Lessons from Marine Protected Areas and Integrated Ocean ... · PDF fileDownloaded By: [University of British Columbia] At: 23:44 20 February 2007 Lessons from MPAs and IOM in Canada

Dow

nloaded By: [University of British C

olumbia] At: 23:44 20 February 2007

Coastal Management, 35:51–78, 2007Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0892-0753 print / 1521-0421 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10.1080/08920750600970578

Lessons from Marine Protected Areas andIntegrated Ocean Management Initiatives in Canada

SYLVIE GUENETTEJACKIE ALDER

Fisheries CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, BC, Canada

and

Centre for Coastal Studies and Continuing Studies in ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnaby BC V5A 1S6

There is a wave of interest in Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and Integrated Management(IM) as tools for addressing declines in marine environments through ecosystem-basedmanagement. Lessons learned from seven MPA and two IM initiatives in Canada showhow engaging stakeholders results in: building and maintaining momentum throughsocial capital; using the collective knowledge of stakeholders; consensus throughformal and informal rules; and developing leadership capacity. However, as the numberof issues or the number of stakeholders increases—especially where fisheries areinvolved—time, resources, and challenges in gaining support and participation increase.Political and administrative obstacles and resistance to change still constitute much ofthe challenge. Finally, funding and political commitment must be allocated from thestart; otherwise momentum stops and it is hard to regain even when funding becomesavailable.

Keywords Canada oceans Act, integrated management, large ocean management areas,marine protected areas

Introduction

A wave of change in ocean management is rippling through many countries. It isincreasingly recognized that managing each activity or issue in isolation is no longer

Received July 3, 2006; accepted July 17, 2006.We acknowledge the financial support of Linking Science and Local Knowledge node of

the Ocean Management Research Network (OMRN), Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon FraserUniversity. J. Alder was partly funded by the Sea Around Us Project. We also thank all the scientistsand managers contacted in the course of this work; their comments and insights were invaluable. Weare also indebted to three reviewers who helped improve the manuscript appreciably.

Address correspondence to Sylvie Guenette, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,2202 Main Mall, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z4. E-mail: [email protected]

51

Dow



52 S. Guenette and J. Alder

sufficient, that integrated management has to be developed. It is also being recognisedthat a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can be a useful tool to protect criticalareas of the marine environment from exploitation. In some countries managing marineareas is changing rapidly from managing development and activities that take place withina narrow coastal strip of land–water interface to focusing on larger areas encompassingcoastal, inshore, and offshore areas and including Marine Protected Areas. In Scotlandrecommendations include using integrated coastal zone management to establish coastaland marine parks (Stead & McGlashan, 2006). In Indonesia there have been calls to establishan integrated natural resources management law that includes protection of natural resourcesincluding coral reefs (Dirhamsyah, 2006). In January 2006, New Zealand announced theintroduction of a policy to build a comprehensive and representative network of MPAs thattakes a consistent and integrated approach and includes regional stakeholder consultation(Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fisheries, 2005). In Canada, the proclamationin 1997 of the Oceans Act was a major step toward providing for integrated management ofthe oceans and included Marine Protected Area networks as a tool to manage ocean areas.Australia implemented its Ocean Policy in 1999 (Alder & Ward, 2001), and the UnitedStates Congress passed the Oceans Act in 2000, and in 2004 formed a Committee on OceanPolicy, but they have yet to propose it formally.

There are lessons to be learned from recent MPA and integrated marine managementefforts, including those in Canada, although the development of a system of MPAs asmandated under the Oceans Act has not progressed significantly since 1997. Although tenMPAs have been proposed under the Oceans Act legislation, none were formally createduntil the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents (southwest of Vancouver Island, British Columbia)was declared in March 2003, and the Gully in Nova Scotia in May 2004 (Figure 1).Finally, on October 11, 2005, three more were designated in Eastern Canada: Eastportand Gilbert Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Basin Head (Prince Edward Island).Five additional MPAs are expected to be announced in 2007. This raises the question ofwhy progress has been so slow and what lessons can be learned from the many and variedinitiatives. This article examines efforts to establish MPAs under different Acts in Canada,and integrated management initiatives to assess the accomplishment and identify the factorsthat facilitated or hindered successful implementation.

We start from the premise that although the processes for establishment andmanagement of Marine Protected Areas and Integrated Management (IM) are similar,the outcomes are different. Whereas MPAs are often focussed primarily on conservationefforts and at times embedded in integrated coastal management to help meet conservationobjectives, IM tends to target social and economic development as well as conservation.In both situations, the process is often the key to better management (Kay & Alder, 2005).Although there are several small scale integrated management initiatives, in the currentstudy we have restricted our discussion to MPAs and integrated management initiativeslocated in coastal zones that have achieved designation under the Oceans Act or are advancedenough to be studied in more detail.

Institutional Framework

Canada’s Oceans Act (Government of Canada, 1996) is the primary mechanism for thefederal government to deliver on its goal of sustainable use of Canada’s oceans nowand for future generations through integrated management. The Department of Fisheriesand Oceans Canada (DFO) defined integrated management as “a comprehensive way ofplanning and managing human activities so that they do not conflict with one anotherand so all factors are considered for the conservation and sustainable use of marine

Dow



Lessons from MPAs and IOM in Canada 53

Figure 1. Map of Canada with political boundaries, and the Protected Areas and IntegratedManagement (IM) Initiatives examined in this article. Provinces and Territories of Canada—BC:British Columbia; YT: Yukon; NT: Northwest Territories; NU: Nunavut; AB: Alberta; SK:Saskatchewan; MA: Manitoba; ON: Ontario; QC: Quebec; NB: New Brunswick; PEI: Prince EdwardIsland; NS: Nova Scotia; NL: Newfoundland and Labrador.

resources and shared uses of ocean spaces” (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005c). Thisstrategy is founded on collaboration with all interest groups, based on sound scienceand ecosystem-based management. Marine Protected Areas were identified as possibletools for the protection of ecologically significant areas. In the Oceans Act, the role ofMPAs includes conservation and protection of unique habitats and marine areas of highbiodiversity or biological productivity, fishery resources and their habitats including marinemammals, and endangered or threatened marine species.

In Canada, Marine Protected Areas can be designated by three federal programsunder the responsibility of different departments and agencies: the Oceans Act by DFO,the National Marine Conservation Act led by Parks Canada, and the Migratory BirdsConvention Act and the Canada Wildlife Act by Environment Canada (Table 1). Currently,marine protected areas, declared under all legislation types (municipal, provincial andfederal agencies) amount to 550 sites covering 29,000 km2 and 0.5% of the ExclusiveEconomic Zone (Louisa Wood, PhD student, University of British Columbia, pers. comm.1).Most of the protected areas were implemented for recreational purposes or the protectionof specific wildlife habitats (e.g., bird sanctuaries). They are generally relatively small andoffer an unequal and often low degree of protection (Jamieson & Levings, 2001).

The mandate of Fisheries and Oceans includes responsibility for the conservation andsustainable use of Canada’s fisheries resources while continuing to provide safe, effective,and environmentally sound marine services that are responsive to the needs of Canadians

Dow




Table 1List of federal agencies responsible for designating protected areas, the Act that governs

them, and their specific mandate and their specific mandate

Federalagency Legislation Designation Mandate

Fisheries andOceansCanada

Oceans Act Marine ProtectedAreas

To protect and conservespecies of fish and marinemammals (endangered,threatened, or exploited,etc.) and their habitats,areas of high biodiversityor productivity and uniquefeatures

Integratedmanagement zone

Fisheries Act Fisheries closures Areas closed for managementof fisheries for theprotection of species andtheir habitat

Parks Canada National MarineConservationAreas Act

National MarineConservationAreas

Very close to terrestrial parks:Protect and conserve forfuture generations areas ofsignificance that arerepresentative of each ofthe natural marine regions(including the Great Lakes)

EnvironmentCanada

Canada WildlifeAct

National wildlifeareas

Protect and conserve habitatfor a variety of wildlifeincluding migratory birdsand endangered species

Migratory BirdsConventionAct

Migratory birdssanctuaries

Protect and conserve habitatsthat play a key role formigratory birds for anypart of their life history

in a global economy. The Fisheries and Aquaculture Branch is mainly concerned withfisheries management and ensuring maximum economic returns from the resources. Theyhave a tradition of working with and perhaps for the industry and protect fisheries resourcesthrough regulation of the exploitation and protection of habitat under the Fisheries Act(Table 1). They have a wealth of information on fisheries and fished species but less onecological aspects as budgets for research have shrunk regularly over the last ten years. TheOceans Branch plays an important role in implementing the Ocean’s Act and developingpolicies and action plans. Although given a very large mandate, the Oceans Branch receivedfew resources and was funded directly from the core DFO budget, reducing funds availableto other branches of the department (Lien, 2003).

Generally, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is responsible for fisheries for marine speciesand the provinces are responsible for freshwater species unless special agreements werereached. In spite of these demarcations, conflicts with the provinces over responsibility

Dow




and jurisdictions are numerous and require negotiating agreements for further delegationof management responsibilities. For example, the province of Quebec has resolved not totransfer river bed rights, which are required to create protected areas under the NationalMarine Conservation Act.

Methods

Based on the literature and on interviews, we describe seven protected areas and twointegrated management initiatives in Canada (see Figure 1 and Table 2). We examine theprocess of designation and consultation, the management regime, their objectives, and theirlevel of achievement. We analyze their situation, focusing on the problems and solutionsand derive what is promising for future directions. The level of conflicts with resourceextraction and the level of agreement among and within agencies were also investigated.Where applicable the issue of aboriginal rights and treaties is also described.

Case studies were chosen so that we had examples on each coast and they had tobe advanced enough that written documentation was available. Further information andinsights were obtained from agency personnel and other players who were chosen for theirkey role and/or knowledge of the case study. Informal interviews were conducted withopen-ended questions prepared to confirm and update the facts and to obtain insights intothe difficulties encountered in the process of designation and implementation.

Case Studies

Some early initiatives were not successful as illustrated in the following two brief casestudies. Early attempts to create Marine Parks under the National Parks Act and the 1986Marine Park Policy of Parks Canada, Marine Conservation Areas under the National MarineConservation Areas Act, Marine Wildlife Areas under the Canadian Wildlife Act, and initialattempts to develop MPAs under the Oceans Act encountered several problems from whichlessons have been drawn. In general, a lack of funding for the management and designationof protected areas under all jurisdictions, and more specifically for the implementationof the Oceans Act, has seriously hindered progress (Jessen & Ban, 2003; Lien, 2003).In addition, conflicts between agencies and levels of governments have led to delays ininitiating projects.

Early Failures

The proposed Terra Nova National Marine Conservation Area in Newfoundland andLabrador was abruptly rejected by the advisory committee established by Parks Canada in1999. This proposal was plagued by several problems. The resources allocated to the teamfor the information and consultation process were insufficient, and the vision, objectives,and structure were not completely clear at the time. Considerable public distrust of both DFOand Parks Canada at the time prevented good communication and allowed some interestgroups to undermine the process further. Also, the lack of DFO involvement, essential inthe context of communities that were largely dependent on fisheries and deeply affected bythe cod fishery closure, undermined the confidence in the concept and the process (Lien,2000).

Lack of resources and capacity again has been crucial in delaying the establishment ofa Marine Wildlife Area proposed by Environment Canada to protect a large foraging area

Downloaded By: [University of British Columbia] At: 23:44 20 February 2007

Table 2Characteristics of Canadian Marine Protected Area case studies

Arctic British Columbia Quebec Nova ScotiaNewfoundlandand Labrador

Attribute Beaufort Sea(Zone 1a)

Race Rocks Gwaii Hanaas Saguenay-St.LawrenceMarine Park

St. Lawrenceestuary MPA

Gully (NovaScotia); offshorearea

Gilbert Bay NL(cod)

175,000 km2 2.52 km2 3,050 km2 1,138 km2 6,000 km2 2,364 km2 60 km2

Objectives Protection of thebeluga and itshabitat

Protection ofmarine habitatsand species, andmaintenance ofhistorical values

Protection ofmarinemammals andtheir habitats

Protection of theecosystem

Marine mammalprotection

Protection of whalesagainst boatcollision, habitatprotection

Protect geneticallydistinct codpopulation, andunique habitat

Leadingagency

DFO and theInuvialiut FinalAgreement

DFO and BCministry∗∗∗

Parks Canada Parks Canada andQuebec Fishand Game∗

DFO DFO DFO

Stakeholdersinvolved

Inuvualuit, federalagencies,energy,shipping andtourism sectors

First Nations,federal andprovincialagencies,NGOs,recreationalfishers,communities

First Nations,federal andprovincialagencies,fishers, NGOs,communities

First Nations,federal andprovincialagencies,NGOs,municipalities,communities

Federal,provincial, allinterest groupsconsulted

Federal agencies,universities,ENGOs for theScience, Sableoffshore EnergyProject, fishingindustry and otherusers

Aboriginalgroups,academia,fishing industry,member fromSoutheastAuroraDevelopmentCorporation∗∗municipalitiesprovincialgovernment

Managementstructure inplace

Co-management Advisory Board Not defined yet Co-directorship(federal andprovincial) andcoordinationcommittee

Not defined yet DFO leads with amultistakeholderadvisorycommittee

DFO leads withadvice from theGilbert BaySteeringCommittee

Official status Consultation stage Proposed Proposed Created in 1997 First consultationsin late 2004

Designated in 2004 Designated in2005

∗Ministere du Loisir de la Chasse et de la Peche du Quebec, now Environnement et Faune Quebec.∗∗The regional economic development board, a government-funded entity that is responsible for economic development in the area.∗∗∗Ministry of Land, Survey and Natural Resources of British Columbia.

56

Dow




of breeding marine birds that would extend up to 100 km offshore from the Scott IslandsProvincial Parks at the northern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Although thisarea is recognized as an important breeding site for half of the marine birds in the province,and despite the involvement of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) supporting theprocess, the proposal was delayed due to lack of capacity at Environment Canada (Jessen& Ban, 2003).

Marine Protected Areas

Beaufort Sea, Northwest Territories. The Beaufort Sea is located in the Canadian WesternArctic (see Figure 1) and falls within the Inuvialiut Settlement Region, established underthe 1984 Inuvialiut Final Agreement, a settled land claim that covers about 175,000 km2

(Fast et al., 2001). Initially the MPA was proposed to protect beluga whales and their habitatin the face of gas and oil exploration and later to also create local opportunities in tourism.

Process. A large portion of the Beaufort Sea was proposed as a MPA. This was arecommendation of the Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan (BSBMP) and the focus ofthe current Beaufort Sea Integrated Management Planning Initiative (Elliott & Spek, 2004).The project was proposed by the Fisheries Joint Management Committee in cooperationwith community-based Hunters and Trappers Committees and DFO (Elliott & Spek,2004). In consultation with the stakeholder groups, various studies are underway (e.g., atraditional knowledge study) or completed (e.g., ecological, technical, and socioeconomicassessments) to support the declaration of Zone 1a of the BSBMP as a MPA under theOceans Act (Elliott & Spek, 2004). The Inuvialiut Final Agreement with its clear guidelinesfor establishing planning bodies and processes, and the unanimous support of the localcommunity has been key to the progress made in establishing the MPA (Elliott & Spek,2004). Traditional knowledge is key to connecting traditional users to the planning processand to understanding the marine environment.

Source of conflict. There was little if any stakeholder conflict since the proposed areais outside of the main area for gas and oil as well as the shipping channel (NorthwestPassage), and there are no significant commercial fisheries in the area.

Gwaii Hanaas NMCA, British Columbia (BC). The proposed Gwaii Hanaas NationalMarine Conservation Area Reserve (GHNMCA), under Canada’s National MarineConservation Areas Act, is an offshore extension of the Gwaii Hanaas National ParkReserve and Haida Heritage Site in the Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Shelf marineregions (Figure 1). The GHNMCA will protect marine life, including seabirds and 17species of whales and dolphins that concentrate in the area. The Haida Nation claimedthe area as their traditional territory based on their history of occupation and reliance onresources and continued use of the area. They claim the land, sea and resources, whichhas implications for negotiations of future treaties with the Government of Canada and theprovince of British Columbia.

Process. Agreements between the Government of Canada and the Province of BritishColumbia (South Moresby Agreement 1988), and the Council of Haida Nation (GwaiiHanaas Agreement 1993) have set the foundations for consultation and cooperation inestablishing the GHNMCA. In March 1997, four major oil companies relinquished theirpetroleum leases (about 320,000 acres) within the boundaries of the proposed GHNMCAand publicly supported the reserve proposal (Jessen & Ban, 2003). The establishment ofa consensus-based cooperative Archipelagic Management Board for the Gwaii Hanaasterrestrial protected area has been effective in addressing many resource management

Dow




issues in the area (Wayne Bourque, Parks Canada, Vancouver, BC, pers. comm.), and theagreement also recognizes that a similar cooperative management will be taken for marineareas and resources within the proposed National Marine Conservation Area (Jones, 1992).

Progress in establishing the GHNMCA has been a stop–start process. Earlier delayswere related to questions of seabed title and allocation of funding for the establishmentof the new reserve (Wayne Bourque, Parks Canada, Vancouver, BC, pers. comm.). TheProvince of British Columbia agreed to transfer its administrative responsibility over theseabed to the federal government for the needs of the NMCA reserve (Francine Mercier,Parks Canada, Ottawa, pers. comm.). Then there was a need to develop a protocol forconsulting with First Nations over issues relating to the establishment and managementof the NMCA (Catherine Rigg, Ph.D. candidate, Simon Fraser University, pers. comm.).Currently the process is stalled until the comprehensive Haida land claim is settled or untilan interim management plan for the area is accepted by all parties.

Nevertheless, the World Wildlife Fund and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Societyhave maintained on-going discussions and momentum with the Haida Nation especially,and with local stakeholders (Jessen & Ban, 2003), as legislative and operational needswere being addressed. Parks Canada conducted the necessary scientific studies to supportestablishment and management of the NMCA (Catherine Rigg, pers. comm.); however, theappropriate social and economic impact studies have yet to be conducted. Fisheries rightsand restrictions and the type of marine resource management to be used are potentiallycontentious issues and still have to be discussed with DFO.

Source of conflict. The major source of conflict concerns the issue of native title andrights in the area between the Haida Nation and relevant federal and provincial governmentagencies. The other source of conflict is the issue of fishing rights for the Haida Nation andother commercial and recreational users in the area.

Race Rocks, British Columbia (BC). Race Rocks is an archipelago of nine isletsrepresenting the peaks of a submarine mountain with an abundance and diversity of marinelife including threatened species such as the northern abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) andkiller whales (Orcinus orca) (LeRoy et al., 2004). The area is important historically for bothFirst Nations and as a site for a lighthouse built in 1860. In 1998, the federal governmentidentified the area as a pilot MPA (Figure 1), and it was to be fully designated after furtherconsultation with local communities (LeRoy et al., 2004).

Process. The Race Rocks Ecological Reserve was proposed to protect the rich marinebiodiversity of the area by restriction of fishing activity, except sport fishing for halibut andsalmon, and management of the impacts of tourism and other recreational activities such asSCUBA diving and whale-watching in the area. After long negotiations, a no-take zone forsalmon and halibut was finally included in the project. A consensus planning approach wasused with considerable success until two external events, that occurred in 2000, stalled theprocess. First, a dispute between the federal government and the Mi’kmaq Nation about theissue of fishing rights in New Brunswick strained the role of First Nations in the process(LeRoy et al., 2004). Second, there were questions about the representatives of First Nationsin the process (http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/admin/rrab/rrabmins61201.htm) high-lighting the issue of who will represent various stakeholder groups in planning processes.This illustrates the impact on the process of events not directly related to the MPA.Further, according to the consensus reached by the multistakeholders committee, FirstNations were to continue their activities within the MPA. However, the draft regulatorydocument published in the Official Gazette surprisingly stated that the First Nations agreed

Dow




to relinquish their right to fish in the area (LeRoy, 2002). This last event was mainlyresponsible for the fact that the MPA has still not been designated.

Sources of conflict. Much of the success of the consensus process was the inclusivenessof the process from the initial stages that fully engaged the various groups. However, moreattention should be given to ensuring proper representation for First Nations. The experiencehas demonstrated that consensus planning can work if the rules (e.g., if consensus mustbe reached or decisions are a majority vote) are formalized and followed. Also, the rulesmust be articulated to those not involved directly in the planning process. In this case,articulating the rules early in the process could have avoided the mistake DFO made inadding the clause that resulted in First Nations walking away from the planning process. Itis essential that the recognition of First Nations rights be formalized when setting the rulesof the planning process as seen in the Beaufort case study.

The unsatisfactory outcome of Race Rocks highlights the need for governmentto devolve establishment and management responsibility to local managers and otherinstitutes. This ensures that relationships and negotiation outcomes between planners,managers, and other users are not jeopardized by outside staff acting or commentingwithout the full knowledge or full understanding of the situation or impacts of proposedactions at higher decision-making levels.

Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and St. Lawrence Estuary MPA, Quebec. TheSaguenay fjord and the estuary of the St. Lawrence River are well-known zones of upwellingand constitute an important feeding habitat for many marine species, including marinemammals. It is also heavily used for maritime transportation, the whale-watching industry,commercial and recreational fishing, and other human activities (Savaria et al., 2003).Two marine conservation initiatives complement each other in this area: the Saguenay-St.Lawrence Marine Park and the St. Lawrence Estuary MPA project.

The Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park is an area of 1,138 km2 (see Figure 1) that wascreated in 1997 by special identical federal and provincial Acts passed by the governmentsof Canada and Quebec, respectively (Dionne, 2004). This special bilateral agreement hasthe advantage of circumventing the need for Parks Canada to own the land included inparks including the river bed, which the Government of Quebec did not want to give up.Therefore, the agreement constitutes another institutional structure outside the Acts listedin Table 1. The park was created for the protection of the ecosystems of a representativeportion of the Saguenay River and the St. Lawrence estuary for conservation purposes,while encouraging its use for educational, recreational and scientific purposes. The belugawhale (Delphinapterus leucas), a threatened species, focused the public attention to createthe park as local communities were very interested in protecting the belugas and theirhabitat, and in having a park created in part of their territory (Lequin, 2000) at thevery start of the project. The successful designation of the park is largely attributableto the “Coalition for the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park” that regrouped 27 interestgroups and was created after the International Forum for the protection of belugas. Thecoalition pushed the project in the political arena at both federal and provincial level (seehttp://www.parcmarin.qc.ca/1938 an.html) and created the momentum necessary for thecreation of the park (Suzan Dionne, Parks Canada, pers. comm.). Resources for the processwere provided by a federal–provincial agreement.

Process. Partners from federal and provincial agencies, nongovernmental organiza-tions, and communities were involved and consulted early in the process. The determinationto function in collaboration with interest groups is reflected in the structure of thecoordinating committee that includes representatives of federal and provincial governments,

Dow




regional organizations, scientists, NGOs, and the Montagnais Essipit Band Council(http://www.pc.gc.ca/amnc-nmca/qc/saguenay/plan/index e.asp). The committee, meetingfour times a year, has a role of recommending and ensuring that both levels of governmentwork together. Sub-committees have been created to deal with specific aspects of the parkmanagement: interpretation, marketing, ecosystem management, and any new issues thatwould arise in the future. Eventual disagreements would be referred to the ministers incharge. The federal government assumed operational responsibilities for the water column,whereas the provincial government assumed responsibility for the river bed and terrestrialpart of the park.

The success of the implementation, judged by the capacity to reach consensus onobjectives and management decisions, and the continued stakeholders’ interests, is in greatpart explained by the deliberate effort to integrate information and viewpoints of eachinterest group into the management plan (Briand 2000 in Carrier, 2001; Dionne, 2004).Following this plan, an Ecosystem Management Conservation Plan was prepared, whichaddressed the 11 most important issues identified by the Ecosystem Conservation andResearch Advisory sub-committee, which resolved that further knowledge gathering anddecision making would be conducted with a 5–7 years horizon. For example, informationon species’ life history, distribution, and habitat, especially that of the non-exploitedspecies, was lacking during the elaboration of ecosystem management objectives in thepark (Dionne, 2004). The collaboration between Parks Canada and DFO will be necessaryto undertake large-scale research in the region. Parks Canada does not have the resourcesfor extensive research while the tradition of research in DFO is mainly aimed at fisheriesmanagement so that regions of little commercial fisheries importance are often neglectedfor lack of resources and prioritizing of research needs given the management mandate.

The consultations and negotiations before the designation of the Park were occasionsfor learning for both governmental agencies and local organizations. The agencies learned tobe more open and transparent with the stakeholders and they had to revise their original planto include inputs from the interest groups (Lequin, 2000). At the beginning of the process,the various organizations participated to have their points of view heard and to defend theirinterests. They were often in competition with each other and had suspicions about the realobjectives of agencies leading the process (Lequin, 2000). Stakeholders gradually learnedto work in cooperation and created informal networks that reinforced connections (Lequin,2000). The model of participation in decision making was instrumental in rallying interestgroups (Briand 2000 in Carrier, 2001) although it is also considered heavy, logisticallydemanding, and rather slow to react to specific problems. Stakeholders mentioned theneed for a strategic plan, which would be useful to avoid endless negotiations at thecoordinating committee. Participants noted tensions between the need for conservationand economic development, and the need for efficiency and participation (Briand 2000 inCarrier, 2001).

Sources of conflict. The creation of the Park was not hindered by any major conflict.However, the agreement between the federal and provincial governments is the productof tumultuous negotiations during two years. In the interest of including all stakeholdersfrom the start, an agreement with the Native community has been concluded but it remainssubjected to modifications in accordance with larger scale treaties on land claims and onrights to resources negotiated with the federal government. The only commercial fisheryconsists of a small scallop fishery. Recreational fisheries are mainly winter operationsfor capelin and groundfish, which are managed by the provincial and federal ministries,respectively. However, the fear of losing the winter recreational fishery was a major pointof discussion and resulted in government assurances that there would be no closure.

Dow




Conservation goals were not objected to and were compatible with the enhanced tourismattractions of the park that would be beneficial to the regional economy.

The St. Lawrence Estuary MPA project, proposed by Fisheries and Oceans Canadaunder the Oceans Act, covers an area that is contiguous to the park and aims to protect thenumerous species of marine mammals, their habitat and food resources. The boundarieswere defined by the distribution of beluga whales in the summer, of harbor seals haulouts(Phoca vitulina), and of the most important feeding sites for blue whales (Balaenopteramusculus).

Process. In 2000, a scientific workshop gathered together managers and scientists fromprovincial and federal agencies as well as universities and environmental nongovernmentalorganizations (ENGOs). It examined the threats to the various mammal species andconcluded that the MPA was a valuable tool for their protection (Savaria et al., 2003).The public consultations held in 2004 were aimed at informing the public and gatheringcomments and concerns on the regulations proposed and the possible managementstructure (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005b). The discussions on management structureswere typically short and summarized to a few general comments. Based on theseconsultations, it is clear that the project was well received, raised a lot of interest andattracted constructive comments. This success is attributed to a solid scientific basis,clear objectives, transparency, and extensive consultations (Guy Cantin, DFO, Mont-Joli,Quebec, pers. comm.). The project was made public in the fall 2004 and thus themanagement structure has not yet been defined. However, DFO will probably keep theleadership and work with a consultative committee. Although participants in the publicconsultations reiterated they preferred a consultative process to a traditional top-downmanagement and that they agree with the principles of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence MarinePark (http://www.qc.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ZPMEstuaire/en/opinion participate.asp#Transcripts),some participants also mentioned that they would favor a structure that would be moreefficient than that of the Park (Guy Cantin, pers. comm.).

The MPA’s role of protection will be achieved by devising restrictions on fishingmethods to decrease entanglement and protect food resources, proposing regulation ofmaritime traffic, regulating noise and disturbance, and protecting haul-outs and rookeries.This will be accomplished by harmonizing the various regulations that apply to this area,and developing activities to inform the public and the tourism industry of the regulationsand their rationale (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005b). Resources for the preliminaryscientific background and public consultations were sufficient to complete the mandate.

Sources of conflict. There is no major objection to the creation of the MPA, as theprotection of the marine mammals in the region is well understood and accepted. Thecod fishery is practically non-existent, and other fisheries occur either in very deep waters(turbot) or on the beach (capelin), posing no immediate threat to marine mammals. Themajor restrictions proposed prevent the development of detrimental activities instead ofclosing existing activities. For example, the interdiction of krill fishing is proposed in thecontext of an existing moratorium in Eastern Canada. Because krill is produced outsidethe MPA and is transported into the estuary (and the MPA) at about the age of two, themoratorium should be rendered permanent to protect marine mammals and their prey.However, concerns about potential restrictions of resource exploitation were still expressedduring consultation meetings.

Gilbert Bay Marine Protected Area, Newfoundland and Labrador. The Gilbert BayMarine Protected Area initiative was established in 1998 at the instigation of the localcommunities who were afraid that the unique cod population living in Gilbert Bay

Dow




was being overfished, and attracting trawlers from other regions. Most of the officialinformation on the Gilbert Bay MPA is published in the Canada Gazette (Governmentof Canada, 2005a) and complementary information is also available on the communitywebsite (www.gilbertbay.com).

Process. Federal and provincial agencies, the Labrador Metis Nation, local fishers,and interest groups were consulted on the objectives and the type of restrictions thatwere necessary. A combination of local knowledge and scientific work carried out byMemorial University and DFO has confirmed the distinctiveness of the stock and has alsoadvanced knowledge of the biological cycle, population dynamics, and size (Ruzzanteet al., 2000; Morris & Green, 2002; Green et al., 2003). Knowledge on other componentsof the ecosystem was also compiled during the studies (e.g., the presence of corallinealgae). In addition, both science and traditional ecological knowledge were heavily reliedon to guide the setting of management zones, boundaries, and restrictions. The Gilbert BaySteering Committee, created in 2001, was instrumental in organizing meetings, facilitatingdiscussions and consultations, and recommending management measures to DFO. Seedfunding from DFO, and later from other sources, helped the volunteer groups hire a localcoordinator and provide the facilities for meetings (Jason Simms, Oceans Division, DFO,St. John’s, NL, pers. comm.).

The designation process advanced steadily from 1998 until its official designationin October 2005. The process was successful because the small community focussedon the protection of the cod population and proceed to establish objectives and identifymanagement measures to achieve these objectives. In terms of process, all interest groupswere involved from the beginning. Also, strong and dedicated leaders were critical inmaintaining support and keeping the process moving forward (Jason Simms, OceansDivision, DFO, St. John’s, NL, pers. comm.). The consultation process developed newrelationships between groups and maintained a sense of strong commitment to the project.Another facilitating factor was that few people in the community depended on the codfishery for economic gain.

Although the MPA was designated for cod protection, it has necessarily broadened toinclude the cod’s habitat and as a consequence preoccupations about forestry practices andcoastal development have prompted actions and requests for collaboration with provincialagencies (Jason Simms, Oceans Division, DFO, St. John’s, NL, pers. comm.). Although thecommittee’s initial purpose was to lead the creation of the MPA until its official designation,such a committee will be necessary to coordinate further consultations regarding upcomingissues.

Source of conflict. Conflicts in this case were relatively low. The area is moderatelyused for fisheries but it is also deemed important by the residents for historic, social, andrecreational purposes, which are compatible with conservation. The proposal was supportedby science, and fisheries scientists contributed to the proposal. Therefore, both the Fisheriesand the Oceans Branches supported the project. In addition, there is an expectation thatthis MPA will provide an opportunity for collaborative integrated management and, giventhe present structure and interest from the community, the process could count on having avery strong network of groups used to working together.

The Gully MPA, Nova Scotia. The Gully MPA is a deep canyon situated at the break ofthe continental shelf off Nova Scotia. The area was recognized for being a retention area ofhigh biodiversity and productivity (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1998), and its importancefor cetaceans and pinnipeds (Whitehead et al., 1998). The Gully represents the core area ofdistribution of the northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus), a species that does

Dow




not migrate and uses this area extensively to forage (Hooker et al., 2002). The bottlenosewhale is also listed as vulnerable by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlifein Canada.

Process. There was wide interest from ENGOs, universities, three federal agencies,and also from the Sable Offshore Energy Project who recognized the uniqueness and theecological importance of this submarine canyon, and participated in the science review(Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1998; Oceans Act Coordination Office, 1998). The projectof a protected area has been discussed for a long time and stakeholders have been consultedearly in the process at all steps from the science reviews to the discussions about theestablishment of the MPA and its boundaries (e.g., see Breeze, 2002).

Although whale protection prompted voluntary measures to limit extractive activitiesearly on, strong ecological arguments were needed to justify limiting economic activitiesby way of a MPA regulation (Paul Macnab, Oceans and Habitat Branch, DFO, Dartmouth,NS, pers. comm.). Finally, it was agreed that although it was necessary to restrict extractiveactivities in a core area of the MPA, DFO should facilitate an integrated managementplanning around the MPA that would develop multiple use objectives for the Sable-Gullyarea, recognizing that both current and future economic activities can take place withoutthreatening the ecosystem (Oceans Act Coordination Office, 1998).

As agreed during the consultation process, the MPA is now under DFO’s responsibilitywith an Advisory Committee, which will continue to play a major role in the developmentand implementation of the Management Plan and related activities for the MPA(Government of Canada, 2004). The Gully MPA was the first experience in establishing anoffshore MPA in Eastern Canada and it appears that the administrative obstacles of dealingwith multiple sectoral jurisdictions, and the lack of experience with the scope and authorityof the MPA regulations under the Oceans Act, meant to regulate industry activities wereseverely underestimated and were responsible for delays in defining regulations, boundaries,and the management plan. Hopefully the lessons learned about the multiple procedures andregulations can be used to expedite the process for the designation of future MPAs (PaulMacnab, pers. comm.).

Conflicts. The initial economic arguments against conservation forced the DFO teamto make their case based on the quality and importance of this ecosystem, in future years,in a way that would be comparable to the potential revenues from the oil and gas reservesin the Gully. The zoning system excludes extractive activities in the core of the MPA,whereas commercial fishing by hook and line for halibut, shark, tuna, and swordfish areallowed in the outer zones. Trawl fishery was forbidden starting in 1999. The Gully wasnot a primary fishing ground for groundfish (cod, haddock, and redfish) and these fisherieswere already inactive in 1998. This absence of interest and the moratorium on groundfishprovided an opportunity to propose fisheries restrictions without too much opposition. Inspite of this, discussions about fisheries were numerous. For example, the swordfish fisheryhas caused disagreement about the danger that longlines constitute for the whales and thelarge amount of bycatch (Mark Butler, Ecology Action Centre, Halifax, NS, pers. comm.).Trawlers were concerned that this zone would be closed to their fleet forever. Regulationsstipulate that trawling could be considered within the MPA based on assessment by DFO ofenvironmental impacts (Government of Canada, 2004), a decision that replaces the outrightforbidding of activities by reserving the right to approve it if the activity can occur withoutdamaging the ecosystem and contravening the MPA objectives.

In addition, uncertainties about the precedent that the Gully MPA would constitute inthe context of future access to fisheries and oil and gas resources in other areas were alsoimportant factors in the negotiations before the establishment of the MPA (Government of

Dow




Canada, 2004). This necessitated efforts to raise awareness about the objectives of the MPA,the provision of assurances that MPAs would affect only a small portion of the ScotianShelf, and that industry would be consulted in the process (Bruce Hatcher, Cape BretonUniversity, Sydney, Nova Scotia, pers. comm.). These types of negotiations take time andaccount for a large part of the six years (1998–2004) it took to rally all stakeholders, inaddition to previous work started in the early 1990s (see Fenton et al., 2002). This time spentbuilding up support may have been beneficial in the long term as more recent initiatives toprotect deep sea corals concentrations under the Fisheries Act were more rapidly acceptedand welcomed by fishers (Bruce Hatcher, pers. comm.).

It is recognized that the whales are susceptible to noise, waste discharges andchemical pollution linked to gas and oil development, and shipping. Since 1997,voluntary measures have been put in place for transportation, and oil and gasindustries (Coffen-Smout et al., 2001) while potential future uses will be submittedto extended environmental assessment and enhanced mitigation measures (Governmentof Canada, 2004). The effects of voluntary measures for the shipping indus-try (see the Whale Sanctuary and Notice to Mariners on the following websiteat http://www.notmar.gc.ca/go.php?doc=eng/services/2006 annual e/table of contents e)are hard to assess for the Gully area, as well as for the rest of the shelf outside ofthe MPA. This is because international law limits what Canada can control outside ofthe 12 nm area, and also because of variable compliance of shipping fleets and limitedsurveillance to monitor compliance. However, the major shipping routes are generallykeeping vessels south of the MPA (Fenton et al., 2002). Although oil and gas activity maybe permitted, subject to strict environmental restrictions, on the shallow banks (zone 3)of the MPA, the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board policy for this industryhas not allowed any exploration since 1998 (CNSOPB, undated). The Shell oil companyhas retained its rights in a small parcel of zone 3, and there are exploration licensesin the general area outside of the Gully MPA (CNSOPB, undated), but because of thetechnical difficulties involved, the anticipated public opposition and the internationalmarket situation for this resource, some licenses have been withdrawn. There are severalvoluntary codes of conduct for boat and aircraft traffic, and also for waste managementnear the Gully MPA as part of environmental assessments (see, e.g., ExxonMobil athttp://www.soep.com/cgi-bin/getpage?pageid=1/8/2).

There are several sources of concern about the potential risks of exploration of oil andgas for the ecosystem in the vicinity of the MPA and some are arising in part from a lackof general knowledge about technical operations in the industry. There is an establishedprocess to evaluate the bids to explore and exploit, which includes compliance with rules andregulations and an opportunity for input from stakeholders as the energy companies proceedwith exploration stages. However, if the regulations change after the energy company hasinvested in the exploration lease, this is very costly and adds uncertainty to the effectivemanagement of the region (Lucia MacIsaac, Cape Breton University, Sydney, Nova Scotia;and Lucia Fanning, Environment Canada, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, pers. comm.).

In addition, there are still a number of questions about the impacts of seismic surveys onmammals and the size of the buffer zone between this activity and the MPA or any sensitivearea. To this effect, DFO, Environment Canada and the Canada–Nova Scotia OffshorePetroleum Board (CNSOPB) have agreed to collaborate in establishing codes of practicefor environmental assessments, the mitigation of seismic noises, the use of chemicals, airemissions, and other environmental disturbances, and compliance protocols and policydocuments that are at various stage of completion (CNSOPB, 2006). Also, identification ofresearch priorities and the development of study proposals will be elaborated collaboratively

Dow




by the three parties under the Memoranda of Understanding between CNSOPB andEnvironment Canada (CNSOPB and DFO, 2003, but in place since 1999) and betweenCNSOPB and the DFO (CNSOPB and DFO, 2004).

Integrated Management Initiatives

The Ocean Action Plan published in June 2005 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005c)provides considerable guidance for the development of integrated management in Canada’soceans. The strategy of DFO for integrated management involves working at twolevels: Coastal Management Areas (CMAs) that address local issues, and Large OceanManagement Areas (LOMAs) to address integrated management over larger and morecomplicated areas of ocean use (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2002). Five priority areashave been designated to date: Placentia Bay and the Grand Banks, the Eastern ScotianShelf, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Beaufort Sea, and the Pacific North Coast. Here weexamine two of these initiatives that are the most advanced, the Eastern Scotian Shelf andthe Gulf of St. Lawrence (extended to include the estuary for this case study).

Eastern Scotian Shelf. The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM)initiative is a collaborative process facilitated by DFO to develop and implement anintegrated ocean management plan aimed at addressing and managing multiple uses inoffshore, coastal, and estuarine areas (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2001; Rutherfordet al., 2005). The ESSIM management plan (ESSIM Planning Office, 2005) sets theconceptual framework for the science, participation process, general objectives, andmeasures of effectiveness of integrated management. It defines the four institutionalstructures: the ESSIM Forum to facilitate multistakeholder communication; the StakeholderAdvisory Council, a multistakeholder working group for advice and support to the planningprocess and that includes First Nations, federal and provincial agencies, ocean industries,resource users, and ENGOs; the Regional Committee on Ocean Management that regroups20 agencies to ensure coordination and support to the planning process; and the DFOPlanning Office for leadership, coordination, and support to the planning process (ESSIMPlanning Office, 2005). The four structures provide opportunities and mechanisms to input,review, approve, and implement the plan for all interest groups and governments.

The principles described in the draft management plan are sound and well thoughtout, but also quite general and well accepted; thus, based on the consultations to date,their adoption should be straightforward (Coffen-Smout et al., 2005; Millar et al., 2005). Inclose collaboration with the Fisheries Branch, the current knowledge has been compiled andseveral meetings have been held that focused on mapping and determining the indicatorsthat should be used for the ecosystem-based management (O’Boyle, 2000; Breeze et al.,2002; Gordon Jr. & Fenton, 2002). In addition, research studies have assessed and mappedthe most important human activities in the area (Rutherford et al., 2005). However, themanagement plan does not define specific objectives and a strategic course of actions.Those are currently being defined with the Stakeholder Advisory Council and should besubmitted for approval at the beginning of 2007. It is intended that the Action Plan bedeveloped in 2006 and submitted to a general workshop for comments in 2007 (GlenHerbert, DFO, Dartmouth NS, pers. comm.). The ESSIM Planning Office recognizedthe need to create a comprehensive plan for the selection and prioritisation of MPAon the Scotian Shelf (Oceans Act Coordination Office, 1998; Fisheries and OceansCanada, 2001); however, at the present time only the Gully MPA and deep-water coralareas (within a coral conservation plan) have been identified. Recently, however, the

Dow




Regional Committee has agreed to re-establish an intergovernmental MPA Working Groupresponsible for regional implementation of the MPA mandate of the Oceans Act (seehttp://www.omrn.ca/documents/ESSIM/ESSIM%20Update%20Nov%202005.pdf.).

It is acknowledged that the management plan is the first step in solving the actuallack of integration and coordination of the various agencies and interests groups (Fisheriesand Oceans Canada, 2001). Given the past and present lack of communication betweenagencies, even in cases of important decision making (Coffen-Smout et al., 2001; Lien,2003), the Regional Committee constitutes a major step toward integrating and harmonizingpolicies and actions. Specific management issues are studied by subgroups of stakeholdersand experts within ESSIM. The necessity for an integrated management system hasbeen made based on the need to account for cumulative ecosystem effects; even theintegrated management plans for fisheries devised by DFO contain various level of detailsand do not account for contradictions (Coffen-Smout et al., 2001). The ESSIM teamis presently working with the Fisheries Branch to include ecosystem considerations inthese management plans and in the procedure to deliver experimental and exploratoryfishing licenses for new species under the Protocol for New Fisheries (Glen Herbert, DFO,Dartmouth, NS, pers. comm.).

The nature of the planning area is dynamic in that planning, management, and decisionmaking is taken at the appropriate scale (i.e., regional to site specific) (ESSIM PlanningOffice, 2005). At first, the ESSIM plan did not include areas inshore of 12 nm in order toavoid the complexity of dealing with too many jurisdictions, but it now includes the coastalarea and will become a Large Ocean Management Area. Comments on the managementplan from coastal communities and existing coastal networks in recent consultations havebeen positive (Millar et al., 2005). However, participants noted that in such a numerousand varied group of stakeholders, decision by consensus may become problematic and thatdecision-making rules should include a mechanism (such as some form of voting) to decideon an outcome. This would make the process more congruent with the literature on thesubject (Lewin, 2001). Also, there is a risk that the point of view of some groups may belost in the process (e.g., First Nations groups). Participants insisted on the necessity foraccountability of each party to the Stakeholder Advisory Council in order to implementany decision.

Nevertheless, several groups, industry, and agencies alike, still do not appear regularlyat meetings. This situation is interpreted differently depending on our sources’ point ofview. Some perceive this as a sign that some groups are still not fully engaged in theprocess. Others see this as a lack of capacity for organizations to follow all the workinggroups that have been created over the years. For example, small fisheries sectors, FirstNations, and the shipping industry hesitated to come to the table at first due to lack ofresources to participate and/or difficulty in identifying representatives, but these problemshave been resolved over time (Glen Herbert, DFO, Dartmouth NS, pers. comm.).

Some fisheries sectors seem to have maintained their dominance in various meetings.This is largely due to the strong historical link between DFO and the fisheries sector. TheDepartment has yet to fully come to terms with its double duty as fisheries promoters andmanagers under the Fisheries Act and as leaders in conservation and ecosystem managementunder the Oceans Act. It seems that the advantages of the integrated management processhave not been made clear to all the participants, both agencies and industries, comparedto the high transaction costs of participating in a collaborative management scheme. Formany it is still more comforting to rely on existing sectoral management schemes and bepresent at the ESSIM table only to defend their rights. This is a situation that has beenseen elsewhere (as described earlier in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Park case study) and it

Dow




tends to improve with time as participants see the value of a more integrated managementapproach to resolving issues and concerns. In addition, as attitudes of senior managementchange within DFO, it is becoming more rewarding for fishers to fully participate at theStakeholder Advisory Council than to try to influence the decisions at the Fisheries Branchlevel. Now that the structure is in place and the process is formalized and accepted, andthe Council is making progress in defining management objectives and the action plan, itis believed that ESSIM is gaining momentum.

Although Coastal Management Areas have not been specifically addressed in thisinitiative, Nova Scotia already counts several volunteer nongovernmental, municipal, orprovincial organizations that started concerted actions for integrated management. Theprimary coastal initiative in the Maritimes is Bras d’Or Lakes Collaborative EnvironmentalPlanning Initiative (CEPI) (http://www.uinr.ca/cepi). It is partly funded by DFO, and byvarious federal, provincial organizations, NGOs, and First Nations (Jason Naug, DFO,Dartmouth NS, pers. comm.). A functioning governance structure and terms of referencehave been developed for CEPI with the Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources, a FirstNations organization representing the five bands in the project area, playing a secretariatfunction. Bras d’Or is the most advanced pilot area within the ESSIM area but interest ismounting rapidly to expand in other areas, and discussions are underway between DFO andprovincial departments on the delivery of coastal zone management and planning processesand agreements under the first phase of the Oceans Action Plan (Scott Coffen-Smout,DFO, Dartmouth NS, pers. comm.). These initiatives will be nested into CMAs within theESSIM area. Some coastal communities are developing their planning process quite rapidlydepending on the local issues and the local, provincial and federal capacity.

Gulf of St. Lawrence and St. Lawrence Estuary. There is a long history of federal andprovincial collaboration on water issues in the St. Lawrence River beginning with theStudy Committee of the St. Lawrence in 1973, and later the St. Lawrence Action Planin 1988 which was a collaboration between the Canadian Government through Environ-ment Canada (lead agency) and the Province of Quebec (http://www.slv2000.qc.ca/20-ans/acceuil e.htm). The Action Plan created the Zone d’Intervention Prioritaire (ZIP),which includes citizens, NGOs and users in the management of local issues (seehttp://www.strategiessl.qc.ca/). The ZIP has established a tradition of consultation,collaboration, and concerted action at the regional level and this was instrumental in therecent integrated management initiatives described in the following paragraphs. As shownin Figure 1, the Gulf of St. Lawrence integrated management initiative is a partnershipinvolving three federal and two provincial agencies and covering the entire St. LawrenceRiver within Quebec, including the marine estuary and the Gulf (IWG-IMSL, 2004).The Gulf of St. Lawrence Integrated Management Zone, a Large Ocean ManagementArea, will provide the overarching goals and coordinating structures for its nested CoastalManagement Areas, and will coordinate the smaller scale initiatives by maintaining anetwork and exchange of information. Although the involvement of four agencies inthe management of the St. Lawrence River and its drainage basins is an opportunity toharmonise regulations and policies, in the short term the challenge is great and will demandsignificant resources and commitment from all parties and stakeholders.

Coastal small scale integrated management initiatives were initiated by DFO, beginningin 1996 with one pilot project on the North Shore of the St. Lawrence River, the Haute Cote-Nord (http://comite-cotier.org). Other existing initiatives, mostly proposed by communitiesthemselves on the basis of environmental concerns, are coordinated by the well-establishedZIP organizations created during the St. Lawrence Action Plan. The committees are in a

Dow




good position to address local issues that would be impossible for a larger scale organizationto address, at least as early in the process.

For example, in the Magdalen Islands’ ZIP, one committee has been created for eachof the five inshore basins (http://www.zipdesiles.org). The committees aim to resolveand/or prevent conflicts among users, and ensure sustainable development. They involveall stakeholders and concerned government organizations and they participate in commonprojects at the scale of the entire ZIP. In the last five years, projects have ranged fromspecific actions such as cleaning up the waterfront, to mid- and longterm initiatives suchas the creation of an atlas of the characteristics of the basin and its usages, a projectfor sustainable oyster culture, as well as long-term action plans. Projects undertaken alsoinclude larger scale projects that involve all committees such as mapping and developingan inventory of seagrass beds.

The committees receive funding and scientific expertise from DFO, and followDFO guidelines for their structure and approach to consultation, stakeholder involvementand conflict resolution (Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Quebec Region, 2003; Gingras& Dalcourt, 2003). Most of them have also obtained funding and support from otherorganizations, including ministries, fishers, and municipalities (Gingras & Dalcourt, 2003).However, given very limited resources, the projects’ development was due to the very highdedication of all parties involved to keep the discussions and research going. The 2005announcement of $28 million Canadian devoted to the implementation of the Oceans Actover two years (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005a) may help keep the momentum andthe existing structures, develop the program to a larger scale, and maintain the DFO’scredibility regarding the will to develop integrated management for Canada’s ocean andcoastal resources (Dalcourt et al., 2005).

These committees rapidly became platforms for information exchange and opendiscussions about irritants and problems, and participants learned quickly that theproblem-solving process improved when it included research, information gathering, andconsultation with experts. As a result, committees tended to act and make representationsfor the benefit of the entire community instead of lobbying for a single stakeholder(Marie-France Dalcourt, DFO, Mont-Joli, Quebec, pers. comm.). This consensus-basedapproach to planning and management is becoming increasingly common especially whereissues are complex and controversial and where there are multiple interests at stake (Innes1996). However, in committees that had to resolve more complex issues involving a biggernumber of interest groups and ministries, the commitment of some organizations to thecommittee varied in strength and included some reluctance to fully participate and stand bythe common decisions (Gingras & Dalcourt, 2003). Sub-committees are sometimes usedto promote efficient discussions and conflict resolution on a specific subject. Committeesalso participated in a larger discussion on the St. Lawrence–wide integrated managementinitiative, which is expected to be ready for public consultations in 2006.

Discussion

Summary of the Case Studies

The case studies that are presented here clearly show that some progress has been made inplanning for MPAs and Integrated Management since the first failed attempts in the 1990s(such as the Terra Nova National Marine Conservation Area), although admittedly allparties are still at the learning stage. The first MPA proposals that were rejected provided

Dow




valuable lessons about consultation and the resources necessary to achieve meaningfulconsultations and involvement. Several of the MPA case studies presented are goodexamples of bottom-up actions, which have the characteristic of engaging people (Kay& Alder, 2005). Regardless of who initiated the project, the process of designating anMPA or implementing integrated management in a region implied the involvement oflocal communities and various institutions, agencies, and stakeholders working as a teamtoward a common goal. In all examples examined, such processes either used existingsocial capital or created it though nodes of collective knowledge (scientific, local, andtraditional), effective group dynamics, valuable working relationships, concerted actions,consensus-building, formal and informal rule making and leadership.

Social capital describes the collective value of all social networks that exist amongpeople (Putnam, 2000). The values that are generated through these networks are importantin generating and maintaining momentum in any planning process, including integratedmanagement and marine protected areas. Where there is strong social capital there will beconsiderable community involvement and development of shared values. In the Beaufort Seacase study there was strong social capital to begin with since the process dealt primarilywith a single social network of Inuit people. At Race Rocks, social capital was builtthrough consensus-building and progress was made towards establishing the park, onlyto be dismantled because of actions outside of the social networks that developed. Inaddition, the capacity of small stakeholders groups and in native communities often has tobe built before they can participate in the larger discussions. This was certainly a factor indelaying progress in Race Rocks and in the ESSIM initiative. The experiences with socialcapital emphasized the importance of the principles listed in the Oceans Act: inclusion ofall stakeholders from the beginning, consensus-building, and recognition of First Nationsrights. To these, we can add the importance of formalizing the rules of decision makingthat have to be understood and applied by all levels of government involved.

In all cases that progressed well there was a need for strong leadership, be it from thecommunity and/or from an agency. The role of NGOs has been important in several casestudies. In general NGOs force the government, the stakeholders, and the general publicto think about conservation (Lequin, 2000, 294). They have often been instrumental inrallying public opinion, bringing the issues to the general public and creating momentum(Saguenay-St. Lawrence Park, the Gully MPA, Gwaii Hanaas NMCA). An additionalexample is provided by deep-water corals on the Nova Scotia Shelf that were publicized inpart by NGOs and that were the object of the International Symposium on deep-sea coralhosted by the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax, NS, Canada in 2000.

Management

The type of management adopted in the various case studies analyzed varies widely. Manycase studies have either specified co-management as the approach to be taken or have someco-management features such as some influence in decision making, equitable distributionof benefits, and sense of stewardship (Jentoft, 1989). Co-management has been adopted inthe case of the Beaufort Sea MPA and Gwaii Hanaas because of the nature of the agreementsbetween the First Nations and the government. The Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Parkhas been established by the common action of two levels of governments with the clearintent of including interest groups and keeping equal partnership between both agencies.In Gilbert Bay the local committee pushed for the creation of the MPA under the OceansAct with the clear understanding that DFO would then take charge of the management in

Dow




collaboration with the multistakeholders committee. Most importantly, in most cases, thedesignation of a protected area was the occasion for various governmental agencies to learnto work together and coordinate their efforts (e.g., Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park,Gully Marine Protected Area, Beaufort Sea MPA).

However, consultations and designation processes are not immune to detrimentalexternal factors, as happened in the case of Race Rocks. Where there is some formof empowerment, there is considerably greater support and participation, as seen in theBeaufort Sea where the Inuit are key managers of the area.

Marine Protected Areas

Most of the protected areas cited here were first created with the goal of protecting iconicspecies or historical spaces, sometimes in isolation from the surrounding environment. Forexample, in the process of defining the Race Rocks MPA, a salmon and halibut fishingclosure was negotiated (LeRoy et al., 2004) without taking into account the scale ofmigrations relative to that of the MPA. Similarly, there are no commercial fisheries to dealwith in the Beaufort Sea, and a single iconic and culturally important species (beluga) ismuch easier to rally community attention around than is the negotiating of fishing rights.

Unfortunately there is no clear description or prescription for MPA targets andhow to build a network, and the three agencies responsible for the designation ofprotected areas still have to develop the common strategy announced in the MPAs strategydocument (Government of Canada, 2005b). Considerable work has been done in identifyingecologically important or sensitive zones and focal species (Breeze, 2004; Fisheries andOceans Canada, 2004). This is an important first step but there is a need to broaden theapproach to encompass the common and productive habitats under a common vision ofmarine protected areas.

Integrated Management (IM) Initiatives

Because of history and circumstances, the two IM case studies have adopted two verydifferent approaches. The St. Lawrence integrated management initiative started with anested structure of regional organizations that mobilized local interests groups as well asagencies based on a set of consistent guidelines (Fisheries and Oceans Canada—QuebecRegion, 2003). The small-scale initiatives allow for short-term action plans alreadyunderway, in a context that is less complicated than a Large Ocean Management Area.However, it will be interesting to follow the development of the large scale integratedmanagement initiative for the St. Lawrence given the numerous conflicts on jurisdictionbetween Quebec and Canada and the large number of projects, agencies, and stakeholdersthat must be integrated. Fortunately, several communities will already be organized enoughand informed enough to participate fully in the process.

In Nova Scotia, integrated management planning has started with the creation of adetailed conceptual plan for offshore issues and the involvement of related interest groupscovering a large area on the Eastern Scotian Shelf (ESSIM). Remarkable attention was givento establishing much-needed links between the numerous agencies acting in this study area.The small-scale initiatives that have commenced in the region will eventually be integratedinto the ESSIM process. The caution exercised in building the strategy and the time taken toestablish relationships not only show the commitment necessary for such undertakings butalso reflect the complexity of working at a large scale with multiple stakeholders with very

Dow




diverse agendas and a large and well-established fishing industry. The documentation andinformation are easily available and the process seems remarkably transparent, which willprobably pay off in the long term although there are still difficulties. Perhaps the productionof the Action Plan over the next year will generate more loyalty and attachment to thisinitiative.

Why So Slow?

There are several reasons why it has taken a long time to achieve the few MPA and IMinitiatives that currently exist in Canada. First, funding was inadequate for a large part ofthe period studied. NMCA projects were stalled until 2003 when, for example, new fundingwas granted to continue with the Strait of Georgia NMCA consultation (Francine Mercier,Parks Canada, Ottawa, pers. comm.). In DFO, new funds dedicated to implement PhaseI of the Oceans Action Plan were released in June 2005 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada,2005a) and although they are small in amount they are essential to undertaking some ofthe much-needed research, establishing new MPAs, and helping to maintain and developintegrated management projects (such as the ESSIM and Gulf of St. Lawrence integratedmanagement initiatives). In contrast, Australia has provided substantial funding to science tosupport its Oceans Policy, in particular its regional planning initiatives (Hatcher & Bradbury,2006). Some of the outcomes have not only contributed information to the planning processbut also have given a better understanding of the country’s marine resources. For example,the bioregionalization study of the continental slope and deeper waters off the southeastmarine region of Australia provided a much clearer picture of the area and identified areasfor future research (Butler et al., 2001).

Second, the time and effort necessary to foster agreements between agencies andharmonise sectoral regulations have often been underestimated and account for long delays(e.g., Gully MPA, ESSIM). It took two years to reach an agreement between the provincialand federal governments to create the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Park. The negotiations withFirst Nations on the west coast took even more time and are still not completed. The lackof overarching treaties will continue to prevent any rapid progress in marine managementand conservation in this area. The involvement of the upper hierarchy of relevant agenciesin resolving jurisdiction problems during the preparatory work of the projects is veryimportant, but has often been more difficult to obtain than expected (e.g., Race Rocks,Gully, ESSIM). There is still a lot of harmonizing to do as each agency has its ownmandate; agencies that see themselves as promoting economic activities are often resistingother policies, laws, and regulations and there is a clear reluctance to share power eitherwith the resource users or other agencies. This makes the integration difficult and slowto accomplish. According to the MPA Action Plan, DFO, Parks Canada and EnvironmentCanada should work in collaboration to establish a common strategy and vision for ourcoasts, given their complementary mandates regarding conservation and protected areas.However, this initiative has yet to be undertaken as there is still a lack of demonstratedcommitment at the political and upper management levels.

Third, compiling ecological and socioeconomic data is only the first part ofthe information process. DFO and Parks Canada have committed to cooperation andconsultation with interest groups and other agencies. The case studies show that consultationand consensus-building take more time than expected and create large demands forinformation and preparation of activities. These activities have necessitated some timeto learn and adjust, which only comes with experience. It has taken several years in all casestudies to summarize the available information, disseminate it, and generate stakeholder

Dow




interest in the projects. It is to be expected that future projects will benefit from currentexperiences the way the Bonavista Bay NMCA provided lessons for the present ones, butit is unlikely that this phase will ever be shortened. Even in straightforward cases such asthe Gilbert Bay MPA that did not suffer any major conflict and that had strong leadershipand community consensus, the designation of the MPA took eight years. Although it isa sluggish process at times, interest groups appreciate (and demand) being consulted andbeing part of the decision making. Elsewhere in the world, failure to take the time to buildconsensus has resulted in considerable delays and protests and little buy-in (e.g., Russ &Alcala, 1994; Suman et al., 1999; Glaesel, 2000; Bernstein et al., 2004).

Fourth, the number of stakeholders and more importantly the presence of several highstakes in the area of a proposed project define the level of complexity and progress. Insmall communities with relatively low potential losses in resources (e.g., some CoastalManagement Areas in the St. Lawrence, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Park, Beaufort Sea,and Gilbert Bay MPA), the definition of management plans has progressed continuallyand consensus was relatively easy to achieve. In cases where the stakes are high or issuesare complex, it is harder to keep stakeholders involved and negotiations are considerablylengthened (e.g., ESSIM). In Australia, negotiations over the location and size of closedareas in each part of the Great Barrier Reef were facilitated by the relatively low stakes ineach community (Bruce Hatcher, pers. comm.).

Access to fisheries resources was always a big source of contention. In fact, we havefound no example of MPAs in which fisheries were an important issue and would have hadto be restricted. Even when fisheries are small or the proposed MPA is small comparedto the fishing grounds, the battle to keep the fisheries open or to keep future rights tofish into protected areas is inevitable and fierce. Given the present state of Canadian andglobal fisheries (Pauly et al., 2001; Christensen et al., 2003), it is inconceivable to fight forevery bit of territory when there is a wide call for restricting fishing activity and leavingareas of the sea exempt from exploitation (Clark, 1996; National Centre for EcologicalAnalysis and Synthesis, 2001; Tupper et al., 2002; Pauly et al., 2003; Zeller, 2005). Thefishing industry, with its historically close links with DFO and its industrial-sized fleets onall coasts, exerts considerable influence on the Department and on provincial governmentsand agencies. Although the attitude is changing slowly within DFO, it still remains tobe seen if both the fishing industry and associated agencies will be willing to be tiedby the integrated management decisions. If we are serious about integrated managementand multipartite consensus decisions, back-door deals cannot be tolerated as they wouldblock the negotiation process and discourage any real involvement of other parties. Otherindustries that are closely linked to their governing agencies could have similar detrimentaleffects on the negotiations, although so far the oil and gas industry, for example, has beensupportive and cooperative in Canadian waters.

Conclusions

“It takes ages for programs to mature, communities to learn, and bureaucracies to change”(C. Rigg quoted in Vodden et al., 2003). This is certainly true in Canada where themanagement of activities at sea is divided among several agencies at both the provincialand federal levels, each responsible for one or a few industrial activities. Integratedmanagement is a much-needed approach in Canada and demands new attitudes andprocedures that we are only starting to develop and to put into action. The initial objectivesmay have been overly optimistic given the difficulties to overcome and perhaps there is

Dow




a need to adjust the objectives and the resource allocation using the past eight years ofexperience.

Although responsibilities remain within each agency and governed by the sameregulation, it is still threatening for stakeholders and agencies alike to relinquish powerto a council that will decide overarching goals and actions that ultimately affect theirmandate. It will be interesting to observe how the powers of the fisheries managementbranch and the fisheries industries will play in the context of the integrated managementinitiatives. Although progress has been made, we still have a lot to learn and accomplish, andwe will need long-term commitment from the government both in policy and in supportinglocal capacity.

The release of the Oceans Action Plan in June 2005 (Government of Canada, 2005b),along with the announcement of the allocation of $28 million Canadian over two yearsdevoted to the implementation of Phase 1 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005a), hasenergized the process of implementation of MPAs by providing a “Government of Canada”perspective, and there are apparently new directions to integrate the efforts of all agenciesinstead of departments working separately and with overlapping agendas. However, morefunds will be required to implement Phase 2 of the Oceans Action Plan in to 2007 and2008. Also, more resources are needed for research to address broader issues than fisheriesmanagement, which has already suffered from serious decreases in funding in the last tenyears. For example, management issues over the necessity of and size of buffer zones toprotect some species or the ecosystem from some industrial activities (e.g., seismic surveys,trawling, impact of new fisheries, and mitigation) need to be studied further. Collaborationwith research institutes and universities would bring new energies and different points ofview in research, and add value to the funds allocated toward advancing the plan.

Canadian agencies are learning to work in partnership with local and provincialorganizations and with each other. These case studies drawn from protected areas andintegrated management initiatives led by DFO, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, andprovincial partners demonstrate that several agencies in Canada have started to developtheir competences at consultation and co-management. Conversely, communities thathave started integrated management initiatives or participated in the designation of aprotected area have generally benefited from the increased dialogue and collaborationamong the stakeholders as well as the building of their capacity to address problems. Itwill take involvement at all level of government to facilitate the advancement of the oceansagenda and streamline the processes to overcome the many administrative hurdles thatexist. Resources will have to be allocated to build capacity for local groups, small-scaleindustries, and First Nations, and other groups and communities to participate fully in thedecision-making process. The designation of a proper representative and funding for basicconsulting activities are primary conditions for participation, along with taking the time toput the proper structures in place.

Notes

1. Numbers are based on preliminary analysis of MPA Global, a global database of MPAs beingdeveloped for the PhD thesis.

References

Alder, J., and T. Ward. 2001. Australia’s ocean policy—Sink or swim?. Journal of Environment andDevelopment 10:266–289.

Dow




Bernstein, B., S. Iudicello, C. Stringer, and MRAG Americas Inc. 2004. Lessons learned from recentmarine protected area designations in the United States. The National Fisheries ConservationCenter, Ojai, CA, USA, 91 pp.

Breeze, H. 2002. Commercial fisheries of the Sable Gully and surrounding region: Historical andpresent activities. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 2612,83 pp.

Breeze, H. 2004. Review of criteria for selecting ecologically significant areas of the Scotian shelf andslope. Prepared for the Ocean and Coastal Management Division, Fisheries and Ocean Canada,Halifax, Nova Scotia, Ocean and Coastal Management Report, 2004-04. 88 pp.

Breeze, H., D. G. Fenton, R. J. Rutherford, and M. A. Silva (eds.). 2002. The Scotian Shelf: Anecological overview for ocean planning. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and AquaticSciences, Vol. 2393, 259 pp.

Butler, A., P. Harris, V. Lyne, A. Heap, V. Passlow, and R. Porter-Smith. 2001. An interimbioregionalisation for the continental slope and deeper waters off the south-east marine region ofAustralia. Australia CSIRO and Geoscience Australia, Hobart, Australia, Report to the NationalOceans Office, 38 pp.

Carrier, M. 2001. Le parc marin du Saguenay-Saint-Laurent: L’experience d’unmegapartenariat en milieu rural. Universite Rurale Quebecoise 2001, ManicouaganHaute-Cote-Nord, September 9–14, 2001. Accessed in August 2005 athttp://www.uqar.qc.ca/chrural/urq/URQ2001/urq2001.org/

Christensen, V., S. Guenette, J. J. Heymans, C. J. Walters, R. Watson, D. Zeller, and D. Pauly. 2003.Hundred-year decline of North Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish and Fisheries 4:1–24.

Clark, C. W. 1996. Marine reserves and the precautionary management of fisheries. EcologicalApplications 6:369–370.

CNSOPB. 2006. 2006 Work Plan Memorandum of Understanding between the Canada-Nova ScotiaOffshore Petroleum Board, Environment Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.Online at http://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/environment/mou.html, 11 pp.

CNSOPB. undated. Policies—Sable-Gully. Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. April2006. Online at http://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/environment/mou.html

CNSOPB and DFO. 2003. Renewal of Memorandum on Understanding between theCanada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and Environment Canada. Online athttp://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/environment/MOU2003.pdf, 16 pp.

CNSOPB and DFO. 2004. Memorandum of Understanding between the Canada-Nova Sco-tia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Online athttp://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/environment/mou.html, 7 pp.

Coffen-Smout, S., D. Millar, G. Herbert, and T. Hall (eds.). 2005. Proceedings of the 3rd EasternScotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Forum Workshop, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 22–23February 2005. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 2719, 63pp. Online at http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/e/essim/essim-reports-e.html

Coffen-Smout, S., R. G. Halliday, G. Herbert, T. Potter, and N. Witherspoon. 2001. Ocean activitiesand ecosystem issues on the Eastern Scotian Shelf: An assessment of current capabilities toaddress ecosystem objectives. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document,2001/095. 44 pp.

Dalcourt, M.-F., A. M. Cabana, J. Morisset, H. F. Ellefsen, S. Pereira, D. Dorion, M. Lemay,B. Rofdrigue, F. Hazel, and P. Nellis. 2005. La gestion integree du Saint-Laurent a lacroisee des chemins: Comment adapter les nouveaux programmes gouvernementaux de GIaux initiatives en place le long des cotes du Saint-Laurent. In: OMRN National Conference2005: Canada‘s Oceans: Research, management and the human dimension, Ottawa, Canada,September 29–October 1, 2005, Oral presentation.

Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fisheries. 2005. Marine protected areas: Policy andimplementation plan. Welllington, New Zealand, 25 pp.

Dionne, S. 2004. The role of science in the elaboration of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park’secosystem conservation plan. In: Making ecosystem-based management work. Proceedings of

Dow




the Fifth International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, eds. N.W. P. Munro, P. Dearden, T. B. Herman, K. Beazley, and S. Bondrup-Nielsen, 1–6, Victoria,BC, Canada, May 11–16, 2003 Nova Scotia: Science and Management of Protected AreasAssociation, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Online at http://www.sampaa.org

Dirhamsyah, D. 2006. Indonesian legislative framework for coastal resources management: A criticalreview and recommendation. Ocean and Coastal Management 49:68–92.

Elliott, G., and B. Spek. 2004. Integrated management planning of the Beaufort Sea: Blending naturaland social science in a settled land claim area. In: Making ecosystem-based management work.Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Science and Management of ProtectedAreas, eds. N. W. P. Munro, P. Dearden, T. B. Herman, K. Beazley, and S. Bondrup-Nielsen,1–10, Victoria, BC, Canada, May 11–16, 2003 Nova Scotia: Science and Management ofProtected Areas Association, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Online at http://www.sampaa.org

ESSIM Planning Office. 2005. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Ocean Management Plan(2006–2011), Draft for discussion. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia,Oceans and Coastal Management Report, 2005-02. 73 pp.

Fast, H., J. Mathias, and O. Banias. 2001. Directions toward marine conservation in Canada’s WesternArctic. Ocean and Coastal Management 44:183–205.

Fenton, D. G., P. A. Macnab, and R. J. Rutherford. 2002. The Sable Gully Marine Protected AreasInitiative: History and current efforts. In: Managing Protected Areas in a Changing World.International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, eds. S. Bondrup-Nielsen, N. W. P. Munro, G. Nelson, J. H. M. Willison, T. B. Herman, and P. Eagles, 1343–1355,Victoria, BC, Canada, Nova Scotia: Science and Management of Protected Areas Association(SAMPAA), Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Online at http://www.sampaa.org

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1998. The Gully—A scientific review of its environment andecosystems. Maritimes Regional Habitat Status Report, 98/1 E. 9 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2001. The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM)Initiative: Issues, challenges and opportunities. A discussion paper for the federal-provincialESSIM Group. Oceans and Coastal Management Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,Maritimes Region, 31 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2002. Policy and operational framework for integrated managementof estuarine, coastal and marine environments in Canada. Ottawa, 36 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2004. Identification of ecologically and biologically significant areas.DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Ecosystem Status Report, 2004/006. 21 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2005a. Minister announces $28 million investment for phase I ofCanada’s Oceans Action plan.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2005b. The St. Lawrence Estuary Marine Protected Area Project.Mont-Joli, Quebec, Canada, 12 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2005c. Canada’s Oceans action plan, for present and future generations.Online at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/oap-pao/index e.asp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada—Quebec Region. 2003. Integrated management for everyone.Methodology for the coastal communities of the marine portions of the St. Lawrence.Fs23-413/2002E. 61 pp.

Gingras, B., and M.-F. Dalcourt. 2003. La gestion integree de la zone cotiere au Quebec: analysecomparative d’initiatives communautaires debutees entre 1996 et 2002. In: 71e Congres del’ACFAS, Section Administration et management public, May 20, 2003.

Glaesel, H. 2000. State and local resistance to the expansion of two environmentally harmful marinefishing techniques in Kenya. Society and Natural Resources 13:321–338.

Gordon Jr, D. C., and D. G. Fenton (eds). 2002. Advances in understanding the Gully Ecosystem: Asummary of research projects conducted at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography (1999–2001).Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 2377, 84 pp. Online athttp://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/263137.pdf

Government of Canada. 1996. Canada Oceans Act, RSC 1996: Bill C-26, Chapter 31, 2nd Session,35th Parliament, 45, Eliz. 1996.

Dow




Government of Canada. 2004. Gully Marine Protected Area Regulations. Canada Gazette Part II138(10):663–694.

Government of Canada. 2005a. Gilbert Bay Marine Protected Area Regulations. Canada Gazette139(25)

Government of Canada. 2005b. Canada’s federal marine protected areas strategy. Ottawa, ON Canada,18 pp.

Green, J. M., C. J. Morris, and J. M. Simms. 2003. Abundance of resident Atlantic cod in Gilbert Bay,Labrador, based on mark-recapture, sampling catch per unit effort and commercial tag returndata collected from 1998 to 2002. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document,2003/39.

Hatcher, B. G., and R. H. Bradbury. 2006. Marine ecosystem management: Is the whole greaterthan the sum of its parts? pp. 205–232 in: Towards principled oceans governance: Australianand Canadian approaches and challenges. Edited by D. R. Rothwell and D. L. VanderZwaag,Routledge Taylor & Francis, Oxon. ISBN10: 0-415-38378-1

Hooker, S. K., H. Whitehead, and S. Gowans. 2002. Ecosystem consideration in conservationplanning: Energy demand of foraging bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) in a marineprotected area. Biological Conservation 104(1):51–58.

Innes, J. E. 1996. Planning through consensus: A new vision to the comprehensive planning ideal.Journal of the American Planning Association 62:460–472.

IWG-IMSL. 2004. Integrated management of the St. Lawrence. Pre-consultation document.Intergovernmental Working Group on Integrated Management of the St. Lawrence, 57 pp.

Jamieson, G. S., and C. O. Levings. 2001. Marine protected areas in Canada: Implications for bothconservation and fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences58:138–156.

Jentoft, S. 1989. Fisheries co-management: delegating government responsibility to fisherman’sorganizations. Marine Policy 13:137–154.

Jessen, S., and N. Ban. 2003. Establishing marine protected areas in British Columbia: An NGOperspective. In Aquatic protected areas: what works best and how do we know?, eds. J. P.Beumer, A. Grant, and D. C. Smith, Cairns, Australia: Australian Society for Fish Biology377–387.

Jones, R. R. 1992. Accounting for First Nations’ interests in marine protected areas. In Science andManagement of Protected Areas: Developments in landscape management and urban planning,eds. J. H. Willison, S. Bondrup-Nielsen, C. D. Drysdale, T. B. Herman, N. W. Munro, and T. L.Pollock, Amsterdam: Elsevier 317–324.

Kay, R., and J. Alder. 2005. Coastal Planning and Management, London: Taylor and Francis,380 pp.

Lequin, M. 2000. Gouvernance en ecotourisme: developpement durable, developpement regional etdemocratie participative. Ph.D. thesis, Universite du Quebec a Montreal et INRS-Urbanisation,Montreal, Quebec, 501 pp.

LeRoy, S. 2002. Public process and the creation of a marine protected area at Race Rocks, BritishColumbia. Masters thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada.

LeRoy, S., R. Dobell, T. Dorcey, and J. Tamsey. 2004. Consensus vs implementation: toward thecreation of a marine protected area at Race Rocks, British Columbia. In: Making ecosystem-based management work. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Science andManagement of Protected Areas, eds. N. W. P. Munro, P. Dearden, T. B. Herman, K. Beazley,and S. Bondrup-Nielsen, pp. 1–12, Victoria, BC, Canada, May 11–16, 2003 Nova Scotia:Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Online athttp://www.sampaa.org

Lewins, R. 2001. Consensus Building and Natural Resource Management: A Review. (ResearchPaper, no. 157). Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE),University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

Lien, J. 2000. When marine conservation efforts sink: What can be learned from the abandonedeffort to examine the feasibility of a National Marine Conservation Area on the NE Coast of

Dow




Newfoundland. In: Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA) 16th Conference, Ottawa,October 1999 Ecogifts, Canadian Achievements and Challenges, in press.

Lien, J. 2003. Presentation to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, Issue 11—Evidence. Ottawa, Canada, Tuesday, September 23, 2003, Department of Fisheries and OceansAdvisory Council on Oceans. Online at http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/fish-e/11ev-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=2&comm id=7

Millar, D., C. Renaud, and S. Coffen-Smout. 2005. Report of the Eastern Scotian Shelf IntegratedManagement community workshop, November 22–29, 2004. Oceans and Coastal ManagementDivision, Fisheries and Oceans, Oceans and Coastal Management Report, 2005-01. 20 pp.

Morris, C. J., and J. M. Green. 2002. Biological characteristics of a resident population of Atlanticcod (Gadus morhua) in southern Labrador. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59:666–678.

National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. 2001. Scientific consensus statement onmarine reserves and marine protected areas. Online at http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/Consensus/consensus.pdf

O’Boyle, R. (ed.). 2000. Proceedings of the workshop on the ecosystems considerations for theEastern Scotian Shelf Integrated management (ESSIM) Area. Canadian Stock AssessmentSecretariat, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, Vol. 2000/14, 92 pp. http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/e/essim/essim-reports-e.html

Oceans Act Coordination Office. 1998. The Sable Gully conservation strategy. Department of Fish-eries and Oceans, Maritimes Region, Final version—unpublished committee document. Online athttp://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/dfo-po/sable gully conser strategy/sable gully.pdf, 51 pp.

Pauly, D., J. Alder, E. Bennett, V. Christensen, P. Tyedmers, and R. Watson. 2003. The future forfisheries. Science 302:1359–1361.

Pauly, D., M. L. Palomares, R. Frose, P. Sa-a, M. Vakily, D. Preikshot, and S. Wallace. 2001.Fishing down Canadian aquatic food webs. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences58:51–62.

Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York:Simon and Schuster.

Russ, G. R., and A. C. Alcala. 1994. Sumilon Island Reserve: 20 years of hopes and frustration.NAGA, the ICLARM Quarterly 7(3):8–12.

Rutherford, R. J., G. J. Herbert, and S. S. Coffen-Smout. 2005. Integrated ocean management andthe collaborative planning process: The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM)initiative. Marine Policy 29:75–83.

Ruzzante, D. E., J. S. Wroblewski, C. T. Taggart, R. K. Smedbol, D. Cook, and S. V. Goddard. 2000.Bay-scale population structure in coastal Atlantic cod in Labrador and Newfoundland, Canada.Journal of Fish Biology 56:431–447.

Savaria, J.-Y., G. Cantin, L. Bosse, R. Bailey, L. Provencher, and F. Proust. 2003. Compte rendu d’unatelier scientifique sur les mammiferes marins, leurs habitats et leurs ressources alimentaires,tenu a Mont-Joli (Quebec) du 3 au 7 avril 2000, dans le cadre de l’elaboration du projet de zonede protection marine de l’estuaire du Saint-Laurent. 2647. 108 pp.

Stead, S. M., and D. J. McGlashan. 2006. A coastal and marine national park for Scotland inpartnership with integrated coastal zone management. Ocean and Coastal Management 49:22–41.

Suman, D., M. Shivlani, and J. Milon. 1999. Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves:A comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean &Coastal Management 42:1019–1040.

Tupper, M. H., K. Wickstrom, R. Hilborn, C. M. Roberts, J. A. Bohnsack, F. Gell, J. P. Hawkins, andR. Goodridge. 2002. Marine Reserves and Fisheries Management. Science 295(5558):1233–1235.

Vodden, K., J. Penikett, and M. Berry. 2003. Part I: Examining best practices in coastal zone planning:Lessons and applications for BC’s Central Coast. In: Canada’s coastal communities: buildingthe future, 1–32, Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon Fraser University, Alert Bay BC, April 2–4,2003.

Dow




Whitehead, H., W. D. Bowen, S. K. Hooker, and S. Gowans. 1998. Marine mammals. In: The GullyScience Review. eds. G. Harrisson and D. Fenton, 186–221, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vol.98/83.

Zeller, D. 2005. From Mare Liberum to Mare Reservarum: Canada’s opportunity for global leadershipin ocean resource governance. Ocean Yearbook 19:1–18.

Documents

Lessons from Marine Protected Areas and Integrated Ocean ... · PDF fileDownloaded By: [University of British Columbia] At: 23:44 20 February 2007 Lessons from MPAs and IOM in Canada