Transcript Marine protected areas

Marine protected areas
in Pacific Canada:
issues about biological
valuation in the marine
environment
BWZee, December 2-4,
2004.
Glen Jamieson
Fisheries and Oceans
Canada
Markle
Approach
 Current
MPA situation in British Columbia
 Approaches


to date
what has not really worked
what we are now trying to do
 Movement
towards a network approach
MPA Definition

The International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) defines
marine protected areas (mpas) as:
“any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain,
together with its overlying water and associated
flora, fauna, historical and cultural features,
which have been reserved by law or other
effective means to protect part or all of the
enclosed environment” (Kelleher and
Kenchington 1992)
Provincial (P) and Federal (F) MPAS
established in Canada by Fisheries and
Oceans Canada Regions
Decade
1910-19
1920-29
1930-39
1940-49
1950-59
1960-69
1970-79
1980-89
1990-99
Total
Pacific
P
F
2
1
2
4
14
19
21
56
116
2
2
1
8
Arctic
P
F
3
3
1
2
4
8
2
3
4
24
Laurentian
P
F
2
8
1
Atlantic
P
F
3
Nfld.
P
Total
F
3
1
5
1
6
7
5
2
18
5
5
2
2
16
1
6
3
4
7
9
7
2
9
29
28
39
74
204
Legislated Areas with a Marine Component by
General Type (designations may not all be exactly
similar) by Fisheries and Oceans Canada Region,
excluding the Great Lakes.
+
Ontario = 2, Yukon = 1; () = presence of a marine portion unknown
Pacific1
Provincial
Ecological
Reserves
Provincial
Parks
Wildlife
Management
Areas
Wildlife
Reserves
“Protected
Areas”
116
15
Central and
Arctic2
3
Laurentian2
7
Maritimes2
Total
Percentage
134
24
18
1
92
69
1
5
4
15
15
11
1
1
1
81
4
3+ (2?)
7 (6?)
2
Newfoundland2
6
6 (6?)
Legislated Areas with a Marine Component by General
Type by Fisheries and Oceans Canada Region,
excluding the Great Lakes
* pilot MPAs. () = presence of a marine portion unknown; 1 Jamieson and Lessard 2000;
2
Federal
National Park
(Reserves)
National
Marine Parks
( = National
Marine
Conservation
Areas)
Migratory
Bird
Sanctuaries
National
Wildlife
Areas
Marine
Protected
Areas
DFO 1999 and Tina Kurvits, DFO, Ottawa, ON, pers. comm.
Pacific1
Central
and
Arctic2
Laurentian2
Martime2
Newfoun
d-land2
Total
12
1
24
5
18
17
4
75
2
1
9
12
1
1
42
64
1
Percentage
5
17 (2?)
15
7
2
2
2
7
13
17
1*
51
7
4*
3
What is Actually Protected?
Mpas established to
preserve habitats and
ecosystems
 provincial parks
 national parks
 ecological reserves
 designated wildlife
reserves
 MPAs
 national wildlife areas
 wildlife management
areas
Mpas focused on the
protection of individual
species or species
groups



marine bird sanctuaries
fisheries closures
MPAs
General Observations

In Pacific Canada, most existing marine protected areas)
are provincial (116, 94 %), nearshore and relatively
small. 66 (52%) are less than 1 km2 in area

In eastern and arctic Canada, most marine protected
areas are federal (62, 78%), and most are Marine Bird
Sanctuaries (MBSs)
MBSs in eastern Canada are relatively small in area
(average marine area, when present = >5 km2) and
focus on migratory staging areas, but those in the Arctic
are large and focus on breeding grounds, with marine
portions averaging 898 km2

Restrictions on Human Activities
Three basic groupings of protection:
1) prevention of habitat destruction or modification [e.g.
non-renewable resource extraction (water diversion,
mining, etc), ocean dumping and dredging, etc.]
2) prevention of species harvest or exploitation (i.e.
logging, fishing or hunting, and restrictions are often
species specific);
3) prevention of species’ disturbance (e.g. feeding wildlife,
or interfering with their natural behaviour, reproduction
and rearing of young)
Zoning within mpas

All current mpas in Canada are uniform, or homogenous, in
the protection that is provided. There is no internal zoning in
any whereby greater or lesser protection is legislatively
provided.

Some MPAs and most, if not all, NMCAs, when they are
established, are likely to be internally zoned, with some areas
likely being “no take” areas, i.e. closed to all fishing activity.

Because marine species are already extensively exploited,
“no take” areas near urban areas are likely to be relatively
small, meaning that particular attention will need to be
directed to defining rationales and objectives, and in linking
them into a network so that synergistic conservation benefits
are obtainable.
Fishery Closures

In BC, for example, there were 579 spatially-persistent
fishery closures in 1997 which restricted fishing activity
 Some overlapped the region’s 125 legislated marine
protected areas and seven pseudo marine protected
areas, but many did not.
 The problem with fishery closures as a tool is that
protection established through regulation is relatively
dynamic, with regulations relatively easily created,
modified or deleted on an annual basis. Databases
describing them also need to be updated frequently to be
accurate and current, which can be tedious and require
committed resources.
A Functional MPA Network Does
Not Yet Exist in BC
•
•
•
•
At present, while there are many BC mpas, their spatial
locations, sizes and extent of protection applied have not
been developed in a coordinated manner
There is no functional mpa network - each mpa’s
establishment was primarily considered on its own
merits, and not in terms of its contribution to an
overarching conservation agenda
Each agency established its own protected areas
independently of those being established by other
agencies
To address this, I later present a sample mpa network
design based on optimisation theory, using the analytical
program MARXAN
Approaches to Date

In the late 1990’s, DFO actively promoted development
of an MPA Establishment Strategy (see 2000 Federalprovincial MPA Strategy). It stalled in 2000, in part
because:
1) MPAs are part of an IM process, and the “tail was
moving faster than the dog” – implementation of the IM
process needed to catch up, and
2) lack of treaties with coastal First Nations
created13 political problems re MPA establishment.

In support of a science process, the following paper was
developed:

Levings, C. and Jamieson, G. An evaluation of criteria for
creating MPAs in the Pacific Region: A proposed semiquantitative scheme. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat
Res. Doc. 1999/210. 30 p. http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/English/Research_Years/1999/a99_210e.h
tm
Federal-Provincial MPA Strategy,
June 29, 2000
MPA Protection Objectives
1. To contribute to the
protection of marine
biodiversity, representative
ecosystems and special
natural features.
(e.g. upwelling environments,
eelgrass beds, and soft coral
communities.)
Potential Protective
Designation(s)
1. Oceans Act MPAs
2. National Marine
Conservation Areas
3. Marine Wildlife Areas
4. Provincial Parks
5. Ecological Reserves
6. Wildlife Management
Areas
7. National Wildlife Areas
8. Migratory Bird
Sanctuaries
Determining Criteria
1. Representativeness
2. Degree of naturalness
3. Areas of high biodiversity
or biological productivity
4. Rare and endangered
species
5. Unique natural
phenomena
6. Ecological viability
7. Vulnerability
8. Unique habitat
MPA Protection Objectives
2. To contribute to the
protection and
conservation of fishery
and aquatic resources
and their habitats.
(e.g. spawning, rearing and
nursery areas.)
Potential Protective
Designation(s)





Oceans Act MPAs
Fisheries Act
Ecological Reserves
National Marine
Conservation Areas
Provincial Parks
Determining Criteria







Areas of high
biodiversity and/or
biological productivity
Rare and endangered
species
Vulnerability
Areas supporting unique
or rare marine habitats
Areas supporting
significant spawning
concentrations or
densities
Areas important for the
viability of populations
and genetic stocks
Areas supporting critical
species, life stages and
environmental support
MPA Protection Objectives
Potential Protective
Designation(s)
3. To protect cultural heritage 
resources of the Pacific
coast of Canada and to 
provide opportunities
for British Columbians
and others to explore,
understand and
appreciate the marine
and coastal cultural
heritage of Canada’s
Pacific coast.
(e.g.shipwrecks and areas of
cultural significance.)
National Marine
Conservation Areas
Provincial Parks
Determining Criteria


Presence of
significant cultural
heritage values, such
as physical artifacts
and structural
features
Places of traditional
use or of spiritual
importance
MPA Protection Objectives
4. To provide a variety of
marine and coastal
outdoor recreation and
tourism opportunities.
(e.g. scenic areas, boat
havens, marine trails,
and dive sites.)
Potential Protective
Designation(s)


National Marine
Conservation Areas
Provincial Parks
Determining Criteria








Degree of naturalness
Significance of cultural
heritage values
Presence of significant
recreation or tourism
values
Ability to attract and
sustain recreational use
Facilitate close contact
with the marine
environment;
Aesthetics
Rare, scarce,
outstanding or unique
marine recreation
Features
MPA Protection Objectives
5. To provide opportunities
for increased scientific
research on marine
ecosystems,
organisms and special
features, and sharing
of traditional
knowledge.
(e.g. long term monitoring of
undisturbed
populations.)
Potential Protective
Designation(s)






Oceans Act MPAs
Ecological Reserves
Marine Wildlife Areas
National Marine
Conservation Areas
Provincial Parks
National Wildlife
Areas
Determining Criteria



Value as a natural
benchmark;
Value for developing
a better
understanding of the
function and
interaction of
species,
communities, and
ecosystems
Value for determining
the impact and
results of marine
management
activities
MPA Protection Objectives
6. To provide opportunities
for education and to
increase awareness of
marine and coastal
environments and our
relationship to them.
(e.g. interpretive signage,
nature tours, and
outdoor classrooms.)
Potential Protective
Designation(s)








Oceans Act MPAs
Ecological Reserves
Provincial Parks
National Marine
Conservation Areas
Wildlife Management
Areas
National Wildlife
Areas
Marine Wildlife Areas
Migratory Bird
Sanctuaries
Determining Criteria




Ability to foster
understanding and
appreciation;
Area provides
opportunities for use,
enjoyment, and
learning about the
local natural
environment
Accessibility
Suitability and
carrying capacity
Current State
There is a diversity of legislation to establish
MPAs, but they need to be harmonised because
each legislation has limitations, and many do not
protect marine species, only the physical
substrate. To date this harmonisation has not
happened, although in the past few months, a
new MOU has been signed which should
facilitate this. There is a new push because BC
wants to develop offshore oil and gas, and it can
not do so politically without offering something to
environmentalists!
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
RESPECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADA'S OCEANS
STRATEGY ON THE PACIFIC COAST OF CANADA
Canada and BC agree to develop subsidiary
memoranda of understanding or agreements on the
following:
a marine protected areas framework for the Pacific
coast that will aim for the coordinated establishment of
marine protected areas. Development of this
subsidiary memorandum of understanding will be led
by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the
Ministry of Sustainable Resources Management in
cooperation with Environment Canada, Parks Canada,
and Natural Resources Canada. It will outline
appropriate mechanisms, processes and structures to
coordinate the review and establishment of new
marine protected areas, and will include an
assessment of existing federal and provincial marine
protected areas;
Biological Valuation Criteria

Canada has just completed a process to identify ecologically and
biologically significant areas (EBSAs), which is a first step to identify
Canadian areas for enhanced management protection. Many of
these areas, but not all, are expected to be later identified as Areas
of Interest (AOIs), a first step in the establishment of MPAs.

The reality seems to be that the theoretical approach and complex
criteria discussed in the many papers discussed are proving to be
somewhat academic and operationally impractical to effect.

Much theoretical information desired is unavailable, e.g., detailed
abundance and distribution data on non-commercial species (i.e.
biodiversity), and data related to the connectivity of areas and their
importance in overall ecological processes.

We are thus hopeful that the EBSA approach, which I will present
later, is a way forward, in that it utilises the advice of experts
available now in an adaptive management process that can address
the threats that may cause significant impact, now and in the future.
MPA Network
In support of this process, a paper outlining
different objective optimization methodologies
was developed:
Evans, S.M.J., G.S. Jamieson, J. Ardron, M. Patterson
and S. Jessen. 2004. Evaluation of site selection
methodologies for use in marine protected area network
design. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Res.
Doc. 2004/082. 55 p.
(http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/English/Research_Years/2004/
a04_082e.htm)
MARXAN

Marxan is a type of Complementarity model, which take into account
the extent to which a site, or set of sites, contributes to meeting the
desired objectives of the overall network. These programs stand out
from the more traditional scoring methods in that they seek to find
the most efficient solution to the problem of designing a network of
mpas that meets a specified conservation goal, while minimising the
‘cost’ (defined here as social, economic, implementation,
management, foregone opportunity, or any other type of quantifiable
cost) of the network (Stewart et al. 2003; Pressey et al. 1996;
Stewart and Possingham 2002).

Marxan utilises a simulated annealing selection process that begins
by generating an initial reserve system that consists of a completely
random set of sites. Next, it iteratively explores trial solutions by
making sequential random changes to the system. Either a
randomly selected site, not yet included in the reserve system, is
selected, or a site already in the reserve system is deleted
(determined by which choice has the least cost). At each step, the
new solution is compared wit the previous solution (i.e. it searches
for the least costly site in each iteration).
MARXAN Spatial Analysis
(from a presentation made by Jamieson, G.S. and J. Ardron, PICES Annual Meeting,
Honolulu, October 2004)
Conservation Objectives
 Rare & endangered species
 Representative physical, biophysical, & biological features
and processes
 Distinctive features
 Replication of features
 Separation to mitigate
catastrophes
 Proximity to allow for
connectivity
Analysis Principles
Full Spectrum of Data:
Physical and Biological
Realistically Represent
the Environment
Accuracy & scale: has to
match data
Flexibility: needs to
accommodate additional information
at a later date
Variety of solutions:
provides management options
Allan Hancock
Areas: existing Parks, areas of
interest, fishery closures considered
Study
area
~ 14 million
hectares of sea
in Study Area
Total no-take
MPAs in BC:
0.02%
Planning Units and
Grids
 Planning Units: Hexagons 500
hectares each ~ 32,000
 Analysis Units: 1 hectare grid
~12.8 million
 Features: Physical and
Biological ~ 93
R. Bateman
 Selecting efficient reserve
networks from thousands of
planning units and dozens of
features, each comprising
millions of grid cells, is beyond
human intuition…
Rarity
Eulachon Estuaries
E
Relative Importance
Red-Blue Estuaries
~Birds & Mammals
Relative Importance
Q N Coast, & N Central Coast only)
(QCI,
Hexactinellid Sponge Reefs
H
Habit-Forming Corals
H
Density
High
Low
Marbled Murrelet Habitat
Low
Medium
High
Representivity
Shelf Mud <50m
Shelf Sand <50m
Slope/Shelf Mud >50m
Slope/Shelf Sand >50m
Slope/Shelf Hard >50m
Slope/Shelf Hard <50m
Pass Mud >50m
Pass Mud <50m
Pass Sand >50m
Pass Sand <50m
Pass Hard >50m
Pass Hard <50m
Inlets Mud >50m
Inlets Sand >50m
Inlets Hard >50m
Inlets <50m
Unknown Depth
Regional Scale
Complexity NW
Van. Island
Benthic topographical complexity as a habitat
proxy for several key features.
Smith Inlet
Entrances to
Smith &
Rivers Inlets
Local Scale
Rivers Inlet
Complexity
Smith Sound
Acknowledging Data
Gaps
We need to also address what we
do not know…
Some marine datasets were hoped to completely cover the
study area, but actually do not …
Examples
• Depth (bathymetry): Some parts of some inlets
not covered -- usually the heads.
• Substrate: No data for greater than 1000 m
depth.
Strategy
• Explicitly note these No Data areas, and set
conservation goals (targets) for these as well,
using the precautionary principle to justify some
protection
M. Shapiro
Summary of Features Considered
Feature Category
Feature Sub-Category
No. of Layers
Regional Representation
Data Regions
6
Ecosystem Representation
Ecosections
8
Ecosystem Representation
Ecosystem Regions
3 regions + 3 subregions
Ecosystem Representation
Enduring Features &
Processes
7 exposure + 21
substrate/depth
Focal Species
Flora
13
Focal Species
Seabirds
15
Focal Species
Anadromous Spp. Richness x
Stream Magnitudes
1
Focal Species
Mammals
1
Focal Species
Fish
1
Special Elements
Rarity
6
Special Elements
Distinctive Features
4 complexity + 4
current
45 Fine Filter
93
48 Coarse Filter
+
Results
Conservation Utility
 Yellow: Places almost always
chosen.
 Pink: Areas chosen about ½ the
time.
 Blue: Areas can be considered
useful in only some reserve
networks.
 93 data layers
6 different size targets
x 4 levels clumping
x 100 runs each
= 2,400 solutions
Discussion
Pros
Most comprehensive spatial ecological analysis to date of the Central Coast,
North Coast, & West Coast of Vancouver Island.
 Efficient processing of a large mass of data of varying quality.
 Spatially explicit; transparent evaluation criteria; several variations of
solutions.
 Offers clear direction for a “first iteration” of MPA selection.

Cons
Many data gaps remain.
 Considers proximity, but not connectivity.
 Assumes ecosystem function, but does not test this (e.g. trophic links).
 Does not yet consider existing human usages.
 Only a little LEK, and no TEK incorporated to date.

Ecosystem Spatial Analysis (ESA)
ESA as a tool can…
•offer possible solutions / starting points for
marine planning in Integrated Management ~
e.g. Conservation Utility.
•roughly define the bounds of what is
“reasonable” ~ e.g. rockfish habitat modelling
•combine stakeholder input (LEK / TEK) with
scientific data ~ e.g. fishers use analysis.
•offer new insights than can lead to
management decisions ~ e.g. trawl bycatch of
corals and sponges
Martina Shapiro