Laurentian Channel MPA<\/a>was going to prohibit all fishing but allow oil and gas activities. This undermined the effectiveness of the MPA\u2019s protections by permitting industrial pursuits that could disturb, damage, or destroy marine life. In response, the federal government announced minimum protection standards for new MPAs that prohibited the most harmful activities\u2014bottom trawling, oil and gas activities, mining, and dumping\u2014from occurring within an MPA boundary. This was a major step forward in our work to improve Canada\u2019s MPAs because the minimum protection standards offer some certainty to stakeholders and communities about what can and cannot occur within the boundaries of a protected area. The government is currently working to operationalize the standards, with clear definitions and policy or legal tools to ensure they\u2019re implemented in all new federal MPAs.<\/p>\nQ: How did CPAWS apply \u201cThe MPA Guide\u201d to the analysis?<\/h2>\n
A: \u201c<\/strong>The MPA Guide\u201d consists of four elements: Stage of Establishment, Level of Protection, Enabling Conditions, and Outcomes. As an early tester of the framework, we were provided with information to assess the Stage of Establishment and Level of Protection elements and ensure the framework and decision support tool was applicable in the Canadian context. The guide was still being finalized while we were evaluating Canadian sites, so we didn\u2019t have direction to assess the other elements. We\u2019ll review those in the future.<\/p>\nFor our analysis, we reviewed a range of MPA materials, including legislation and associated documents such as regulatory impact assessment statements, management plans, monitoring reports, and feasibility studies. We also consulted with local experts in cases where the publicly available information was limited.<\/p>\n
It wasn\u2019t an easy process. Legislation is rarely crystal clear and usually requires interpretation. We sometimes had to piece together what activities were happening in an area from multiple sources of information. For example, a regulation might tell you what sort of fishing is prohibited, but not what sort of fishing is still allowed. Additionally, Indigenous fishing rights are constitutionally protected in Canada, and so Indigenous fishing is allowed in Canadian MPAs. Because Indigenous fishing is a complex issue and there is limited information available on Indigenous fishing and harvesting, we didn\u2019t include this activity in our assessment. However, we acknowledge that all extraction activities will have some degree of impact.<\/p>\n
In other cases, we had to infer the risk and impact to species or habitat based on likelihood of the activity occurring in that area and whether there might be fragile and sensitive ecosystems at risk. Most importantly, we had to keep reviewing all sites and comparing them against each other to ensure consistency.<\/p>\n
Q: What findings stand out from your analysis of Canada\u2019s federal MPAs?<\/h2>\n
A:\u00a0<\/strong>Our analysis indicates that seven MPAs are strongly protected, eight are weakly protected, two are incompatible with biodiversity conservation, and one is proposed but not yet established. The results were heavily skewed by very large and weakly protected sites, such as the Scott Islands marine National Wildlife Area off British Columbia and Tuvaijuittuq interim MPA in the high Arctic.<\/p>\nWe also found considerable\u00a0regional differences in protection levels, with the more strongly protected MPAs generally found in Atlantic Canada, large but weakly protected MPAs in the Arctic, and a bit of a mixed bag in the Pacific.<\/p>\n
Our analysis further revealed that\u00a0just\u00a0four MPAs met all four\u00a0of the\u00a0minimum protection standards and that if those standards were implemented across all sites,\u00a0two MPAs would move from incompatible to weakly protected and another two would jump from weakly to strongly protected. This shows that the minimum standards do provide a critical baseline of protection.<\/p>\n
Also, the federal government is counting other sites toward its marine protection targets that are not included in this analysis. We\u2019ll be evaluating those sites in the future.<\/p>\n
Q: Your report notes that Indigenous-led conservation and co-management is critical to the future of marine conservation in Canada. Can you explain what you mean by that?<\/h2>\n
A:\u00a0<\/strong>Here in Canada, governance and equitability, and the importance of Indigenous leadership, is a major concern. Recognizing the authority of Indigenous peoples to steward their waters and, at a minimum, co-govern MPAs in Canada is absolutely fundamental. What\u2019s more, Indigenous co-management can improve conservation outcomes while protecting areas of cultural significance.\u00a0At CPAWS, our work must always be done through a lens of equity.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wiomsa.org\/wiompan\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/Canada-300x169.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Alex](\"\/-\/media\/post-launch-images\/2021\/11\/alex-barron_capestmarys.jpg?mw=1290&hash=89B0ACB5C331BCD742B9C1BCD659D96A)
<\/picture>\n