Download PDF - COINAtlantic

Using GIS to evaluate sites for a network of MPAs in British ColumbiaCarolyn Robb, Kim Wright & Karin BodtkerLiving Oceans Society, #1405-207 W. Hastings St., Vancouver, BC, V6B 1H7, Canadacrobb@livingoceans.org, kwright@livingoceans.org, kbodtker@livingoceans.orgAbstractAs a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada has committed to building a network of MarineProtected Areas (MPAs) that effectively conserves at least 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. On Canada’sPacific coast, 197 MPAs have been designated by provincial and federal authorities, covering approximately 3% ofCanadian Pacific waters. This research uses GIS to assess which sites are appropriate for network inclusion by analyzingtheir size and spacing, overlaying their boundaries with updated information on commercial fishing closures,and evaluating the extent of conservation-focused fisheries closures outside of the current suite of MPAs. Resultssuggest that almost 90% of MPAs in the Canadian Pacific are designed to exclude resource extraction but that only2.5% of MPAs fully or partially meet those objectives. Outside of the existing MPAs, no areas are identified thatcould be eligible for network inclusion as “no take” areas.IntroductionMarine Protected Areas (MPAs), in particular those that exclude resource extraction, are an increasingly recognizedtool for protecting marine biodiversity (Mosquera et al., 2003; Lester and Halpern, 2008; Stewart et al., 2009).Scientific advice states that to fully realize the benefits of MPAs, they must be planned and implemented through abroader network planning process (Jessen et al., 2011). As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity,Canada has made an international commitment to develop a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 2020.Led by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), federal and provincial authorities are working to create “an ecologicallycomprehensive, resilient, and representative national network of marine protected areas that protects the biologicaldiversity and health of the marine environment for present and future generations” (Government of Canada,2011). Part of this process will be to determine which existing MPAs should be incorporated into the networks onCanada’s three coasts and whether there are sites outside of existing MPAs that could also contribute. This researchassesses which MPAs and fisheries closures might be for network inclusion by examining their protection status andcomparing their size and spacing to design standards.MPA network design standards state that networks should include ecologically and biologically significant areas,represent the full range of ecosystems, incorporate multiple replications of each ecological feature, ensure connectivitybetween features, and be adequately sized and protected (Government of Canada, 2011). Scientists have providedmore specific advice for meeting these criteria and suggest that 30% of each bioregion should be representedwithin an MPA network by areas that prohibit all resource extraction, termed ‘no take’ MPAs, and that contributingMPAs, of all protection levels, should be approximately 10 to 20 km in diameter and spaced 20 to 200 km apart(Jessen et al., 2011).In the Canadian Pacific, there are currently 197 MPAs that may be appropriate for bioregional networks. TheMPAs have been established on a site-by-site basis by a variety of government agencies and, as a result, have arange of sizes, objectives, and restrictions. The majority of the MPAs have been classified based on internationalguidelines developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Day et al., 2012). These classificationsare derived from the management intent of an MPA and give information on the level of protection intendedfor an MPA (Robb et al., 2011). Within the IUCN guidelines, MPA types Ia, Ib, II, and III, have the most strictrestrictions on human activities, excluding all resource extraction (Day et al., 2012).The existing suite of MPAs covers only 3% of Canada’s Pacific waters and does not currently meet the goal of anetwork that effectively conserves at least 10% of coastal and marine areas. Therefore, Canada will have to designateadditional MPAs or identify areas beyond the existing MPAs that can contribute to an effective network. Accordingto IUCN guidelines (Day et al., 2012), fishery management areas must have broader conservation objectivesin order to be considered for MPA classification. The federal guidelines for a national network of MPAs state that,195