering committee on MPAs has been created: the Marine Protected Areas Interdepartmental Committee. The aims of this committee are to develop a comprehensive and complementary system of MPAs and to ensure that individual MPAs have a full range of support, expert advice, and protection. This level of partnering will be reflected at the regional level and at individual MPA sites. Other federal agencies such as the Department of Transport, Natural Resources Canada, and the Department of Defence will be approached in addressing specific issues and in considering particular sites.

Back to top

5.8 International

Cooperative agreements and joint planning exercises between Canada and its neighbours will be necessary in order to meet common conservation objectives. Some potential marine protected area sites are shared with, or are in close proximity to, the United States. A similar situation exists in the Arctic, where Canada and Greenland have a common marine environment that requires protection. Finally, Canada and France (Saint Pierre and Miquelon) share valuable resources on the east coast. Highly migratory species such as whales have critical habitats located thousands of kilometres from Canadian waters, requiring a network of protected areas throughout their range. Existing management structures such as the Gulf of Maine Council may provide the basis for an international collaborative arrangement on MPAs to be developed.

Back to top

5.9 Addressing Information Requirements

MPAs will be managed using present information, ongoing research, and traditional ecological information from a variety stakeholders. Accurate information on the marine environment, its resources, and uses will be critical in identifying, evaluating, and managing MPAs. A broad information base will be developed in order to evaluate individual MPA proposals and to support regional overviews (Section 5 of the discussion paper).

The database will consist of such information categories as:

  • existing and proposed protected areas (federal, provincial, private)
  • existing and planned uses (fishery activities, resource extraction, recreation)
  • environmental data (oceanographic processes)
  • ecological information (key species distribution, critical habitats, ecological systems)

A common database, developed through tools such as a geographic information systems (GIS) will be used for storing, interpreting, and displaying the information. An agency and team of information specialists will be identified and charged with coordinating the development of the data.

Information Constraints and Sources

A major constraint in planning for MPAs is the limited understanding of the dynamics of our marine ecosystems. Even in the foreseeable future, management decisions will be made with limited knowledge. The MPA Program will address information deficits by:

  • exercising the sustainable development, integrated management, and precautionary principles
  • using MPAs as a learning opportunity by applying the adaptive management principle
  • establishing a monitoring component as part of some MPAs, and
  • using MPAs as natural laboratories to conduct environmental research.

Information to ensure sound management of MPAs will continue to be gathered. The Oceans Act (section 42) defines DFO’s marine sciences role. This includes collecting data for understanding oceans and their living resources, as well as hydrographic, oceanographic, fisheries, and other marine systems. Provincial agencies are developing a number of coastal databases that will be useful for decision-making. Federal and provincial agencies are also cooperating in the assembly of coastal zone information management systems. For example, federal and provincial agencies in the Atlantic region are cooperating in an Atlantic Coastal Zone Information Management Committee (ACZIMC) established to improve and standardize information infrastructure related to the coastal zone.

Community groups have information that an MPA Program can put to use in decision-making. Conservation groups involved in activities such as the Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP) also have, on a site-specific basis, important information for use in an MPA Program.

Monitoring programs will be established to determine whether the goals of individual MPAs have been effectively realized. Environmental parameters will be monitored to detect natural and artificial changes in environmental systems. These data are essential for demonstrating management success. If success is demonstrated, compliance with regulations and public support for additional MPAs would be expected to increase.

Back to top

5.10 Awareness and Education

Education and awareness of DFO’s MPA Program is of the utmost importance. If partnering arrangements are to be a key method for delivering this MPA Program, the parties must be well informed and knowledgeable. Also, as the approach will be an evolving one, the aims of the program must be clearly defined and understood.

The awareness-and-education component of the program will develop different types of materials for different audiences, including: schools, resource users, DFO and other government agencies, communities, and various non-government agencies. A wide range of educational tools can be used, e.g., public meetings, brochures, booklets, and educational videos. A coordinated awareness and education program between Canadian Heritage, Environment Canada, and DFO will be needed. This should clarify each agency’s role in establishing protected areas, and provide information on the collaboration between agencies.

Effective education and stakeholder support can reduce enforcement requirements in three important ways:

  • by encouraging participation by all interested parties in enforcement efforts;
  • by creating an understanding that leads to better compliance; and
  • by providing a forum, through the partnering arrangements, to address enforcement concerns.

Existing fisheries management enforcement tools can provide a basis for enforcement approaches within many of the MPAs. However, given the types of MPAs that are envisaged under the Oceans Act, the enforcement challenges presented may be equally diverse. Many of the issues related to enforcement capabilities and alternatives will be addressed on a site-by-site basis and will be identified in the management plan.

The Oceans Act contains enforcement provisions, that are included in Appendix A.


Back to top

6.0 The next step – your comments

MPAs provide a powerful and proven tool for achieving conservation objectives in the marine environment. Through MPAs we can begin to protect important ecosystems and species, thereby protecting the marine environment and resources upon which our coastal communities depend.

The Oceans Actand the development of an MPA Program presents an exciting new challenge for DFO and for Canada. Over the next few years, DFO, together with various partnering organizations and stakeholders, will build an MPA Program encompassing a broad network of protected areas. The MPA Program will evolve over time, adopting a learn-by-doing approach and will be developed in close coordination with existing protection initiatives undertaken by other organizations. This will take commitment, active involvement, and consensus-building among a wide range of stakeholders.

A number of complementary tasks have been identified as critical for developing the MPA Program. The MPA Program framework needs to be structured, pilot MPAs in priority sites need to be established, and extensive partnering arrangements and consultation exercises are required. The discussion paper represents a starting point for addressing the issues surrounding MPAs in Canada. It also provides a general set of principles and approaches DFO can adopt. The approach to the MPA Program provided in this discussion paper is not a prescriptive one. On the contrary: the needs and design of the MPA Program will be developed in cooperation with a range of stakeholders.

Your comments on this discussion paper will provide an initial step in this process, helping to develop an innovative, effective, and coordinated approach to conserving our marine heritage.

For further information, and to provide your comments, please contact your regional DFO office—addresses are provided at the back of this paper. We look forward to hearing from you.


Back to top

Appendix A-

Oceans Act

PART II – OCEANS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Part does not apply to inland waters

28.For greater certainty, this Part does not apply in respect of rivers and lakes.

Development and implementation of strategy

29.The Minister, in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements, shall lead and facilitate the development and implementation of a national strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems in waters that form part of Canada or in which Canada has sovereign rights under international law.

Principles of strategy

30.The national strategy will be based on the principles of

(a)sustainable development, that is, development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;

(b)the integrated management of activities in estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters that form part of Canada or in which Canada has sovereign rights under international law; and

(c)the precautionary approach, that is, erring on the side of caution.

Integrated management plans

31.The Minister, in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements, shall lead and facilitate the development and implementation of plans for the integrated management of all activities or measures in or affecting estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters that form part of Canada or in which Canada has sovereign rights under international law.

Implementation of integrated management plans

32.For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the Minister

(a)shall develop and implement policies and programs with respect to matters assigned by law to the Minister;

(b)shall coordinate with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada the implementation of policies and programs of the Government with respect to all activities or measures in or affecting coastal waters and marine waters;

(c)may, on his or her own or jointly with another person or body or with another minister, board or agency of the Government of Canada, and taking into consideration the views of other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, provincial and territorial governments and affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements,

(i)establish advisory or management bodies and appoint or designate, as appropriate, members of those bodies, and

(ii)recognize established advisory or management bodies; and

(d)may, in consultation with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements, establish marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria respecting estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters.

Cooperation and agreements

33.(1) In exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned to the Minister by this Act, the Minister

(a)shall cooperate with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements;

(b)may enter into agreements with any person or body or with another minister, board or agency of the Government of Canada;

(c)shall gather, compile, analyse, coordinate and disseminate information;

(d)may make grants and contributions on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board; and

(e)may make recoverable expenditures on behalf of and at the request of any other minister, board or agency of the Government of Canada or of a province or any person or body.

Consultation

(2) In exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions mentioned in this Part, the Minister may consult with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial governments and with affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including those bodies established under land claims agreements.

Logistics support, etc.

 

34.The Minister may coordinate logistics support and provide related assistance for the purposes of advancing scientific knowledge of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems.

Marine protected areas

35.(1) A marine protected area is an area of the sea that forms part of the internal waters of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada or the exclusive economic zone of Canada and has been designated under this section for special protection for one or more of the following reasons:

(a)the conservation and protection of commercial and non-commercial fishery resources, including marine mammals, and their habitats;

(b)the conservation and protection of endangered or threatened marine species, and their habitats;

(c)the conservation and protection of unique habitats;

(d)the conservation and protection of marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity; and

(e)the conservation and protection of any other marine resource or habitat as is necessary to fulfil the mandate of the Minister.

Marine protected areas

(2)For the purposes of integrated management plans referred to in sections 31 and 32, the Minister will lead and coordinate the development and implementation of a national system of marine protected areas on behalf of the Government of Canada.

Regulations

(3)The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, may make regulations

(a)designating marine protected areas; and

(b)prescribing measures that may include but not be limited to

(i)the zoning of marine protected areas,

(ii)the prohibition of classes of activities within marine protected areas, and

(iii)any other matter consistent with the purpose of the designation.

Interim marine protected areas in emergency situations

36.(1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, may make orders exercising any power under section 35 on an emergency basis, where the Minister is of the opinion that a marine resource or habitat is or is likely to be at risk to the extent that such orders are not inconsistent with a land claims agreement that has been given effect and has been ratified or approved by an Act of Parliament.

Exemption from Statutory Instruments Act

(2) An order made under this section is exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Temporary effect

(3)An order made under this section that is not repealed ceases to have effect 90 days after it is made.

Offence and punishment

37.Every person who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 35(3)(b) or an order made under subsection 36(1) in the exercise of a power under that paragraph

(a)is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000; or

(b)is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $500,000.

Contravention of unpublished order

38.No person may be convicted of an offence consisting of a contravention of an order made under subsection 36(1) in the exercise of a power under paragraph 35(3)(b) that, at the time of the alleged contravention, had not been published in the Canada Gazette in both official languages unless it is proved that reasonable steps had been taken before that time to bring the purport of the order to the attention of those persons likely to be affected by it.

Enforcement officers

39.(1) The Minister may designate any person or class of persons to act as enforcement officers for the purposes of this Act and the regulations.

Designation of provincial government employees

(2) The Minister may not designate any person or class of persons employed by the government of a province unless that government agrees.

Certificate of designation

(3)Every enforcement officer must be provided with a certificate of designation as an enforcement officer in a form approved by the Minister and, on entering any place under this Act, the officer shall, if so requested, show the certificate to the occupant or person in charge of the place.

Powers of peace officers

(4)For the purposes of this Act and the regulations, enforcement officers have all the powers of a peace officer, but the Minister may specify limits on those powers when designating any person or class of persons.

Exemptions for law enforcement activities

(5)For the purpose of investigations and other law enforcement activities under this Act, the Minister may, on any terms and conditions the Minister considers necessary, exempt enforcement officers who are carrying out duties or functions under this Act, and persons acting under their direction and control, from the application of any provision of this Act or the regulations.

Obstruction

(6)When an enforcement officer is carrying out duties or functions under this Act or the regulations, no person shall

(a)knowingly make any false or misleading statement either orally or in writing to the enforcement officer; or

(b)otherwise wilfully obstruct the enforcement officer.

Inspections

39.1(1) For the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an enforcement officer may, subject to subsection (3), at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place in which the enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, there is any thing to which this Act or the regulations apply or any document relating to the administration of this Act or the regulations, and the enforcement officer may

(a)open or cause to be opened any container that the enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, contains any such thing or document;

(b)inspect the thing and take samples free of charge;

(c)require any person to produce the document for inspection or copying, in whole or in part; and

(d)seize any thing by means of or in relation to which the enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, this Act or the regulations have been contravened or that the enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, will provide evidence of a contravention.

Conveyance

(2)For the purposes of carrying out the inspection, the enforcement officer may stop a conveyance or direct that it be moved to a place where the inspection can be carried out.

Dwelling-place

(3)The enforcement officer may not enter a dwelling-place except with the consent of the occupant or person in charge of the dwelling-place or under the authority of a warrant.

Warrant

(4)Where on ex parte application a justice, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, is satisfied by information on oath that

(a)the conditions for entry described in subsection (1) exist in relation to a dwelling-place,

(b)entry to the dwelling-place is necessary in relation to the administration of this Act or the regulations, and

(c)entry to the dwelling-place has been refused or there are reasonable grounds for believing that entry will be refused,

the justice may issue a warrant authorizing the enforcement officer to enter the dwelling-place subject to any conditions that may be specified in the warrant.

Search and seizure without warrant

39.2For the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an enforcement officer may exercise the powers of search and seizure provided in section 487 of the Criminal Code without a warrant, if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be feasible to obtain the warrant.

Custody of things seized

39.3(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), where an enforcement officer seizes a thing under this Act or under a warrant issued under the Criminal Code,

(a)sections 489.1 and 490 of the Criminal Code apply; and

(b)the enforcement officer, or any person that the officer may designate, shall retain custody of the thing, subject to any order made under section 490 of the Criminal Code.

Forfeiture where ownership not ascertainable

(2)Where the lawful ownership of or entitlement to the seized thing cannot be ascertained within thirty days after its seizure, the thing or any proceeds of its disposition are forfeited to

(a)Her Majesty in right of Canada, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed in the public service of Canada; or

(b)Her Majesty in right of a province, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed by the government of that province.

Perishable things

(3)Where the seized thing is perishable, the enforcement officer may dispose of it or destroy it, and any proceeds of its disposition must be

(a)paid to the lawful owner or person lawfully entitled to possession of the thing, unless proceedings under this Act are commenced within ninety days after its seizure; or

(b)retained by the enforcement officer pending the outcome of the proceedings.

Abandonment

(4)The owner of the seized thing may abandon it to Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.

Disposition by Minister

39.4Any thing that has been forfeited or abandoned under this Act must be dealt with and disposed of as the Minister may direct.

Liability for costs

39.5The lawful owner and any person lawfully entitled to possession of any thing seized, abandoned or forfeited under this Act are jointly and severally liable for all the costs of inspection, seizure, abandonment, forfeiture or disposition incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada in excess of any proceeds of disposition of the thing that have been forfeited to Her Majesty under this Act.

Contravention of Act or regulations

39.6(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 39(6) or any regulation made under section 52.1

(a)is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000; or

(b)is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $500,000.

Subsequent offence

(2)Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act a second or subsequent time, the amount of the fine for the subsequent offence may, notwithstanding subsection (1), be double the amount set out in that subsection.

Continuing offence

(3)A person who commits or continues an offence on more than one day is liable to be convicted for a separate offence for each day on which the offence is committed or continued.

Fines cumulative

(4)A fine imposed for an offence involving more than one animal, plant or other organism may be calculated in respect of each one as though it had been the subject of a separate information and the fine then imposed is the total of that calculation.

Additional fine

(5)Where a person has been convicted of an offence and the court is satisfied that monetary benefits accrued to the person as a result of the commission of the offence,

(a)the court may order the person to pay an additional fine in an amount equal to the court’s estimation of the amount of the monetary benefits; and

(b)the additional fine may exceed the maximum amount of any fine that may otherwise be imposed under this Act.

Forfeiture

39.7(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence, the convicting court may, in addition to any punishment imposed, order that any seized thing by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, or any proceeds of its disposition, be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada.

Return where no forfeiture ordered

(2) Where the convicting court does not order the forfeiture, the seized thing, or the proceeds of its disposition, must be returned to its lawful owner or the person lawfully entitled to it.

Retention or sale

39.8Where a fine is imposed on a person convicted of an offence, any seized thing, or any proceeds of its disposition, may be retained until the fine is paid, or the thing may be sold in satisfaction of the fine and the proceeds applied, in whole or in part, in payment of the fine.

Orders of court

39.9Where a person is convicted of an offence, the court may, in addition to any punishment imposed and having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, make an order containing one or more of the following prohibitions, directions or requirements:

(a)prohibiting the person from doing any act or engaging in any activity that could, in the opinion of the court, result in the continuation or repetition of the offence;

(b)directing the person to take any action that the court considers appropriate to remedy or avoid any harm to estuarine, coastal or ocean waters, or their resources that resulted or may result from the commission of the offence;

(c)directing the person to publish, in any manner that the court considers appropriate, the facts relating to the commission of the offence;

(d)directing the person to pay the Minister or the government of a province compensation, in whole or in part, for the cost of any remedial or preventive action taken by or on behalf of the Minister or that government as a result of the commission of the offence;

(e)directing the person to perform community service in accordance with any reasonable conditions that may be specified in the order;

(f)directing the person to submit to the Minister, on application to the court by the Minister within three years after the conviction, any information respecting the activities of the person that the court considers appropriate in the circumstances;

(g)requiring the person to comply with any other conditions that the court considers appropriate for securing the person’s good conduct and for preventing the person from repeating the offence or committing other offences; and

(h)directing the person to post a bond or pay into court an amount of money that the court considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring compliance with any prohibition, direction or requirement under this section.

Suspended sentence

39.10(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court suspends the passing of sentence pursuant to the Criminal Code, the court may, in addition to any probation order made on suspending the passing of that sentence, make an order containing one or more of the prohibitions, directions or requirements mentioned in section 39.9.

Imposition of sentence

(2) Where the person does not comply with the order or is convicted of another offence, within three years after the order was made, the court may, on the application of the prosecution, impose any sentence that could have been imposed if the passing of sentence had not been suspended.

Limitation period

39.11(1) Proceedings by way of summary conviction in respect of an offence may be commenced at any time within, but not later than, two years after the day on which the subject-matter of the proceedings became known to the Minister.

Minister’s certificate

(2) A document appearing to have been issued by the Minister, certifying the day on which the subject-matter of any proceedings became known to the Minister, is admissible in evidence without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the document and is proof of the matter asserted in it.

Procedure

39.12(1) In addition to the procedures set out in the Criminal Code for commencing a proceeding, proceedings in respect of any offence prescribed by the regulations may be commenced by an enforcement officer

(a)completing a ticket that consists of a summons portion and an information portion;

(b)delivering the summons portion to the accused or mailing it to the accused at the accused’s latest known address; and

(c)filing the information portion with a court of competent jurisdiction before the summons portion has been delivered or mailed or as soon as is practicable afterward.

Content of ticket

(2)The summons and information portions of the ticket must

(a)set out a description of the offence and the time and place of its alleged commission;

(b)include a statement, signed by the enforcement officer who completes the ticket, that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence;

(c)set out the amount of the fine prescribed by the regulations for the offence and the manner in which and period within which it may be paid;

(d)include a statement that if the accused pays the fine within the period set out in the ticket, a conviction will be entered and recorded against the accused; and

(e)include a statement that if the accused wishes to plead not guilty or for any other reason fails to pay the fine within the period set out in the ticket, the accused must appear in the court on the day and at the time set out in the ticket.

Notice of forfeiture

(3)Where a thing is seized under this Act and proceedings relating to it are commenced by way of the ticketing procedure, the enforcement officer who completes the ticket shall give written notice to the accused that, if the accused pays the fine prescribed by the regulations within the period set out in the ticket, the thing, or any proceeds of its disposition, will be immediately forfeited to Her Majesty.

Consequences of payment

(4)Where an accused to whom the summons portion of a ticket is delivered or mailed pays the prescribed fine within the period set out in the ticket,

(a)the payment constitutes a plea of guilty to the offence and a conviction must be entered against the accused and no further action may be taken against the accused in respect of that offence; and

(b)notwithstanding section 39.3, any thing seized from the accused under this Act that relates to the offence, or any proceeds of its disposition, are forfeited to

(i)Her Majesty in right of Canada, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed in the public service of Canada, or

(ii)Her Majesty in right of a province, if the thing was seized by an enforcement officer employed by the government of that province.

Regulations

(5)The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing

(a)offences in respect of which this section applies and the manner in which the offences are to be described in tickets; and

(b)the amount of the fine for a prescribed offence, but the amount may not exceed $2,000.


Back to top

Appendix B – Guiding Principles for an MPA Program

The following provides a description of management principles to be used to guide the development and implementation of the MPA Program.

Sustainability Principle

Sustainable development is defined in the Oceans Act, Section 30, as:

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

Sustainability has become a well-accepted principle in resource management. It says that our activities today should not diminish the opportunities of future generations. Our approach is to put emphasis on conserving ecosystem functions and services on which economic and social values depend. As such, MPAs provide an anchor for marine conservation, and consequently, assist in meeting sustainability objectives.

Precautionary Principle

The precautionary approach is defined in the Act as “erring on the side of caution”. For example, lack of scientific certainty about where to put MPAs, or how big they should be, or how many are needed, should not be used as a reason not to establish MPAs. Similarly a lack of scientific certainty about the need for and efficacy of MPAs, especially as related to fisheries management, does not mean MPAs are unnecessary or ineffective. Indeed a precautionary approach to fisheries management suggests that establishment of MPAs is imperative.

The precautionary principle puts the ‘burden of proof’ on activities, including those of both individuals and the government, that may cause damage to ecological resources, as opposed to the current approach that permits activities until harm is demonstrated.

Consultation Principle

The consultation principle provides that interested persons, and those who would in any way be affected by the designation of MPAs, should be consulted in making decisions. The Oceans Act includes provision for broad consultation and collaboration with interested persons and agencies in exercising the powers and duties within Part II of the Act, including the designation of MPAs. The benefits of consultation are well documented, including equity and fairness, better information for decisions (especially local and traditional knowledge), broader public understanding of decisions, stronger commitment to decisions, cooperation, and ultimately, better decisions.

Integrated Management Principle

The Oceans Act also states that the national oceans strategy should be based on the following principle (Section 30):

“the integrated management of activities in estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters that form part of Canada or in which Canada has sovereign rights under international law”.

Integrated management is a decision-making process used to coordinate the management of human activities that affect marine resources. It requires attention to environmental, social and economic values. Integrated management brings affected interests, sectors and government agencies with differing goals together in a process for agreeing on common goals, plans and policies. Integrated management also implies an evolving consistency among government and non-government objectives and programs.

Adaptive Management Principle

The principle of adaptive management assumes that we do not have all of the information that we would prefer for identification and management of an MPA. Plans and regulations need to be flexibly designed to adapt to changes in information about effectiveness in achieving an area’s objectives, to changes in the environment or to changes of circumstances outside the MPA.

Ecosystem Principle

The ecosystem principle requires that we consider the entire ecosystem when establishing an MPA, including the maintenance of the integrity of the ecosystem and key ecosystem components, functions and services. This may not require that the entire ecosystem be included within the MPA. In a marine system, this will usually not be possible. However, MPAs should also not focus on a single species or stock but rather on the ecosystem or fragment of the ecosystem to which they belong.

Regional Flexibility Principle

Standardized national policies for MPAs would be difficult to establish, given the diversity of Canada’s ocean environments which range from high Arctic to temperate west coast marine to the Atlantic. Canada has a mosaic of ecosystems, socioeconomic and cultural systems, and management systems. To be relevant and effective locally, programs need to recognize local circumstances and history.

Partnering Principle

Partnering means working together on mutual interests. MPAs will benefit many interests, including coastal communities, coastal provinces and territories, aboriginal organizations, commercial fishers, environmental groups, wildlife groups, tourism enterprises, and others. Partnering will optimize the use of scarce government, non-profit, and private resources for marine conservation. Wherever possible, the marine protected areas program will need to seek opportunities to work closely with interested parties in all phases of the program.


Back to top

Appendix C – Marine Conservation Programs of Canadian Heritage and Environment Canada

Canadian Heritage – National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCA)

Purpose

In 1986, Parks Canada initiated the national marine park program. It has since been renamed the national marine conservation area (NMCA) program recognizing that conservation through shared stewardship would be the main focus in the planning and management of these areas.

The purpose of the NMCA program is to protect and conserve for all time a system of marine protected areas representative of Canada’s oceans and Great Lakes and to provide opportunities for public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the country’s natural and cultural marine heritage. To do this, Canada’s oceans and Great Lakes have been divided into 29 marine natural regions based on their natural features. Canadian Heritage (Parks Canada) is working to establish NMCAs that represent each of these marine natural regions.

Concept

NMCAs contain one or more highly protected zones buffered by cooperatively managed multiple-use areas. They include the sea bed, its subsoil and the overlying water column. In coastal areas, NMCAs may include wetlands, river estuaries, islands and other coastal lands. They may also, however, be established wholly offshore.

In contrast to national parks where the primary goal is to protect ecosystems in a state essentially unaltered by human activity, within NMCAs only activities such as ocean disposal, seabed mining and oil and gas extraction would be totally prohibited. Outside of highly protected zones, activities such as commercial shipping, commercial and recreational fishing and hunting would be permitted provided that these uses will not seriously degrade the essential structure and function of the area’s ecosystems.

Flexibility is required in the planning and management of these areas. Traditions and socioeconomic values concerning the protection and use of the marine environment vary from region to region in Canada. While NMCAs must make a meaningful contribution to the protection of the country’s marine heritage, they must also respect the life styles of local people. In fact, it is unlikely that NMCAs will succeed without the continuing cooperation and good will of those most directly affected by their establishment.

Each NMCA will be managed in accordance with a management plan. These plans will reflect the decisions taken during the feasibility study for a proposed NMCA. They set out management objectives and a zoning plan for the area and provide guidelines for day-to-day management and use. Management advisory committees are established in each NMCA to ensure that local people are directly involved in the preparation, review and implementation of management plans.

Legislation

In 1988, minor amendments were made to the National Parks Act to allow for the establishment of NMCAs. This was intended as an interim measure only since the Act was not developed to respond to the legislative requirements of protected areas in marine environments. Work is now under way to develop new legislation to establish and manage NMCAs.

The Saguenay – St. Lawrence Marine Park is a special partnership initiative with the province of Quebec. The 1990 federal – provincial agreement calling for the establishment of this park recognizes that seabed and subsoil will remain under provincial jurisdiction while the management of the super—adjacent waters will be a federal responsibility. The agreement requires each government to develop complementary legislation. In December 1996, federal and provincial governments each tabled parallel legislation to establish and administer the Park.

Status of the NMCA Program

The NMCA program is relatively young. To date, only four of the 29 marine regions are represented by three sites (one NMCA represents two regions).

Fathom Five, in Georgian Bay was established as the country’s first NMCA in 1987. This was followed, in 1988, by an agreement to establish Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Reserve off the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia. This one site represents both Hecate Strait and the Queen Charlotte Island Natural regions. In 1990, an agreement was signed with Quebec calling for the establishment of the Saguenay – St. Lawrence marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay fjord and the St. Lawrence Estuary.

Work is now under way to examine the feasibility of establishing new NMCAs in other regions. Consultations recently began with provincial officials and local people on the possibility of establishing an NMCA in the Bonavista – Funk Island areas adjacent to Terra Nova National Park. The proposed area would represent the Newfoundland Shelf Marine Region.

In July 1995, the federal and provincial governments launched the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy, a five-year program to create an expanded and integrated network of coastal and marine parks on Canada’s Pacific Coast. As part of the Legacy, the feasibility of establishing two new NMCAs on the Pacific Coast will be studied. The first of these studies will examine the possibility of an NMCA representing the Strait of Georgia Marine Region.

Back to top

Environment Canada – National Wildlife Areas, Protected Marine Areas, and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries

Purpose

Environment Canada has three mechanisms available for protecting ocean and land areas to conserve significant habitats and wildlife resources, especially migratory birds. These mechanisms include National Wildlife Areas, protected marine areas, and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries.

National Wildlife Areas (NWAs), established under the Canada Wildlife Act, protect nationally significant habitats—especially for migratory birds but also for all wildlife—for the purpose of wildlife research, conservation and interpretation. Protected marine areas – which will likely be called “Marine Wildlife Areas” – extend the NWA concept beyond the territorial sea out to the 200 nautical mile limit (with the passage of the Oceans Actwithin the EEZ) They are also provided for in the Canada Wildlife Act but require a different regulatory regime. Migratory bird sanctuaries, established under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, seek to conserve the diversity of migratory birds by controlling human activities within important areas that are managed for the protection of birds.

This suite of mechanisms provides Canada with the opportunity to protect important coastal and offshore marine areas having significant seasonal concentrations of marine birds and other wildlife. These include areas where marine birds congregate for nesting, feeding, molting, wintering and migration stopover.

Concept

These designations aim to protect wildlife by prohibiting human activities that would be harmful to the wildlife (migratory bird sanctuaries) and to the environment (national wildlife areas, protected marine areas). Through a flexible permitting system, specific activities such as ecotourism can be allowed provided that they are compatible with wildlife conservation. The permit system allows the management regime to be tailored to the specific conditions of a given location or for a given period of time. Co-operation in wildlife management is the basis of the Canada Wildlife Act. Partnering agreements can be developed with all levels of government, communities (including aboriginal groups), and individuals both for the establishment of a protected area and for its subsequent co-operative management.

Legislation

Authority rests under the Canada Wildlife Act for the establishment of NWAs on Canada’s lands, internal waters and territorial sea. In 1994, regulation-making authority was added to the Act to allow for the establishment of protected marine areas within any fishing zone prescribed under Section 4 of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act (with the passage of the Canada Oceans Act, the Canada Wildlife Act will be amended to refer to the EEZ). A regulation has not yet been developed for protected marine areas.

In the Canada Wildlife Act, wildlife includes any animal, plant or other organism belonging to a wild species and also the habitat of any wild animal, plant or other organism. Owing to federal and international responsibilities for migratory birds, the focus of protected areas has been primarily on migratory birds, although sites are managed for the benefit of all wildlife occurring in the area.

Under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing protection areas for migratory birds and nests, and for the control and management of those areas. These areas may be established on Canada’s lands, internal waters and territorial sea.

Status of the Marine Component of Wildlife Marine Protected Areas

A number of migratory bird sanctuaries have marine components, usually in coastal situations. A number of NWAs are coastal wetlands. The first primarily marine national wildlife area was designated in 1995 in the Northwest Territories. A second marine national wildlife area—a joint proposal between EC, DFO, Inuit agencies and others—is nearing designation in 1996. Other areas are under consideration.


Back to top

Appendix D – The MPA Proposal

The preliminary proposal would provide information necessary to describe the proposed MPA and evaluate its potential. It would include the following information:

  • a statement of significance that justifies the area as a potential MPA including information related to the purposes defined for MPAs in the Oceans Act
  • the suggested location and proposed boundaries of the area
  • environmental and ecological information such as important natural processes, species present, habitat characteristics, and special features, e.g., upwellings, nutrient rich areas
  • social and economic characteristics within and near the area, including potential human activity impacts on the area and present and historical known uses
  • clearly document past and present commercial fishing activities and opportunities and have an analysis of impact on the commercial fishery and options to reduce this impact
  • suggestions as to how the proposed MPA would be managed, including assessment of management capabilities and proposals for enforcement
  • description and listing of interested groups or individuals in the development of an MPA
  • an outline of proposed zones including restrictions and prohibited activities within each zone
  • research needs including suggested approaches for monitoring and assessing the success of the MPA in meeting its objectives, and for evaluating the environmental and socioeconomic effects and benefits of the MPA
  • estimate of costs and possible funding opportunities for management of the MPA

Back to top

ENDNOTES FROM TEXT:

1 Kelleher, G. and Kenchington, R.A. 1992. Guidelines for Establishing Marine Protected Areas. A Marine Conservation and Development Report. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
2 A full description of the National Marine Conservation Area Program developed under Canadian Heritage is documented in Parks Canada (1995) “Sea to Sea to Sea: Canada’s National Marine Conservation System Plan. Parks Canada: Hull.
3 A full description of the marine conservation programs developed under Environment Canada is documented in Zurbrigg, E. (1996). Towards an Environment Canada Stratgegy for Coastal and Marine Protected Areas. Canadian Wildlfe Service: Hull.
4 Clark, C.W., Lauck, T. and Munro, G.R. (In Press) Managing uncertain fishery resources: The case for fully protected marine reserves. and Rowley, R.J. (1994). Marine Reserves in Fisheries Management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Vol. 4, pp. 233-254.
5 Rowley, R.J. (1994). Marine Reserves in Fisheries Management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Vol. 4, pp. 233-254.
6 Shackel, N. and Lien, J. (1995). An Under-Utilized Conservation Option for fisheries managersL Marine Protected Areas in the Northwest Atlantic. In. Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries. Proceedings of the Symposium on Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries conducted at the Second International Conference on Science and the Management of Protected Areas held at Dalhousie, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 16-20, 1994. Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, pp. 21-31.
7 Campbell, A. and Pezzack, D.S. (1986). Relative egg production and abundance of berried lobsters, Homarus americanus, in the Bay of Fundy and off southwestern Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:2190-2196.
8 Wilson, E.O. (1993). The creation of ecosystems. The Diversity of Life. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
9 Vatn, A. and Bromley, D.W. (1994). Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 26, pp. 129-148.
10 The steps in this process are further detailed in Salm, R.V. and Clark, J.R. (1989). Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Kelleher, G. and Kenchington, R.A. (1992). Guidelines for Establishing Marine Protected Areas. A Marine Conservation and Development Report. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
11 Barchard, W.W. and Hildebrand, L.P. (1993). Canada’s Atlantic Coastal Action Program: A community-based approach to coastal management. In. Coastlines of Canada (Ed. Hildebrand, L.P.). American Society of Civil Engineers: New York.
12 Somerton, D.A. and Jones, J. (1984). A cost-benefit method of determining optimal closed fishing areas to reduce trawl catch of prohibited species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 41, pp. 93-98.


Back to top

7.0 CONTACTS ON MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

Back to top

Internet Access:

You may obtain additional copies of the Discussion Paper on the Department of Fisheries Oceans internet site http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Back to top

racerocks.com home page
Sitemap Contact
webmaster:
Garry Fletcher
Copyright

Conserving Marine Ecosystems- taken from Biodiversity in British Columbia

Excerpt from: Michael Hawkes, M.W. 1994. Conserving Marine Ecosystems: Are British Columbia’s Marine Protected Areas Adequate? Chap. 28 in: Biodiversity in British Columbia: Our Changing Environment, edited by E. McCullum & L. Harding. Environment Canada: Vancouver.
With permission from:
Michael W. Hawkes
Department of Botany
University of British Columbia
#3529-6270 University Blvd.
Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1 Z4

Conserving Marine Ecosystems:
Are British Columbia’s Marine Protected Areas
Adequate?

 

Despite the fact that the marine environment encompasses two-thirds of the Earth’s surface, little attention has been paid to marine conservation issues until relatively recently (Eiswerth, 1990; Hawkes, 1990 and 1992; Earle, 1991; Thorne-Miller and Catena, 199 1; MacInnis 1992; Norse, 1993). Of the 27,000 kilometres of coastline in B.C., there is not one kilometre within which all marine organisms, both commercial and non-commercial, are completely protected from harvesting. Marine protected areas are essential components of any coastal conservation strategy (Lien and Graham, 1985; Bohnsack et al., 1989; Graham, 1990: Beatley, 199 1). Dethier et al. (1989) note that,

There should be a push for the establishment of large marine preserves. There is a rapidly increasing need for areas protected from all human disturbance that can serve as natural habitats, nurseries for young, sources of spores and larvae of harvested species, and ‘controls’ for research into the impacts that we are having on our nearshore ecosystems.
 
However, the establishment of marine protected areas in Canada has been impeded by a multiplicity of jurisdictions, agencies, and legislation. Four levels of government (federal, provincial, municipal, and first nations) are involved in governing the marine environment (Table 28- 1). Different agencies and legislation control the water surface, the water body, the ocean bed, and the tidal strip and adjacent coastal land (Dorcey, 1983). More than thirty agencies and public groups were involved in the B.C. offshore hydrocarbon panel hearings (Langford et al., 1988). As well, federal, provincial, and interjurisdictional interests are not well coordinated on issues involving the coastal zone (Day and Gamble, 1990). The split between federal and provincial ownership and jurisdiction results in several areas of overlapping responsibility. “Nowhere in the coastal zone–upland, foreshore, subtidal land or wateris there a clear undisputed basis for one government to be the sole authority” (Dorcey, 1986).

 


Existing legislation requires that the relevant government own” the affected seabed before a protected area can be established (Westwater Research Centre, 1992a). Regardless of which level of government owns the land/seabed upon which a marine protected area is to be located, the federal government retains exclusive constitutional jurisdiction over: issues transcending international boundaries, navigation (Transport Canada), marine pollution (Environment Canada), migratory birds (Environment Canada) and the conservation and management of all organisms in the water column (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). Depending on the location of aged the protected area, First Nations may also have rights to resources and land.

 

Table 28-1: Some Major Jurisdictions Responsible for the Coastal Marine Environment.

Federal Government
1. Fisheries, finfish and shellfish (includes all invertebrates), and marine mammals,
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
2. Shipping and navigation, Transport Canada
3. National Marine Parks, Canadian Heritage (Parks Service)
4. Migratory birds, Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service)
5. Marine pollution, Environment Canada (Environmental Protection Service)
6. Energy and mineral resources, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada
Provincial Government
1. Marine plants, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries 197
2. Sea bed, jurisdiction sometimes disputed between the federal and First Nations governments. Ownership of the seabed in territorial waters is disputed between federal and provincial governments, as are exploitation rights to the sea bed on the continental shelf.
3. Environmental protection, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks
4. Provincial marine parks and provincial marine ecological reserves, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Municipal Government

First Nations Governmen

 

To review the current status of marine protected areas in B.C., let us look at national marine parks, provincial marine parks and are provincial ecological reserves.

 

National Marine Park Reserves

The National Marine Parks Policy allows for multiple use, unlike terrestrial national parks, which are strict preserves. Multiple use is regulated under a zoning system as follows (Environment Canada, 1986): Zone I – Preservation, Zone II – Natural environment, Zone III – Recreation, Zone IV – General use, and Zone V – Park services. Only Zone I is given complete preserve status. A draft of proposed revisions to Canadian Parks Service policies (dated June 15, 1993) proposes a three zone system and a name change from national marine parks to national marine conservation areas. However, concern remains centred around the fact that,

Fisheries will continue in marine parks, subject to protecting the ecosystem, to maintaining viable fish stocks and to attaining the purpose and objectives of the park …. Jurisdiction over fisheries will, therefore, remain with theMinister of Fisheries and Oceans (Environment Canada, 1986).


To date, B.C. does not have any full-fledged national marine parks: rather, there is one national marine park reserve and a national park reserve with a marine component. Substantial areas
of three of the five marine regions in British Columbia are partially protected (Lien, 1989) by the marine component of Pacific Rim National Park Reserve on the outer coast of Vancouver Island (Fig
ure 28- 1), and Gwaii Haanas/South Moresby National Marine Park Reserve (Figure 28-2) on the southem portion of Haida Gwaii (Queen
Charlotte Islands).

Portions of this paper have been adapted from Hawkes (1990) and Hawkes (1992).

Pacific Rim National Park Reserve

On the exposed west coast of Vancouver Island, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve has a marine component that is 155.4 square kilometres in extent and is divided into three segments: Long Beach, the Broken Group Islands, and the West Coast Trail. An initial agreement to establish Pacific Rim National Park was signed by the federal and provincial governments on April 21, 1970. This agreement was subsequently amended on March 27, 1973, October 2 1, 1977, and February 19, 1987, (personal communication on Sept 6, 1990 with Claude Mondor, Environment Canada, Parks Service).

Under amendments to the National Park Act made in 1988, it became necessary to proclaim Pacific Rim as a National Park Reserve until resolution of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council native land claim, which includes all the land and marine environment within Pacific Rim. To date (January, 1993), however, Pacific Rim still has not been proclaimed in Parliament (personal communication on January 14, 1993 with Bill Henwood, Environment Canada, Parks Service). Once it is proclaimed, the National Park Act will apply to Pacific Rim National Park Reserve as if it were a national park. The terrestrial portion of the Park is being managed under the National Park Policy whereas the marine component is being managed under the National Marine Parks Policy (Environment Canada, 1991).

Current status of the fisheries in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve is as follows. The only commercial fin fisheries that are open are salmon and herring roe-on-kelp. All commercial invertebrate fisheries are closed except for Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) and squid (Loligo opalescens). The recreational fin fishery and invertebrate fishery are both open, but an application was made by Parks

Figure 28-1. Location of Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. Source: Environment Canada 1991, p.3.
Figure 28-2. Proposed Boundaries for Gwaii Haanas/South Moresby National Marine Park Reserve. Source: Claude Mondor, Parks Canada
 
Canada (September, 1991) to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans requesting closure of all recreational invertebrate fisheries and the recreational rockfish fishery. As of January 1993, no closures have been made (personal communication on January 14, 1993 with Bill Henwood, Environment Canada, Parks Service).

Gwaii-Haanas/South Moresby National Marine Park Reserve

A Federal – Provincial Agreement (Canada and British Columbia 1988) established the Haanas/South Moresby National Park Reserve and National Marine Park Reserve on July 12, 1988. The Canada/Haida agreement for joint management of the park was signed in 1992. The proposed marine park boundaries extend between six and ten kilometres from the coast and cover an area of 3,180 square kilometres, thereby encompassing a diversity of west coast marine environments. These boundaries are tentative, pending completion of offshore energy and mineral resource assessments (Lien, 1989). Petroleum and mineral resource assessments were finished in 1992, and final marine park boundaries were to be set by December 31, 1992 (personal communication on Sept 6, 1991 with Claude Mondor, Environment Canada, Parks Service). However, discussions between Parks Canada, the Haida Nation, and the Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Resources are still ongoing and it is expected that final park boundaries will be established sometime in 1993 (personal communication on January 14, 1993, with Bill Henwood, Environment Canada, Parks Service).

British Columbian Provincial Parks With Marine Components

Provincial marine parks, ecological reserves, and recreation areas that have marine components are subject to all of the jurisdictional complexities mentioned previously. Of key importance is the fact that the province lacks complete legislative and jurisdictional authority over the marine organisms and the marine environment in its parks. Pursuant to The Constitution Act (Canada, 1982), as amended, jurisdiction over harvesting of organisms (except for marine plants) in such marine protected areas rests with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not invoked complete closures on the commercial and recreational harvesting of all fish and invertebrates in provincial marine protected areas. Several marine protected areas have no closures at all. Youds (1985) noted, “the marine conservation value of foreshore and subtidal provincial parkland [is] more symbolic than substantive.” Recent initiatives are, however, improving this situation.

Thirty-one coastal provincial parks are listed on the Coastal Marine Parks of British Columbia map (BC Parks, 1989a). Forty-two percent of these parks are exclusively terrestrial, with no foreshore or subtidal component. Cape Scott, which has a large foreshore and subtidal component, is not listed because it is treated as a wilderness park (Youds, 1985). The primary focus of these parks is the recreational boater (Deardon, 1985; Chettleburgh, 1985) and not the preservation of representative marine ecosystems or biodiversity.

Parks Plan 90 (BC Parks, 1990a) offered little hope for improvement in the representation and protection of marine environments in the provincial parks system. In Landscapes for B.C. Parks (BC Parks, 1990a) it was stated that,

It is a reasonable argument that park visitors, being largely land-based (even if they are boating or diving), are not inclined to seek recreational or appreciative experiences in these offshore, oceanic areas. These are areas of industrial interest (commercial fishing, shipping) but of marginal direct interest to the general public. Furthermore, the provincial Park Act has significant jurisdictional limitations in such areas. Therefore, it has been concluded that at this time offshore marine environments should be excluded from the Landscapes system and from consideration within the provincial parks system.

At present (December, 1993), there are 50 Class A provincial parks and 3 recreational areas that have an inter-tidal and/or subtidal component, totalling 92,399 hectares of marine waters (Table 28-2). Since Parks Plan 90 was written, BC Parks has recently shown renewed interest in provincial marine protected areas. The recent establishment of Broughton Archipelago Marine Park, which encompasses a large area of marine waters, constitutes a significant step toward more adequately protecting marine ecosystems and biodiversity.

British Columbian Ecological Reserves With Marine Components

In 1971, the Ecological Reserves Act was passed, formalizing the B.C. Ecological Reserves Program. Setting aside important, unique, or representative ecosystems and species is the main objective, with conservation and research being the primary function of the Ecological Reserves Program (BC Parks, 1989b). Most reserves are open to the public for non-destructive observational use but, unlike provincial parks, they are not created for outdoor recreation.

Of the 134 ecological reserves established in B.C. to date, 15 have intertidal and/or subtidal areas (Table 28-3). Only 13 of these are presently included in the ecological reserves system because reserves #95 and #96 have been transferred to federal jurisdiction to be included in Gwaii Haanas/S. Moresby National Park Reserve and National Marine Park Reserve. The 13 marine ecological reserves include estuarine, semi-protected, and exposed sites, as well as south and north coast localities. Most of these reserves are small (50-350 hectares), which brings up the whole question of the minimum reserve size necessary to maintain viable populations, a topic much discussed in the conservation biology literature (Gilpin and SoulŽ, 1986; Newmark, 1987, Usher, 1987). However, some of the smaller reserves seem appropriate for protecting local, unique, or especially diverse habitats, such as Race Rocks (reserve #97), Kerouard Islands, (reserve #96), and Pine, Storm, Tree Islands (reserve # 120).

The 13 ecological reserves include 47,697 hectares of marine waters. Two of them are noteworthy for their size and extensive subtidal areas: Byers, Conroy, Harvey, and Sinnett Islands (reserve # 103) and Checleset Bay (reserve # 109). The Checleset Bay Ecological Reserve is over 98% marine, runs 30 kilometres from east to west, and covers a total area of 346.5 square kilometres. It includes diverse habitats, both intertidal and subtidal. This showpiece reserve was set aside December 10, 1981 to provide sufficient high-quality marine habitat for reintroduced sea otters (Enhydra lutris), an endangered species.

Race Rocks (Ecological Reserve #97) in the Strait of Juan de Fuca has the most protected status of any marine protected area in the province. It is closed (by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans) to the commercial and recreational harvesting of all marine life except for recreational (sport) fishing of salmon and halibut. (Ed note: now closed to all in 2006–due to RockFish protection areas) The reasoning behind this decision is that salmon and halibut are migratory finfish and, therefore, transient in the reserve, so closing these fisheries in the reserve will do nothing to conserve these species. However, accidental catch of resident fish in the reserve, especially rockfish, is a matter of concern.

An additional 12 ecological reserves which do not contain marine waters do nevertheless, protect important marine features and organisms, such as seabird colonies and seal or sea lion haul-out sites. Collectively, provincial marine parks and ecological reserves cover 0.06% of B.C.’s marine environment (out to the 12 mile limit).

Name of Park or Recreational Area Area (ha) of Marine Component
Botanical Beach 120.0
Brooks Peninsula (R.A.) 5,832.0
Broughton Archipelago Marine Park 10,034.0
Cape Scott Park 1,450.0
Codville Lagoon Marine Park 315.0
Copeland Islands Marine Park 257.0
Cormorant Channel Provincial Park 505.0
Desolation Sound Marine Park 2,550.0
Echo Bay 0.5
Fjordland (R.A.) 6,645.0
Gabriola Sands 4.5
Garden Bay 0.5
Green Inlet Marine Park 17.9
Hakai (R.A.) 56,987.0
Halkett Bay 19.0
Harmony Islands Marine Park 26.0
Helliwell Provincial Park 2,803.0
Jackson Narrows Marine Park 30.0
Kitson Island 24.7
Klewnuggit Inlet Marine Park 304.0
Lowe Inlet Marine Park 212.0
Manson’s Landing 53.0
Miracle Beach Park 27.5
Mitlenatch I. Nature Park 119.0
Montague Harbour Marine Par k 3.0
Naikoon Park 216.0
Newcastle Island Marine Park 34.0
Octopus Islands 43.0
Oliver Cove Marine Park 26.0
Parkinson Creek 80.0
Penrose Island Marine Park 1,079.0
Pirate’s Cove Marine Park 7.0
Plumper Cove Marine Park 33.5
Porteau Cove 45.5
Princess Louisa Marine Park 27.0
Princess Margaret Marine Park 340.0
Raft Cove 265.0
Rathtrevor Beach Park 240.0
Rebecca Spit Marine Park 156.0
Roscoe Bay 47.0
Rugged Point 150.0
Saltery Bay 30.0
Sandwell 9.0
Sidney Spit Marine Park 177.0
Smuggler Cove Marine Park 16.0
Teakerne Arm 10.7
Thurston Bay Marine Park 80.0
Tribune Bay Park 23.0
Union Passage Marine Park 395.0
Wallace Island 0.2
Walsh Cove 46.0
Whaleboat Island 7.0
Winter Cove 16.0

Table 28-2: Provincial Parks and Recreation Areas with Marine Components

Reserve Number Reserve Name and Location Description
Area (ha) of Marine
Component
24.
Baeria Rocks, Barkley Sound
Seabird colony and subtidal marine life
48.00
45. V.J. Krajina, W. coast Graham I. Virgin marine shoreline 100.00
66. Ten Mile Point, Victoria Inter- and subtidal marine life 10.00
67. Satellite Channel, between Saltspring Island and Saanich Peninsula Subtidal marine life 343.30
94. Oak Bay Islands, east of Victoria Seabirds and marine life 163.00
*95
Anthony Island, south of Gwaii Haanas (South Moresby) Seabird colony
*96. Kerouard Islands, south of Gwaii Haanas (S. Moresby) Seabird colony
97 Race Rocks, southwest of Victoria Outstanding marine community,
sea-lion haul-out, seabirds
200.00
103. Byers, Conroy, Harvey & Sinnett Islands, Hecate Strait Important seabird and marine mammal breeding areas 11,780.00
109. Checleset Bay, northwest of Kyuquot, Vancouver Island Extensive marine shoreline, reefs and islets provide habitat for BC’s prime sea otter population; seabirds, marine life 33,150.00
111. Robson Bight (Michael Bigg), Johnstone Strait Killer whales and a crucial part of
their habitat; pristine estuary
1,248.00
119. Tahsish River, west coast of Vancouver Island, south of Port McNeill Pristine westcoast estuary 50.00
120. Duke of Edinburgh (Pine/Storm/Tree Islands), northwest of Port Hardy, Vancouver Island Largest seabird nesting colony in BC; spectacular inter- and subtidal marine life 535.00
121. Brackman Island, north of Sidney, Vancouver Island Inter- and subtidal marine life 30.00
129. Klaskish River, southwest of Port Alice, Vancouver Island Estuary with native oysters 40.00
. * now part of Gwaii Haanas/South Morsbv National Park Reserve and National Marine Park Reserve

Table 28-3: B.C. Ecological Reserves with Marine Components.

Inadequacy of Existing Marine Protected Areas

 

Is marine biodiversity adequately protected and are marine ecosystems adequately represented by our present system of marine protected areas? The answer has to be an unequivocal no. Existing areas have not been established with uniform biological criteria or an overview of the region. Few, if any, protect entire ecosystems (especially the land/sea interface), and the organisms in existing areas are inadequately protected.

As an example of the management problems common to marine protected areas in B.C., I would like to briefly review three of the marine ecological reserves: Baeria Rocks, Checleset Bay, and Robson Bight (Michael Bigg). In these three cases, the management problems (identified in the Management Statements produced by the Ecological Reserves Program [BC Parks, 1990b]) arise from the jurisdictional complexities in the marine environment, and the failure of other agencies, in particular the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to establish complete protection, through closures, for all marine organisms in these reserves.

 

Baeria Rocks

 

Recreational fishing under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (federal) has wiped out the entire adult rockfish population. Rockfish populations are in trouble in other areas of the coast, too. These fish are long-lived and resident; many live 70-80 years and don’t reach reproductive maturity until 20 years of age (personal communication on August 29, 1990 with Andy Lamb, Department of Fisheries and Oceans).

 

Checleset Bay

Clearcut logging under the jurisdiction of the provincial Ministry of Forests has negatively impacted the reserve through increased runoff and ocean turbidity. The infamous clearcut on Mt. Paxton, which was portrayed as a three page foldout in National Geographic Magazine (Findley, 1990), borders on Checleset Bay. Until recently, both finfish and shellfish harvesting, under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, were occurring in the reserve. Marine charts do not indicate the existence of this (or any other) marine reserve, and logging barge traffic, which is under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada (federal), traverses the reserve.

 

Robson Bight (Michael Bigg)

In the Tsitika Valley, clearcuts made under the jurisdiction of the provincial Ministry of Forests are the big concern, as they may lead to increased erosion and sedimentation in the estuary. On October 3, 1990, the Federal government (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) recommended a moratorium on all logging in the area. The federal /provincial Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee final report released in June 1992 (Canada and British Columbia,1992) recommended an immediate five year moratorium on all forest harvesting in the lower Tsitika. Other highlights of the twenty-seven management recommendations in the report are: the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should immediately designate a Special Management Zone in the killer whale (Orcinus orca) core area of western Johnstone Strait: BC Parks should expand the land portion of the Ecological Reserve south and cast to provide a better buffer for the rubbing beaches, and expand the marine portion of the Reserve one kilometre east; Department of Fisheries and Oceans should eliminate mooring and commercial fishing within the expanded boundaries of the marine portion of the Ecological Reserve; the Reserve should be closed to all vessels, except by permit: and Department of Fisheries and Oceans should manage salmon stocks in a conservative manner in this area.

The management issues in both Checleset Bay and Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) underscore the need to protect whole ecosystems, not just individual species or portions of their immediate habitat. Yet, the many different levels of government with jurisdictional control over different parts of a single ecosystem are managing on a species rather than on an ecosystem basis.

Nor will simply setting aside marine protected areas be enough to preserve the biota. Monitoring and further research into individual species biology and ecosystem dynamics are particularly needed. So also are much more knowledge about the basic stewardship of protected areas (Deblinger and Jenkings, 1991) and significantly enhanced cooperation between provincial, federal, municipal and First Nations governments, including a more formal mechanism for facilitating cooperation on a regular basis (Westwater Research Centre, 1992b).

Even if marine protected areas within British Columbia were given complete sanctuary status, which they should be, they still would be inadequate for protecting much of the marine life within their boundaries if the marine environment outside their boundaries is not being utilized in a sustainable fashion. International transboundary issues with Alaska and Washington State are also a concern (Across the Border, 1992).

Threats to Marine Biodiversity

We do not have a history of sustainably managing living marine resources. Eradication of the sea otter from our coast around the turn of the century and the consequent sea urchin population explosion has left us with highly modified, rocky nearshore ecosystems that are much lower in seaweed biomass and diversity, than they should be (Chapter 11, this volume). By the early 1900s, whaling had eliminated humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) populations from the Strait of Georgia (Merilees, 1985). Before 1913, over 3,800 Steller’s sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) used the islands of The Sea Otter Group in the Scott Islands as a breeding rookery. Between 1913 and 1938, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans machine-gunned 29,800 animals, resulting in the permanent demise of The Sea Otter Group rookery (Obee and Ellis, 1992). The three remaining sea lion rookeries in the Scott Islands are the most important ones along the B.C. coast. The current population of Steller’s sea lions is only about one third of its former size, and the population has not recovered appreciably since being protected in 1970 (Olesiuk and Bigg, 1988).

Due to poor recruitment of young abalone into the population, both the commercial and recreational fisheries for northern abalone (Hatiotis kamtschatkana) are closed for five years (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1990a). Many other non-traditional invertebrate species such as the geoduck clam (Panopea generosa), red sea urchin (Stongylocentrotus

franciscanus) and sea cucumber (Stichopus califomicus) represent “gold-rush” fisheries that are being operated on an experimental basis because their biology is incompletely known (Jamieson and Francis, 1986). Many of these species are locally ecologically important because they affect the distribution and abundance of other organisms in the system. Giant geoduck clams have an average age of seventy years and may live as long as one hundred and forty years (Jamieson and Francis, 1986). These clams are being harvested by divers using a technique that is the underwater equivalent of strip-mining.

Due to declining stocks, the commercial lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) fishery in the Strait of Georgia is closed and strict size limits have been instituted for the sport fishery (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1990b). Rockfish populations throughout the coast have shown drastic declines, over the past twenty years, due to overfishing (personal communication on October 29, 1992 with Bernie Hanby, Sport Fishing Advisory Board).

Sources of pollutants in the B.C. marine environment include municipal effluent (point-source and non point-source), dumping of dredged material, pulp and paper mill discharges, mine tailings, oil spills and related environmental mishaps. Despite government assurances (Langford et al., 1988) that marine environmental quality has declined along only a small percentage of the B.C. coastline, there is cause for serious concern because the chronic, sublethal toxic and synergistic effects of pollutants in B.C.’s marine ecosystems are poorly understood (Kay, 1989).

In the most recent synopsis of marine environmental quality on the Pacific Coast, Wells and Rolston (1991) state, “Signs of widespread ecosystem stress have been detected and degradation is pronounced in many inshore waters along the coast.” Dioxins/ furans and other organochlorine discharges from pulp mills are recent examples of land-based marine pollution that have had a significant local impact on marine organisms and associated fisheries in B.C. Chlorinated organic chemicals are also becoming more widespread through bioaccumulation in migratory seabirds and marine mammals (Wells and Rolston, 1991).

Some of the competing and potentially incompatible uses of the marine environment are summarized in Table 28-4. At present, all these uses are under the jurisdiction and control of various levels of government, different agencies, and legislation. Because the land and sea portions of the coastal zone have been managed separately, often with an ad-hoe approach, the ecological integrity of the zone has not always been adequately protected (Ray, 1988 and 1991). This fragmented approach has left us without an adequate overview of coastal zone planning, use, and management (Hildebrand, 1989).

1) Preservation/Conservation of wilderness, biodiversity, & unique or representative marine ecosystems

2) Marine environmental education areas

3) Scientific research areas

4) Preservation of the cultural heritage of first nations people

5) Historic sites

6) Recreation areas/tourism

7) Fisheries (finfish, invertebrates, marine plants)

8) Mariculture sites

9) Port sites

10) Oil & gas exploration/extraction

11) Mineral extraction

12) Ocean dumping

13)Discharge of pollutants (land-based, from point source & non-point source)

14) Marine transportation

15) Log handling

16) Undersea pipelines & transmission lines

17) Military uses

Table 28-4: Competing and Potentially Incompatible Uses of the Marine Environment.

Day and Gamble (1990) made a number of innovative recommendations for improving the approach to coastal zone management in British Columbia, but few if any have been acted on. As C™tŽ (1989) pointed out, our policies for addressing problems in the coastal zone are largely focused on symptoms rather than causes.

Coastal Zone Stewardship

Our dealings with the marine environment have tended to be exploitative, with emphasis on short-term gain rather than long-term sustainability. We need to transform ourselves from “gold-rush fishers” to responsible stewards of our marine environment and its diverse biological treasures. Integrated coastal planning, to date, has tended to focus on a relatively few major river estuaries, such as the Fraser (Dorcey, 1991), the Squamish, and the Cowichan (Morgan et al., 1988). There is now an urgent need to extend this approach to the entire B.C. coast. Four key steps are needed to do so.

First, coastal zone planning, research, and management need to be coordinated and a coastal ecosystem classification scheme and inventory developed. Similar recommendations were made fifteen years ago by The Coastal Zone Resource Subcommittee (1 977a) but, regrettably, these have been largely ignored. The marine and estuarine habitat classification system developed by Dethier (1990) for Washington State could be adapted for use in B.C. Existing baseline information should be compiled and data gaps identified, as was done by the Coastal Zone Resource Subcommittee (1977b). Wherever possible, data should be incorporated into a central data base with GIS (Geographic Information System) capability, so that maps providing information specific to a particular location can be generated. The provincial Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Emergency Services Branch has developed such a marine data base for its Oil Spill Shoreline Sensitivity Model. At present, though, this data base is limited to the south coast and its main purpose is to identify shorelines sensitive to oil spills and cleanup operations (Howes and Wainwright, 1992). Only in this way will it be possible to determine the status of marine conservation and use in B.C.’s coastal zone.

The second step should be to ensure that the system of marine protected areas adequately represents genetic, species and ecosystem diversity. The Endangered Spaces Project’s (Earthlife Canada Foundation, 1991) land-use planning proposal for the Province of B.C. would provide an excellent framework for such an undertaking for the marine environment.

It is hoped that the new provincial Protected Areas Strategy (BC Parks and Ministry of Forests, 1992) will address marine protected area issues. Since conservation proposals for terrestrial ecosystems recommend preservation of twelve percent of the land-base (Brundfland, 1987), we should also set a goal of preserving, in marine protected areas, twelve percent (by area and content) of all marine assets in the coastal zone of B.C. These areas should be one hundred percent protected from consumptive use of any marine organisms. Other jurisdictions are far ahead of us in marine conservation. New Zealand is targeting ten percent of its coastal marine environment to be set aside in marine reserves (Ballantine, 1991) and complete marine fishery reserves are being proposed for the southeast coast of the United States (Plan Development Team, 1990). Bohnsack (1992) has presented extensive evidence that such reserves are the best method for protecting biodiversity and natural community equilibrium.

The third step should be to allocate more money for research on the basic biology and population dynamics of fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and marine plants. Improved stewardship of the coastal zone also depends on experimental research into ecosystem function (Dorcey, 1983).

Fisheries often have been managed to maximize economic returns, frequently with inadequate knowledge of the biology of harvested species or consideration of the effects of harvesting on the rest of the ecosystem. As noted by Jamieson and Caddy (1986) “Economic considerations form the bottom line of most management situations…” However, Jamieson (1986) cautions that “most invertebrate fisheries, then, will never warrant or command large investments in data collection, monitoring or research, and may never be supported by data bases and assessments adequate for active management.” In view of this lack of information, experimental fisheries, such as the invertebrate fisheries and the newly established shark fishery (Pynn, 1991), should not be allowed. The shark fishery, especially, should be halted, since a recent report (Manire and Gruber, 1990) has revealed that many shark species in the United States and elsewhere may be headed toward extinction due to overfishing! There are four main problems with experimental fisheries (Dethier et al., 1989):

  1. by the time a problem is recognized (through, for example drops in catch/unit effort or in local population size), it may be serious and potentially irreversible, and
  2. it is politically difficult to close an established fishery.

The fourth and perhaps most important step is to recognize and respond to the need for increased public awareness and input on matters of coastal zone use and stewardship, in general, and marine protected areas, in particular (Kaza, 1988). There is an urgent need for conservation groups, and other non-governmental organizations, to extend their interests from their traditional terrestrial focus, or specific marine species bias, to the whole marine environment and its biota. Initiatives and groups such as the Vancouver Island Shorelines Workshop (Smiley et al., 1991; sponsored by The Federation of B.C. Naturalists and the Vancouver Island Natural History Clubs), the Marine Life Sanctuaries Society of B.C the National Marine Conservation Forum, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society marine protected areas resolution (Ianson and Moore, 1992), and the Westwater Research Centre’s Marine Protected Areas Workshops (Westwater Research Centre, 1992a, 1992b, and 1992c) are to be applauded. The only significant proposal for establishing more marine protected areas that I am aware of is The Valhalla Society’s Endangered Wilderness map (Valhalla Society, 1988 and 1992).

Preservation and conservation of marine biodiversity from an ecosystem perspective should be the primary objectives for coastal zone stewardship. Socio-economic and political considerations are important, but should be secondary to achieving long-term viability of natural systems in the coastal zone.

If we want to keep our marine wilderness and biodiversity intact for future generations, we need to act now.

Acknowledgements

Canadian NSERC Operating Grant 580384 supported this work. Paul Gabrielson, William Jewell College made several helpful suggestions for improving the manuscript. Andy Lamb and the Marine Life Sanctuaries Society of B.C. provided Special information on the invertebrate fisheries. Doug Swanston brought to my attention the Coast the Marine Life Sanctuaries Society archives, which contain much early correspondence on the subject of marine parks (primarily the work of Betty Pratt Johnson). The following individuals from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks helped with information: Greg Chin, Kerry Joy, Kaaren Lewis, Mike Murta, Roger Norrish. and Hans Roemer. National parks people who were most helpful included: Bill Henwood and Claude Monclor. Larry Golden brought important references on marine invertebrate fisheries and marine environmental quality to my attention. Patricia Clay brought several important references on coastal zone management to my attention. Richard Kyle Paisley, Westwater Research Centre made many helpful suggestions regarding jurisdiction and legislation pertaining to the marine environment. Jim Bohnsack, US National Marine Fisheries Service, provided key literature on the ecological basis for using marine fishery reserves for reef resource management. Bill Ballantine, University of Auckland, Leigh Marine Laboratory provided inspiration and many helpful ideas regarding the establishment of marine protected areas. Denise Bonin suggested several improvements to the paper.

References

Across the Border. A Scientific Meeting on Marine Environmental Conditions in Washington and British Columbia. 1992. Synopses of Presentations (with References and List of Contacts). Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington.

BC Parks. 1989a. Coastal Marine Parks of British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. Map.

BC Parks. 1989b. Guide to Ecological Reserves in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. Map.

BC Parks. 1990a. Preserving Our Living Legacy. Parks Plan 90. Landscapes for B.C. Parks. BC Parks, Planning and Conservation Services, Victoria, B.C.

BC Parks. 1990b. Baeria Rocks, Robson Bight, and Checleset Bay Management Statements. Ecological Reserves Program, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C.

BC Parks and Ministry of Forests. 1992. Towards a Protected Areas Strategy for B.C. BC Parks and Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. Map With text.

Ballantine, B. 199 1 . Marine Reserves for New Zealand. Leigh Marine Laboratory Bulletin No. 25. University of Auckland, Warkworth, New Zealand.

Beatley, T. 1991. Protecting biodiversity in coastal environments: Introduction and overview. Coastal Management 19:1-19.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1992. Reef resource habitat protection: The forgotten factor. In: Stemming the 7Yde of Coastal Fish Habitat Ioss. R.H. Stroud (ed.). Marine Recreational Fisheries V. 14. pp. 117-129.

Bohnsack, J.A., H. Kumpf, E. Hobson, G. Huntsman, K.W. Able and S.V. Ralston. 1989. Report on the concept of marine wilderness. Fisheries 14:22-24.

Brundtland, G.H, (Chairperson). 1987. Our Common Future. The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

Canada. 1982. The Constitution Act.

Canada and British Columbia. 1988. Memorandum of Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of British Columbia. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Canada and British Columbia. 1992. Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee Management Recommendations. BC Parks and Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Victoria, B.C.

Chettleburgh, P. 1985. An Explorer’s Guide: Marine Parks of British Columbia. Special Interest Publications (a Division of Maclean Hunter), Vancouver, B.C.

Coastal Zone Resource Subcommittee. 1977a. 7he Management of Coastal Resources in British Columbia. Vol. 1: ‘State-of-the-Art.’ Prepared for the B.C. Land Resources Steering Committee, Minister of Supply and Services, Vancouver, B.C.

Coastal Zone Resource Subcommittee. 1977b. The Management of Coastal Resources in British Columbia Vol. 2:Review of Selected Information. Prepared for the B.C. Land Resources Steering Committee, Minister of Supply and Services, Vancouver, B.C.

C6t6, R.P. 1989. The Many Dimensions of Marine Environmental Quality. Science Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Day, J.C. and D.B. Gamble. 1990. Coastal zone management in British Columbia: An institutional comparison with Washington, Oregon, and California. Coastal Management 18:115-141.

Deardon, P. 1985. Desolation Sound Marine Park, British Columbia. In: Marine Parks and Conservation. Challenge and Promise. J. Lien and R. Graham (eds.). Vol. 2:1-211. NPPAC Henderson Park Book Series No. 10. National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada, Toronto, Ontario. pp. 155-165.

Deblinger, R.D. and R.E. Jenkings, Jr. 1991. Preserving coastal biodiversity: the private, nonprofit approach. Coastal Management 19:103-112.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1990a. Closure to Protect Abalone Stocks. 1 November news release.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1990b. Lingcod Size Limit Introduced for Anglers. 10 May news release.

Dethier, M.N. 1990. A Marine and Estuarine Habitat Classification System for Washington State. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia,Washington.

Dethier, M.N., D.O. Duggins and T.F. Mumford, Jr. 1989. Harvesting of non-traditional marine resources in Washington State: trends and concerns. The Northwest Environmental Journal 5:71-87.

Dorcey, A.H.J. 1983. Coastal zone management as a bargaining process. In: Coastal Zone Management in British Columbia. B. Sadler (ed.). Cornett Occasional Papers No. 3, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. pp. 73-89.

Dorcey, A.H.J. 1986. Bargaining in the Governance of Pacific Coastal Resources: Research and Reform. Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, B.C.

Dorcey, A.H.J. (ed.). 1991. Water in Sustainable Development. Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin. Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

Earle, S.A. 1991. Sharks, squids, and horseshoe crabs–the significance of marine biodiversity. BinScience 41:506-509.Earthlife Canada Foundation. 1991. Endangered Spaces. Project Synopsis. Earthlife Canada Foundation, Queen Charlotte City, B.C.

Eiswerth, M.E. 1990. Marine Biological Diversity: Report of a Meeting of the Marine Biological Diversity Working Group. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical Report 90-13.

Environment Canada. 1986. National Marine Parks Policy. Minister of the Environment, Ottawa, Ontario.

Environment Canada. 1991, Background Information. Management Planning Program. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. Environment Canada, Parks Service, Ottawa, Ontario.

Findley, R. 1990. Endangered old-growth forests. Will we save our own? National Geographic 178(3):106-136.

Gilpin, M.E. and M.E. SoulŽ. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In: Conservation Biology. The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. M.E. SoulŽ (ed.). Sinauer Association, Sunderland, Mass. pp. 19-34.

Graham, R. (ed.). 1990. Marine Ecological Areas in Canada. Perspectives of the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas Task Force on Marine Protected Areas. Occasional Paper No. 9, The Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, Ottawa, Ontario.

Hawkes, M.W. 1990. Benthic marine algal flora (seaweeds) of B.C. Diversity and conservation status. BioLine 9:18-21.

Hawkes, M.W. 1992. Conservation status of marine plants and invertebrates in British Columbia: Are our marine parks and reserves adequate? In: Community Action for Endangered Species. A public symposium on B.C.’s threatened and Endangered Species and their Habitat, 28-29 September 1991. S. Rautio (ed.).

Federation of B.C. Naturalists and Northwest Wildlife Preservation Society, Vancouver, B.C. pp. 87-101.

Hildebrand, L.P. 1989. Canada’s Experience With Coastal Zone Management. Oceans Institute, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Howes, D and P. Wainwright. 1992. Presentation to DFO Sensitivity Mapping Workshop. Ministry of the Environment, Victoria, B.C.

Ianson, D and D. Moore. 1992. Resolution 16. Marine protected areas. Parks and Wilderness Quarterly 4(4):6-9.

Jamieson, G.S. 1986. A perspective on invertebrate fisheries management—the British Columbia experience. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 92~57-74.

Jamieson, G.S. and J.F. Caddy. 1986. Research advice and its application to management of invertebrate resources: an overview. Canadian Special Publication Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 92:416-424.

Jamieson, G.S. and K. Francis (eds.). 1986. Invertebrate and marine plant fishery resources of British Columbia. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 91, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Ontario.

Kay, B.H. 1989. Pollutants in British Columbia’s Marine Environment. A Status Report. SOE Report No. 89-1. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Kaza. S. 1988. Community involvement in marine protected areas. Oceanus 31:75 – 81.

Langford, R.W., S. Reid, and L. Harding. 1988. Marine environmental quality in Canada: status and issues. The Pacific coast of Canada. In: Proceedings: Canadian Conference on Marine Environmental Quality. P.G. Wells and J. Gratwick (eds.). International Institute for Transportion and Ocean Policy Studies, Halifax, Nova Scotia. pp. 209-228.

Lien, J. 1989. Eau Canada! A new marine-parks system. In: Endangered Spaces. The Future For Canada’s Wilderness. M. Hummel (ed.). Key Porter Books, Toronto,Ontario. pp. 107-119.

Lien, J. and R. Graham (eds.). 1985. Marine Parks and Conservation. Challenge and Promise. Vol. 1: 1-254, Vol. 2:1-211. NPPAC Henderson Park Book Series No. 10. National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada, Toronto, Ontario.

Maclnnis, J. (ed.). 1992. Saving the Oceans. Key Porter Books, Toronto, Ontario.

Manire, C.A. and S.H. Gruber. 1990. Many sharks may be headed toward extinction. Conservation Biology 4: 10-11.

Merilees, B. 1985. The Humpback Whales of Georgia Strait. Waters, Journal of the Vancouver Aquarium 8:1-24.

Morgan, B., J. O’Riordan, R.W. Langford and L. Harding. 1988. Marine environmental quality management in British Columbia. In: Proceedings: Canadian Conference on Marine Environmental Quality. P.G. Wells and J. Gratwick (eds.). International Institute for Transportion and Ocean Policy Studies, Halifax, Nova Scotia. pp. 173-183.

Newmark, W.D. 1987. A land-bridge island perspective on mammalian extinctions in western North American parks. Nature 325:430-432.

Norse, E.A. 1993. Global Marine Biological Diversity. Strategy for Building Conservation Into Decision Making. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

Obee, B. and G. Ellis. 1992. Guardians of the Whales. Vie Quest to Study Whales in the Wild. Whitecap Books, Vancouver, B.C

Olesiuk, P.F. and M.A. Bigg. 1988. Seats and Sea Lions on the British Columbia Coast Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Nanaimo, B.C.

Plan Development Team. 1990. The Potential of Marine Fisheny Reserves for Reef Fish Management in the U.S. Southern Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-261.

Pynn, L. 1991. Shark Bait. Vancouver Sun 19 November 199 1. p. B 1 and B 14.

Ray, C. 1988. Ecological diversity in coastal zones and oceans. In: Biodiversity. E.0. Wilson (ed.). National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 36-50.

Ray, C. 1991. Coastal-zone biodiversity patterns. Bloscience 41:490-498.

Smiley, B., N. Layard, D. Carsen and S. Love (eds.). 1991. Identifying and Protecting Sensitive Shoreline and Adjacent Wetland Habitat on tire East Coast of Vancouver Island. Report of the Vancouver Island East Coast Shoreline and Adjacent Wetlands Workshop. The Federation of B.C. Naturalists, Vancouver, B.C.

Thorne-Miller, B. and J.G. Catena. 1991. 7he Living Ocean. Understanding and Protecting Marine Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. and Covelo, California.

Usher, M.B. 1987. Effects of fragmentation on communities and populations: a review with applications to wildlife conservation. In: Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation. D.A. Saunders et al. (eds.). Surrey Beatty and Sons, Norton, N.S.W., Australia. pp. 103-121.

Valhalla Society. 1988. British Columbia’s Endangered Wilderness. A Proposal for all an Adequate System of Totally Protected Lands. Valhalla Society, New Denver, B.C. 1:2,000,000 map with accompanying text.

Valhalla Society. 1992 (2nd revised edition). British Columbia’s Endangered Wilderness. A Comprehensive Proposal for Protection. Valhalla Society, New Denver, B.C. 1:2,000,000 map with accompanying text.

Wells, P.G. and SA Rolston (eds.). 199 1. Health of Our Oceans. A Status Report on Canadian Marine Environmental Quality. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

Westwater Research Centre. 1992a. Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in British Columbia. Options for the Future. Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

Westwater Research Centre. 1992b. Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in British Columbia. Final Report to the Law Foundation of British Columbia. Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

Westwater Research Centre. 1992c. Workshop Agenda. Marine Ecological Areas in British Columbia. Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

Youds, K. 1985. Marine parks in British Columbia. In: Marine Parks and Conservation. Challenge and Promise. J. Lien and R. Graham (eds.). Vol. 2:1-211. NPPAC Henderson Park Book Series No. 10. National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada, Toronto, Ontario. pp. 149-156.

 

Rhysia fletcheri (a new species of colonial hydroid from Vancouver Island, BC, Canada)

Permission for reproduction of this paper has been granted by the Canadian Journal of Zoology and the Author. Color images have been taken by A.B.V. and D.M.L. and were added to this html document by G.Fletcher. 

p.401 , Vol 71, 1993 Rhysia fletcheri (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa, Rhysiidae), a new species of colonial hydroid from Vancouver Island (British Columbia, Canada) and the San Juan Archipelago (Washington, U.S.A.)A. BRINCKMANN-VOSS
Department of lnvertebrate Zoology, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ont., Canada M55 2C6
And D. M. LICKEY AND C. E. MILLS, Friday Harbor laboratories, University of Washington, 620 University Road, Friday Harbor, WA 98250, U.S.A.Received February 28, 1992 Accepted September 17, 1992BRINCKMANN-VOSS, A., LICKEY, D. M., and MILLS, C. E. 1993. Rhysia fletcheri (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa, Rhysiidae), a new species of colonial hydroid from Vancouver Island (British Columbia, Canada) and the San Juan Archipelago (Washington, U.S.A.).
Can. J. Zool. 71: 401-406.

hydrfeme

A group of females

A new species of colonial athecate hydroid, Rhysia fletcheri, is described from Vancouver Island, British Columbia Canada, and from Friday Harbor, Washington, U.S.A. Its relationship to Rhysia autumnalis Brinckmann from the Mediterranean and Rhysia halecii (Hickson and Gravely) from the Antarctic and Japan is discussed. Rhysia fletcheri differs from Rhysia autumnalis and Rhysia halecii in the gastrozooid having distinctive cnidocyst clusters on its hypostome and few, thick tentacles. Most of its female gonozooids have no tentacles. Colonies of R. fletcheriare without dactylozooids. The majority of R. fletcheri colonies are found growing on large barnacles or among the hydrorhiza of large thecate hydrozoans. Rhysia fletcheri occurs in relatively sheltered waters of the San Juan Islands and on the exposed rocky coast of southern Vancouver Island.

rhysiamale

c. (a group of males.. relaxed)

rhysiamalecontr

b. -( group of males ..contracted.)

 

 

 

 

On trouvera ici la description d’un nouvelle espece d’hydroide colonial sans theque. Rhysia fletcheri, trouvee dans l’ile de Vancouver en Colombie-Britannique, Canada, et a Friday Harbor, Washington, Etats-Unis. Sa relation avec Rhysia autumnalis Brinckmann en Medlterrannee et Rhysia halecii (Hickson and Gravely), de l’Antarctique et du Japon, fait l’objet d’une discussion. Rhysia fletcheri differe des deux autres especes par la presence chez le gastrozooide de faisceaux tres particuliers de cnidocystes sur l’ hypostome et de tentacules epais et peu nombreux. La plupart des gonozooides femelles sont depourvus de tentacules. Les colonies de R. fletcheri ne comportent pas de dactylozooides. La majorite des colonies de R. Fletcheri crois sent sur les grosses balanes ou parmi les hydrorhizes des gros hydrozoaires a theque. Rhysia Fletcheri se trouve dans les eaux relativement protegees des iles San Juan et sur la cote rocheuse exposee du sud de l’ile de Vancouver. [Traduit par la redaction.]

Introduction:Colonies of a hydroid species belonging to the genus Rhysia Brinckmann, 1965 were collected off Friday Harbor in Washington State, U.S.A., from 1972 to 1992. They were found in tide pools at Race Rocks, British Columbia, Canada, and from adjacent coastal regions of Vancouver Island between 1986 and 1992. The species is referable to the hydrozoan family Rhysiidae, and to the genusRhysia, in having gonads within the body wall along one side of the gonozooid. However, it differs from previously described species of the genus in having cnidocysts arranged in clusters on the hypostome of the gastrozooid, and in having fewer and thicker tentacles on the gastrozooid, and no dactylozooids. The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic and ecological account of Rhysia fletcheri sp.nov. The species is compared with Rhysia autumnalis Brinckmann, 1965, type species of the genus Rhysia, and with Stylactis halecii Hickson and Gravely, 1907. The latter species has lateral gonads, as doR. autumnalis and R. fletcheri sp.nov., and is assigned here to the genus Rhysia as well.ETYMOL0GY: Rhysia fletcheri is named for Garry Fletcher, senior biologist at Pearson College and voluntary warden of the Ecological Reserve of Race Rocks, British Columbia, Canada, who was instrumental in establishing Race Rocks as an Ecological Reserve in 1980.

  • Systematic account:
  • FAMILY Rhysiidae Brinckmann, 1965
  • GENUS Rhysia Brinckmann, 1965
  • Rhysia fletcheri sp.nov

 

Material examined:

rhysiaonvalve

Growing on the valves of the barnacle Balanus nubilus , female and male colony .(.click on picture) . Top left, two females, below left gastrozooids: below right – male.

Holotype: Friday Harbor, Washington, U.S.A., on Balanus nubilis attached to a tire on the side of floating docks at Friday Harbor Laboratories of the University of Washington, 0.5 m, 5 October 1984, female colony, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Cat. No. USNM 73984.

Paratypes: Race Rocks, British Columbia, Canada, on Semibalanus cariosus in tide pool, 0.5 m, 5 April 1990, male colony, Royal Ontario Museum Cat. No. ROMIZ B1164;

Friday Harbor, Washington, on hydrorhiza of a thecate hydroid colony, 10-15 m, October 1972, female colony,

Royal Ontario Museum Cat. No. ROMIZ B1165; Race Rocks, British Columbia, on Semibalanus cariosus in tide pool, 0.5 m, 15 June 1991, female and male colony, Royal British Columbia Museum Cat. No. RBCM 992-170-1.

Further material is deposited in the Natural History Museum, London, England.

Description:

Hydroid colony stolonal, arising from a creeping and anastomosing hydrorhiza. Hydrorhiza thick (averaging 0.05 mm), covered with a very thin and often virtually invisible perisarc (Fig. 2a), giving rise to gastrozooids and gonozooids. Zooids inserting with hydrorhiza via a broad base and without a neck or stem (Figs. Ia, 2a); perisarcal collar absent around bases of zooids. Gastrozooids widely scattered, occurring singly or in a loose group. Gastrozooids extremely contractile, 0.3÷1.0 mm long, appearing columnar to barrel-shaped or like a contracted sea anemone if exposed to strong light (compare Figs. Ia and 4a).

(Page 402)

rhysiafig1

Figure 1. Rhysia fletcheri, gastrozooid, relaxed, preserved. (a) Whole animal, (b) oral region. Scale bars =0.1 mm.

Gastrozocid tentacles 4 – 10, filiform, in a single whorl, 0.08 – 0.10 mm thick depending on the degree of contraction, each with more than 30 endodermal cells, cnidocysts arranged in a more or less distinct spiral (Fig. lb). Hypostome round, surrounded by a circle of 4 or 5 cnidocyst clusters that do not develop into tentacles (Figs. 2e, 2f, 4a). Gonozooids often separated from gastrozooids by several millimetres, occurring in dense clusters (Figs. 3, 4}. Gonads developing internally on one side of gonozooid, without a gonophore (Figs. 4b, 4c). Female gonozooids up to 1.1 mm high when mature (Figs. 3a÷3d); hypostome round, provided with a cap of cnidocysts, not divided into separate clusters as in gastrozooid; mouth lacking; tentacles typically lacking; in gastrozooid; mouth lacking; tentacles typically lacking; immature female gonozooids, at a stage not more than 115 the height of a mature gonozooid, being recognizable as such in showing an egg on one side. Male gonozooids develop 3 or 4 oral tentacles, which are shorter and thinner than those of gas- trozooids, each tentacle has up to 10 endodermal cells and bears cnidocysts at the tip only, some with thickened tips(Figs. 2c, 4b) because of the presence of larger numbers of cnidocysts (this varies among colonies); hypostome of males round, more conical than in females, provided with evenly distributed cnidocysts, unlike the cnidocyst clusters typical of gastrozooids; mouth lacking. Male gonozooids with mature gonads sometimes exceeding gastrozooids in length, reaching a maximum of 1.5 mm.

Dactylozooids absent.

Gastrozooids and gonozooids pink to orange, due to the colour of the endoderm; tentacles and hypostomes milky white; eggs and planulae peach coloured; male gonads milky white in early stages, iridescent in later stages.

rhysiagastrozooidCnidocysts: large microbasic euryteles (average 10; 20.2/1 9.6 um) (height/diameter) when exploded; small microbasic euryteles (average 10; 9.6/4.8 um when exploded); desmonemes (not measured).

 

 

Continue reading

Underwater Safari- October 1992

In October of 1992, the diving students of Pearson College were able to help with the underwater filming for the Canadian Underwater Safari production. This series of 24 one hour television programs was broadcast live to schools and museum audiences across Canada and the US on the Anik E2 Satellite. Since that time the programs have been broadcast across the world. We have made available at this location some of the unique underwater footage which was taken by the photographer Darryl Bainbridge. The project was an experiment in using technology along with many volunteer hours to help to bring the fragile ecology of this unique area to the world. Our thanks to B.C.Parks for the intial funding to launch the production. The Royal B.C. Museum and its staff , Shaw Cable, BC Systems, BC Tel and many volunteers who provided assistance with this project.

 This video is of Pearson College student Jason Reid ( PC yr. 18) discovering a wolf eel Anarrhichthys ocellatus while the program was broadcasting live. Cameraman Darryl Bainbridge followed the huge fish for some time and caught it feeding on a green sea urchin.

OTHER REFERENCES TO THIS PROGRAM ARE IN THESE POSTS: 

 https://www.racerocks.ca/tag/underwater-safari/

Living on a shelf off the North side of Great Rocks is a Wolf Eel often seen by divers. This very gentle fish cooperated with us for one session allowing some very interesting poses. On this dive, Jason Reid (LBPC year 18) encounters the wolf eel

 

The fish shows patience while looking for its favourite food

Jason offers the wolf eel a green urchin

as it eats, clouds of urchin roe puff out of he urchin

Swimming away with his “catch”

A harbour seal was inquisitive with the divers

A gentle nose to nose with a diver

 

There was a video published by the Friends of the Royal British Columbia Museum and authored by Brent Cooke and Roger  Frampton on the Underwater Safari program: the following gives information on it.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/canadian-underwater-safari/oclc/41934389#borrow

The CoastWatch Program Lester Pearson College 1998

CoastWatch at L.B. Pearson College

CONTENTS of this document
1.OVERVIEW
2. OBJECTIVES
3. STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAM
4. TIME INVOLVED
5 THE CORE
6. SPECIALTY TRAINING
7. SCHOOLS PROGRAM
8. THE COASTWATCH PHOTO GALLERY
9. THE FACULTY

1. OVERVIEW:

In the fall term of 1991, the CoastWatch program at Pearson College was developed from the previously existing marine activity and service programs. As many as 80 students may be involved in this program. Since it’s beginnings, CoastWatch has undergone a number of changes, and today it consists of students of the diving program, the kayaking program and the sailing program. The amount of afternoon and weekend time in the program is determined largely by the level of interest and commitment of the students. Some students participate regularly in the program two afternoons a week, and are able to do aspects of social service and environmental service as well as the training phase of the program. Others do it as an activity once a week. The success of the program depends very much on the initiative of the students involved to help with the organization and instructional aspects.

2. OBJECTIVES:

Students and faculty involved in CoastWatch will have the opportunity to:

1. Learn and put into practice specialized skills to enable them to work safely in the marine environment.

2. Develop attitudes of teamwork in the carrying out of objectives in the marine environment.

3. Enhance their awareness of coastal environmental issues and be involved as part of a marine-based environmental action group.

4. Interact with the local community, both in providing and receiving environmental education opportunities.

5. Interact with the local community for the purposes of providing activity and adventure education.

6. Work with sharing of skills and experiences with members of the disabled community.


3. STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAM:

The program operates on the basis of several types of training modules. Students work through a core program that give all a common experience, this occurs throughout the two years in the program at the college. Branching off from the core are a number of specialty modules that enable students to develop more detailed skills necessary for the operation of some programs.


4. TIME INVOLVED:

During the first term, first year students in diving are committed for two afternoons per week for the training phase, or for one afternoon in the kayaking or sailing program.
In the second term, first year students have the chance to gain in experience in many of the aspects of the objectives listed above. They may take the opportunity to expand their involvement in the program to be involved with more of the objectives. In the second year, the students will take on a greater role in running the program.


5. THE CORE:

(Theory and Practical : these may take place over the two terms of the first year)

  • Shore-front management
  • First-Aid at sea
  • Small craft handling and safety
  • Snorkeling at Sea
  • Swimming and life-saving skills

Those who so choose may get into the following aspects as well:

  • Coastal Ecology
  • Oil spill response
  • Beached-bird program
  • Education for the outside community at sea
  • Working with the physically and mentally challenged
  • Coastal Restoration
  • Salmonid enhancement

Whereas the Core programs will be done by all CoastWatch students (first and second year), the following will be done by fewer students and at varying times. Hopefully all students by the end of their first year would to be able to contribute by training in their specialties in the second year. The selection of the following could be determined with priority being given to achieving a good balance in the students’ program over a two year period.

6. SPECIALTY TRAINING,

Theory and practical: (students will select a program containing some of the following training components for their first year, depending on when these can be offered.)

  • Marine Radio Operator
  • Marine Navigator
  • Motor Vessel Maintenance
  • Motor Vessel Assistant Instructor
  • Sail Training Assistant Instructor
  • Kayak Training Instructor
  • Safety-training Assistant Instructor
  • SCUBA diving Assistant Instructor
  • Oil-spill response instructor Oiled-Bird Response
  • Community coastal clean-up organization
  • Ecological Monitoring Module
  • Coastal Environmental Issues
  • Schools environmental instructor
  • Working with the physically and mentally challenged

 

7. SCHOOLS PROGRAM

In these links are some of the aspects of the Schools Program for the local community. The students of the Diving Activity provide marine education for local elementary schools.  1997-98,  and 1999 

8. THE COASTWATCH PHOTO GALLERY

Kayaking with the disabled:

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. THE PEARSON COLLEGE FACULTY

  • DIVING FACULTY: Michelle Bridgett, Jeff Trapp or Garry Fletcher or Chris Blondeau
  • SAILING FACULTY:
    Robyn Tyner or Peter Gardner
  • KAYAKING FACULTY
    Richard Van de Lagemaat

 

 

Marine Protected Area Proclaimed under the Ocean’s Act.

intnatyrofoceanslogoCanada became the first country in the world to adopt its own Oceans Act in 1997. In it there were constructive plans for the designation of Marine Protected Areas<

NEWS RELEASE: Race Rocks Announced as One of Canada’s
First Marine Protected Area Pilots Sept. 1, 1998

“Today at 1:30 pm. in Victoria, BC at a luncheon in the Empress Hotel in conjunction with the Coastal Zone Canada ‘ 98 Conference, The Honourable David Anderson , Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada announced that Race Rocks and Gabriola Passage will become the first two SpchDave2

Marine Protected Areas for the Pacific Coast of Canada. The minister emphasized that this was an historic occasion as it represents the first steps of many in creating these special areas for the conservation of marine resources. The two areas will serve as “Pilot MPA’s ” and represent the first of several areas to be designated in the three oceans of Canada. On hand for the announcement by the minister was Garry Fletcher, faculty member in biology and environmental systems at Lester Pearson College, along with many invited guests from the First  Nations communities, environmental groups, provincial government officials, and other stake holders in the marine environment of British Columbia.
In the ensuing months, negotiations will take place with the ministry in order to set up the parameters of these new Marine Protected Area pilot study areas.

Statement by David Anderson
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

This site was available on the DFO website at the following URL until 2007:
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/english/release/statement/1998/st9805e.htm

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

I want to thank you all for joining me today for lunch. Victoria is my hometown, I was born here and have lived here for most of my life. So I feel very proud that I will be making Oceans history today in Victoria.
Here in British Columbia, we live in what I consider one of the most beautiful parts of the world. We enjoy a host of natural riches. Many of you heard my address on Sunday, during which I spoke about oceans and our need to conserve and protect them.

I spoke then of the growing need to protect the health and vitality of our marine resource base. Broad-ranging global issues, like those described eloquently on Sunday by Judith Swan in her keynote address, such as pollution, habitat alteration and loss, and over-exploitation of our oceans, are of growing concern.

Unfortunately, we too often overlook our collective responsibility to the ocean and its resources.

I said when I was appointed Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in June 1997 that I had three priorities as Minister: conservation, conservation, and conservation. I can tell you that is not always easy.

And if you watched the news over the past few days, as I know most of you do, you would think my mandate is strictly fisheries. But I am the Minister of Fisheries AND Oceans. And it is the OCEANS part of my mandate that I am here to speak about today.

When I addressed conference delegates on Sunday night, I talked about the oceans and the importance of the oceans to Canada and our way of life. I also talked about the International Year of the Ocean, and how we in Canada have adopted the United Nations’ stated goals for the year — to make people more aware of the ocean, to bring oceans-related issues to the forefront, and to build a lasting legacy of programs to conserve and protect the world’s oceans and oceans resources.

And I discussed Canada’s Oceans Act. This Act, passed in January 1997, gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the lead in developing an Oceans Strategy for Canada. The Strategy will be based on the principles of the Oceans Act: integrated management, sustainable development and an ecosystem-based and precautionary approach.

On Oceans Day this year, I established a new Oceans Sector in my department to provide a clearer focus on oceans issues.

One of the tasks I have assigned this new team is the development, in collaboration with other federal agencies, other levels of government including First Nations, stakeholders, communities and the public, of a national network of Marine Protected Areas by the year 2000.

The Oceans Act provides me as Minister with the authority to designate areas for the conservation and protection of marine habitats and resources.

Over the past year, we have held extensive public consultations on our proposed approach to establishing Marine Protected Areas. In April of this year, I released a Policy regarding Marine Protected Areas and a national framework for establishing Marine Protected Areas.

Marine Protected Areas can be established, under Canada’s Oceans Act, for many different reasons, including the conservation and protection of:

  • fisheries resources;
  • endangered or threatened marine species and their habitats;
  • unique habitats; and
  • marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity.

Marine Protected Areas established under the Oceans Act must satisfy a range of needs in a variety of jurisdictional settings. As a result, we MUST take a flexible approach to their design and management.

The overall objective of the Marine Protected Areas program is to conserve and protect the ecological integrity of marine ecosystems, species, and habitats. At the same time, they will further the gathering of scientific knowledge and understanding and contribute to the sustainability of coastal communities.

We have adopted a “learn-by-doing” approach. This involves, as a first phase, the establishment of pilot MPA projects to provide practical experience in establishing and managing Marine Protected Areas.

Pilot MPA projects will be used to test various aspects of the MPA framework. For example, partnering opportunities and mechanisms will be explored; criteria for evaluating MPAs will be tested; minimum standards of protection will be examined; and opportunities for collaboration with other agencies, First Nations and other levels of government will be explored.

Learning from these pilot projects will be an integral part of the development of a national network of Marine Protected Areas.

For us in Canada, today is an historic moment.

Today I am pleased to announce that Fisheries and Oceans Canada, along with its federal and provincial partners, is establishing the first two pilot project Marine Protected Area projects in Canada here in the waters of our West Coast. These first two sites will be at Race Rocks and Gabriola Passage, here within view of the Coastal Zone Conference ‘98.

I expect to announce further pilot projects for all three coasts over the coming months. Taken together, these pilot projects will be a first step towards a network of Marine Protected Areas by the year 2000.

The pilot Marine Protected Area projects I am announcing today will provide an opportunity to learn and test different applications of MPA identification, assessment, legal designation and management. This will allow us to address the concerns of local first Nations. The lessons we learn from these will better enable us to establish and manage these areas in the future.

The aspect of the announcement today that I personally find most gratifying is the degree of cooperation and collaboration that has preceded this announcement.

My officials here in Pacific Region have been working closely with their colleagues both in Parks Canada and Environment Canada at the federal level and with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, the provincial Ministry of Fisheries, and the Land Use Coordination Office of the Province of British Columbia. Many representatives from all of these departments, both federal and provincial, are here today.

And I would like to acknowledge the growing number of citizens who are looking out at the sea and getting involved to protect it. Their involvement is critical.

I would like to make particular mention of First Nations involvement in Marine Protected Areas. The cultural values of First Nations are consistent with the values directing our work on Marine Protected Areas.

There are important needs of our First Nations that I would like to emphasize today.

First, the establishment of these two pilot areas will not affect First Nations opportunities to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes.

Second, the development of Marine Protected Areas will be completely consistent with long-term direction toward future Treaties between first nations and the two levels of government — federal and provincial.

Finally, First Nations will be fully involved with the development of an effective decision-making process for Marine Protected Areas.

I have directed my Pacific Region officials to continue to meet with First Nations who have a direct interest in Gabriola Passage and Race Rocks.

I anticipate that our Provincial colleagues will play a significant role in consultations with First Nations, stakeholders and the public.

I would also like to emphasize that community support and involvement are crucial to the success of Marine Protected Areas.

Last Friday, a federal-provincial discussion paper titled “Marine Protected Areas, A Strategy for Canada’s Pacific Coast,” was released.

The paper reflects the common objectives of both governments for a more integrated approach to marine protection and conservation.

It also reflects extensive advice and feedback from local governments, First Nations, communities, stakeholders, industry and interested people gathered during a number of public fora and meetings over the past three years.

This on-going process will, I know, ensure the success of these pilot projects.

The hallmark of Marine Protected Areas is cooperation.

The announcement today is a testimony to what we all can achieve when they work together, in good faith, for a common and beneficial cause. We all have a stake in protecting the ocean, in order to ensure that its resources are sustained for our children and for their children.

Today we all give something back to the ocean.

This is a benchmark for cooperation amongst peoples. Let’s build on this experience and learn from it. And let’s put the benefits of our combined, cooperative efforts to use for the benefit of the oceans of the future.

The Marine Protected Areas program will provide us with a form of ecological insurance to conserve and protect oceans and ocean resources.

We need to learn from the past and pass on to our children a legacy of measures to protect the world’s oceans, which are the cornerstone of our survival on the planet. Marine Protected Areas will form a very important part of that legacy.

Today is a wonderful day for our oceans.

Thank you. (The Hon. David Anderson) 

This site was available on the DFO website at the following URL until 2007:
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/english/release/statement/1998/st9805e.htm

 

See also: DFO Backgrounder  Race Rocks XwaYeN: A Success Story for  Community and Stakeholder Involvement, 

In January of 1999, as part of the requirements of the Marine Protected Areas Pilot review process, Garry Fletcher was contracted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to complete The Race Rocks Ecological Overview. An MS Acccess metadatabase of all the relevant Race Rocks ecological information was assembled . This database and accompanying references and audiovisual material are now available in the library at Lester B. Pearson College.

Go to the Proceedings of this workshop.

Abstract: Race Rocks Ecological Reserve Proposal -1979

Abstract: Race Rocks Ecological Reserve Proposal
Lester B. Pearson College
On April 21, 1979, a proposal for an Ecological Reserve at Race Rocks was presented to the Ecological Reserves Branch of the Ministry of the Environment by the students of the diving service and the marine science class at Lester B. Pearson College. The proposal recommended that the reserve should be comprised of the islands and the surrounding subtidal area to a depth of 25 fathoms. The central island, Great Race Rock, could be excluded because of the Coast Guard facilities there, but it was recommended that a request should be made to the Coast Guard to consider its inclusion as well.

The proposal outlined the use that has been made of the area in the past, and the present use being made of the area by Pearson College. It was pointed out that the proposal is quite consistent with the purposes of reserves, as stated in the Ecological Reserves Act of British Columbia. Continue reading

Race Rocks Ecological Overview Index

Ecological Reserve Proposal and Workshop – April 1979
Background Information of the role of Lester Pearson College in the Formation of the RR Ecological reserve
Proposal for Marine Protected Area at William Head
Long Term Monitoring Proposal- Jane Watson
Sampling Program – Jane Watson
Conserving Marine Ecosystems— from Biodiversity in British Columbia
Protected Areas Act of British Columbia
The Juan de Fuca Marine Park 1975
Race Rocks National Park – 1975