Tag Archives: MPA advisory board
AGENDA and Minutes for Meeting #4 of Race Rocks MPA Advisory Board
Purpose:
Meeting #4 of the Race Rocks Advisory Board.
Participants:
Cheryl Borris – Friends of Ecological ReservesErin Bradley – Dive Community
Howard Breen – Georgia Strait Alliance Garry Fletcher – Lester B. Pearson College Kelly Francis – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Gordon Hanson – Coast Salish Sea Council Dan Kukat – Sport Fish Advisory Board Lieutenant Commander Bill Laing – Department of National Defence (DND) Angus Matthews -Lester B. Pearson College Sean Moore – Local Marina Operators Jim Morris – BC Parks Marc Pakenham – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Tom Sampson – Coast Salish Sea Council Brian Smiley – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Keith Symington – Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Dr. Anita Voss – Science Kevin Walker?- Whale Watch Operators Association – North West Scott Wallace – Science Observers Rupert Gale – Georgia Strait Alliance Sean MacConnachie – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Roy Neighbour – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Jennie Sparkes – Parks Canada ************************************************************* |
Agenda
-
- Purpose of meeting – Kelly Francis
- Agenda and minutes — All
- Update on public consultation (February 12 & 16) – Marc Pakenham / Jim Morris
- Roundtable updates — All
- Draft Management Recommendations — All
- Permit process for research and education — Garry Fletcher
- Next steps
- Other business
RACE ROCKS ADVISORY BOARD MEETING # 4 DRAFT MINUTES 12h00 — 16h00, FEBRUARY 23, 2000 —BC PARKS, 800 JOHNSON ST, VICTORIA
Participants: Doug Biffard — BC Park
Regrets: Cheryl Borris — Friends of Ecological Reserves
Observers:Sean MacConnachie – Fisheries and Oceans Canada
INTRODUCTION
- Revision and acceptance of agenda and previous minutes.
FIRST NATIONS UPDATE
- Tom Sampson gave an update on his work with First Nations’ participation in the process. He indicated that there would be a traditional burning ceremony on March 9, 2000 by the Beecher Bay First Nation. The intent of the ceremony is to bring parties together to work on this project and provide an opportunity for non- natives to gain an idea of respect that First Nations have for the land, resources and their ancestors. The invitation is open to all members of the RRAB. The intent is to have all First Nations’ chiefs present from Sooke, Esquimalt, Songhees, and Beecher Bay. The ceremony will be held on Indian Reserve #2 at Rocky point. Please let Marc Pakenham know about attendance and he will distribute a map to site.
- Angus Matthews felt that this was a very generous offer by First Nations, it provides an opportunity for all of us to work together and it is not an offer that is given frequently.
- Gord Hanson indicated that the MPA initiative goes beyond Race Rocks and suggests that First Nations people are looking at Race Rocks at what role they will play in the future processes and their interaction with senior levels of government.
UPDATE ON PUBLIC CONSULTATION
- Kelly Francis gave an overview of the public meetings held on February13 and 16.
- Jim Morris introduced Doug Biffard and Marty Roberts. Jim Morris suggested that there was 95% support for the proposal, with 5% wanting more information.
- Marc Pakenham felt that session went well. Over 100 participants spread over two meetings including the Mayor of Colwood and Mayor of Metchosin. The forums gave an opportunity for the public to see how the two levels of government are working together.
- Kelly Francis indicated that the proceedings should be available next week from the consultant for RRAB members.
ROUNDTABLE UPDATE
- Erin Bradley indicated that the dive community and operators are currently developing site-specific guidelines and possible stewardship roles. Strong positive support from dive community on process and project. He is working to get a meeting together to finalize guidelines and hopes to have a draft document by the end of the week.
- Garry Fletcher expressed his concern that the maximum sustainable use of the reserve has not been defined, not only for diving but research and all other activities. Marc Pakenham suggested that the management plan and framework once in place will allow us to deal with these sorts of things as they arise.
- Dr. Anita Voss suggested that the problem with eco-tourism is that although it impacts less than traditional forms of industry it still impacts and she sited the example of the impact on amphibians with increased tourism. Angus Matthews felt that identifying the incremental increases of impact is what is important.
- Angus Matthews informed the RRAB of a recent incident where people were camping on West Race and were asked to leave by not only the current keepers but also a whale watching organization.
- Doug Biffard suggested that at some point triggers should be identified to discuss limits of access and use.
- Erin Bradley stressed the importance of educating the people who will be using the area. By eliminating commercial operators and guides, public users will collectively impact the are more than commercial operators would.
- Doug Biffard suggested that a dive speciality ticket could be established for Race Rocks. Erin Bradley indicated that there a peak performance buoyancy ticket exists that instructs divers how to minimize their impact by altering their diving behaviour.
- Marc Pakenham suggested that Garry Fletcher’s experience in site specific diving practices could be beneficial to the diving community’s guideline development.
- Duane Freeman reported that he has been focusing on internal communications with Ottawa and the Maritimes, as they are interested in this precedent setting exercise. He suggests that there is overall strong support for pilot in DND.
- Jim Morris indicated that he is working on including activity specific management plans in the final overall management plan.
- Marty Roberts indicated that he sits on the joint federal and provincial MPA working group and he appreciates the opportunity to get a feel for how this and that group relate.
- Jennie Sparkes suggested that as an observer she continues to report back to Parks Canada on this group’s process.
- Doug Biffard suggested that after the February 12 session the public at large supports this and these types of projects.
- Angus Matthews firmly believes that the model we are pursuing may further facilitate the development of a positive relationship with First Nations. He believes that industries (diving and eco-tourism) can best develop their own guidelines that can be incorporated in Race Rocks management plan. The Race Rocks.Com project is going well and on-track.
- Dr. Anita Voss suggested that she would like to see specific permits for some activities.
- Alan McGillivray indicated that he was here in place of Kevin Walker. He distributed the whale watching community’s draft site specific guidelines. The hope is that these guidelines will help develop a common attitude toward best management practices. The guidelines have been based on the keep it simple model and include the use of radar to delineate a 1/8 of a mile (~200 m) exclusion zone from shore. He suggested that they are highly motivated to work on a conservative pro-active approach. He felt that implementing many regulations would create an atmosphere of trying to find loopholes as opposed to an atmosphere of compliance.
- Garry Fletcher indicated that he doesn’t see how operators would deal with serendipitous events such as birds feeding on a herring ball and that these events may need to be included in the Whale Watch Operators Northwest association guidelines.
- Keith Symington asked to have minutes from last the meeting revised about his comment on boundaries. He distributed a copy of the WildWaters document for the RRAB members.
DRAFT MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
- Marc Pakenham gave a slide presentation on recommendations:
- Including model of governance with roles and responsibilities post designation;
- Recommendations:
- Missing: Vision, aviation, recommendation for designation, governance.
- Garry Fletcher suggested that the Vision recommendation should include:
- Vessel management regime
- Recommendations should include something about safety needs superseding conservation needs.
- Fishing Activities
-
- Management of educational activity
- Alan McGillivray suggested that whale watch community be co-managers of warden-operators. Therefore those that being permitted are part of the management team.
- Jennie Sparkes inquired as to how does whale watch operators that educated public fit into permitting process. Marc Pakenham indicated that we need to define levels of education and research.
- Alan McGillivray indicated that whale watch operators do not want to see a permitting system but want to work towards self-regulation and a change of attitudes.
- Minimum standards — no dumping, dredging and extraction of non-renewable resources.
- Migratory birds —change to just birds as many species at Race Rocks are non-migratory.
- Diving activity
- Commercial shipping
- Duane Freeman suggested that changes to ballast water management guidelines have safety implications. Marc Pakenham indicated that the Port of Vancouver is aware of the Race Rocks project and concerns of existing regulations.
- Management of educational activity
Action Item: Marc Pakenham will revise slides for a recommendations package for March meeting.
- Marty Roberts explained that different levels of government have different levels of responsibilities as set out by the Constitution, which has made it traditionally difficult for us to work together, but protection and conservation of the environment can not be reached unless there is goodwill and cooperation between governments.
- Angus Matthews suggests taking sometime to sign-off on those recommendations that can be reached today. RRAB members agreed.
- Governance structure: Model does not hierarcherize. Advisory board would be comprised of users. Operations-warden would be the servant of the two groups. Jennie Sparkes suggested that to fully respect First Nations involvement in the process, First Nations have to be included in the management plan for both the ER and MPA.
- Boundaries– Alan McGillivray suggested that the whale watchers are indifferent to the size or shape of the boundaries but agree to the ER model. Greatest concern is the vessel management regime in the area.
- Rupert Gale suggested that an evaluation and monitoring recommendation be included. Marc Pakenham indicated that it would be included in the list but it is also one of the roles of the Steering Committee as described in the governance model.
PERMITTING PROCESS–Garry Fletcher
- Garry Fletcher distributed a document detailing the evolution and history of the current permitting process. He gave an overview of the permitting process that is required to go forward with RaceRocks.com work of installing sensors in the marine environment. He recommended using a form created by Pearson.
- Jennie Sparkes inquired if the permitting process in the ER is legislated. Doug Biffard indicated that it was.
- Duane Freeman indicated that existing processes exist for different types of activities. He gave an example of the permitting process required for introducing an actual object into the environment as opposed to just observing the environment.
- Garry Fletcher felt that the MPA process should be able to overcome the existing requirements to streamline the process and that the Oceans Act gives the authority to overcome this issues. Jennie Sparkes indicated that the Canadian Impact Assessment Act (CIAA) supersedes the Oceans Act on this regard.
- Rupert Gale suggested that what people are looking for is one point of access and that could be the Steering Committee.
- Doug Biffard indicated that the purpose of permitting is not to control research but to form a contract with the researcher so that the information that is generated is open to the public domain. Further it can be used as a mechanism to maintain the ecological integrity of the area.
- Angus Matthews suggested an important role that the Steering Committee could have is to screen and channel permits so that external authorities that are not familiar with local issues do not supersede the authority of the advisory board and eco-wardens.
NEXT STEPS.
- Kelly Francis indicated that there would be one more meeting where the vision will be vetted and recommendations are accepted. She suggested that if there was interests in particular areas, groups could get together to discuss recommendations.
Next proposed meeting date March 22, 2000 from 09h30 to 15h30 at the BC Parks office on 800 Johnson St..
Meeting adjourned 16h00.Return to RRAB Index Sitemap Contact webmaster:
Garry FletcherCopyright
Agenda for the RR MPA Advisory Board Meeting, January 5, 2000
Purpose:
Second meeting of the Race Rocks Advisory Board.
Participants:
Doug Biffard – BC ParksCheryl Borris – Friends of Ecological Reserves
Erin Bradley — Dive Community Howard Breen – Georgia Strait Alliance Garry Fletcher – Lester B. Pearson College Kelly Francis – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Duane Freeman – Department of National Defence Gordon Hanson – Coast Salish Sea Council Dan Kukat — Sport Fish Advisory Board Lieutenant Commander Bill Laing – Department of National Defence (DND) Angus Matthews -Lester B. Pearson College Sean Moore – Marina Operators Jim Morris – BC Parks Marc Pakenham – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Dr. John Pringle – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Tom Sampson – Coast Salish Sea Council Keith Symington – Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Dr. Anita Voss Kevin Walker?- Northwest Whale Watchers Association Scott Wallace Observers Sean MacConnachie – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Paul Preston – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Jenny Sparkes – Parks Canada Wendy Szanislow – Parks Canada ************************************************************* |
Agenda
- Purpose of Meeting
- Draft Terms of Reference
- Consensus decision making
- MPA boundaries
- Draft Management Plans
- Updates from meetings/consultations
- Other business
Race Rocks MPA Advisory Board meeting 2
RACE ROCKS ADVISORY BOARD MEETING # 2
DRAFT MINUTES
11h00 – 15h30, JANUARY 5, 2000
LESTER B. PEARSON COLLEGE, VICTORIA
Participants: Howard Breen – Georgia Strait Alliance
Regrets:Doug Biffard – BC Parks
Observers:Sean MacConnachie – Fisheries and Oceans Canada
***************************************
INTRODUCTIONS
- The meeting began with a roundtable introduction of the participants.
TERMS OF REFERENCE DISCUSSION (TOR)
- Marc Pakenham read the draft Terms of Reference and indicated that it is a rough draft and still requires the input from the RRAB and TOR sub-committee. Comments from Jenny Sparkes and Gord Hansen have been received. Jenny Sparkes wasn’t clear what the RRAB outcomes were supposed to be from the TOR and has suggestions for each point.
- Angus Matthews suggests that the TOR are quite adequate and don’t need revision. He is keen to move on with rest of process.
- Jenny Sparkes indicated that it is important in this process that people are clear of the game rules from the outset.
- Howard Breen agreed that the TOR is good and need to move forward with this process.
- Roundtable review of the TOR.
- Anita Voss inquired if there was a time frame for the goals set out in the TOR. Marc Pakenham replied that the goal was to have the recommendations completed by March 10. Kelly Francis indicated that the future evolution of the RRAB was not entirely clear.
- Angus Matthews re-iterated the importance of moving forward with this process. Pearson College is currently funding the caretaker and bearing responsibility for the operating costs at Race Rocks. They are unable to raise further funds until this site is designated. He suggested that governments have to understand that private funds are driving this process.
- Howard Breen suggested that in regards to the First Nations paragraph it is important to identify which First Nations are being affected by this process (i.e. T’souke, Esquimalt, Beecher Bay, and Songhees First Nations).
- Tom Sampson indicated that it is important to have First Nations mentioned in this process being that it may be a template for future processes. He suggested that First Nations do not need to be identified directly because the First Nations will know which ones are directly involved.
- Jim Morris would like to see it spelled out in the TOR that Race Rocks is an Ecological Reserve and that the establishment of a MPA will enhance and/ or preserve the current status.
- Angus Matthews believes consensus is where everybody is reasonably content and walks away from the table satisfied. Being that this is a pilot process the consensus “bar” should be set higher than is stated in the draft TOR. Marc Pakenham suggested that recommendations will probably not please everyone 100%, but this process will respect and provide the opportunity to indicate their views.
- Howard Breen suggested that if the RRAB could endorse the recommendations 100% they would be accepted much more broadly throughout the community.
- Keith Symmington asked to have these comments read into the minutes: “CPAWS supports the establishment of a ‘protocol agreement’ between the Province and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as well as the recognition of the Constitutional and treaty rights of First Nations and their interest in a cooperative management regime, within the Terms of Reference“.
- Marc Pakenham asked the RRAB members to send comments to him by Friday January 7, 2000. He will synthesize the comments and have a conference call on Tuesday Jan 11 with the TOR sub-committee and will have a revision out to RRAB board members by Tuesday afternoon.
ECOSYSTEM OVERVIEW PRESENTATION
- Brian Smiley introduced himself and the purpose of the presentation including:
- The background of ecosystem overview;
- the MS Access database created by the College; and
- Cindy Wright’s contract to synthesize the ecosystem overview into a written report format which outlines major gaps in our current knowledge and provides general recommendations on future research. The report does not address socio-economic information, nor does it provide strategies or actions for implementing research recommendations.
- Cindy Wright described the report and it was based on a similar report prepared for Sable Gully. It is oriented for aquatic issues.
- Outstanding physical features at Race Rocks:
- High velocity currents up to 6 knots. High velocity currents create turbulence which mixes water column, prevents stratification, delivers high nutrients, and high oxygen content to support benthic community;
- High nutrients and rocky substrate attract lots of animals and high larval recruitment;
- Algal biomass: 110ha X 67 metric tonnes/ ha = 7370 metric tonnes of algae/year;
- 130 known species/genera of phytoplankton and 100 zooplankton;
- Over 200 species/genera of invertebrates. High abundance and high diversity including a strong population of threatened abalone;
- Critical habitat for species of rockfish, lingcod, and kelp greenling. Not knowledgeable of fish distribution through lifecycle. About 95 known species of near-shore fish;
- Marine mammals: Haul-out site/ rafting for pinnipeds. Predominantly used by harbour seals for all lifestages. 2nd largest seal haul-out in Canadian waters of Georgia Basin. At times can represent 20% of seal population in area. Reports of up to 1000 seals reported at Race Rocks. Reported as a high use area for transient Orca;
- Birds: 4-5 species use Race Rocks as a nesting site. 23% of pelagic cormorants in eastern Juan de Fuca are at Race Rocks; and
- Traditional Ecological knowledge. Pearson college working with First Nations and fisherman to acquire knowledge.
- Marc Pakenham asked if we could have this presentation to circulate. Brian Smiley indicated that he would make it available, but that it is a high-grade of the draft report. Hopes to keep this document and databases as a living document to be updated in future.
- Howard Breen inquired if the Ecosystem Overview supported an extension of the boundaries of the ecological reserve. Brian Smiley suggested that we now have a baseline to go from; therefore depending on which objective is focused upon will determine the requirements of the boundaries (e.g. If the objective is to protect a nesting area, the boundaries are probably sufficient. If the objective is to protect foraging sights the boundaries may be too small).
- Garry Fletcher suggested that the existing boundary would work very well if everybody abided by it. He expressed concerns that the annual changes of animal’s behaviour may put them outside the boundaries. He indicated that he would hate at this stage for boundary discussions to prevent decisions being made. He suggested that flexibility needs to be maintained as information is acquired.
LUNCH
BOUNDARY DISCUSSION
- Marc Pakenham reviewed the boundary options that have been presented to stakeholders. He described enforcement problems with existing boundaries in regards to depth in meters. Feedback to date supports mostly option 2, the angularized boundaries of the ER. This option does not reduce the size of the ecological reserve, but does make it easier to describe by legal terms and is easier for mariners. The boundaries could possibly use buoys or sight markers. Option 2 is approximately 10% larger than existing ER boundaries. Option three has a 100 metre buffer zone around angularized option 2.
- Howard Breen suggested that the Georgia Strait Alliance generally support the concept of buffer zones. With this particular case it may be feasible to increase seabed protection, but not reduce pelagic fishing opportunities outside existing boundaries.
- Brian Smiley inquired if it was possible to extend the boundary along the bottom to protect the important habitat that some threatened species use during part of the year.
- Sean Moore indicated that the SFAB fully endorses the protection of rockfish within the existing area, but is looking for the continuation of fishing opportunities for transient species (e.g. halibut and salmon) within the existing reserve.
- Angus Matthews reminded the group that the objective for a MPA in general is not only to protect species and habitat but to increase research and public education. Overlaying existing boundaries of MPA with ER would be easier politically. Problems with the option 2 lie on south west corner of ecological reserve where there are two halibut fishing spots. Angus Matthews suggested that the SFAB might agree to a no-take in the existing area if the boundaries did not increase. Other issues to take into consideration include flying tourism. He suggests that a small footprint would be a more effective to designate and further rockfish closures are a separate fisheries issues.
- Jim Morris indicated that this MPA cannot solve all problems today. The management plan could make a recommendation for a future increase in the size of the MPA or possibly a creation of another ER or increase in the size of the ER.
- Tom Sampson indicated that we should be aware that there are existing Supreme Court decisions that grant First Nations absolute rights to the fishery resources as well as treaty rights that supersede any new rules. It is important to recognize that if you only protect / manage the shoreline you’re ignoring the natural spawning process and interaction between the shallow and deepwater. Nature has provided existing patterns that we are ignoring, the pattern or options that we are promoting do not comply to these existing patterns.
- Anton Roberts inquired if this area is going to be an absolute “no-go zone”. Kelly Francis described minimum levels of protection under Pacific MPA strategy and that this process will define the levels of protection for Race Rocks. It is anticipated that Race Rocks MPA marine components will continue to offer public access under some guidelines or regulatory authority.
- Howard Breen indicated that although the Georgia Strait Alliance supports a larger area, they would not block consensus if the RRAB recommends maintaining the existing boundaries with an angularized version. Their larger concern is that the energy and resources that have gone into the pilots will not be carried on to future candidates.
- Marc Pakenham indicated that enforcement is a major issue. He felt that stakeholders would support a relatively small MPAs if they were properly enforced.
- Cindy Wright asked what level of protection the buffer zone would offer. Marc Pakenham responded that the buffer zone would offer a different level of protection.
- Rupert Gale suggested that the angularized areas of option 2 could be the buffer zone.
- Angus Matthews suggested that angularized version isn’t critical for habitat. For managing the area radar would be effective in managing boaters that enter into the area.
- Anita Voss suggested that invertebrates contribute significant amounts of biomass via their larvae into the environment.
- Jim Morris suggested that the important part of this process is to inform the people of what they can and cannot do in the area. Suggests that during the ER consultation consensus was essentially reached, and changes in the area would not be effective.
- Garry Fletcher felt that there were large safety concerns with using anchors and buoys in the area.
- Brian Smiley indicated that any MPA will have to be Gazetted and described legally. Therefore a bathymetric definition of the area would not be an effective method to enforce. He suggests that using a GPS enforceable definition would be a lot more effective in monitoring and compliance.
- Howard Breen suggested that the bathymetry for this area may be the best defined for the whole coast, but as a precedent, it is not an effective system because future MPAs will not be have this level of bathymetric observation.
- Tom Sampson suggests that the MPA could be in place for a certain amount of time and then re-evaluated. He described the process of restoration of Goldstream river and the resolution of the fisheries conflict between First Nations and the commercial fishery. By having everyone agree to stop fishing over four years (one life cycle) 60, 000 salmon returned, up from 4,000. After 8 years (2 cycles) there were over 100, 000 fish returning to spawn. Today a sustainable harvest of 60, 000 Chum adults are taken annually.
- Angus Matthews suggests that the boundaries need to be better defined.
- Jenny Sparkes suggested that these MPAs will not manage the resource but peoples’ activities. In other parts of the world straight lines have been shown to be more effective and easier to understand.
- Sean Moore requires a better-defined map with bathymetric lines and boundaries by Jan 20, 2000 for his presentation to the SFAB.
ACTION ITEM
Marc Pakenham to provide an image of Race Rocks with existing ecological boundaries in relation to navigational bathymetric contour lines.
- Keith Symmington asked to have these comments read into the minutes: “CPAWS believes that a “angularized” or even “rectangular” scenario would be the most logical boundary, for practicality reasons previously discussed at the inaugural meeting.“
MPA / ER MANAGEMENT PLAN DISCUSSION
- Marc Pakenham described the evolution of current Race Rocks ER/MPA management plan draft.
- Marc Pakenham asked the group to review the draft management plan and comment within the next two weeks.
- Cheryl Borris inquired who had prepared this plan. Marc Pakenham responded that he had taken former drafts and modified them to be in line with the format of the Pacific MPA Strategy Discussion Paper.
- Angus Matthews indicated that he has been urging Marc Pakenham and Kelly Francis to get this document out for discussion and review. He indicated that it is not a pre-defined, pre-determined idea from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The College originally wrote this document for the ecological reserve. He hopes that it ends up as a document that government can use.
- Kelly Francis re-iterated the importance to have input from the RRAB to determine what is missing and to contribute to the management plan.
Marc Pakenham suggested a number of key issues that were missing include: 1) governance—who will manage the ER/MPA. 2) Finances –how do we pay for this? 3) Developing a list of priority issues and strategies.
ACTION ITEM
Marc Pakenham to send this draft electronically to the RRAB members.
- Jim Morris suggested that previous consultation indicated that the water column and management of the fisheries are probably the utmost concern.
- Jenny Sparkes suggests posting the socio-economic and scientific reports on the Internet so that people can access them when they review the management plan.
ACTION ITEM
Garry Fletcher to post reports on the Race Rocks Internet site and distribute address.
- After briefly reviewing the draft ER/MPA Draft Management plan Bill Laing indicated that DND does not have a weapons test site. They have two explosive disposal sites and one training site.
- Angus Matthews indicated that the information regarding First Nations is outdated and needs to be changed.
- Jenny Sparkes suggested changing the name to Interim Management Recommendations from draft management plan. Fisheries and Oceans Canada/BC Parks will be responsible for final management plan.
- Keith Symmington asked to have these comments read into the minutes: “CPAWS believes that the new round of MPA consultations should be with a view to advance the designation of a full no-take MPA at Race Rocks (without prejudice to Constitutional and treaty rights of First Nations). We believe that the closures on groundfish and shellfish in the existing ER are not insufficient in realizing one of the main conservation objectives for the site, namely the restoration of commercial groundfish species, particularly rockfish and lingcod. By allowing salmon and halibut sportfishing to continue (given the documented bycatch of these species in non-targeted scenarios, and the low expectation for survival once caught), this particular (and essential) MPA management goal will not be realized. Judging from consultations initiated to date, and direct feedback from stakeholders, there is considerable support for such a designation.
CONSULTATIONS AND INFORMATION SESSIONS
- Marc Pakenham has given presentations to the following groups:
- December 61999 with Sea to Sea Blue/Green Belt Conservancy, Rural East Sooke Assoc., Society for the Protection of Ayum Creek, Saanich Inlet Protection Society and Land Conservancy Trust
- December 9, 1999 Department of National Defence
- December 13 presentation to the CRD Roundtable on the Environment..
- December 14, 1999 BC Parks, LUCO and Ministry of Fisheries
- December 14, 1999 Sports Fishery Advisory Board ,another to follow soon.
- December 22, 13 moons First Nations’ presentation to the RRAB.
- Marc Pakenham is scheduling presentations with Tourism Victoria, Royal Roads University, University of Victoria, Royal BC Museum, Rotary Club Victoria and District of Metchosin in the next few weeks.
- If RRAB members’ constituents are interested in a presentation please inform Marc Pakenham.
- Kelly Francis hoping to schedule two large public meetings/consultations near the end of January.
- Tom Sampson indicated that he has been talking with local tribes and suggests that they all are interested in the process but don’t want to be involved in if it interferes with Treaty process. They would like to meet separately.
ACTION ITEM
- Marc Pakenham to send information package to Tom Sampson for local area First Nations.
OTHER BUSINESS
- Bill Laing discussed the idea of a tour at DND facilities and will pass out information to Marc Pakenham when he has a determined time.
- Angus Matthews talked about the “racerocks.com” project information session at Telus tomorrow and invited those in attendance if they wished to come.
Next proposed meeting date:
26 January, 2000 – 12h00 to 16h00
at Pearson College (lunch will be provided @ 12h00)
Race Rocks MPA Advisory Board Agenda forsecond meeting meeting
Second meeting of the Race Rocks Advisory Board.
Participants:
Doug Biffard – BC ParksCheryl Borris – Friends of Ecological Reserves
Erin Bradley — Dive Community Howard Breen – Georgia Strait Alliance Garry Fletcher – Lester B. Pearson College Kelly Francis – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Duane Freeman – Department of National Defence Gordon Hanson – Coast Salish Sea Council Dan Kukat — Sport Fish Advisory Board Lieutenant Commander Bill Laing – Department of National Defence (DND) Angus Matthews -Lester B. Pearson College Sean Moore – Marina Operators Jim Morris – BC Parks Marc Pakenham – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Dr. John Pringle – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Tom Sampson – Coast Salish Sea Council Keith Symington – Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Dr. Anita Voss Kevin Walker?- Northwest Whale Watchers Association Scott Wallace Observers Sean MacConnachie – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Paul Preston – Fisheries and Oceans Canada Jenny Sparkes – Parks Canada Wendy Szanislow – Parks Canada ************************************************************* |
Agenda
- Purpose of Meeting
- Draft Terms of Reference
- Consensus decision making
- MPA boundaries
- Draft Management Plans
- Updates from meetings/consultations
- Other business
Return to RRAB Index |
Sitemap | Contact |
webmaster:
Garry Fletcher |
Copyright |
STAKEHOLDER GROUPS to be consulted Fos MPA Advisory Board
WHO WILL BE CONSULTED??
The following list is subject to revision but identifies most stakeholder groups at this time (06.12.99).
Amalgamated Conservation Society
Aquarius Dive Club — DND
BC Shorekeepers/Reefkeepers Assoc.
BC MELP
BC MOF
Canadian Coast Guard – DFO
Canadian Wildlife Service
Capital Regional District – Roundtable on the Environment,- Environment Committee
Department of National Defence – CFB Esquimalt
District of Metchosin
Environmental Risk Management – CFB Esquimalt
Environmental Youth Alliance
First Nations – Beecher Bay, Esquimalt, Songhees, T’sartlip, T’souke
Frank White’s Scuba Shop
Friends of Ecological Reserves
Georgia Strait Alliance
Greater Victoria Natural History Society
Green/Blue Belt Conservancy Society
Habitat Acquisition Trust
Juan de Fuca Economic Development Commission
Lester B. Pearson College
Local marinas
Ogden Point Dive Centre
Ocean Centre
Parks Canada PMHL
Pedder Bay Marina
Royal BC Museum
Saanich Inlet Protection Committee
Sierra Club of British Columbia
Society for the Protection of Ayum Creek
South Island Aquatic Stewardship Society
Sports Fish Advisory Board – Race Rocks Sub-Committee
Tourism Victoria – Environment Committee
University of Victoria
Veins of Life Watershed Society
Victoria Golden Rods and Reels
Victoria Natural History Society
Victoria Marine Adventure Centre
Victoria Marine Advisory Council
Whale Watch Operators Association NW?
World Fisheries Trust
Return to RRAB Index |
Sitemap | Contact |
webmaster:
Garry Fletcher |
Copyright |
Terms of Reference for the Race Rocks MPS Advisory Board
The Race Rocks Advisory Board will:
and B.C. Parks for the establishment of a marine protected area at Race Rocks
4. Participation, Roles and Responsibilities: Participants: The Race Rocks area is of interest to a wide range of constituents representing a broad spectrum of activities. The RRAB represents a reasonably comprehensive cross-section of interest groups and activities. The RRAB shall be comprised of, but not limited to, representatives from the following groups:
If a member/participant is unable to attend a scheduled Board meeting, they may invite an alternate from their constituency. Participants are encouraged to invite other members of their groups to attend RRAB meetings, with prior notification of the Chair and subject to space limitations. Roles:
Recommendations by the RRAB will be made through a consensus-based process. The intent of this process is to provide the opportunity for all parties to participate in a manner which responds to their interests If issues arise, whenever possible, final decisions will be made on the basis of recommendations supported by consensus as opposed to being unilaterally imposed. Consensus shall mean the “general agreement of all participants on a package of decisions or recommendations” and shall embody the following concepts:
All participants to a recommendation on which consensus had been achieved agree to exercise their rights, mandates, and responsibilities consistent with that recommendation and to take such further steps as may be necessary to give it effect. If consensus is not achieved through this process, each participant will exercise their rights, responsibilities, and mandates as they see fit — unfettered as to statutory decision-making responsibilities and without prejudice to their rights and obligations by reason of having participated in the process. 6. Meetings: Meetings will be held periodically to assess and evaluate RRAB’s activities and input. The chair / facilitator will be responsible to call meetings as interest or issues develop. RRAB members are also able to call a meeting if a topic has to be addressed. 7. Deliverables: The RRAB will deliver recommendations on levels of protection, goals and objectives to BC Parks, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and First Nations on the establishment of a MPA at Race Rocks. The Federal and Provincial Government in accordance with the joint MPA strategy for Canada’s Pacific Coast will determine the final recommendations for a MPA at Race Rocks. 8. Timeline: It is expected that the Race Rocks Advisory Board, as outlined by these terms of reference, will complete the tasks described by 31 March, 2000. 9. Responsibilities of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and B.C. Parks: Fisheries and Oceans Canada and B.C. Parks support the sharing of all information and dialogue from the consultative process. Representatives from the respective departments on the Race Rocks Advisory Board will endeavour to fairly represent the interim management recommendations developed by the Race Rocks Advisory Board. B.C. Parks and Fisheries and Oceans Canada will review the recommendations of the Advisory Board and consider those recommendations when developing criteria for the designation, management and regulation of Race Rocks Marine Protected Area and future MPA strategies. |
Agenda and Minutes of the First Meeting of the Race Rocks Advisory Board
AGENDA for the First Meeting of the Race Rocks Advisory Board
Wednesday, 01 December ’99 1100h – 1500h Boardroom
Coast Guard Base Victoria 25 Huron St. Victoria, B.C.
MEMBERS OF RACE ROCKS ADVISORY BOARD
Cheryl Borris Friends Eco Reserves ecoreserves(use the “at” symbol)hotmail.com 250-356-6921 (W) Erin Bradley Dive community info(use the “at” symbol)divevictoria.com 250-380-9119 (W) Howard Breen Georgia Strait Alliance hbreen(use the “at” symbol)island.net 250-7753-3459 (W) 250-247-7467 (R) Garry Fletcher Pearson College gfletcher(use the “at” symbol)pearson-college.uwc.ca 250-391-2411 (W) Kelly Francis Fisheries&Oceans francisk(use the “at” symbol)pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca 250-756-7095 (W) Gordon Hanson First Nations projects ghanson(use the “at” symbol)gulfislands.com 250-629-9923 (W) Dan Kukat Sports Fish Advisory springtide(use the “at” symbol)coastnet.com 250-386-6016 (W) Lt. Cdr. Bill Laing Dept. National Defence marpacn33_2(use the “at” symbol)hotmail.com 250-363-5041 (W) Angus Matthews Pearson College amatthews(use the “at” symbol)pearson-college.uwc.ca 250-391-2411 (W) Jim Morris B.C. Parks Jim.Morris(use the “at” symbol)gems1.gov.bc.ca 250-391-2304 (W) Marc Pakenham Fisheries&Oceans pakenhamm(use the “at” symbol)pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca 250-213-8762 (Cell) Dr.John Pringle Fisheries&Oceans pringlej(use the “at” symbol)pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca 250-363-6335 (W) Tom Sampson Coast Salish Sea sampsont(use the “at” symbol)island.net 250-652-3889 (R) Jennie Sparkes Parks Canada Jennie_Sparkes(use the “at” symbol)pch.gc.ca 250-363-8559 (W) Keith Symington C.Parks&Wilderness Soc. marine(use the “at” symbol)cpawsbc.org] 604-685-7445 (W) Dr. Anita Voss Science anitab-voss(use the “at” symbol)bc1.com 250-642-3520 (R) Scott Wallace Science scottw(use the “at” symbol)island.net 250-758-2390 (W) Kevin Walker Whale Watchers Assoc. kbwalker(use the “at” symbol)islandnet.com 250-598-4556 (W) Please note addition: Keith Symington – Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Marc Pakenham Oceans Community Advisor – South Coast Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Pacific 25 Huron St. Victoria, B.C. V8V 4V9 (250) 480-2794 (250) 480-2793 fax (250) 213-8762 cell. pakenhamm(use the “at” symbol)pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
AGENDA:
1. Introduction of Board Members
2. Draft terms of reference
3. Frequency of meetings & schedule for information/consultation sessions
4. Format and process for information/consultations
5. Managing the information/feedback
6. Making recommendations….consensus or strong majority?
7. Other business
Participants: Doug Biffard — BC Parks
Absent: Dr. John Pringle – Fisheries and Oceans Canada , Scott Wallace, Dr. Anita Voss
Dan Kukat — SFAB
Observers:Sean MacConnachie – Fisheries and Oceans Canada
- The meeting began with a discussion of the agenda and roundtable introductions, with a brief description from each board member about their participation in the board.
SLIDE PRESENTATION
- Marc Pakenham gave a slide presentation describing the roles and objectives of the Oceans Act and MPA’s, and more specifically the Race Rocks pilot MPA.
- This slide presentation will make up the bulk of the information for the stakeholder and public consultations.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
- Tom Sampson inquired as to how the Race Rocks pilot MPA would fit into the Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative. Marc Pakenham responded that the marine environment is currently zoned and regulated. The pilot MPA could make up another layer of zoning within the ecosystem.
- Angus Matthews asked if Tom Sampson could give the group a perspective on First Nations’ values and background on Race Rocks and ecosystem based management as a whole.
- Tom Sampson responded by describing that the whole ocean is a MPA, and not just Race Rocks. He suggested that we practice “what we know” regarding management of future MPA’s and that many ocean areas need protection. We need to provide opportunities for FN’s to recommend locations, importance of areas. FN’s support MPA’s where there is no conflict with existing agreements between FN’s and government or the treaty process — FN’s are not prepared to renegotiate treaty issues.
- He described First Nations annual calendar of the 13 moons and how all things are linked. By knowing how the changes in the seasons and the atmosphere affect the land and the water, First Nations were able to manage the resources on both the terrestrial and marine environment for thousands of years. He described the importance of the difference types of food that were collected around the area to the diets of First Nations and their medicinal properties.
- Tom Sampson expressed a desire to acquaint board members with “FN thinking about natural cycles” and offered to organise a “13 Moons” workshop preferably at Pearson College.
ACTION ITEM
- Tom Sampson to arrange for a workshop on the First Nations’ Thirteen Moon calendar for the RRAB.
- Tom Sampson suggested using First Nations language in any documentation produced on Race Rocks would greatly facilitate the acceptance and understanding of a management plan for the area by local First Nations.
- Howard Breen asked if a traditional use study was part of the pre-designation work. Marc Pakenham responded that it was not part of the formal protocol, but informal discussions on this topic have taken place. Angus Matthews indicated that the College is working on developing a First Nations education package that will eventually lead to a curriculum package that can be used by First Nations and non-natives.
- Gordon Hanson pointed out that the draft Race Rocks Ecological Reserve management plan suggests pursuing opportunities for a traditional use study and recommended that a traditional FN use of RR study be commissioned by the RRAB.
- Howard Breen indicated that NGO’s strongly support action on designation of MPA’s and raised the issue of resourcing for the MPA process — GSA will intervene in upcoming Ministerial meetings to press for resource commitments for the Race Rocks MPA process.
- Kelly Francis responded that the management plan process would include identification of resource requirements and funding options.
- Jim Morris agreed on the need to focus on the management plan and indicated that the Province currently has no “dollar” resources for the process.
- Doug Bifford added that he would identify dollars through his provincial budgeting process.
- Howard Breen wants issues moved forward soon and indicated that his constituency will be pushing for some serious indication of commitment to the MPA process.
- Jim Morris asked that the group review the draft management plan included in the background information package provided to the advisory board prior to the next meeting. He noted that Parks BC as manager of the Ecological Reserve, has made changes to regulations through public input and have documentation of agreement by many stakeholders.
- Doug Bifford stated that there has been no discussion within Parks BC with respect to possibly relinquishing RR as an Ecological Reserve in favour of an MPA and therefore will continue to manage RR as an ER unless the public wants change.
- Kelly Francis responded that the ER/ MPA designation is complementary but dual designation does require clarification.
- Angus Matthews noted that the existing draft management plan recommends going to MPA status.
TERMS OF REFERENCE DISCUSSION
- Round table discussion as to the importance of a Terms of Reference (TOR) for the RRAB.
- Howard Breen inquired about a ‘protocol agreement’ between the Province and Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the Race Rocks MPA initiative and stressed the need to have FN issues expressed in the TOR — NGO’s (GSA) have been developing a protocol agreement for co-management with FN’s.
- Gordon Hanson stressed the importance of recognising First Nations as members of a government “Triad” i.e. as a level of government (not a stakeholder) in the MPA process
ACTION ITEM
-
- Gord Hanson to develop a chart outlining organisation of the RRAB
- Howard Breen asked if the Terms of Reference would be site specific.
- Jenny Sparkes would like the “what, how and who” RRAB will report to be included in the TOR.
- Garry Fletcher cautioned against setting milestone dates, but the TOR should reflect the day-to-day management concerns that are happening regardless of the various action plans that are underway. The RRAB should avoid adding levels of bureaucracy to the system.
- Doug Bifford indicated that the draft management plan might be a good template for the TOR.
- Jim Morris gave an overview of the development of the draft management plan. He indicated that the original round of consultation showed that the predominant concerns of the public centred on issues in the water column. However the process was flawed because it was incomplete – the new round of MPA consultations will hopefully be able to address this and he encouraged advisory board members to disseminate information to their constituents.
- Angus Matthews suggested that matters of jurisdiction and protocol between the two levels of government be addressed immediately. Also some clarity is needed as to how the regulations from the Ecological Reserve Act will mesh with the Oceans Act. He suggested that “inventing a new way for governments to work together” is fundamental to the success of the RRAB. Membership on Advisory Board should be mandatory for all government reps, voluntary for NGO’s.
- Jenny Sparkes suggested that identifying barriers to implementation is fundamental to the consensus process and stressed the need to focus on common goals vs. individual issues. She suggested that, to prevent confusion, the TOR define the meaning of consensus for this group.
- Jenny Sparkes suggested a small sub-committee to develop draft TOR.
ACTION ITEM
-
- Marc Pakenham, Jim Morris, Howard Breen, Angus Matthews, Jenny Sparkes and Gord Hanson to develop draft TOR and distribute.
FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS / SCHEDULING
- Marc Pakenham indicated that he would like to see this process move forward to designation by March 2000. As a result Marc and Jim will endeavour to pursue bi-lateral discussion with various groups over the next two months to determine stakeholders interests and issues.
- Garry Fletcher described the MPA process as a ‘continuum’ and cautioned not to pick dates for designation.
- Marc Pakenham suggested that it is important that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Parks BC be comfortable with designation of RR by fiscal year end.
- Angus Matthews concurred with the aggressive schedule and suggested that at least one meeting of the RRAB should be held at Race Rocks.
- Doug Bifford advised against this as it may contravene the principles of the Ecological Reserve. Angus Matthews pointed out that the buildings on RR are not included in the ER boundaries and that ongoing staffing of RR is unlikely due to funding constraints.
- Marc Pakenham suggested three meetings before January 31, 2000; large meeting at the end of consultation process at the end of January to frame up recommendations. Meanwhile Marc and Jim will continue with bilateral consultations.
- Howard Breen asked if there was consensus among the RRAB to pursue this schedule. Consensus was met.
CONSULTATION AND RECOMMENDATION PROCESS
- Angus Matthews suggested that although consensus will probably not be reached between various stakeholder groups, the RRAB should reach consensus on all recommendations that it puts forth.
- Jenny Sparkes advised that during meetings or consultation that focus should be on interests and how their interests are being met as opposed to issues and how they are being dealt with.
- Marc Pakenham noted Whale Watchers experiences in recent meetings — accepted ‘ownership’ of process, buy-in to concept of MPA, visit to RR an important feature of acceptance- developing site specific whale watching guidelines for RR and will return information to Advisory Board during development process.
- Please see attached consultation list.
- All notes or minutes from all bi-lateral discussions will be distributed the RRAB within 48 hours of the meeting via e-mail.
OTHER BUSINESS
- Bill Laing gave an update on DND staff’s activities in the area and standard operating procedures for demolition of ordinance.
ACTION ITEM
-
- Bill Laing to arrange for a meeting with DND staff to discuss the pilot MPA process at Race Rocks before Christmas.
- Garry Fletcher gave an update on the www.racerocks.com project.
NEXT MEETING
- The next meeting of the RRAB is scheduled for 1100h — 1500h, January 5, 2000 at Lester B. Pearson College in Victoria. (lunch will be provided)
Meeting adjourned – 1530.
Return to RRAB Index |
Sitemap | Contact |
webmaster:
Garry Fletcher |
Copyright |
Managing Tourism and Recreational Activities
the Pilot Project at
Graduate Research Project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Marine Management
at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
~ September 1999 ~
© Copyright 1999
by Louise V. Murgatroyd
Marine Affairs Program
The undersigned hereby certify that they have read and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate Studies for acceptance a graduate research project entitled Managing Tourism and Recreational Activities in Canada’s Marine Protected Areas: the Pilot Project at Race Rocks, British Columbia, by Louise V. Murgatroyd in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Marine Management.
Supervised by:
Dr. Martin Willison
School for Resource and Environmental Studies
Dalhousie University
Signature
Date Dalhousie University
Date: ??3 September 1999
Author:?Louise V. Murgatroyd
Degree: Master of Marine Management Convocation:October
Year:1999
Permission is herewith granted to Dalhousie University to circulate and to have copied for non-commercial purposes, at its discretion, the above title upon the request of individuals or institutions.
Signature of Author
The author reserves other publication rights, and neither the graduate project nor extensive extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author’s written permission.
The author attests that permission has been obtained for the use of any copyrighted material appearing in this graduate project (other than brief excerpts requiring only proper acknowledgement in scholarly writing), and that all such use is clearly acknowledged.
List of Abbreviations?*
Acknowledgements?*
1. Introduction?*
2. Tourism, Recreation and Marine Protected Areas?*
2.3 Economics, Conservation and Education?*
2.4 Coastal Tourism and Marine Protected Areas in British Columbia?*
2.4.1 Tourism?*
2.4.2 Marine Protected Areas?*
3. The Pilot Marine Protected Area Project at Race Rocks?*
3.3 Tourism and Recreation at Race Rocks?*
3.3.1 Whale Watching/Wildlife Viewing?*
3.3.2 Scuba diving?*
3.3.3 Recreational Fishing?*
3.3.4 Kayaking/Boating?*
3.3.5 Research and Education?*
3.4 Impacts from Recreational Activities?*
3.4.1 Threats to Ecosystem and Wildlife?*
3.4.2 Conflicts?*
3.5 Current Management Regime?*
3.5.1 BC Parks and Pearson College?*
3.5.2 The Light-keepers?*
3.6 Management Issues for Tourism and Recreation at Race Rocks?*
4. Selected Examples of Current MPA Management Practice for Tourism and Recreation?*
4.3 The Fathom Five Marine Park?*
4.4 The Bonaire Marine Park?*
5. Managing Tourism and Recreation: Recommendations for Race Rocks?*
5.3 User Fees?*
5.4 Codes of Conduct/Wildlife Viewing Guidelines?*
5.5 Education and Interpretation?*
5.6 Tour Operator and Staff Training?*
5.7 Permits?*
5.8 Partnerships for Stewardship/Stakeholder and Community Participation?*
5.9 Custodians?*
5.10 Monitoring and Research?*
6. Conclusion?*
7. Appendices?*
7.3 Appendix III: Example of Incident Report Form?*
7.4 Appendix IV: Whale watching guidelines?*
8. References?*
Marine tourism is a major component of a massive global tourism industry. Extensive visitation to coastal and marine areas has lead to marine environmental degradation, compromising the very values that make these environments attractive to tourists. Marine protected areas (MPAs) strive to conserve biodiversity and ecological processes, many of which coincide with the above-mentioned values. Tourism and MPAs can have a mutually beneficial relationship: MPAs provide venues for tourism and tourism, through education and awareness-raising, can create support for marine conservation, MPAs and other integrated coastal management strategies.
Race Rocks, a group of tiny islands near Victoria, British Columbia, is one of five national pilot MPA project sites currently being examined by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The site hosts abundant and diverse wildlife and is heavily visited tourists and recreational users from the greater Victoria area. These include whale watching operators, scuba divers and recreational fishers. While already protected as a provincial ecological reserve, the pilot MPA project will pursue additional strategies involving government, industry and other stakeholders to ensure that negative impacts from mounting visitor use are minimised.
Examples of effective management strategies for tourism and recreation in existing MPAs around the world are provided, such as the Great Barrier Reef and Bonaire Marine Parks. Recommendations are made for the pilot MPA at Race Rocks and include a combination of government and industry regulation, comprehensive education and interpretation programs, and extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders to ensure effective management strategies which encourage compliance among users and require minimal enforcement.
DFO??(Department of) Fisheries and Oceans Canada
EMC??environmental management charge
EPGC??The Economic Planning Group of Canada
ER??ecological reserve
FFNMP?Fathom Five National Marine Park
GBRMP?Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
GBRMPA?Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
LUCO??Land Use Co-ordination Office
MEF??Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune (Québec)
MMRG?Marine Mammal Research Group
MPA??marine protected area
OUC??Ontario Underwater Council
SFAB??Sport Fishing Advisory Board
SSLMP?Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park
Further thanks go to the staff and students of Pearson College, and the lightkeepers Carol and Mike Slater, who showed me what an extraordinary place of wonder and learning is located at Race Rocks and who continue to care for it. Garry Fletcher and Angus Matthews were extremely helpful in providing unlimited access to an extensive database of information and contacts. Special thanks go to Chris Blondeau who, in addition to becoming a friend, took a shivering tropical diver and immersed her in the chilly waters of the Pacific Ocean in a scuba tank, thus providing an introduction to the phenomenal wealth of marine life at Race Rocks. Without this experience, my understanding and appreciation of the Rocks would have indeed been deficient. Thanks also to Dr. Joe MacInnis, a source of inspiration to all who are concerned about the world’s oceans, for his continued interest and enthusiasm for my progress in the master’s program, and whose deep appreciation for Race Rocks will help to secure its future for the benefit of all Canadians.
Finally, to my family and friends, for whom there are not words sufficient to express . . .
for a glimpse into the nature of that mysterious realm than the delivery, in 1998, of the first-ever tourists to the grave of the Titanic, buried deep beneath the surface of the sea.
Despite this apparent fascination, the extent of our knowledge and understanding of the seas remains but a drop in the oceanic bucket. And much to our discredit as a species, we pollute, deplete, plunder and generally degrade the marine environment with an ignorance that borders on wilful. Long utilised as a receptacle for waste and considered to be an endless bounty of resources, the health of the oceans is failing due to human abuse. As a result, efforts world-wide now concentrate on more integrated approaches towards managing the marine environment to stem a tide of degradation that could spell ecological disaster for the planet.
To this end, marine protected areas (MPAs) have emerged as an important tool in ocean conservation, and the management of tourism and recreation activities within MPAs has become an important issue for the protection of marine and coastal resources. The reasons for this are two-fold: tourism has great potential as an activity that can have a minimal impact on the marine environment while generating income for the communities at its borders; and, as greater numbers of tourists seek more educational experiences in natural environments, MPAs provide invaluable settings for the dissemination of marine ecological information, creating corps of aware and concerned citizens to support ocean and coastal conservation.
As increasing human demands are placed upon ocean resources by tourism, in addition to other marine sectors, ensuring the compatibility of tourist activities with the protection of an MPA’s resources and environmental quality is critical. Poor planning and management in the past, coupled with tremendous growth in the industry world-wide, has compromised the health of marine environments everywhere. Furthermore, emerging evidence of negative impacts associated with tourism development, often labelled nature-tourism or eco-tourism, has called into question their status as relatively ‘benign’.
In keeping with growing efforts to establish MPAs around the world, Canada has recently embarked on a national initiative to establish MPAs in the in- and off-shore environments along its extensive coastlines. To test strategies that deal with a variety of management issues for the establishment of MPAs, several pilot projects are underway. It is hoped that these pilot MPAs will ultimately receive formal designation under the Oceans Act, setting the example for successive efforts. One such project is the Race Rocks Marine Protected Area located just outside Victoria, British Columbia. Announced in September of 1998, the Race Rocks pilot site provides a venue for the consideration of a number of management issues particularly with respect to tourism and recreation. Of significant cultural, historical and ecological value to the local tourism industry, the site has experienced considerable growth in visitation over the past decade, raising concerns regarding the impacts of this activity on its distinctive marine ecosystem.
The management plan for the Race Rocks Marine Protected Area Pilot Project is in its iterative stages of development and public consultation by relevant government agencies. This research project is intended to provide an overview of the main issues involved with respect to the tourism and recreation portion of this plan, and to highlight some further areas for research. It also brings together some of the tourism management literature as it pertains to MPAs, and offers some recommendations for consideration at Race Rocks. It is hoped that the research project may serve as a starting point for more detailed analysis and further discussion.
2.1 Coastal and Marine Tourism
Tourism is one of the largest economic sectors world-wide with marine and coastal tourism comprising a major component of the industry (Anonymous 1995). World Tourism Organization statistics for 1997 record 612 million international tourist arrivals, with expenditures of US $443 billion, and the industry continues to grow (World Tourism Organisation 1998). Coastal and marine tourism includes “any activities, attractions or facilities/services which take place on the ocean or along the coastline or which involve a marine-based theme . . . such as sailing, sea kayaking and whale watching, coastal sightseeing and touring and attractions, parks accommodations, festivals and special events with a marine theme or location” (EPGC 1997, p. i). The popularity of coastal tourism stems from its ability “to provide both terrestrial and aquatic recreational opportunities to tourists during a single trip” (Bailey 1998, p. 31).
Coastal areas are often an important factor in the selection of a tourist destination as evidenced by the mass tourism market that has evolved around the “sun, sea and sand” destinations of coastal tropical nations. However, the popularity of the sea-side vacation is not limited to the tropics: a 1997 study on marine tourism in Nova Scotia found that 88% of tourists surveyed indicated that the seacoast was either critical or important to the selection of Nova Scotia as their holiday destination (EPGC 1997). Unfortunately, intensive visitation to coastal environments has resulted in a host of negative impacts to the environment. Habitat such as mangroves and grasslands has been lost as areas are cleared for development. The construction of resorts and hotels coupled with beach
management efforts has lead to coastal erosion. Inadequate or non-existent sewage treatment facilities in many areas means that human wastes are often discharged directly into the sea both from land and from ships, while anchors from small recreational craft and giant cruise liners damage coral reefs and other benthic organisms. Finally, fishery and invertebrate resources are harvested to depletion to supply the tourist trade in both restaurants and souvenir shops.
2.2 Tourism and Marine Protected Areas
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature provides a widely accepted definition of MPAs as follows: “any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna, and historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by legislation to manage and protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (Kelleher & Kenchington 1992). In addition to the protection of marine biodiversity, often from the very threat of damage due to visitation, providing tourism and recreational opportunities has been a major impetus for the of MPAs around the world. Overall objectives for marine parks include the provision of “protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment” (GBRMPA 1999a) of ecosystems “for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations” (Parks Canada and MEF 1995, p. 5). Implicit in these statements is the fact that people will, and indeed should, visit these areas in such a way that the ecosystem remains intact and unharmed for future appreciation. In order to achieve this end, “[a]ctive environmental planning and resource protection programs are essential for effective management to balance park uses with the capabilities of the resource to sustain such use indefinitely” (Marion and Rogers 1994, p. 154).
The values that MPAs are established to protect are coincident with those sought after by tourists. For example, in the case of scuba dive tourism, “[t]he special features and values of [MPAs] – the reasons they were declared in the first place – are also the reasons that such areas attract divers” (Davis and Tisdell 1996, p. 230). For most marine tourism and recreation activities, such values are associated with those aesthetic and amenity qualities which rely on healthy marine ecosystems. These include flora and fauna that are unique, diverse or abundant, good water quality and visibility, unspoiled or pristine landscapes and the absence of over-crowding (Davis and Tisdell 1995).
2.3 Economics, Conservation and Education
Tourism is emerging as a major economic sector of marine industries against a backdrop of dwindling fishery resources in our seas. Its potential to provide a means of supplemental, if not alternative, livelihood for coastal communities is being tapped around the world. Bailey (1998) writes that “communities that rely on tourism as their economic base are in many ways quite similar to communities that are dependent upon logging, fishing, agriculture or any other natural resources system” (p. 31). MPAs, like their terrestrial counterparts, have become venues for various forms of tourism which utilise natural environments and provide economic development opportunities for local communities. Davis and Tisdell (1996) write that “[t]he granting of protected area status may also make these areas better known and easier to promote, again leading to heavier recreational use by groups” (p. 230). In addition to economic benefits to local communities, revenue generated from protected areas can be channelled into maintenance costs and funding for research.
Controlled marine tourism has been characterised as non-extractive and non-degrading and has therefore not been associated with the negative impacts of such extractive industries as commercial fishing or minerals exploitation (Agardy 1993). However, heavy or poorly managed visitation to protected areas, no matter how well-intentioned, can result in loving an area ‘to death’. As Post (1994) writes, “economic benefits have little significance in the context of the aim of national parks and protected areas (the preservation of ecosystems) if these benefits are generated in a way which destroys the ecosystem” (p. 336). Furthermore, “[p]ermitting unlimited and unregulated tourism development and use of protected environments will ultimately erode the very values which contributed to their designation as parks and reserves (Marion and Rogers 1994, p. 154). Therefore, tourism activities in protected areas, and indeed all natural environments, must be conducted in such a way as to uphold conservation principles.
Public education and awareness-building effected through interpretation programs in protected areas are one of the most important aspects of protected area management whenever visitation is permitted. The benefits of education, such as generating support for biodiversity protection and conservation, are accrued not only to the visitor population, but to local communities, tour and associated industry operators, and all other relevant stakeholders.
Since the tourism and recreational activities permitted within MPAs utilise the natural resources protected therein, these activities are generally considered to fall under the category of eco-tourism. Recent eco-tourism literature defines the term largely in keeping with the definition provided by the Ecotourism Society which states that eco-tourism is “responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of local people” (1997). The eco-tourism debate rages in the literature with respect to proper definitions and the types of activities which fall into this category, and it is not the intention of this author to enter in to such a debate. However, it must be acknowledged that the eco-tourism label has become subject to over-use in the tourism industry and today connotes almost any activity that involves the natural environment. Taking responsibility for conservation and regard for local communities are central to eco-tourism in addition to active education programs which increase awareness.
Modern tourists have greater experience in international travel than the tourists of the past and are “more likely to seek educational components in their tourism experiences” (Aiello 1998, p. 52). MPAs are well-suited to accommodate this demand and visitation has its benefits, as Ballantine (1995) writes:
2.4 Coastal Tourism and Marine Protected Areas in British Columbia
Tourism is a growing sector of the BC economy and the second largest export industry after forestry in the province (Tourism British Columbia). In 1998, 21.3 million tourist visits generated $8.7 billion in revenue (Ministry of Small Business Tourism and Culture 1999). The province markets itself as “Super, Natural British Columbia” and promotes tourism products and services which consist primarily of activities involving the outdoors.
In addition to its exceptional value in terms of biological productivity, fishery resources and cultural heritage, the Pacific coast contains “a vast array of recreational opportunities” (DFO and LUCO 1998, p. 9) and is popular for cruising, sailing, kayaking, wildlife viewing, scuba diving and sport fishing. Activity-specific and up-to-date information regarding marine and coastal tourism in BC is difficult to obtain. In 1989, revenues from marine-related tourism were estimated at $222 million with nearly 800 marine-based tour operators in existence (ARA Group 1991). And one recent estimate reports that “one in every three dollars spent on tourism in B.C. goes toward marine or marine-related activities” (DFO and LUCO 1998, p. 8).
Sport fishing is the most popular activity, generating the greatest amount of revenue with the largest number of operators (Price Waterhouse and ARA Consulting Group Inc. 1991). British Columbia is also well recognised internationally as an excellent dive destination offering a variety of diving on historic wrecks, artificial reefs and natural rocky reefs, all of which host diverse and colourful marine life. “In a recent divers survey, British Columbia’s coast was rated as the best overall destination in North America, even when compared to such tropical destinations as the Florida Keys, the Gulf of Mexico and southern California” (DFO and LUCO 1998, p. 9) and the industry was valued at $4 million dollars in 1993 (Eggen 1997). Clearly coastal and marine activities are a significant component of tourism in British Columbia and will be an important consideration within the context of MPAs.
There are currently 104 marine areas on BC’s coasts that have been afforded some degree of protection (DFO and LUCO 1998). These exist in the form of marine parks, ecological reserves, wildlife management areas and fisheries closures, each with specific conservation and recreation objectives, and are managed by various government agencies (DFO and LUCO 1998). The designation of MPAs in BC has occurred on a sporadic, ad hoc basis, through a variety of federal and provincial legislative instruments (DFO and LUCO 1998). However, since 1994 the provincial and federal governments have been developing a joint strategy for marine protected areas in BC resulting in the 1998 release of a discussion paper entitled Marine Protected Areas: A Strategy for Canada’s Pacific Coast (Barr et al. 1999).
The strategy identifies primary objectives for the establishment of MPAs which include the protection of biodiversity and representative ecosystems, the conservation of fishery resources and habitats, the protection of cultural heritage resources, the provision of opportunities for scientific research and the sharing of traditional knowledge, and the enhancement of education and awareness (DFO and LUCO 1998). Also included is the provision of opportunities for recreation and tourism:
(DFO and LUCO 1998, p. 13)
Providing opportunities for tourism and recreation will be an important element of the MPA strategy, in view of the province’s growing outdoor tourism industry and indeed considerable evidence of the strong links between tourism and MPAs from around the world.
As the initial phase of this program, DFO has selected five pilot MPA projects which represent a ‘learn-by-doing’ approach to MPA selection and designation (DFO and LUCO 1998). Four of the projects are located off the Pacific coast with Race Rocks and Gabriola Passage representing the nearshore environment, while two projects have been established offshore at the Bowie Sea Mount and Endeavour Hydrothermal Sea Vent. The fifth project is located at the Gully off the coast of Nova Scotia. These projects have been designed to test various aspects of MPA implementation including the determination of objectives, opportunities for stakeholder partnerships and co-management arrangements, the establishment of criteria for the evaluation of MPA proposals, and co-ordination between various levels of government and non-government agencies (DFO and LUCO 1998).
The pilot project at Race Rocks, a group of small islets located 17 km from Victoria, off
the southern tip of Vancouver Island (Figure 1), was designated in 1998. Specific elements to be tested there focus on federal-provincial partnership and complementary management plans and strategies, and the application of joint federal and provincial legislation as the area is already protected by the province (DFOa). Stakeholders in the area include DFO, BC Parks, First Nations, tourism operators, research and education interests, recreational fishers and boaters, and the Department of National Defence which owns much of the adjacent coastal land and conducts underwater explosives testing in the area.
3.1 Geography, Ecosystem and Heritage
The nine islets which comprise Race Rocks have a total area above sea-level of less than one hectare. Strong tidal currents “racing” past the rocks at up to seven knots give the site its name. The islets form the peak of a submarine mountain and the substrate is characterised as continuous rock consisting of cliffs, chasms, benches and surge channels (Figure 2) (BC Parks 1998). The area is nestled between the straits of Juan de Fuca and Georgia, in the transition zone between open ocean and coastal waters, and currents supply nutrient-rich waters from Pacific upwellings, the estuarine-fed waters of the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound.
Race Rocks is distinguished for the wide variety and number of marine mammals found there including Northern and California sea lions, harbour, northern fur and elephant seals, river otters, Dall’s and harbour porpoises, orcas and gray whales. Many sea birds also nest on the rocks including pelagic and Brandt’s cormorants, pigeon guillemots, black oystercatchers and glaucous-winged gulls (DFOa). Invertebrate species present include octopi, sea stars, a variety of sponges, corals, sea anemones, giant barnacles, sea grasses, giant kelp and other algae, and hydroids (DFOa; BC Parks 1998). Numerous examples of fish species can also be found including salmon, halibut, Ling cod and wolf eel (DFOa; BC Parks 1998).
Great Race Rock is the largest of the islands and is not included in the Ecological Reserve. It houses the second oldest lighthouse tower on Canada’a Pacific coast. The tower was built in 1860 from granite shipped from England as ballast. An important aid to navigation which warns mariners off the dangerous rocks, the station became fully automated in 1997. Two houses remain on the island which accommodate the former lightkeepers, who now act as custodians, and researchers. Since automation, the federal government has been working to restore the land around the lighthouse, previously under lease, to the province. Historically , local First Nations have harvested a number of species at the site though these uses are not well-documented at present (Fletcher 1999). Consultation with these groups with respect to the pilot MPA and the incorporation of traditional knowledge into educational programs has begun, and MPA designation will be further subject to the treaty negotiation process (DFOa; Lavoie 1998; Fletcher 1999; Matthews 1999, pers. comm.).
3.2 Race Rocks Ecological Reserve
One of the unique features of Race Rocks in terms of the pilot project is its status, since 1980, as a provincial ecological reserve (ER). ERs are established in terrestrial and marine environments throughout British Columbia for the protection of areas representative of the province’s ecology, unique habitats and rare or endangered species (BC Parks). They are further intended to provide scientific and educational opportunities and therefore tourism and recreation are not actively promoted within these sites.
The establishment of the ER at Race Rocks was initiated by a proposal put forth to the province by students and staff at the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific (Pearson College) who use the site extensively as part of their science curriculum. Chosen for “its unique richness and diversity of marine life,” (BC Parks) the boundaries of the reserve follow the 20 fathom/36.6 metre depth contour (Figure 3) and contain a total area of 220 hectares (BC Parks). Race Rocks has received considerable attention in local and regional print media with respect to the natural features of the area, its status as an ecological reserve and the automation of the light station.
3.3 Tourism and Recreation at Race Rocks
Race Rocks is a popular area for whale watching operators, scuba divers, recreational fishers, boaters and kayakers. Data indicating current levels of these uses at the site are largely unavailable. Rather, general information exists in the form of overall trends for visitation to the province and southern Vancouver Island, and certain water-based tourism activities in which visitors engage. In 1998, over 5.5 million visitors travelled to Victoria generating roughly $7.5 billion in revenue (Tourism British Columbia 1998). Of those who visited from outside the province, 16% participated in marine-based activities such as whale watching and boating (Tourism British Columbia 1998).
Tourism Victoria has recently begun breaking down its exit surveys of participant activities into segments and includes a “Water Based Recreation” Category. In its visitor reporting for 1998, 19.7% of parties visiting Victoria had at least one member who participated in either boating fishing or whale watching (Tourism Victoria 1999). Furthermore, whale watching and water-based recreation (i.e. boating, sailing, canoeing, kayaking and swimming) placed high in the top ten list of activities which respondents would like do on a return trip (Tourism Victoria 1999). Data such as this help to provide an overall indication of the popularity and potential for growth of certain activities but is insufficient for the needs of planning and management for the pilot MPA.
Data describing numbers of vessels operating in and around Race Rocks is also difficult to obtain. The municipality of Victoria grants licenses to tour companies operating vessels which use dock facilities in its harbour. However, vessels are classified as ‘sightseeing’ and consist of whale watching, dinner cruises, sailing charters and other activities such that whale watching/wildlife viewing is not specifically indicated. Furthermore, tour companies operate from a number of local harbours which lie in other municipalities, therefore this is not a reliable source of information. Private and commercial vessel registry is administered by either Transport Canada or Canada Customs, depending on the tonnage of the vessel, and no central database exists with respect to the commercial activities of these vessels.
The following sections will outline general use and industry profiles and levels and, for the reasons stated above, is not intended to serve as a comprehensive investigation.
3.3.1 Whale Watching/Wildlife Viewing
Wildlife viewing is by far the most prevalent tourism activity at Race Rocks. Trip sales in Victoria’s whale watching industry grew from 1400 in 1987 to 8000 in 1997 with the number of vessels increasing from five boats in 1993 to 40 in 1998 (Obee 1998). The 1998 Victoria Visitor Report recorded that 9% of non-resident visitors participated in whale watching during that year. Upon entering the visitor information centre in Victoria, the visitor is confronted with a large wall display of pamphlets promoting the activity in the greater Victoria area. The author collected 21 pamphlets advertising both dedicated whale watching operators and those offering a number of marine tourism activities of which whale watching was one.
While whales are indeed sited in the area, the majority of whale watching activities do not take place at Race Rocks itself and very few companies offer dedicated wildlife viewing tours of Race Rocks. Rather, the site is used frequently as a stop-over en route to or from whale sightings further west in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, or as an alternative, “Plan B”, site in the absence of whales (Figure 4) (Fletcher 1999). Bruce Obee, a popular BC travel writer, writes that while killer whales provide a primary attraction in the industry, “an evolving fraternity of marine-mammal aficionados is arriving, like birders, with lifelong species lists. They’re looking specifically for grey whales and humpbacks, Dall’s and harbour porpoises, Pacific and white-sided dolphins, harbour seals, California and Steller’s sea lions” (1998, p. 8). The majority of vessels are rigid-hull inflatables with a capacity of twelve passengers and two crew and are capable of high speeds in order to reach the whales. These are generally crewed by a captain and an on-board naturalist who provides whale and wildlife interpretation. Some companies combine these roles in one crew member.
The majority of Victoria’s whale watching operators are members of the Whale Watching Operators Association Northwest (WWOANW), an industry-generated organisation consisting of approximately 30 operators from Canada and the US. It was created in response to the growth of the industry in the Puget sound area and the need for communication and co-operation between operators, in addition to concerns over the welfare of the whales (Bennett 1999). In keeping with a growing trend among whale watching operators around the world, and the absence of formal regulation, the organisation has developed its own guidelines for the operation of vessels around marine mammals and birds. The WWOANW also contributes funds to various whale research organisations such as The Whale Museum at Friday Harbour in Washington’s San Juan Islands.
WWOANW members assist in the Museum’s Soundwatch program which seeks to foster stewardship and public awareness and to minimise the impacts of recreational and commercial vessels in the region (Kukat 1999, pers. comm.; Rhodes 1999, pers. comm.; The Whale Museum 1999). Curiously, very few of the Victoria-based operators advertise their membership with WWOANW, their adherence to the whale watching guidelines or contributions to whale research. Whatever the reason for this, heightening awareness of this type of participation would serve to better educate the consumer in the selection of subsequent operators in the future.
Data for diver usage at Race Rocks are also vague. In 1995, roughly 1300 divers were recorded in the guest book kept on the dock at Great Race Rock (Grant 1996). However, as many divers do not land on the island, this is not an accurate
measure. The site is offered as a regular weekend destination by one Victoria dive shop, the Ogden Point Dive Centre, which takes an estimated 500 divers per year (Bradley 1999, pers.comm.). Other dive operators in the Victoria and Sydney areas run dive charters to the site on demand by groups throughout the year A number of provincial dive societies also make use of the site, in addition to private users.
International collision regulations require that vessels engaged in diving fly a recognised dive flag (Figure 5) when divers are present in the water (CCGOBS 1999). Other vessels are advised to move at slow speeds and to remain “well clear” (CCGOBS 1999, p. 66) of these vessels. Furthermore, there is no national regulatory body for recreational scuba diving or the commercial operators that provide it.
Recreational diver training in Canada is relatively standardised throughout a number of private certification agencies. Divers are taught proper buoyancy skills to avoid injuring aquatic life and are generally encouraged by agencies and operators not to harass nor take organisms while underwater. The Race Rocks ER brochure makes further recommendations to divers in the reserve to minimise impacts to the environment:
Individuals diving with commercial operators are generally given briefings in which appropriate behaviour is encouraged and monitored (Bradley 1999, pers. comm.). However, for other individuals, compliance is purely voluntary.
Sport fishing is a very popular activity throughout the province with revenues estimated at over $7 billion for 1999 (Price Waterhouse and The ARA Consulting Group Inc. 1996). The Victoria Visitor Report to the British Columbia Visitor Study reports that 6% of non-resident visitors to Victoria engaged in salt water fishing (Tourism British Columbia). In a 1995 national sport fishery survey, approximately 200 000 angler days per year were recorded for the Victoria area, generating between $30 and $50 million dollars in associated expenditures (Gjernes 1999, pers. comm.).
Race Rocks has been characterised as an extremely popular fishing ground for local residents due both to its accessibility from Victoria and local marinas, and the natural features which make it conducive to catching fish (Gjernes 1999, pers. comm.; Kukat 1999, pers. comm.). Sport fishers take an active role in the conservation and allocation of resources, consulting on a regular basis with government through local branches of the province-wide Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB). While recreational fishing of salmon and halibut remains open at Race Rocks, there are concerns over the issue of accidental, or by-catch, of other species within the reserve, particularly of rockfish which are the target of federal conservation efforts in the region. Anchoring by fishing boats is also a concern (Hawkes 1994; Slater 1999, pers. comm.).
The closest marina to Race Rocks, located at Pedder Bay, rents small charter boats which are mainly used for recreational fishing, and sells sport fishing licenses on site. Renters are given charts with the Race Rocks ecological reserve clearly outlined by a bold red line and are instructed to remain out of the reserve altogether. This is in order to avoid damage to boats from tides and currents around the rocks (Dickinson 1999, pers.comm.). Nonetheless these vessels are often observed in the reserve (Slater 1999).
Sea kayaking is becoming a popular activity in British Columbia and there are several outfitters in Victoria and southern Vancouver Island. Kayakers do make use of Race Rocks though the strong currents make it a site for experienced paddlers. One local kayaking tour operator describes kayak use in the area as minimal (Party 1999). A 1996 consultant’s report on alternative uses of automated lightstations identified Race Rocks as being particularly accessible and having good potential for sea kayaking tours and suggested that the facilities had potential for use as a bed and breakfast (Cornerstone Planning Group 1996).
Determining use levels by private boaters in MPAs is a particularly difficult, as has been found in other MPAs around the world (see Valentine et al. 1997). The lightkeepers have been recording observations of boats within the reserve since 1997 (see Appendix II) and these logs may begin to provide an indication of the level of use by this group.
Research and education are a primary objective for the establishment of ERs under the Ecological Reserve Act and were a key factor in the designation of Race Rocks. With its high concentration and diversity of wildlife and easy access, Race Rocks has been the subject of extensive research on hydroids, transient whales, abalone and nesting sea birds, in addition to a host of projects by students at Pearson College including tidepool monitoring and the installation of permanent transect pegs (Fletcher 1999). Much of this information is presented and updated on the Race Rocks website which is maintained by Pearson College.
As already mentioned, Pearson College students make use of the site extensively for field research in the Biology and Environmental Systems courses offered at the college. However, Pearson also runs a public outreach program aimed at local schoolchildren who are given a tour of the facilities at the site and an introduction to its intertidal and subtidal marine life (Fletcher 1999). Two salt water tanks are maintained on Great Race Rock containing a sampling of underwater life to be found in the reserve.
In 1992, a series of interactive educational television programs called the “Canadian Underwater Safari” was broadcast live via satellite from Race Rocks. During the programs, students from around the world were able to communicate with divers while watching live underwater video of the reserve. The College hopes to make further use of internet technology in the creation of a virtual education centre by setting up permanent cameras, both above and below water, which would offer live video feeds of Race Rocks. Partnerships are being developed with BC Tel and the BC Museum in addition to industries wishing to showcase environmentally-friendly technology such as alternative energy production by wind (Fletcher 1999, pers. comm.).
3.4 Impacts from Recreational Activities
3.4.1 Threats to Ecosystem and Wildlife
The location of Race Rocks makes it susceptible to a number of potentially harmful impacts including the danger of oil spills from high volumes of international shipping traffic in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and disturbances from explosives testing at the nearby DND facility. Visitor numbers are high for such a small area and with the wide range and increase in activity of tourism and recreational activities concerns are mounting over the impact of these activities on the wildlife. With respect to whale watching, there is a considerable body of literature on the impact of this activity on whales and research in the Pacific and elsewhere is on-going. In a study presented to the whale watching workshop at the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park (SSLMP) in May of 1998, it was shown that
However, while whales are indeed sited at Race Rocks, the primary activity of commercial whale-watching vessels in the ecological reserve is the viewing of wildlife and it is the impact of this activity that will be examined here.
Discussions with the former lighthouse keepers Mike and Carol Slater indicate that a decrease in whale sightings and changes in the behaviour of other marine mammals within the reserve has occurred in the area over the past ten years. While, the couple attribute these changes largely to the increased presence of commercial vessels in the reserve, this is an area of some debate among other users. The couple have observed numerous occasions where both commercial and recreational boaters have accidentally and intentionally harassed wildlife having, upon occasion, forced seals and sea lions to “stampede” from the rocks (Slater 1999, pers. comm.).
Managing the behaviour of recreational boaters is also an issue as highlighted by a recent article describing a whale watching encounter aboard a commercial vessel. The whale watching operators present were
(Obee 1998, p. 8)
The education of recreational boaters presents a particular challenge in the management of the reserve as there is no centralised means of providing appropriate information to these users. The presence and activities of the lightkeepers, who disseminate ER brochures and provide information to these boaters remains the most effective means of informing this group.
Sea kayaks, while generally considered to be benign due to the absence of loud engines, may also disturb wildlife. Kayakers may approach wildlife more closely than motorised vessels and their movements may be mistaken for those of predators (Obee 1998). At certain times of the year the rocks provide important breeding and nesting sites which adds a seasonal element to the susceptibility of wildlife to human activities. For instance, young seal pups are not accustomed to the presence of boats which can result in injury. Vessels have been observed to pass through the ER at high speeds and Pearson college reported the deaths of three baby seals during the summer of 1998 which were attributed to collisions with vessel propellers (Pearson College 1999).
The destruction of coral reefs from tourism and other activities has received considerable attention around the world. For instance, anchor use by dive boats provides the greatest source of damage to coral reefs associated with scuba diving (Harriott et al. 1997; and see van Breda and Gjerde 1992). Damage is caused by dragging anchors and the scraping of heavy anchor chains along the bottom as boats swing back and forth. In temperate waters however, awareness of the marine life that may be compromised is not as prevalent. At Race Rocks, anchor use also poses a threat to the “lush variety of invertebrate life including plumose anemones, starfish, nudibranchs, bryozoans, and sponges, for which the waters of British Columbia are known” and thus anchoring is prohibited in the reserve (Battley 1998).
With increasing levels of visitation to Race Rocks there exists greater potential for conflict between users of the site. In the past two years, two incidents have occurred involving scuba divers and whale watching operators. In each case, scuba divers were unable to surface due to the presence of whale watching vessels. The most recent incident sparked a legal case which is presently before the provincial courts (Bradley 1999, pers. comm.). If divers are prevented from surfacing, serious injury may result from running out of air or being run over by a boat’s propeller. And while dive vessels are required to fly a special dive flag the adequacy of the size of such flags to warn off approaching boats from a sufficient distance may also be an issue.
In the absence of a national body to regulate either of these industries, both rely heavily on the safe practice and awareness of operators, and on good communication. This is an area requiring significant attention as the safety of individuals visiting a federally protected area must be of paramount importance. Furthermore, while operators of vessels in these industries are generally prepared for the presence of each other, the question remains as to the level of awareness of the private boater or renter who may not be familiar with other users of the area.
At present, recreational boaters are not required to meet competency standards for the operation of their vessels. New standards are currently being implemented by the Canadian Coast Guard which require mandatory certification of private vessel operators through an accredited boating safety course, and that proof of such competency be carried on board. However, the completion of all phases of implementation will not occur until 2009 (CCCOBS 1999).
3.5.1 BC Parks and Pearson College
As an ER, the management responsibility for Race Rocks lies with the province and is administered through a program of voluntary wardens. Since the establishment of Race Rocks, this role has been performed by the staff and students of Pearson College. Commercial activities are subject to permits administered by Pearson College on behalf of BC Parks. Permit applications are available on the Pearson College website and are issued for research and filming activities (Pearson 1999b). Commercial tourism activities have thus far not been subject to the permitting process. Therefore these activities are almost purely self-regulated within the reserve.
Despite its designation in 1980, the management plan for the reserve has not been forthcoming. In 1998, a draft management plan was produced by Pearson College and BC Parks, and forms the basis for the management plan for the pilot MPA project currently under review. While tourism and recreation are not actively promoted in ERs, it is obvious that changing use patterns since the designation of the ER must be reflected in the management of the pilot MPA, such that protective measures are aimed against the impacts of such uses (Willison 1999, pers. comm.).
Robert Louis Stevenson, from The Light-Keeper
Since the automation of the Race Rocks light station in 1997, the lighthouse keepers Mike and Carol Slater, have been employed as custodians of Race Rocks by Pearson College. The couple serves an important role both in terms of observing and documenting reserve use, reporting infractions of reserve regulations, guarding against poachers of abalone and other benthic species, and educating visitors (Slater 1999, pers. comm.; Hewett 1996). In addition, the keepers provide weather reports to local marinas, take daily temperature and salinity measurements which have been collected since the early half of the century, and assist in local rescue operations (Hewett 1996; Slater 1999, pers. comm.). Whenever possible, the couple greets boaters who violate reserve regulations with the Race Rocks brochure and provide information about the reserve. Whether the Slaters will continue to serve this important function at Race Rocks remains uncertain as Pearson College relies on private fund-raising for their salaries.
3.6 Management Issues for Tourism and Recreation at Race Rocks
The primary issue for the management of tourism and recreation at Race Rocks is the lack of data on visitor use and its impacts on the ecosystem. With respect to use, information is unspecific and scattered throughout a variety of sources, consisting largely in the form of general trends for the larger Victoria area. The importance of such research needs has been well recognised in MPAs around the world for which such data is also lacking and is a growing area of research (see Valentine et al. 1997 and Crossland and Alock 1999). For Race Rocks, the situation presents a major research need for the future of the MPA to ensure informed decision-making with respect to management and planning and this has been recognised in the draft management plan. Furthermore, consideration will need to be given to determining possible use thresholds or carrying capacity (see Dixon et al 1993).
While the gaps in research are substantial, the precautionary principle currently being applied to much of ocean resource management dictates that decisions must be made based on the best available data. Its absence should not be used as rationale to delay decision-making or the implementation of precautionary measures. This principle further places the onus on the resource user to provide sufficient proof that a particular activity will have a minimal impact on the environment.
A second crucial issue for consideration at Race Rocks is that of partnerships and stakeholder participation. Federal and provincial co-operation are a significant element of the pilot project and as tourism and recreation interests play such a major role in the use of the reserve, the participation and support of these groups will be essential to controlling activities and minimising impacts, in addition to ensuring that other objectives for the site, i.e. conservation and education, are upheld. While it is unrealistic to think that all stakeholders will be completely satisfied if an MPA and its associated regulations are implemented at Race Rocks, their meaningful input into the management and planning stages will be important in securing a viable management regime for Race Rocks. Furthermore, as a pilot project, the success of partnerships displayed here will provide valuable lessons for future MPA establishment.
A third important issue for tourism at Race Rocks is ensuring that education and interpretation programs are effective and are reaching their intended audience. As stated earlier, private recreational boaters are the most challenging targets and those most in need of information. Commercial activities at Race must continue to promote environmental education first and foremost as part of the services they provide and should include information specific to the Race Rocks ecosystem and its status as an Ecological Reserve and potential MPA. Additional issues for consideration are contained in the draft management plan, stating the overarching objective with respect to visitor use and potential actions to be taken to achieve it. These are presented in Figure 4.
Ecological reserves are established to support research and educational activities. Visitation to the waters surrounding Race Rocks Ecological Reserve has been increasing, particularly those engaged in wild life viewing and diving. Uncontrolled, uninformed and excessive use could result in: behavioral changes or injury to marine mammals and seabirds; poaching of sealife; or physical injury or mortality from handling or improper dive techniques. Given the proximity of the ecological reserve to Victoria and the interest in these types of activities, commercial and recreation use will continue to grow.
Given the role of ecological reserves, uses that occur at Race Rocks should contribute to education or research objectives without negatively impacting the natural values. This may include commercial tours.
Objective:
To permit educational opportunities that have minimal impact to the ecological reserve and increase public awareness, understanding and appreciation for Race Rocks Ecological Reserve and its values.
Actions:
- Subject to an impact assessment, only issue permits for commercial activities that are educational or research oriented
- Work with the volunteer warden, Lester B. Pearson College, to provide annual orientation session for commercial operators and tour guides.
- Continue to provide public information to increase awareness of the ecological reserve, the potential of ecological impact of various activities, and the need for caution in the ecological reserve. This would include: brochure; accurate information in BC Sports Fishing Regulations; information at points of entry; mapping on marine charts and navigational guides; internet/web site.
- Work with commercial operators and researchers to develop a code of conduct within the ecological reserve to ensure protection of the natural values and to maintain a high quality educational experience. Develop a monitoring system with Lester B. Pearson College, site guardian, researchers and commercial tour operators to ensure appropriate behavior of diving and wild life viewing companies and other visitors.
- Develop an outreach program and stewards program to assist with the management, and to develop respect for the ecological reserve and its values.
- Discourage anchoring in the ecological reserve.
- As per the Ecological Reserve Regulations ensure that commercial operators in the ecological reserve have permits for their activities.
Figure 4: Management objectives and actions with respect to visitor use in the current draft management plan for the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve.
The following section provides a brief description of various MPA management plans and regimes which may offer some guidance for the pilot MPA at Race Rocks.
4.1 The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
As one of the earliest, and indeed the largest MPAs in the world, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) provides useful insight all aspects of MPA management, particularly with respect to multiple use, and is frequently described in MPA literature. The growth of tourism provided much of the impetus for the creation of the MPA and tourism remains the main commercial use of the park (Kenchington 1991; Alcock and Crossland 1999; GBRMPA). The GBRMP is managed by a distinct legal entity, the GBRMP Authority (GBRMPA), in addition to the Queensland Department of Environment. The primary objective of the GBRMPA is “to provide for the protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment of the Great Barrier Reef in perpetuity through the care and development of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park” (GBRMPA 1999a). Zoning in the park affords various levels of protection from ‘general use’, in which all reasonable activities consistent with conservation are permitted, to ‘strict preservation’ in which areas are left in their natural state and free from human activity (Kenchington 1991).
Environmental issues are the key consideration for tourism development and a permit system allows new proposals to be reviewed on an individual basis, the imposition of
conditions of practice and environmental monitoring, and the collection of data on commercial tourism use (Kenchington 1991; Craik 1994; Valentine et al. 1997).
This information is compiled into a central database which includes the following fields: company name, location of activity, nature and frequency of activity, maximum number of people, permit type, type of transport, vessel name, passenger capacity, size and registration (Valentine et al. 1997).
In 1993, the GBRMPA implemented an environmental management charge (EMC) to offset rising costs of park management and reef research. Originallly set at $1 per person participating in tourism activities in the park, the EMC has been raised to $4 and is applied to commercial operators only. 25% of the revenue contributes to management activities and the remaining 75% funds research through the CRC Reef Research Centre (Alcock and Crossland 1999). The centre is a joint venture between the tourism industry and the relevant management and research agencies and conducts research on all aspects of the Great Barrier Reef, including tourism (Alcock and Crossland 1999).
Management approaches to tourism include strategic policy and planning, direct management, industry self-regulation, active partnerships and adaptive management (GBRMPA; Alcock and Crossland 1999). As Alcock and Crossland (1999) write,
Formal consultation with the industry is effected through the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators. The GBRMPA and the marine tourism industry have developed the Great Barrier Reef Staff Certificate course to train industry staff members in reef interpretation, in addition to an “Eye on the Reef” program in which tour operators assist in ecological monitoring by recording marine life observations at the sites they frequent (Aiello 1998; GBRMPA 1999b).
4.2 The Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park
Established in 1997, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park (SSLMP) encompasses estuarine ecosystems of the Saguenay and St. Lawrence Rivers and is the result of a joint federal-provincial partnership in the establishment of an MPA. The park experiences a variety of extractive and non-extractive uses and receives large numbers of visitors. Second only to conservation, the main objective of the park is, “[i]n co-operation with community partners, [to] teach visitors to recognize, understand and appreciate the many aspects of the Marine Park, so that they can comprehend the reason for the park, the intrinsic value of its components and the need for conserving them” (Parks Canada and MEF 1995, p. 28).
The management plan for the park identifies activities that it does not consider to involve resource harvesting including boat excursions to observe marine mammals, pleasure boating and scuba diving. The plan recognises that
(Parks Canada and MEF 1995, p. 35)
Priority actions for the park include developing appropriate management procedures and a regulatory framework for these activities, particularly for boat tours and scuba diving, in addition to further study of the impacts of recreational activities on the marine environment (Parks Canada and MEF 1995).
As at Race Rocks, whale watching and wildlife viewing are significant activities within the park. At a regional workshop on whale watching held in 1998, the issue of permits for whale watching operators was examined in light of the desire from the Marine park to develop a policy of mandatory permits for commercial tours. The policy would seek to implement a moratorium on the number of authorised wildlife-viewing vessels, ensure resource protection and passenger safety, and apply violator sanctions (Gilbert and SSLMP 1998). Proposed conditions for permits include limiting the number of vessels authorised for individual companies, the requirement of additional navigation equipment to that already required by Transport Canada, and the zoning of whale watching activities (Gilbert and SSLMP 1998). Additional conditions could include the meeting of competency standards for boat captains including certifications in Transport Canada accredited navigation, marine emergencies, use of navigation equipment, first aid and training in industry codes of conduct (Gilbert and SSLMP 1998).
4.3 The Fathom Five Marine Park
While the Fathom Five National Marine Park (FFNMP) exists in the freshwater environment of Ontario’s Georgian Bay, its management plan focuses largely on the tourism and recreation activities which comprise the major use of the park. These include scuba diving, cruising, sailing, wreck touring and recreational fishing (Parks Canada 1998). Parks Canada is the government agency charged with the management of Fathom Five. With extensive experience in the protection and conservation of biodiversity and the management of visitors in terrestrial areas, the agency is currently embarking on the establishment a system of National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCAs). This system would complement the national MPA strategy and associated legislation currently awaits parliamentary approval.
At FFNMP,
(Parks Canada 1998, p. 29)
Interpretation and education are central to public appreciation at the park and information is presented in the format of relevant themes which encompass the ecosystem, history and culture, environmental awareness and departmental messages (Parks Canada 1998). Appropriate and inappropriate activities for the park have been identified with the latter being prohibited within its boundaries.
To take the example of management strategies for one activity, scuba diving, a mandatory diver registration program has been established with the assistance of the Ontario Underwater Council (OUC) and is carried out by OUC volunteers. The program, geared towards ensuring the safety of divers at Fathom Five, highlights the importance of co-operation and participation from stakeholder groups. Furthermore, policies have been implemented to address conflicts between divers and other user groups (Parks Canada 1998). The 1998 management plan provides guidelines for the implementation of user fees to be collected in exchange for certain Park services that are in the private rather than the public interest, for example the use of campsites versus resource protection; the consideration of capacity for key visitor sites; and the use of business licenses to manage commercial operations (Parks Canada 1998).
The island of Bonaire forms part of the Dutch Caribbean in the lesser Antilles. The island’s waters, extending to the 60 metre depth contour, have been legally protected as a Marine Park since 1979. Divers provide the majority of visitation to the island (Dixon et al. 1993; De Meyer 1997). The management of the MPA clearly demonstrates the potential for the successful employment of a number of management tools and it is one of the first MPAs in the world to become entirely self-financing (De Meyer 1997). Procedures are relatively simple, but effective:
The user fees contribute further to the maintenance of the park’s mooring system, the provision of shore markers, and the maintenance of park facilities and equipment, in addition to funding a children’s outreach program, law enforcement activities and several research and monitoring projects (De Meyer 1997). While scuba diving is the main form of tourism, the strategies used to manage it should be considered for other marine activities.
Zoning is a popular tool in protected area management and is particularly effective in large areas such as the GBRMP in which multiple-uses are. In view of the small size of the area proposed for MPA designation at Race Rocks, and the similarity between the nature of activities engaged in by its users, zoning to separate activities for the area may not be practical or necessary. While some potential for conflict between tour operators has been demonstrated, the activities at Race Rocks generally require similar management approaches which would be more easily administered within a single zone.
The potential for conflict does exist between tourism and recreation and the research and educational uses of the site. Furthermore, there is considerable support for the establishment of ‘no-take’ zone in which all harvesting would be prohibited. This would be particularly appropriate in light of suggestions to expand the current boundary of the reserve to form the MPA. In this way, an outer or buffer zone could be created in which multiple-uses could take place, including current sport fishing activities (Kukat 1999, pers.comm; Fletcher 1999). Furthermore, Great Race Rock could be zoned to permit landing only at certain times of the year, to ensure maximum protection during critical seabird nesting times.
Currently, a feasibility study is underway by Parks Canada for the establishment of a much larger NMCA in the Georgia Basin region. An MPA of such size would be more on a par with the GBRMP in which zoning would be necessary for various uses, and it is thus conceivable that Race Rocks might then become a zone of higher protection within this larger area.
The installation of mooring buoys has had considerable success in tropical reef environments where damage from anchoring is widespread. In British Columbia’s coastal waters, the Underwater Council of British Columbia has established a program of mooring ball installation to mitigate similar impacts (Battley 1998). The majority of diving at Race Rocks however is drift diving which, as mentioned previously, requires mobile surface support from vessels. Furthermore, the dock at Great Race offers limited moorage. Boats anchoring in the reserve appear to be private recreational vessels whose operators are either unaware of, or deliberately contravene, no-anchoring regulations. This group should be targeted for further efforts at education and awareness-raising.
Craik (1994) writes that user pays policies are “based on the philosophy that people who benefit from the use of a public good or property, especially for commercial purposes, should contribute to the cost of managing or protecting that property” (p. 344). The implementation of a user fee at Race Rocks has been suggested for commercial operations at Race Rocks:
(Fletcher 1999)
The EMC discussed in the section on Australia’s GBRMP is indicative of how this fee can be utilised further to assist in the collection of important data on visitor use and commercial activities. As in the Australian example, the problem remains as to how to implement such a fee for private recreational users. While interviews with tour operators indicated support for nominal fees, concerns were raised regarding the dedication of funds for use at Race Rocks and not ‘general revenue.’ Guarantees would have to be put in place and the use of a non-government entity such as Pearson College, to administer the funds, should be considered.
5.4 Codes of Conduct/Wildlife Viewing Guidelines
General guidelines for the conduct of all commercial tourism activities will need to be incorporated into the management of the pilot MPA. This should include wildlife interaction protocols, in addition to interactions between operators from different sectors, e.g. whale watchers and divers, in order to avoid potential conflict. As previously indicated, the WWOANW has developed a comprehensive set of guidelines for its members. The guidelines cover behaviour around whales, pinnipeds, birds, porpoises and other whale watching vessels. Of further significance is the final section of the guidelines which deals with research and education. Members are advised to “support local whale research by providing written records of sighting information to bona fide research groups and through association approved financial support of selected research activity” (WWOANW 1999).
These guidelines have not been widely available until recently and are now available on the internet. Industry adherence to the guidelines should be better promoted by individual operators and a modified version created for distribution to clientele considered. Furthermore, companies should promote their participation in local research and conservation efforts. Increasing awareness of these activities will promote further support for research and conservation and will allow for more informed decision-making on the part of the public in the selection of responsible tour operators.
Concomitant with industry guidelines should be the development of government guidelines, particularly for dissemination to the recreational boating public. In its Laurentian region, the DFO has already published such information in its leaflet, There are limits TO OBSERVE! The leaflet contains information on federal marine mammal regulations, a code of ethics, rules of conduct, information on how to approach whales and how to report disturbance incidents in the region (DFOb). This type of information would be highly appropriate and useful for recreational boaters in the Pacific region.
While individual dive and kayak operators generally brief clients on ecological considerations in their respective activities, codes of conduct could also be developed for these users to ensure proper standards for behaviour. For instance, Victoria kayak operator Ocean River Sports provides training in conservation ethics for its staff and promotes environmentally-friendly practices among its clientele (Party 1999, pers. comm.). Dive operators provide briefings on appropriate behaviour but again this could be standardised for the industry through more formal codes of conduct for behaviour within an MPA.
5.5 Education and Interpretation
The provision of opportunities for education is a central function of MPAs and is a desirable and highly effective strategy against negative impacts from tourism. Education programs also reduce the need for, and cost of, formal means of enforcement (Causey 1995). Commercial tourism activities at Race Rocks are, on the whole, oriented at providing an educational experience and this must remain their primary objective. Tour operators must be encouraged to include information specific to the natural history of Race Rocks and its ecosystem when taking clients there (Willison 1999, pers. comm.). Furthermore, information regarding its protected status as an ecological reserve and pilot MPA should be provided to generate recognition and support for such initiatives. There is a need for consistency in this respect and it would be appropriate for industry, in partnership with other agencies such as local universities and museums, to develop a minimum standard of information to be included in interpretation, to ensure that correct and relevant information is being provided.
Education and interpretation are particularly important for private recreational users who are considerably more difficult to target. Broader efforts aimed at educating the recreational boating public on general conduct and appropriate behaviour in coastal waters, including ERs and MPAs would seem to be a realistic approach. To this end, the distribution of the booklet Protecting BC’s Aquatic Environment: A Boater’s Guide, a joint publication by DFO, Environment Canada and BC’s Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks should continue. The booklet covers a number of aspects of environmentally responsible boating, including respect for marine wildlife. The British Columbia Tidal Waters Sport Fishing Guide contains information on the location and regulations of MPAs, species conservation efforts and whale watching guidelines and is also an important contribution to awareness-raising.
Despite new Coast Guard regulations requiring private boaters to enrol in an accredited operator proficiency course, the curriculum for this course contains no elements of marine environmental education or respect for wildlife (Hadlley 1999, pers. comm.). However, individual institutions offering this course are free to provide additional material and opportunities for this could be explored for local course providers. Excluding the lightkeepers, there is little at Race Rocks to indicate its status as a protected area, other than a sign at the dock on Great Race Rock, nor the type of behaviour that should be observed while there. The posting of more signs should be considered in addition to the continued distribution of information pamphlets at nearby marinas and access points.
Considerable infrastructure for public information and outreach already exists for Race Rocks. Pearson College maintains a comprehensive website and hosts a number of local school children at Race Rocks for education programs each year. Opportunities for expanding this program should be considered to include a wider range of students and other community groups with additional support from DFO and BC Parks. As mentioned previously, Pearson College is also seeking partnerships for the creation of a virtual Race Rocks education centre using internet and satellite technologies. While this initiative has considerable educational potential, it may also serve to heighten interest for visitation to the site, thus increasing the need for the firm establishment of measures to control such visitation.
5.6 Tour Operator and Staff Training
Aiello (1998) writes that “[w]ell informed staff with good communication skills are an essential component of successful tour operations in any setting” (p. 60). Furthermore, quality interpretation provides a competitive advantage and therefore economic incentive to operators in a high volume market such as the one at Victoria (Aiello 1998). In a study of an Australian reef tour company conducted by Aiello, customer feedback with respect to staff interpretation found that clients “enjoyed being able to ask any staff member questions about the environment, not just the few designated Naturalists” and that this indicated a “high level of professionalism” (Aiello 1998, p. 58). Furthermore, the study found that the teaching of interpretation skills was equally as important as biological and ecological content (Aiello 1998). Aiello concluded that while not all tour operator staff need to be experts in marine biology, highly professional marine tourist operations are maintained through all boat staff receiving “enough biological and interpretive training to be confident in sharing a sense of wonder, beauty and knowledge of the GBR with all customers, giving them a memorable ‘take home message’ (Aiello 1998, p. 60).
The present author had occasion to provide impromptu interpretation at Race Rocks aboard a whale watching vessel on a private charter (i.e. the vessel was not actively engaged in a commercial whale watching/wildlife viewing tour at the time). I was asked to provide information about the site as the naturalist present was new and unfamiliar with the area. Unfortunately, as I have no training in natural history, I was only able to impart details concerning the protected status of the ecological reserve and the pilot project. However, it was encouraging to find that passengers were extremely curious and enthusiastic for information regarding the local wildlife, particularly when they believed there to be someone present in possession of such knowledge. The experience reinforced the demand for, and importance of, the provision of quality interpretation, in addition to the need for naturalist training in local ecology and wildlife.
Currently there is one course available to tour operation staff in the whale watching industry in Victoria. This is run by the Marine Mammal Research Group (MMRG) in Victoria and consists of an eight week basic naturalist course supplemented by a lecture series which is updated every year. The course is run each spring and the material focuses on whales but also includes local ecology and conservation of marine species, in addition to techniques for interpretation and the fostering of a stewardship ethic among public audiences (Bates 1999, pers. comm.; The Whale Museum 1999). Topics in the lecture series change each year and present up-to-date information and research on various species. These are often attended by naturalists who have already taken the basic course.
The course is virtually mandatory among whale watching staff and companies will often pay for the training for new employees. Similarly, those with the training are more likely to find employment in the industry (Bates 1999, pers. comm.). The MMRG receives some funding from the WWOANW but relies entirely on the dedication and continued interest of the MMRG’s sole co-ordinator, Ron Bates. Means should be explored to secure the future availability of the program in addition to the possibility of licensing of the course to other groups, such as the WWOANW, in partnership with government and other relevant agencies. Staff from other tourist operations could also be encouraged to take the course.
While the requirement for permits for commercial activities in ecological reserves is already legislated in the BC Parks Act, its administration is all but non-existent for the commercial tourism industry. The rigorous application of a permit system could serve a number of important functions including the control of entry into an already highly competitive tourism market, the collection of data on visitor use, the collection of a nominal fee to assist in its administration, the assurance of industry-wide acknowledgement of regulations, and the application of requirements for minimum standards of operation in terms of behaviour and educational content. Such a system could also require environmental impact assessments for new activities and allow new proposals to be considered on a case by case basis.
5.8 Partnerships for Stewardship/Stakeholder and Community Participation
Wells and White (1995) write that “[w]here people are dependent on their adjacent marine resources for their livelihoods, the establishment of an MPA is likely to have a significant impact on their lives and, inevitably, results in a reaction from the community. The challenge to managers of MPAs is to channel this response into support for the project” (p. 63). One of the most important features of the pilot MPA project at Race Rocks, and indeed of MPAs around the world, is the cultivation of partnerships and the provision of opportunities for stakeholder consultation and input, in order to achieve this support. Indeed, the success of the proposed MPA at Race Rocks will hinge upon how effectively partnerships are established and upon open channels of communication between management and stakeholders.
Partnerships and stakeholder input generate support for MPAs, opportunities for research and education and go a long way towards ensuring that mutually-agreed upon regulations will be adhered to. This reduces the need for formal enforcement which is a major issue for MPA management. Marion and Rogers (1994) write that managers
During interviews conducted by the author with members of these organisations, a degree of uncertainty and unfamiliarity with the plans for the pilot project at Race Rocks was evident. Many individuals were not supportive of further government regulation. There was a perception that such regulation employed a ‘top-down’ approach, an approach frequently associated with MPA establishment. Furthermore, scepticism was expressed with respect to the effectiveness of the consultation process. These perceptions, in addition to the general lack of response that has greeted the Pacific MPA strategy discussion document discussed earlier, indicate that it might be advisable for the relevant government agencies to re-examine their means of obtaining stakeholder input. Furthermore, as the management plan for Race Rocks is subjected to the public consultative phases scheduled for the remainder of 1999, it will be very important that all parties are absolutely clear about the proposal at Race Rocks, and how they will be able to contribute to the process in a meaningful manner. This will help to shift perceptions of MPAs away from ‘top-down’ impositions and towards participatory measures.
With little experience in the management of the activities discussed in this paper, DFO will do well to solicit the assistance of its partners, such as BC Parks and tour operators, who possess considerably more experience in visitor management.
Park rangers and wardens are desirable mechanisms for enforcement and education in any protected area however scarcity of resources is always an issue. Maintaining a permanent presence at Race Rocks has many advantages in terms of public education, ecosystem protection, especially during sensitive breeding times, and deterrence of illegal activities such as poaching. The Pacific lighthouse automation and destaffing has complicated the issue of maintaining the presence of custodians at Race Rocks. However, given that there are many unique features about the Race Rocks pilot area, including its relatively small area and high level of use, the continued employment of the lightkeepers is not only highly desirable, but may be an ecological necessity for maintaining the health of the area. Furthermore, the potential for assistance with research, particularly with respect to visitor use, provides a strong argument in support of the continued employment of the custodians.
No MPA management plan is complete without monitoring and research objectives and provisions for their execution. With extensive monitoring and research projects, past and present, already undertaken by Pearson College and the custodians, there is further potential to involve marine tourism users of Race Rocks in ecological monitoring both above the water and below. Discussions with local dive operators suggest that there exists the potential to develop a volunteer diver constituency interested in carrying out research initiatives. For example, the US-based REEF program has designed surveys for the identification and inventory or fish species which can be carried out by volunteer divers all over the world, with minimal training. REEF Projects in BC’s waters have already begun (Haggarty 1999). Furthermore, the DFO has established the “Reefkeepers” program which currently monitors artificial reef balls in Sydney. This program could be adapted to monitor the rocky reefs at Race Rocks.
Since 1997, Mike and Carol Slater have been keeping log books to record various observations including significant wildlife activity and boating activity in the reserve and its effects on wildlife. A table compiling the data collected for 1997 is presented in Appendix II and gives a clearer indication of the types of activities which occur at the reserve. Furthermore, standardising the format for recording of observations would also be useful, particularly as the Slaters are often relieved by other individuals who should also be capable of recording such information. An example of a standard form which could be used to record boating activity, for instance, may be found in Appendix III.
Pearson College has conducted extensive research and monitoring at Race Rocks for the past 20 years. Recently, an ecological overview was completed by the College which resulted in a library of print and video materials, in addition to a comprehensive data base available on CD-Rom. However, studies are needed which look specifically at impacts from tourism and begin to examine critical thresholds or carrying capacities for use. Pearson maintains and regularly updates a comprehensive Race Rocks website. The college should remain the central location for the storage of data and, if feasible, include visitor use monitoring in its activities. While the college seeks funding from private sources, additional funding options should be sought from government and relevant agencies to support on-going research efforts.
Agardy 1993, p. 221
While Agardy has published extensive academic works on marine conservation, I have used her words to introduce the conclusion of this paper because she has, like the poets included in this text, captured the multiplicity and complexity of humans’ relationship with the sea. For it is surely this which makes the management of our oceans such a daunting and multi-faceted challenge.
Determining how to control the way in which humans enjoy the marine environment is not an easy task. The are a number of compelling arguments vying to shape the behaviours by which all should abide, ranging from the preservation of species to the economics of human need. The oceans are teaching us that the way we use their resources must be viewed and controlled in a holistic, ecosystemic and integrated fashion, a lesson that has been slow in coming. Examples of these approaches from around the world show us that there is less to distinguish us from the natural environment than we, as a species, have come to believe. And despite the destructive
practices of our past and present, we are making progress.
Economics and development, so important to our self-determinism, need not exist at odds with the natural environment. The setting aside of ‘plots’ of marine environment for protection and the control of the human industry allowed therein are moving us in the direction of mutually beneficial arrangements. It must be recognised that ecosystems have intrinsic value by sole virtue of their existence, far above and beyond the economic value of exploitation for commercial gain, and must be preserved accordingly. Following this line of thinking, it stands to reason that natural areas should be put aside in which no humans are permitted; that parcels of land and sea must be set aside as safeguards for the future. Conversely, there is the economic reality that people need to make a living. Thus a balance must be achieved.
The relationship between tourism and MPAs may provide such a balance. Marine tourism has become a significant use of ocean and coastal space and resources and protected areas in these environments provide a strong attraction for visitors. Education must remain a central function of visitation and all interests relevant to the establishment and use of MPAs must be actively engaged in their management and operations. The advantages of these are many and include increased public awareness, greater opportunities for research, less need for enforcement and the establishment of open channels of communication so that individuals and groups do not become disenfranchised from the areas that are of importance to them. The author has attempted to provide details of the various issues of concern with respect to tourism and management at Race Rocks. With its high level of visitation and its pending status as part of the first wave of a uniquely Canadian system of MPAs, this pilot project has the potential to showcase the compatibility of tourism and recreation in sensitive marine environments.
To deprive people entirely of direct experiences with wildlife and the natural environment would be a tragic and extreme measure. Such experiences have the potential to educate the already global citizen in becoming the global environmental citizen. And while internet technologies bring a host of experiences from around the world onto the screens of household and classroom computers everywhere, they are simply no substitute for the real thing. After conducting internet research on Race Rocks from thousands of miles away on Canada’s east coast, the author, an avid scuba diver, was totally unprepared for the sense of awe and wonder experienced upon donning scuba gear and plunging into cold Pacific waters to drift along racing currents; upon being suddenly confronted by endless bursts of unanticipated colour and form, previously considered to reside exclusively in the domain of tropical reefs; at being approached underwater by a black, menacing shadow only to discover the curiosity of a sea lion who, unimpressed by what it saw, darted off just as quickly as it came; at seeing, hearing (and smelling!) such a creature and its comrades, sunning themselves noisily on the jagged surface of the rocks; and upon witnessing the sleek black dorsal fin of a transient orca piercing the ocean’s surface, just off the shore. Such experiences must be preserved, along with all this implies for conservation, education and management, for the future welfare of our seas, and of our selves.
Natural features of the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve as described in the Background Document, Appendix 1 to the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve Draft Management Plan, 1998.
The ecological reserve is almost entirely subtidal, but includes nine islets, comprising less than 1 ha in total. Intertidal and subtidal zones have substrates primarily of continuous rock and a rugged topography which includes cliffs, chasms, benches and surge channels. The location at the southern tip of Vancouver Island, plus the rugged shallow sea bottom, result in strong currents, eddies and turbulence.
The geology of Race Rocks is volcanic in origin, with the islets being offshore basalts. Granite and quartz intrusive, probably of the undeformed kind, are evident. Sediment basins can be found in subtidal areas.
The important oceanographic features which have a bearing on biodiversity are tides, currents, wave action, water temperature and turbidity.
Tidal currents are a major oceanographic feature of Juan de Fuca Strait. The ebb and flood tides and residual current have a major influence on the water structure. In addition, Race Rocks is a transition zone between the inner waters and the open ocean. For ebb tide that funnels water from the low-salinity, nutrient-rich waters of coastal rivers such as the Fraser and countless tidal marshes along the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound through the narrow part of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The flood tides, that bring in water from the nutrient-rich upwellings of the open Pacific Ocean. As tidal flow surges past the rugged topography of Race Rocks results in ‘racing’ current, eddies and turbulence. Currents flow with velocities of two to seven knots and change direction according to tide, wave and wind direction. The wave action is more pronounced at Race Rocks due to the exposure to the outer portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The variability in undersea topography results in waves being reflected, diffracted and refracted in irregular patterns, resulting eddies and complex tides.
The water temperature is generally greater than 7C with no distinct thermocline occurring. Mean surface temperatures are 7C to 8C in January, rising to 10C to 11C in August and September. In summer, the water is slightly cooler during flood than during
the ebb tidal phase. Tidal flushing and turbulent currents reduce vertical layering of water masses. Surface salinity values average 31/00 through the years and are characteristic of the waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Water clarity is seasonally dependent, being largely determined by the phytoplankton content of the water. In the winter, low phytoplankton populations result in good underwater visibility (sometimes greater than 15 metres) except after storms. In the summer , underwater visibility lowers with increasing phytoplankton. There is no significant turbidity due to freshwater run off.
Race Rocks is subjected to strong wave action during southeasterly and southwesterly gales which are characteristic of fall and winter. A prolonged westerly storm may produce swells 3 to 4.6 m high with 1 to 3.24 m high wind waves superimposed. Southwesterly gales produce smaller swells (2.5 to 3.7 m high) because of the limited fetch available across the Strait of Juan de Fuca. During calm periods between gales and the summer, a surge is produced by the low westerly swells (1 – 1.2 m) that are present through most of the year.
Race Rocks is in the rainshadow of the Olympic Mountains and the end of the wind funnel of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Often, the ecological reserve experiences weather patterns quite different than southern Vancouver Island. It has an unusually high amount of sunshine the winter months, very seldom recording freezing temperatures. In summer, there is the occasional blanketing of fog.
The winds in Juan de Fuca Strait blow principally from the southeast and northwest. Outward blowing winds occur 50% of the time during the winter (October through March) while the inward blowing winds predominate during the summer (April through September).
The rich variety and abundance of seashore life of the Pacific coast is due to the nutrient-rich waters, relatively uniform seasonal range of temperature and freedom from winter icing. Excellent light penetration results in the shallow clear waters teeming with plankton. Combined with the varied topography, the ecological reserve has exceptional variety and productivity of marine life and tremendous ecological diversity. Intertidal, shallow water, deep water and rocky substrate ecosystems support encrusting animals and plants capable of withstanding high velocity currents. In the lee of the island, quiet water flora and fauna are extremely abundant.
The marine communities here are unusually luxuriant and rich. The “coelenterate” fauna is perhaps the richest in the world and benthic fauna is abundant and diverse. Species such as Pink Coral, Gersemia rubiformis, and Basket Seastar, Gorgonocephalus eucnemis, that are usually found at much greater depths are found here at several metres. In addition, there is an unusual abundance of ubiquitous species such as Coralline Algae, Corallina sp., and Brooding Anemone, Epiactis prolifera.
Given the nutrients, some organisms grow to a large size. For example, Giant Barnacle, Balanus nubilus, reaches sizes in excess of four inches and the Thatched Barnacle, Semibalanus cariosus, achieves a prickly texture. The occurrence of disjunct echinoderm species such as the seastar Ceramaster articus, numerous specimens of the Cup Coral, Balanophyllia elegans, the Northern Abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana, and the Butterfly or Umbrella Crab, Cryptolithoides sp., contribute to the unusual character of the subtidal communities.
The ecological reserve contains an abundance of plumose and brooding anemones, Epiactis prolifera, and large numbers of sponges and ascidians. At least 65 species of hydroids, giant barnacles, a variety of colonial tunicates, three species of sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and basket stars adorn the underwater cliffs. Bright pink hydrocoral, soft pink coral, bryozoans and long-lived species of mussels are found here. Other molluscs
include chitons, limpets, snails, scallops, and pacific octopus. The rare spiral white snail, Opalia sp., occurs in one limited area. The ecological reserve protects thriving populations of intertidal species that have been severely impacted by sports and commercial harvesting elsewhere. These include three species of sea urchins, goose-neck barnacles and the mussel, Mytilus californianus.
Twenty-two species of algae have been recorded, including extensive stands of Bull Kelp, Nereocystis luetkeana,. In the intertidal zone, over 15 species of red, brown and green algae exhibit striking algal zonation patterns, distinctive to the Pacific coast. Several species of red algae, Halosaccion glandiforme, Endocladia muricata and Porphyra sp., occupy relatively high levels on the intertidal shoreline. Porphyra sp. are particularly abundant in the early spring at higher intertidal levels. Microscopic flagellated euglenoids, Pyramonas, live in the high rock pools, giving them a bright green color. The rock walls of tide pools and the shallow subtidal areas are encrusted with the Encrusting Pink Algae, Lithothamnion sp., and large populations of coralline algae. Dead Man’s Fingers, Codium fragile, rare to this area, is found in two small isolated areas of the intertidal zone on the main island. Over 20 species live subtidally and a dense canopy of bull kelp rings all the islands and extends underwater to 12 metres.
The Surfgrass, Phyllospadix scouleri, is abundant in a narrow band near zero tide level and in the deeper tidepools on the western side of the main island.
Marine Mammals
Over fifteen hundred California Sea Lions, Zalophus californianus, and Steller or Northern Sea Lion, Eumetopias jubatus, haul out on the islets south of Great Race Rocks between months of September and May. In the spring, they tend to move out the area and head north to breed on the Scott and Queen Charlotte Islands. In recent years, 35 to 70 Northern lions and up to 800 California sea lions have used Race Rocks as a winter haul-out.
Several hundred Harbour Seals, Phoca vitulian, inhabit Southwest and North Race Rocks year round, bearing their young in June. Six to eight Northern Elephant Seals, Mirouaga angustirostris, have started to frequent the reserve. Up to 60 transient and resident Killer Whales, Orcinus orca, frequent the waters foraging on the sea lions and seals. A family of River Otters, Lontra canadensis, has also been living in the ecological reserve. Other marine mammals that are occasionally observed in the waters of the ecological reserve are Northern Fur Seal, Callorhinus ursinus, Dall’s Porpoises, Phocoenoides dalli, Gray Whales, Eschrichtius robustus, and False Killer Whales, Pseudorca crassidens.
Race Rocks serves as a nesting colony and a migration resting area. Glaucous-winged Gulls, Larus glaucescens, and Pelagic Cormorants, Phalacrocorax pelagicus, are the most abundant nesting birds in the summer months. Approximately 235 pairs of cormorants nest on the cliffs of Great Race Rock and on the southern outer island. One hundred and eighty pairs of gulls nest in the high spray zone around the perimeter of the main
island and on the small outer islands. Eighty pairs of Pigeon Guillemots, Cepphus columba, nest in rock crevasses on the central island and up to 10 pairs of Black Oyster Catchers, Haemotopus bachmani, nest on the islands. Bald Eagles, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, frequent the area, with groups of 50 birds being sighted on the rocks in winter months. Harlequin Ducks, Histrionicus histrionicus, Surfbird, Aphriza virgata, Rock Sandpipers, Calidris ptilocnemis, and Black Turnstons, Arenaria melanocephala, can be observed occasionally, particularly in the winter. Brandt’s Cormorants, Phalacrocorax penicillatus, and Glaucous-winged Gulls, Larus glaucescens, are the most abundant birds in the fall and winter. Common Murres, Uria aalge, Tufted Puffins, Fratercula cirrhata, Rhinoceros Auklets, Cerochinca monocerata, Ancient Murrelets, Synthliboramphus antiquus, and Marbled Murrelets, Brachyramphus marmoratus,are occasional visitors. Lester B. Pearson College staff reported counting thirteen brown pelicans also on Race Rocks.
The islets of Race Rocks function as suitable alternate habitat for various sea birds that have been forced out of other areas due to environmental disturbances. For example, in the fall of 1974, unusually severe weather conditions off the Queen Charlotte Islands forced the ancient murrelet to frequent Race Rocks.
Fish
Decorated Warbonnets, Chirolophis decoratus, Red Irish Lords, Hemilepidotus, sculpin, Kelp Greenling, Hexagrammos decagrammus, Ling Cod, Ophiodon elongatus, China Rockfish, Sebastes nebulosus, Tiger or Black Banded Rockfish, Sebastes nigrocinctus, and Copper Rockfish, Sebastes caurinus, swim in ecological reserve waters. Wolf Eels, (Anarhichthyes ocellatus, also inhabit the rock cervices. Salmon species pass through the area including: Pink Salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha; Chum Salmon, O. keta; Sockeye Salmon, O. nerka; Coho Salmon, O. Kisutch; Chinook Salmon, O. tshawytscha.
7.2 Appendix II: Boat Activity at Race Rocks in 1997
7.3 Appendix III: Example of Incident Report Form
Race Rocks Ecological Reserve – Marine Protected Area: Incident Report Form
Date: ??????Time:
Wind and water conditions:
Name of vessel(s): ????Registration of Vessel(s):
Other vessels present at time of incident:
General description of incident (e.g. fishing closed species, harassment of wildlife, feeding, approach too close, etc.):
Species affected by incident:
Behaviour observed:
Duration of incident:
Action taken (boat sent out, radio contact, relevant authority contacted):
Response (of vessel and/or relevant authority):
7.4 Appendix IV: Whale watching guidelines
June, 1999
The whale watching and marine wildlife tour industry has recently experienced tremendous growth. A significant increase in the number of vessels engaged in wildlife viewing and the uninformed conduct of new operators have resulted in some negative press, negative public opinion and tensions between vessel operators on the water. The Whale Watching Operators Association NW has agreed upon the following guidelines for the conduct of commercial vessels around marine wildlife in order to safeguard the animals that we are out there to observe, ameliorate some of the difficulties associated with the industry’s growth and assure the public that we can act responsibly as an industry association to self-regulate. These guidelines should be reviewed by returning vessel operators and studied by operators new to the whale watching and wildlife viewing industry.
Operation of vessels around whales
- Member companies shall ensure that their vessel operators are thoroughly familiar with the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Canadian Federal Fisheries Act. Member companies shall ensure that their vessel operators comply with the above legislation as well as the current WWOANW whale watching guidelines.
- Member vessels shall approach an area of known whale activity with extreme care. Vessels should slow down and approach cautiously from at least _ mile from the whales (or from whale watching vessels if whales cannot be seen from a _ mile position). Vessel operators should take time to survey the layout of vessels and distribution of whales as they approach.
When approaching a whale or a group of whales:
a) From ahead: STOP and allow the whales to travel toward you b) From behind: Move to the outside of the nearest group of whales or boats and head in a direction parallel to the direction the whales are traveling. c) From the side: Slowly maneuver until heading in a direction parallel to the direction the whales are travelling.
- Member vessels should endeavor to stay to the outside of the group of whales they are watching. At all times
- Vessels should travel in a direction parallel to the direction the whales are travelling. · Vessels speed should be the same as the whale’s speed or slower.
Member vessels shall avoid:
- Making high speed runs through the middle of a group of whales or boats. · Cutting across the direction of travel of the whales. · Taking a position between the whales and shore when the whales are within _ mile of shore. · Approaching whales that are obviously foraging. · Approaching resting whales closer than 100 yards/meters. When whales are resting, no vessel should approach from ahead and/or stop in front of the group. Member companies will ensure that their vessel operators can recognize resting behavior.
- When leaving a group of whales, vessels should travel slowly until they are at least _ mile away from all whales and whale watching vessels.
- It is not uncommon for a number of vessels to arrive in an area where there is whale activity simultaneously. Member companies shall work together to limit the number of vessels with the whales by watching them in rotation and positioning themselves accordingly.
- Newly arrived vessels should wait on the outskirts and if possible, locate a group of whales that are not already with vessels. · Vessels in more favorable positions should limit their time in that position to 15 minutes. · When multiple vessels are watching a single group of whales, they should all be positioned on the same side of the whales, travelling in a line (bow-to-stern) or spread out behind the whales. There should not be a line of vessels on both sides of the whales. · Vessels should limit the amount of time spent with whales on days when there are a large number of vessels with the animals. On these occasions vessels should spend some of their whale watching trip observing other marine wildlife (birds, porpoises, seals, etc.) in other locations.
- Member vessels shall respect the perspective of any shore-based whale watcher, especially those at Limekiln State Park and on the West Side of San Juan Island between Kellet Bluff and Eagle Point. This should be done by maintaining a position seaward of the whales and not venturing close to shore. The area within a _ mile of the shore between Kellet Bluff and Eagle Point and the area within a _ mile radius from the Limekiln light shall be a boat-free zone.
- Member vessels shall not reposition themselves using the leapfrog method.
Operation of vessels around Pinnipeds
1. When approaching pinniped haul-outs, vessels should slow down from at least 100 yards/meters away and approach slowly. At the first sign of disturbance (sea lions sitting up and shifting position or harbor seals bouncing on their bellies) vessels should slowly back away. The vessel and its passengers should refrain from making loud noises or sudden rapid movements. Particular caution should be exercised during pupping season (July/August).
Operation of vessels around birds
1. Caution should be exercised when approaching birds on land or on the water.
Approach slowly, watch for signs of agitation and leave slowly. Birds on the water should be given as wide a berth as is practical. Disturbance while fishing is probably more detrimental than disturbance while resting on land. There is a great deal of variation in how different species respond to marine traffic. Cormorants are particularly sensitive to disturbances when nesting although all nesting birds should be avoided. Extra caution should be exercised from nesting through fledging (beginning of May to the end of August). Vessels should approach very slowly and remain at least 100 yards/meters from rookeries. All operators should be aware of areas designated as refuges and remain 200 yards/meters away.
Operation of vessels around porpoises
1. All operators should be able to distinguish harbor porpoise from Dall’s porpoise.
2. When harbor porpoise are encountered, vessels should either (1) leave them alone or (2) if they wish to observe them, either (a) reduce speed as low as possible and maintain their course to their next destination or (b) STOP with engine off or in neutral and observe.
Under no circumstances should vessels attempt to engage harbor porpoise in bow riding.
3. When Dall’s porpoise are encountered vessels should either (a) continue their course and speed or (b) STOP and observe. If the porpoises decide to bow-ride vessels should continue their course and adjust their speed accordingly. Vessels should not repeatedly drive through groups of Dall’s porpoise in order to encourage them to bow-ride. If no porpoises are interested in bow riding after 2 passes, either continue on your way or stop to observe. Avoid circling.
4. When more than one vessel is with the same group of Dall’s porpoise who are actively bow riding, they should communicate and/or have one of the vessels parallel at a safe distance so that passengers can observe the bow riding on the other vessel.
5. Vessels should avoid congregating in a small area when looking for Dall’s porpoise.
Radio Etiquette
1. US Channel 09 should be monitored when on site and used for all communication on the water. Channel 16 should also be monitored at all times.
2. All operators should remember that customers in other boats and in dispatch offices are often able to hear conversations. Transmissions should be courteous and helpful, and use appropriate language.
Guiding/Naturalist Services
1. Member companies shall ensure that the services of an educated/trained naturalist are
available to passengers aboard their vessels.
2. Member companies shall ensure that passengers aboard their vessels are informed of whale-watch guidelines and association standards concerning marine wildlife viewing.
3. Operators should keep a logbook of sightings of all types including birds, cetaceans, pinnipeds and anything else of interest.
Hydrophone etiquette
1. A vessel with a hydrophone down should, if possible, fly a hydrophone flag (letter ‘R’ International system). Any vessel showing the hydrophone flag should be on US Channel 09. Vessels approaching a stationary vessel (or one flying the ‘R’ flag) should establish communications move to a position indicated by the stationary vessel as quickly as possible and then shut off their engine. A vessel departing should communicate their intention to the vessel listening with the hydrophone.
Vessel Operation
1. SHOW RESPECT FOR OTHER OPERATORS! Remember: do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
2. Do not travel between a boat and the animals its passengers are observing or between a boat and the shoreline.
3. Do not accelerate or pass near other boats at cruising speed.
4. Do no operate loudspeakers near shore – especially in residential areas – or when boats are closely grouped.
5. If you have a complaint about the conduct of a fellow operator, do not voice it over the VHF radio. Offer a helpful suggestion in a courteous manner or discuss the issue in person, by phone, or using a courtesy reminder after the incident. Do not criticize an operator in front of his/her customers.
Research and Education
1. Association members should support local whale research by providing written records of sighting information to bona fide research groups and through association approved financial support of selected research activity.
2. In the interest of good public relations and general good will, association members shall, as occasion warrants, adopt a friendly and educational (rather than punitive)
approach with recreational boaters operating in flagrant violation of guidelines.
3. The association shall endeavor to collaborate with and secure the support of the US and Canadian Coast Guards and Fisheries enforcement authorities as well as concerned island residents. A collaborative and cooperative approach has much more to offer than a distant, threatening or defensive one.
1724 W. Marine View Drive, Everett, WA 98201
(425) 252-6800, (800) 325-ORCA (6722)
Fax: (425) 339-8353, E-mail: fleet@whidbey.com
Alcock, Don and Chris Crossland. 1999. Tourism: The Key Player in the Sustainable Use of the
ARA Consulting Group. 1991. Marine Tourism in British Columbia: Opportunity Analysis. Vancouver: Industry, Science and Technology Canada and British Columbia Ministry of Regional and Economic Development.
Bailey, C. 1998. Sustainable Community Development through Coastal and Marine Tourism: Opportunities and Constraints. In Miller, M.L. and J. Auyong (eds.), Proceedings of the 1996 World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism. (19-22 June 1996, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA). Seattle, WA: Washington Sea Grant Program and the School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington and Oregon Sea Grant college Program, Oregon State University, pp. 30-35.
Ballantine, Bill. 1995. Networks of “No-take” Marine Reserves are Practical and Necessary. In Shackell, N.L. and J.H.M. Willison (eds), Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries. Wolfville, Nova Scotia: Science and Management of Protected Areas Association.
Barr, Julie, Bill Henwood and Karen Lewis. 1998. A Marine Protected Areas Strategy for the Pacific Coast of Canada. In Munro, Neil and J.H. Martin Willison (eds), Linking protected areas with working landscapes conserving biodiversity: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, 12-16 May 1997, University of Calgary. Wolfville, NS: Science and Management of Protected Areas Association
Battley, Robin. 1998. Mooring Buoys on Local Dive Sites. Available at: www.ucbc.bc.ca/buoy/robbin.htm (10 August 1999).
BC Parks. no date. Race Rocks Ecological Reserve. Ecological reserve pamphlet.
Causey, Billy D. 1995. Enforcement in marine protected areas. In Gubbay, Susan (ed.), Marine Protected Areas: Principles and techniques for management. London: Chapman & Hall.
CCGOFBS (Canadian Coast Guard Office of Boating Safety). 1999. Safe Boating Guide. Canada: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Chung, Susan. 1998. Whale-watching companies free to regulate themselves. Victoria Times-Colonist., Wednesday, July 22, 1998, p. A1.
Cornerstone Planning Group. 1996. A Preliminary Assessment of Potential Alternative Uses for Lightstations in B.C. Report submitted to Ministry of Employment and Investment (BC). Victoria.
CRC Reef Research Centre. Tour Operators Keep an Eye on the Reef. Reef Research 9(1). Available at: www.gbrmpa.gov.au/information/publications/reef_research/ issue1_99/1rmn5.html (14 May 1999).
Craik, Wendy. 1994. The Economics of Managing Fisheries and Tourism in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In Munasighe, M. and J. McNeely (eds), Protected Area Economics and Policy: Linking conservation and sustainable development. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Davis, D. and C. Tisdell. 1995. Recreational scuba-diving and carrying capacity in marine protectee areas. Ocean & Coastal Management. 48: 229-248.
Davis, D. and C. Tisdell. 1996. Economic Management of Recreational Scuba Diving and the Environment. Journal of Environmental Management 48: 229-248.
De Meyer, K. 1997. How Tourism can help protect the environment: a case study of the Bonaire Marine Park. Tourism Focus: The Newsletter 9 [Newsletter of the UNEP Tourism Program]. Available at: www.unepie.org/newslet/tourism/new9.html (24 March 1999).
DFOa (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). No date. Information Summary. Marine Protected Areas: Race Rocks Pilot Project. Vancouver: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
DFOb. No date. There are limits TO OBSERVE!. Leaflet. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Laurentian Region.
DFO and LUCO (Land Use Coordination Office (BC)) 1998. Marine Protected Areas: A Strategy for Canada’s Pacific Coast. Discussion Paper.
Dixon, D.A., L. Gallon Scura and T. van’t Hof. 1993. Meeting Ecological and Economic Goals: Marine Parks in the Caribbean. Ambio 22(2-3): 117-125.
The Ecotourism Society. 1997. How to Choose a Tour Operator Fact Sheet. Available at: www. ecotourism.org/opfaqfr.html (24 February 1999).
Eggen, M. 1997. That Sinking Feeling: Do “artificial reefs” in BC waters increase biodiversity or waste? Alternatives Journal 23(1): 7.
EPGC (The Economic Planning Group of Canada). 1997. Nova Scotia Marine Tourism Study: Final Report. Halifax: Nova Scotia Department of Economic Development and Tourism.
Fletcher, Garry. 1999. Race Rocks Ecosystem Overview. Unpublished report. Victoria: Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific. Also available at: www.pearson-college.uwc.ca/ pearson/racerock/admin/RREOworkshop/rreocontent.htm
GBRMPA (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority). 1999a. Goals and Aims of GBRMPA. Available at: www.gbrmpa.gov.au/general/goals.html (10 August 1999).
GBRMPA. 1999b. Tourism Operators Keep an Eye on the Reef. Reef Research (9)1. Available at: www.gbrmpa.gov.au/information/publications/reef_research/ issue1_99/1rmn5.html (4 August 1999).
GBRMPA. no date. Tourism and Recreation. Information sheet. Townsville, Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Gilbert, Marie-Claude and SSLMP (Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park). 1998. Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Whale-Watching Activities at Sea. May 25 and 26 1998, Tadoussac, Quebec.
Grant, Peter. 1996. Race Rocks B&B? Friends of Ecological Reserves Newsletter. Fall 1996.
Haggarty, Dana. 1999. REEF: Fish Survey Pilot Project. Available at: www.ucbc.bc.ca/ reefprog.htm. (10 August 1994).
Harriott, V.J., D. Davis and S.A. Banks. 1997. Recreational Diving and Its Impact in Marine Protected Areas in Eastern Australia. Ambio 26(3): 1997.
Hawkes, Michael. 1994. Conserving Marine Ecosystems: Are British Columbia’s Marine Protected Areas Adequate. In Harding, Lee E. and Emily McCullum (eds), Biodiversity in British Columbia: Our Changing Environment. Victoria: Ministry of Supply and Services under authority of the Ministry of the Environment
Hewett, Shirley. 1996. The Race: A proposal for government and community co-operation could save Race Rocks from poachers and pollution. Monday Magazine 22(48): 8-10.
Kenchington, Richard. 1991. Tourism Development in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean & Coastal Management 15: 57-78.
Kenchington, Richard and Graeme Kelleher. 1995. Making a management plan. In Gubbay, Susan (ed.), Marine Protected Areas: Principles and techniques for management. London: Chapman & Hall.
Kelleher, G. and R. Kenchington. 1992. Guidelines for Establishing Marine Protected Areas. A Marine Conservation and Development Report. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Lavoie, Judith. 1998. Natives enraged by marine park designation. Victoria Times Colonist, 3 September 1998.
Marion, Jeffrey L. and Caroline S. Rogers. 1994. The Applicability of Terrestrial Visitor Impact Management Strategies to the Protection of Coral Reefs. Ocean & Costal Management 22: 153-163.
Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture (BC). 1999. Tourism. Available at: www.tbc.gov.bc.ca/programs/tourism.html (2 June 1999).
Obee, Bruce. 1998. Eco-tourism boom: how much can wildlife take? Beautiful British Columbia 40(1): 6-17.
Park Act (BC). 1990. B.C. Reg. 180/90.
Parks Canada. 1998. Fathom Five National Marine Park: Management Plan. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.
Parks Canada and MEF (Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune (Quebec)). 1995. The Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park: “Crossroads of Life, Site of Exchanges, Wellspring of Riches” Management Plan. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Pearson College (Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific). 1999a. Case Study: Control of Speed of Boats in the Race Rocks Pilot Marine Protected Area. Available at: www. racerocks.com/pearson/racerock/marmam/cutseal/cutseal.htm (20 August 1999).
Pearson College. 1999b. Regulations for Using the Race Rocks Research Centre. Available at: www.racerocks.com/pearson/racerock/admin/rroperat.htm (14 April 1999).
Pearson College. 1998. Fact Book 98/99. Victoria: Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific.
Pearson College. 1999. Acoustical Bathymetry Study at Race Rocks March, 1999. Available at: www.racerocks.com/pearson/racerock/roxview/roxview.htm (23 May 999).
Post, J.C. 1994. The Economic Feasibility and Ecological Sustainability of the Bonaire Marine Park, Dutch Antilles. In Munasinghe, M. and J. McNeely (eds), Protected Area Economics and Policy: Linking conservation and sustainable development. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Price Waterhouse, ARA Consulting Group Inc. 1996. Tourism Industry Product Overview: Towards a Tourism Growth Management Strategy. Report prepared for Tourism British Columbia and the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia.
Tourism British Columbia. no date. Corporate Information. Available at: ww.tbc.gov.bc.ca/ tourism/tourismhome/html (12 May 1999).
Tourism British Columbia. 1998. British Columbia Visitor Study – The Victoria Visitor Report. Vancouver: Tourism British Columbia.
Tourism Victoria. 1999. Exit Survey Annual Report 1998: Quarterly and Yearly Comparisons. Victoria, BC: Tourism Victoria.
Underwater Council of British Columbia. 1999. “Why Use the Diving Mooring Buoys?”. Available at: www.ucbc.bc.ca/buoy/mandate.htm (10 August 1999).
Valentine, P.S., D. Newling and D. Wachenfeld. 1997. The estimation of visitor use from GBRMPA data returns. CRC Research Technical Report No. 16. Townsville: CRC Reef Research Centre.
van Breda, A. and K. Gjerde. 1992. The use of Moorings Buoys As a Management Tool. Washington: Center for Marine Conservation.
Wells, Susan and Alan T. White. 1995. Involving the community. In Gubbay, Susan (ed.), Marine Protected Areas: Principles and techniques for management. London: Chapman & Hall.
The Whale Museum. 1999. The Whale Museum’s Environmental Stewardship Programs. The Whale Museum, San Juan Island, WA. Available at: whale-museum.org/program.html (10 August 1999).
Williams, P.W., R.W. Penrose and S. Hawkes. 1998. Shared Decision-making in Tourism Land Use Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 25(4): 860-889.
World Tourism Organisation. 1998. Tourism Highlights 1997. Available at: www.world-tourism.org (3 February 1999).
Bates, Ron. 26 August 1999. Marine Mammal Research Group, Victoria, BC.
Biffard, Doug. 17 May 1999. BC Parks, Victoria, BC.
Bradley, Erin. 26 May 1999.Ogden Point Dive Centre, Victoria, BC.
Dickinson, Greg. 28 May 1999. Pedder Bay Marina, Victoria, BC.
Kukat, Dan. 27 May 1999. Victoria Adventure Centre, Victoria, BC.
Matthews, Angus. 29 May 1999. Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific, Victoria, BC.
Party, Michael. 1 June 1999. Ocean River Sports, Victoria, BC.
Willison, Martin. 31 August 1999. School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.
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
- 0.0 Executive Summary
- 1.0 What is a Marine Protected Area?
- 2.0 Why are MPAs Important for Canada?
- 3.0 MPAs under the Oceans Act
- 3.1 Overall Goals and Strategies
- 3.2 Overall Purposes for MPAs
- 3.2.1 Purpose A – Conservation of Commercial and Non-Commercial Fisheries Resources
- 3.2.2 Purpose B – Conservation of Endangered or Threatened Species
- 3.2.3 Purpose C – Conservation of Unique Habitats
- 3.2.4 Purpose D – Conservation of Productive Ecosystems and Biodiversity
- 3.2.5 Purpose E – Conservation of Other Marine Resources and Habitats to Fulfill The Mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
- 4.0 How will MPAs be identified & established?
- 5.0 How will MPAs be managed?
- 5.1 Need for Effective Partnering
- 5.2 Coastal Communities and Non-Government Conservation Organizations
- 5.3 Fishing Interests
- 5.4 Aboriginal Organizations
- 5.5 Ocean Industries
- 5.6 Provinces and Municipal Governments
- 5.7 Federal Departments
- 5.8 International
- 5.9 Addressing Information Requirements
- 5.10 Awareness and Education
- 6.0 The Next Step – Your Comments
- 7.0 Contacts on Marine Protected Areas
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.
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.
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 km2 , 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.
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.
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.
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.
3.0 MPAS under the Oceans Act
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
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.
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.
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
stage may be conducted on a continuous basis, and stages are often carried out simultaneously.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 interests. Some of these groups could include coastal communities, the fishing industry, aquaculturalists, aboriginal organizations, conservationists, ocean industries, and federal, provincial and municipal governments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
7.0 CONTACTS ON MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
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
Sitemap | Contact |
webmaster:
Garry Fletcher |
Copyright |