1. Welcome

• –  Thanks for coming
• –  Recognize the T’Sou-ke Nation, Songhees Nation, and Beecher Bay First Nation
• –  Recognize important input of advisors
• –  Appreciative of your presence today and goal today is to focus on designation of Oceans Act MPA
• –  There is more work to be done – important to be clear on what task is that we’ve set for ourselves – what the role of DFO is versus the role of Advisory Board, role of other governments, role of First Nations
• –  Thanks to Pearson College for hosting

2. Introductions

Round table – refer to list of attendees

3. Meeting #4 Agenda

a. Review
– Note that following last meeting, facilitator Richard Delaney interviewed 8 or 9 board members, conducted evaluation and tabled recommendations for board operation to try and streamline/economize on peoples’ time

b. Discuss / amend / approve
Adopted with the following additions:
o First Nations update
o Terms of Reference discussion (including changes)
o DFO Race Rocks budget overview for this group

– Facilitator recommended including mechanism for minute structure to concisely reflect Board recommendations, and recommendations on meeting structure, and a meeting cycle.

Action Item – 10-05-01: Board members to review recommendations from Richard Delaney’s summary report and provide feedback – he will then provide all this feedback to DFO.

6. Race Rocks Draft Recommendations

• –  Facilitator undertook a quick exercise to quantify level of consensus over Board recommendations. Based on a “show of fingers”, there was a reasonably good level of understanding and agreement.
• –  One participant expressed concerns with the exercise and underscored that all people who attended the recommendations meeting were in agreement.

•   Angus Matthews provided overview/background of Draft RRPAB Recommendations document.
  • –  Some frustration identified by participants of the RRPAB that there is too much process and not enough discussion of issues.
  • –  Would have liked DFO presence and technical support at April meeting.
  • –  Interest by Board members to provide something for DFO to respond to, and document provided Board’s perspective, on their requirements for Race Rocks to become an MPA.
  • –  Appreciate acknowledgement that this is living document.
  • –  Acknowledge that Chris Bos ran meeting and Judy Scott volunteered her time to record the information.
•   Facilitator response re: process:
  • –  Some language in document not consistent with Board value of consensus-building, but exercise gives benchmark to move forward.
  • –  Acknowledgement from Board participants that the language of the report could be reworded to better reflect the collaborative nature of the Board.
•   Province noted that recommendations have been discussed with management. Some subtleties need to be fixed but overall this is a good piece of work.
•   Other Board participants agreed that this is a good piece of work although some areas need more work.
•   Concern from CPAWS – could not attend the meeting and recommendations make it seem as though it’s conditional that all these things are in place before Board will agree to go ahead with MPA. CPAWS is not in total agreement with this document, has questions around what these recommendations mean, and hasn’t yet taken this to others in ENGO community.
•   Parks Canada did not participate in meeting;
  document good starting point. Race Rocks should be seen as part of regional network of MPAs. Agrees that language of “must and shall” needs to be changed.
  •   Discussion around “must and shall” language – some members of the Board viewed the April 14,2010 meeting as drawing a line in the sand due to discontent with progress thus far. Want to seetangible progress if to continue volunteering time.
  •   Matthews noted:
    • –  The three procedural recommendations at beginning of the document are most important.
    • –  Some agenda items coming up may provide clarity around how we address some recommendations. Board needs to understand what scope of designation and management is.
  •   University of Victoria – take some issue with wording of some of the recommendations.

• –  DFO will respond to the document over the summer.
• –  Recommendations will be used as a basis for developing products in the future.

7. MPA Vision/Objectives/Compatible/ Incompatible Activities

•   DFO provided background/context for discussion :
  • –  Last meeting DFO presented draft vision and 1st order conservation objective (CO) based on values input table. Looked at recommendations document and have provided examples for 2nd order conservation objectives “unpacked” from 1st order CO. Circulated to Board; no comments received.
  • –  COs used to inform Ecological Overview which supports regulatory intent for MPA
•   Question to Board: Feedback on the draft Vision and 1st order CO?
•   Board discussed and provided feedback which will be summarized in the next CO document circulated to Board.Action Item – 10-05-03: DFO to revise draft Vision to reflect Board input.

•   DFO provided overview of feedback needed from Board re: Compatible/ Non-compatible Activities Table and how it fits into process:
  • –  Table will be used to derive list of compatible and incompatible activities for MPA and develop 2nd order COs. Input will inform section of Ecosystem Overview, prohibitions or exceptions, and regulation development.
  • –  Legacy documents from past process and recommendations used to populate Table.
  • –  Desire for Board to review table and verify content.
•   Board discussed and provided feedback which will be summarized in the next compatible/incompatible uses document circulated to Board.Action Item – 10-05-04 : Board to review Incompatible/Compatible Activities document over the next two weeks and provide input to DFO.

•   Note a concern with rushing the process ahead – how does this connect to Management Plan?
•   DFO response: Conservation Objectives and Compatible/Incompatible Activities feed into different components of the MPA process (i.e. Science will use this to develop monitoring protocols and monitoring plans (including knowledge gaps), regulations will be based on compatible and incompatible activities, and the 2nd order conservation objectives will be further refined into actual management objectives). Once feedback received, we can get to addressing the Board’s interests (drafting the management plan, addressing knowledge gaps, etc.) as soon as possible.
•   Note from Aaron Reith – Synergy exists here with First Nations’ conservation objectives.

8. Expenditures to date (including budget)

 G. Fletcher provided background and rationale for report:

• –  Concern with duplication of efforts between past and current processes and questions regarding costs to taxpayers.
• –  Concerned with long term process of creating a protected area. Some created efficiently, some delayed.
• –  All resources should be available to members of the Board – ongoing expenditures since 2000.
• –  Haven’t made document public, although it exists on the website.

– There has been an ongoing budget since 1999 – was not aware of any work going on since 2001.

– Concern with amount of time to achieve MOU, how DFO tracked, reports, and budgets funds available: suggestion that Pearson College’s ongoing expenditures should have been supported during this time period.

•   Reith clarified that costs identified in his name are not necessarily profits to him, but expenses to keep First Nations work going. His work should be classified as First Nations facilitation – must feed, provide honoraria, rent buildings, pay for firekeepers, etc. Money spent on First Nations work is good value for dollar.
•   DND questioned purpose of presentation, seemed inflammatory in nature, emphasized that interactions between Board members need to be done respectfully, and with open communications, in order to build trust.
•   DFO Response to presentation:
  • –  Appreciate comments. ATIP requests can lead to incomplete understanding of a complicated issue or question: existing information is provided, but may not be organized to answer specific questions. Often get an incomplete picture of the story.
  • –  Government has procedures and due process around how money is spent; Overseen by Annual Report to Parliament (reports available on website).
  • –  Since 1992, DFO in Pacific Region spends $25M (+)/year towards advancing relations with First Nations via Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. New program funding added subsequently to fund capacity building,.
  • –  Money DFO spends on working with First Nations is worthwhile. When attributed to Race Rocks because we are talking about cooperative management in a meaningful way. The funds spent will advance objectives of Race Rocks and Government of Canada in the future.
  • –  This year: Race Rocks has a budget of $35K – Broken down into $20K for First Nations interests, $5K for meeting facilitation, $5K for a socioeconomic report to be prepared by Pearson College, and $5K towards two more RRPAB meetings. There are also some unbudgeted pieces like translation.
  • –  Overall, the Government of Canada looking to reduce deficit – need to work with what we have and make best use of our money to move the MPA forward.
•   Note from the Board: Have already been through process once – what reports do you need? Is there a role for Board participants to review and report in terms of value for money?
•   DFO: Reports required are presented in the table provided earlier in day (from Wiring Diagram).
•   Note from A. Matthews re: earlier concern expressed about reasons for doing report:
  • –  What DFO is doing for Race Rocks is serving as a model for other MPAs. We want to assess $ value per hectare protected, and couldn’t assess that without Garry’s report.
  • –  Concern for many of the people on Board to figure out where this underlying mistrust came from between DFO and RRPAB.
  • –  Going forward: we need to have financial transparency.
•   S. Jessen – When a group of people working in a public process want financial accountability –that’s not negative and helps to advocate for new resources for this type of work. If we don’t know what it costs, we can’t be effective.
•   Facilitator closed off discussion on this item to keep the agenda on time

Terms of Reference Discussion

 There was discussion about how participants are identified in ToR in terms of categories vs. organization names.

– Decision: ToR to be amended to include names of organizations who participate on the Board(under the interest or sector they represent).
 Suggestion from Board participant to change wording in ToR re: Provincial interest.
-BC Parks response: Fine with wording in ToR as-is.
 There was a question from the Board re: Board role at end of year.- DFO response: Goal to get regulatory intent in by March 31, 2011. Can’t finalize Management Plan until MPA designated. Once regulatory intent is in, the Board is disbanded. Once the MPA is designated, a post-designation advisory board formed to finalize Management Plan. Understand that post-designation MPAs cost money and it is our intention to have budget for that, barring unforeseen circumstances.

•   Decision: ToR will be amended to add reference to considering interests of First Nations – suggested language agreed upon. In the Roles and Responsibilities Section the following amendment will be made: “DFO will endeavour to engage other departments, First Nations, and levels of government as appropriate…”
•   Amended Terms of Reference Adopted

9. Business Case/Value Added/Wiring Diagram Review / Discussion

•   Questions on wiring diagram to go through Gabrielle.
•   May be useful to walk through in future meeting what a regulation for an MPA looks like so that group is clear on pieces that go into regulation.
•   Action Item – 10-05-05: DFO to include “What an MPA Regulation looks like” as an agenda item for the next meeting.

10. Next Meeting / Adjournment

•   Vision and conservation objectives will be the focus of next meeting.
•   Will address the Recommendations Document, draft EOAR (includes compatible and incompatible activities) and a skeleton draft Management Plan.
•   Next meeting will be held in the fall.
•   Anticipate two more meetings before the regulatory intent is finalized
•   Facilitator’s evaluation of meeting:
  • –  What went well: Facilitation; beneficial to have Rebecca Reid and Kate Ladell here; objective of having management plan started; Gabrielle engaged in discussion instead of having to double task.
  • –  What could be improved: show document on screen when we are discussing. More time needed to receive advice.
•   DFO Closing: Good progress made today. Board participation is important to the Department. Thanks to Pearson College for lunch and hosting, thanks Aaron for excellent news.
•   Meeting adjourned.