The First International Conference on Marine Mammal Protected Areas

heterogeneous environment even though at any one time they may be
concentrated within relatively small-scale foraging areas of only tens or hundreds
of square kilometers. <strong>The</strong>y respond to changes in water mass, productivity, and
prey availability. In principle, MPAs could, and should, be designed to protect
“predictable” concentrations of predators. Size alone will not necessarily
accomplish this. Rather, it may require scale-explicit management and the
incorporation of dynamic metrics.
• Marine mammal protected areas (MMPAs), like marine protected areas (MPAs),
come in many shapes, sizes, and guises. Some are broad in area but narrow in
scope (e.g., IWC “whaling sanctuaries” and national EEZ whale sanctuaries that
exist mainly to prohibit whaling). Some are large, broad in the range of species
protected, and intensively managed (e.g., the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in
Australia). Others are small and narrow in the range of both species protected
and threats addressed (e.g., the Gully and Robson Bight, both in Canada). Still
others are tailored to protect a single species from a single threat but are
managed on a strictly voluntary basis (e.g., Roseway Basin Area to be Avoided,
eastern Canada). Given this great variability, a classification system with clearly
defined terms for different types of MMPAs is needed, possibly along the lines
of the systems developed by IUCN for classifying protected areas. Criteria that
might be considered include size, funding for research and management,
dedicated permanent staff, whether management addresses single or multiple
species and threats, whether management measures are voluntary or mandatory,
and whether ecosystem concerns are explicitly considered. <strong>The</strong> classification
scheme should be simple and clear, with names for different types of MMPAs
that are readily understandable for professionals and the general public alike.
• In order to design MPAs and MPA networks with ecologically meaningful
boundaries, it is desirable to consider multiple species with various characteristics
in common, particularly with respect to distribution, movements, and threats.
Behavior and social systems should also be taken into account in attempting to
identify “critical habitat” for the species of greatest interest and concern. Results
of spatial (and other) modeling should be integrated into survey design as much
as possible.
• Corridors have been largely neglected in the design of MMPAs for marine
mammals and MPA networks. Instead, the focus has tended to be on boxes
drawn around “hotspots” of animal occurrence, often taking into account the
feasibility of designation in terms of political, economic, and social
considerations. However, corridors used by marine mammals as they migrate or
move between “hotspots” can be critically important to long-term population
viability. Corridors may be amenable to management as dynamic protected areas
or protected through other temporally and spatially explicit management
measures.
• It is important that social, cultural, political, and economic factors be taken into
account when designing MMPAs, but the primary role must remain to conserve
species and ecosystems.
<strong>The</strong> conference concluded with the announcement of a new potentially trilateral sistersanctuary
relationship, with discussions underway between the conference co-host
ICMMPA <strong>Conference</strong> Proceedings
xi