Skip booklet index and go to page content

Canadian Protected Areas - Status Report 2006-2011

Chapter 3: Protected Areas Management

Context

With more than 6000 terrestrial and marine protected sites covering 10.0% of Canada's land area and 0.9% of its marine territory, it is important to ask how well these protected areas are being managed.

Once protected areas are established, organizations have the responsibility to develop management policies and guidance, carry out management planning, conduct scientific research and monitoring programs, and enforce rules and regulations.

As demonstrated in Chapter 2, protected area organizations in Canada aspire to complex management goals such as "maintaining ecological integrity," "conserving biodiversity" and/or "protecting ecological goods and services." Management becomes even more challenging in the face of surrounding land use pressures, climate change, invasive species and other threats. For example, protected areas managers are currently dealing with large infestations of mountain pine beetle in western parks, the restoration of fire and grazing to grasslands in the prairies, invasive species such as the Emerald Ash Borer in Ontario, and threats to nesting sites of the endangered piping plover on coastal beaches in Atlantic Canada. Given the range of issues in protected areas, it is increasingly clear that just leaving nature alone will not be adequate to conserve biodiversity and many of the other values associated with protected areas (Graber et al., 2009).

"We clearly need to put as much effort into achieving sound and effective management of protected areas as into setting up new areas."

- Hockings et al. (2006)

Science plays a crucial role in supporting protected areas management. It helps managers to understand the ecology and ecological integrity of their protected areas, the nature and extent of the real and anticipated impacts of various threats on that ecological integrity, and the best ways to prevent or respond to these impacts so that protected area objectives can best be achieved.

The CBD PoWPA addresses a number of topics relevant to protected areas management, including mitigation of negative threats, involvement of Aboriginal and local communities, financial sustainability, and management effectiveness.

This third chapter of the status report addresses such questions as:

  • What is the policy framework for protected areas management in Canada, and how has it evolved since the last report?
  • What is the status of management plans, and to what extent are they being implemented?
  • What are the most serious threats to protected areas, and are mechanisms in place to prevent and mitigate them?
  • Is the effectiveness of protected areas management being evaluated? Is it improving?
  • Are financial and other resources sufficient to effectively manage protected areas?
  • What is the role of Aboriginal peoples and local communities in protected areas management, and how is this evolving?
  • Has there been any progress in terms of assessing the benefits of protected areas?

Program  Of Work  On Protected Areas: Sample Goals  For Protected Areas Management

Goal 1.4: To substantially improve site-based protected area planning and management

Goal 1.5: To prevent and mitigate the negative impacts of key threats to protected areas

Goal 2.1: To promote equity and benefit-sharing

Goal 2.2: To enhance and secure involvement of indigenous and local communities and relevant stakeholders

Goal 3.1: To provide an enabling policy, institutional and socio-economic environment for protected areas

Goal 3.4: To ensure financial sustainability of protected areas and national and regional systems of protected areas

Goal 3.5: To strengthen communication, education and public awareness

Goal 4.2: To evaluate and improve the effectiveness of protected areas management

Goal 4.3: To assess and monitor protected area status and trends

Goal 4.4: To ensure that scientific knowledge contributes to the establishment and effectiveness of protected areas and protected area systems

See Appendix 2 for the complete list of PoWPA goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

Policy Framework For Management Of Protected Areas

Two thirds of terrestrial protected area organizations (11 of 16) have policy frameworks for the management of their protected areas in place, 7 of which are being updated. Two other organizations have frameworks under development. Six of 9 MPA organizations also have such policy frameworks in place.

  • Twelve organizations (PCA, DFO, EC, AAFC, YT, BC, SK, MB, ON, QC, NB and NS) have policy frameworks that guide management of their protected areas and are described as, or include elements of, the following: management planning guides, management policies, guiding principles, program and operational policies, action plans, etc.
  • Nunavut and Alberta have frameworks under development. Nunavut is in the draft stages of the development of a Park Program as well as Master and Management Planning frameworks in keeping with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Under the Alberta Plan for Parks, approved in 2009, the policy framework is due for completion in 2012.
  • The Northwest Territories and Prince Edward Island do not have frameworks for protected area management per se. The Northwest Territories Protected Area Strategy sets out a process to ensure a management framework is established for each protected area. Prince Edward Island incorporates areas of ecological significance into its protected areas network as they become available, and relies on private landowners to contribute to the protected area system in that province.

What Is A "Policy Framework" For The Management Of Protected Areas?

Policy frameworks are statements of intent that provide direction for the management of protected areas, and can include such elements as a philosophy of approach, guiding principles, and direction on when management plans should be prepared, what should be considered, and who should be involved.

For example, Parks Canada Agency's Guiding Principles and Operational Policies contain the National Parks Policy and National Marine Conservation Areas Policy. Overarching guiding principles for both include the following concepts:

  • Protecting ecological integrity and ensuring commemorative integrity take precedence;
  • Decision-making must be based on an understanding of surrounding environments and their management;
  • Management decisions are based on the best available knowledge; and
  • Public involvement is a cornerstone of policy, planning and management practices.

For more information, see Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies

The Fisheries and Oceans Canada-led National Framework for Establishing and Managing Marine Protected Areas applies to MPAs under the Oceans Act and is currently being updated. Steps 4 and 6 of the Framework concern the development of a management plan for the candidate MPA site, and the management of the MPA once designated, and include the following direction:

  • The management plan for an MPA will state the reasons for the MPA, its goals and objectives, how the goals and objectives are to be reached, and how the success of the MPA will be measured.
  • Management planning will proceed by working with other federal agencies, provincial agencies, local governments, Aboriginal communities and organizations, non-government stakeholders, and the public.
  • Scientific research, MPA management (including monitoring) and educational activities may be allowed to occur throughout the MPA via the activity approval provision, which allows them to occur in a manner consistent with the conservation objective of the MPA. It also provides a means for ongoing information sharing and knowledge gap assessments.
  • Each MPA will be evaluated periodically, with input from the public, to determine whether it is fulfilling its purposes.

For more information, see National Framework for Establishing and Managing Marine Protected Areas

Management Plan Development And Implementation

Although protected area organizations in Canada have developed numerous management plans since 2005, management planning is not keeping pace with the designation of new protected areas. Approximately 18% of Canada's protected areas have up-to-dateTable Footnote 17 management plans in place as of 2011, slipping from 25% in 2005.

Among the 12 terrestrial organizations that reported in both 2005 and 2011, seven had increases in the total number of their protected areas that have management plans (PCA, BC, AB, SK, MB, QC and NL). However, management planning is lagging behind the designation of new protected areas (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Number of protected areas with up-to-date management plans compared with those without up-to-date plans and without plans, for 2005 and 2011

Numbers of total protected areas

Long description for Figure 13

A bar chart representing the number of protected areas with up-to-date management plans versus the total number of protected areas without up-to-date management plans in 2005 (first bar) and 2011 (second bar) in each province and territory and 4 federal departments (PCA, EC, AAFC, DFO; total of 8 bars); the vertical axis represents the total number of protected areas (from 0 to just over 2000).

Jurisdiction / yearNo. of protected areas with up-to-date plansNo. of protected areas without up-to-date plansTotal
BC 2005573262835
BC 20114815391020
AB 200539480519
AB 201118234252
SK 20050129129
SK 20110666666
MB 20051101102
MB 20115297302
ON 2005000
ON 2011118522640
QC 20051210841096
QC 201112322772400
NB 200503838
NB 201106565
NS 200505757
NS 201165359
PE 2005000
PE 201124109133
NL 200574855
NL 201115657
YT 2005729
YT 201141418
NT 2005303
NT 201112223
NU 200502727
NU 2011088
PCA 2005251742
PCA 201138947
EC 20054139143
EC 20110130130
AAFC 200585085
AAFC 201185085
DFO 2005505
DFO 2011628

 

  • For federal organizations, Parks Canada Agency has up-to-date management plans in place for 81% of its 47 national parks and marine conservation areas, up from 60% in 2005; Fisheries and Oceans Canada now has management plans for 6 of its 8 MPAs, in comparison with 5 of 5 that were completed or in development in 2005; and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada maintains up-to-date management plans for all 85 of its community pastures. Less than one in ten of Environment Canada's National Wildlife Areas or Migratory Bird Sanctuaries has a management plan, and none of the plans are less than 10 years old, down from 4 up-to-date plans in 2005 (Table 11).
  • Among the other terrestrial organizations, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories report management plans for at least two thirds of all their protected areas in 2011. However, 66-80% of management plans in Ontario, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories are 10 years old or more (Table 11).
  • Among non-federal marine organizations reporting their MPAs separately, Newfoundland and Labrador has management plans for 3 of its 6 MPAs, although none are less than 10 years old. Most of Quebec's MPAs do not yet have management plans (Table 11).
  • Since 2005, Manitoba and Quebec join Parks Canada Agency in reporting an increase in the proportion of protected areas with up-to-date management plans. Eight other organizations experienced a decline in the proportion of protected areas with up-to-date management plans (Figure 13). Note that management plans would probably not be available for those protected areas just established.
  • Almost one third of terrestrial protected area organizations (5 of 16) monitor implementation of their management plans. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada reports fully implementing management actions, Parks Canada Agency and Manitoba report substantial implementation. On the marine side, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador both report that management actions in these plans are substantially implemented (Table 11).

Tableau 11a : Terrestrial protected areas - Extent that management plans are in place and being implemented

Terrestrial protected areas - Provincial and territorial protected area agencies
Number of protected areas with management plans in place
Government
Organization
Number/
Total percent
Percent
BC
669/1 020
65.6 %
AB
60/252
23.8 %
SK
625/666
93.8 %
MB
9/302
3.0 %
ON
622/640
97.2 %
QC
207/2 400
8.6 %
NB
0/65
0.0 %
NS
14/59
23.7 %
PE
125/133
94.0 %
NL
17/60
28.3 %
YT
4/18
22.2 %
NT
3/23
13.0 %
NU
0/8
0.0 %
Terrestrial protected areas - Provincial and territorial protected area agencies
Number of protected areas with management plans less than 10 years old Extent that management
Government
Organization
Number/
Total percent
Percent
BC
481/1 020
47.2 %
AB
18/252
7.1 %
SK
0/666
0.0 %
MB
5/302
0.0 %
ON
118/640
18.4 %
QC
179/2 400
7.5 %
NB
0/65
0.0 %
NS
6/59
10.2 %
PE
24/133
18.0 %
NL
1/57
1.8 %
YT
4/18
22.2 %
NT
1/23
4.3 %
NU
0/8
0.0 %
Terrestrial protected areas - Provincial and territorial protected area agencies
Government
Organization
Extent that management actions are being implemented
BC
Not Known
AB
Partially
SK
Not Known
MB
Substantially
ON
Partially
QC
Not Known
NB
Not Known
NS
Not Known
PE
Not Known
NL
Not Known
YT
Not Known
NT
Not Known
NU
Not Known
Terrestrial protected areas - Federal protected area agencies
Number of protected areas with management plans in place
Government
Organization
Number/
Total percent
Percent
PCA
40/47
85.1 %
EC
13/130
10.0 %
AAFC
85/85
100 %
DFO
DNR
DNR
Terrestrial protected areas - Federal protected area agencies
Number of protected areas with management plans less than 10 years old Extent that management
Government
Organization
Number/
Total percent
Percent
PCA
38/47
80.9 %
EC
0/130
0.0 %
AAFC
85/85
100 %
DFO
DNR
DNR
Terrestrial protected areas - Federal protected area agencies
Government
Organization
Extent that management actions are being implemented
PCA
Substantially
EC
Not Known
AAFC
Fully
DFO
DNR

Tableau 11b : Marine protected areas - Extent that management plans are in place and being implemented

Marine protected areas - Provincial and territorial protected area agencies
Number of protected areas with management plans in place
Government
Organization
Number/
Total percent
Percent
BC
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
MB
No information provided
No information provided
QC
14/466
3.0 %
NB
0/1
0.0 %
PE
-
-
NL
3/6
50 %
Marine protected areas - Provincial and territorial protected area agencies
Number of protected areas with management plans less than 10 years old Extent that management
Government
Organization
Number/
Total percent
Percent
BC
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
MB
No information provided
No information provided
QC
11/466
2.4 %
NB
0/1
0.0 %
PE
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
NL
0/6
0.0 %
Marine protected areas - Provincial and territorial protected area agencies
Government
Organization
Extent that management actions are being implemented
BC
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
MB
Not Known
QC
Not Known
NB
Not Known
PE
-
NL
Substantially
Marine protected areas - Federal protected area agencies
Number of protected areas with management plans in place
Government
Organization
Number/
Total percent
Percent
PCA
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
EC
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
MBO
6/8
75 %
Marine protected areas - Federal protected area agencies
Number of protected areas with management plans less than 10 years old Extent that management
Government
Organization
Number/
Total percent
Percent
PCA
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
EC
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
MBO
6/8
75 %
Marine protected areas - Federal protected area agencies
Government
Organization
Extent that management actions are being implemented
BC
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
AB
Included in Terrestrial protected areas
SK
Substantially

Managing For Ecological Integrity

Increasingly, Canadian organizations are adopting ecological integrity as a foundation for protected area management, with most organizations (13 of 16 terrestrial and 4 of 9 marine) reporting the concept incorporated within their operating principles. However, about one third of protected area organizations report measures in place to monitor ecological integrity, and about one half report having measures in place to manage for ecological integrity. These statistics indicate that although there has been some improvement since the last reporting period, a gap persists between intention and reality.

  • For 13 terrestrial organizations (EC, AAFC, YT, NT, BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC, NB, NS and NL) and 4 marine organizations (PCA, BC, MB and QC), the concept of ecological integrity is captured within their protected areas legislation, policy, or operational principles, plans or procedures.
  • Parks Canada Agency is a global leader in managing for ecological integrity. Other organizations have recently adopted the concept in a more formal way to guide all of their management efforts. For example, British Columbia developed a set of conservation management principles to help ensure the ecological integrity of their diverse system. With Ontario's new Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, ecological integrity will have first priority when planning and managing provincial parks and conservation reserves in that province. It should also be noted that MPA network planning has been designed to enhance the network's overall ecological integrity.
  • About one third of terrestrial (6 of 16) and marine (3 of 9) organizations are conducting at least some monitoring for aspects of ecological integrity in their protected areas. Parks Canada Agency began to implement its ecological integrity monitoring program in 2008, and a national framework now guides data collection in every national park. In addition to Parks Canada Agency, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Yukon report monitoring ecological integrity at all or most of their terrestrial protected areas. Fisheries and Oceans Canada carries out some monitoring at some MPAs (Table 12).
  • More than half of terrestrial organizations (9 of 16) and one third of marine organizations (3 of 9) have measures in place to manage ecological integrity. Parks Canada Agency manages for ecological integrity in all of its terrestrial and marine protected areas, as does Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in all of its community pastures. Seven additional terrestrial organizations (YT, BC, SK, MB, ON, NB and NS) and 2 additional marine organizations (BC and MB) have measures partially in place to manage ecological integrity (Table 13).
  • Independent audits of protected area agencies across Canada and in the United States have consistently revealed that these agencies do not have the capacity to manage for ecological integrity or climate change (Lemieux et al., 2010). Despite British Columbia's declared intentions and clear vision to conserve ecological integrity in protected areas, its Auditor General concluded in 2010 that the province is not successfully meeting this goal (Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, 2010). In 2006, the Ontario Parks Board stated that "a commitment to ecological integrity (in the new Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act) will require more spending on protected areas," and subsequently the Office of the Environment Commissioner of Ontario expressed concern about the difficulty of adequately administering and enforcing the new Act without an increase in funding (Office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2007).

Parks Canada Agency: A Leader In Managing For Ecological Integrity

The expert Panel on Ecological Integrity released its report in 2000 entitled Unimpaired for Future Generations? Conserving Ecological Integrity in Canada's National Parks (Parks Canada Agency,2000a), and PCA continues to work to implement its recommendations. For example:

  • The Ecosystem Integrity (EI) Monitoring Framework was developed by Parks Canada Agency to provide a conservation science context for comprehensive EI monitoring and reporting in national parks. The EI monitoring framework divides park ecological integrity into two components: plant and animal diversity, and ecosystem processes. The framework also identifies categories that describe the principal stressors that affect park ecosystems. Parks Canada Agency uses the framework to regularly monitor the state of EI and publishes the results for each national park every five years. The information is also summarized every other year in the State of Canada's Natural and Historic Places Report (The State of Canada's Natural and Historic Places 2011 Report). For more information, see Ecosystem Management
  • Principles and Guidelines for Ecological Restoration in Canada's Protected Natural Areas (Parks Canada Agency and the Canadian Parks Council, 2008) was developed to guide policy-makers and practitioners in their efforts towards the improvement of ecological integrity in Canada's protected natural areas. It sets out national principles and guidelines for ecological restoration and provides a practical framework for making consistent, credible and informed decisions regarding ecological restoration in protected natural areas. These principles and guidelines were developed on behalf of the Canadian Parks Council by a multi-jurisdictional, multi-functional working group led by Parks Canada Agency. For more information, see PDF file.
  • Action on the Ground Report II: Working with Canadians to Improve Ecological Integrity in Canada's National Parks (Parks Canada Agency, 2008) highlights progress made by Parks Canada Agency in improving ecological integrity, with particular emphasis on actions taken on the ground that engage Canadians in a range of activities across the national parks system. For more information, see PDF file.

Ecological Integrity In Canada's Network Of Marine Protected Areas

A living guidance and best practices document is being developed to guide MPA network planning in Canada's oceans and Great Lakes.

The document adopts internationally recognized network design properties with the aim of enhancing the network's overall ecological integrity and coherence.

For example, having a well-connected network made up of adequate and viable MPAs ensures that MPAs have the size, spacing and management needed to maintain the ecological integrity of the feature(s) for which they were selected, and of the marine environment overall.

Table 12. Extent of monitoring of ecological integrity

Terrestrial
Marine
  • Full monitoring at all protected areas:
    • PCA, AAFC
  • Full monitoring at all protected areas:
    • PCA
  • Some monitoring at most proptected areas:
    • YT
  • Some monitoring at most proptected areas:
    • -
  • Some monitoring at some protected areas:
    • EC, SK, QC
  • Some monitoring at some protected areas:
    • EC, DFO
  • Sporadic monitoring:
    • NT, BC, ON,NB, NS, NL
  • Sporadic monitoring:
    • BC, QC, NL
  • Little or no monitoring:
    • NU, AB, MB, PE
  • Little or no monitoring:
    • MB,NB
  • Not applicable:
    • -
  • Not applicable:
    • PE

Table 13. Measures are in place to manage ecological integrity

Terrestrial
Marine
  • Yes:
    • PCA, AAFC
  • Yes:
    • PCA
  • Partially:
    • YT, BC, SK, MB, ON,NB, NS
  • Partially:
    • BC, MB
  • In development:
    • None
  • In development:
    • -
  • No:
    • EC, NT, NU, AB, QC, PE, NL
  • No:
    • DFO, EC, QC,NB, NL
  • Not applicable:
    • PE
  • Not applicable:
    • -

Threats To Canada's Protected Area

Most organizations conduct some assessment of principal threats, and report "incompatible use outside of protected areas" and "climate change" as the most serious threats to the ecological integrity of terrestrial protected areas. It was more difficult to pinpoint the most serious threats for MPAs.Table Footnote 18

  • Terrestrial organizations identified the following as the principal threats to protected areas, although they are recognized as overlapping and interrelated issues. Table 14 (below) compares principal threats from 2005 and 2011.
    • Incompatible uses or activities outside of protected areas (such as mining, forestry, oil and gas, agriculture, transportation, and urban development) was reported as an issue in the majority of organizations and rated as the most serious threat to maintaining ecological integrity. This threat was also reported as the most serious for the 2000-2005 reporting period.
    • Climate change, with associated issues such as sea-level rise and loss of coastal areas, changing fire risk, insect outbreaks, and shifts in species ranges, was reported as a serious threat in six organizations; however, implications are not yet well understood, as five others identified the level of threat as "unknown." Climate change did not make the list of the top threats in the previous reporting period.
    • Species population declines such as woodland caribou, sage grouse, burrowing owl and whitebark pine may be range-wide and not driven by local conditions, but are still reported as a serious threat to Canada's protected areas in eight organizations.
    • Invasive species such as leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, hybrid cattail, scotch broom and green crabs require collaboration with other agencies also dealing with the issue, as is the case with other threats. Ten organizations reported invasive species as a serious threat.
    • Cumulative impacts of numerous activities inside and outside of protected areas are not well understood by many organizations. While six of them reported the threat of cumulative impacts as serious, five others indicated it was "unknown."
  • Among those organizations that specifically highlighted threats facing their protected areas in the marine environment, British Columbia reported the interruption of natural cycles (e.g., effects of decline in spawning salmon on nutrient cycles), climate change effects (e.g., sea-level rise) and catastrophic events such as oil spills as most serious, while Manitoba registered the most concern about climate change and, specifically, the longer ice-free season in Hudson Bay. Fisheries and Oceans Canada identified population declines, cumulative impacts and loss of habitat as main issues facing existing Oceans Act MPAs, while recognizing that MPAs face different threats depending on their location and conservation objectives. In the context of Canada's national MPA network, Fisheries and Oceans Canada reported that climate change and cumulative impacts from human uses are considered significant issues.

Table 14. Principal threats to Canada's terrestrial protected areas

Principal threats 2000-2005
Principal threats 2006-2011
  1. Incompatible land uses adjacent to protected areas
  2. Habitat fragmentation
  3. Invasive species
  4. Increasing visitor use
  1. Climate change
  2. Cumulative impacts
  3. Incompatible land uses adjacent to protected areas
  4. Population declines
  5. Invasive species

The State Of Climate Change Adaptation In Canada's Protected Areas Sector (From Lemieux et al., 2011)

"Although there is much uncertainty about the timing, extent, and manner in which ecosystems and other protected areas assets (e.g., recreational opportunities) might respond to evolving climatic conditions, it is critically important that natural asset management agencies begin to identify, assess, and implement adaptation options that could reduce the vulnerability of Canada's protected areas (and their constituent biodiversity) to climate change... Considering the short-term projections of species turnover and loss resulting from climate change, the potential for non- linear ecological responses (in other words, ecological surprises), the length of time required for species and ecosystem response to management interventions, and the relatively slow process of implementing new policies within protected areas agencies, the time to begin developing proactive and integrative climate change adaptation strategies is now."

Table 15. Organizational characterization of terrestrial threat management

Threats: 1. Climate change

Examples of management measures
Factors affecting capacity to manage

Designation of additional protected areas; securing land for connecting corridors; ecological monitoring; guidance on sea-level rise; planting of tree species better adapted to anticipated conditions

Lack of knowledge, land use competition makes designation and securing corridors difficult; outdated management plans; lack of capacity and funding for research and management; management priority focused on more immediate threats; climate change acceleration

Threats: 2. Cumulative impacts

Examples of management measures
Factors affecting capacity to manage

Permits and management guidelines for activities in/ near protected areas; integrated land use planning; environmental impact/review processes

Outdated management plans; lack of capacity and funding to monitor permits and contribute to planning and review processes; lack of knowledge and experience

Threats: 3. Incompatible uses adjacent to protected areas

Examples of management measures
Factors affecting capacity to manage

Establishment of larger protected areas to buffer impacts; partnerships to acquire private lands; permits for activities in/near protected areas; monitoring, communication and outreach with surrounding users; voluntary stewardship agreements; planning (zoning); integrated land use planning; environmental review process

Limited land availability or simple mechanism or funding to acquire buffers; lack of influence on external land uses; sharing of legislative responsibilities between government authorities; limited capacity to monitor permits or contribute to planning and review processes

Threats: 4. Population declines

Examples of management measures
Factors affecting capacity to manage

Designation of additional protected areas; medical interventions to address disease; habitat inventory; population monitoring; visitor access controls

Lack of staff time and funding; conflicts between industry and conservation interests; external conditions beyond control of protected area staff; lack of visitor cooperation

Threats: 5. Invasive species

Examples of management measures
Factors affecting capacity to manage

Management guidelines restricting introductions; mitigative measures added to permits; control measures to kill them and prevent spreading (physical removal, prescribed burning, pesticides, use of other living organisms); partnerships with other departments or jurisdictions directly responsible for invasive species

Extent of issue largely unknown; biology and demographics of invasive species; lack of capacity and funding to conduct research and enforce permits, monitor establishment, and implement controls, develop partnerships; limited technical capacity to monitor and deal with invasive species; expense and difficulty of access to invasive species

Management Challenges In Canada's Protected Areas: Some Examples From 2006–2011

  • Yukon's Tombstone Territorial Park features 2200 km2 of stunning and rugged arctic tundra landscape north of Dawson City along the Dempster Highway. Mining claims adjacent to the Territorial Park, and persistent applications for mineral exploration within park boundaries, continue to threaten park ecology.
  • A long history of tourism development in the Banff and Jasper National Parks epitomizes the ongoing challenge to balance visitor interests and the maintenance of ecological integrity. The 2011 site guidelines for development and use at Banff's Mount Norquay allows for proposals for summer sightseeing and adventure activities, drawing thousands more visitors to the area between June and October.
  • About 70% of Ontario's Algonquin Park is open to commercial timber harvesting. In 2009, the Minister of Natural Resources asked the Ontario Parks Board and the Algonquin Forestry Authority Board to work together to develop joint recommendations to lighten the ecological footprint of logging in Algonquin Park. Their recommendations, which have been accepted by the Minister, would result in 49% (approximately 3712 km2) of the total park area that would not be available for forest management. These changes are awaiting legislated amendments to the park management plan. For more information, see PDF file
  • Basin Head Marine Protected Area is a shallow coastal lagoon located on the eastern tip of Prince Edward Island. An ecological assessment concluded in 2008, reporting a large decline in a distinct form of Irish moss in Basin Head from 110 tonnes in 1980 to just over 1 tonne in 2008. Factors in the decline include the cumulative effects of:
    • a) inputs of nutrients into the basin with subsequent annual green algal blooms and poor water quality; and
    • b) the invasion of green crab and its intensive predation on blue mussels that anchor the moss.
  • For more information, see fichier PDF

Although these threats are significant, organizations are implementing measures to address some of them. The main factors affecting capacity to manage threats include lack of influence on land uses and activities beyond protected area borders, lack of capacity and funding, and inadequate scientific understanding of an issue or the technical capacity to deal with it. For each of the top five issues, examples of management measures and factors affecting capacity to manage are presented in Table 15.

Some specific examples of management challenges in Canada's protected areas during the reporting period 2006-2011 are described above.

Science And Research In Support Of Protected Areas Management

Overall, terrestrial and marine organizations rated the availability and quality of scientific and other information in support of protected areas management as "limited to good." Table Footnote 19

Organizations reported that the most readily available and highest quality information pertains to "adjacent (human) land use activities" and "natural resource inventories," with about three quarters of terrestrial organizations rating the availability and quality of these resources as "good" or "excellent." In addition to these types of information, marine organizations rated as "high" the availability and quality of information on community structure and function.

  • Organizations also reported that availability of information on ecological processes, traditional ecological knowledge and invasive species occurrence is "limited."
  • Alberta, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the northern territories indicated the most limitations in terms of quality and availability of information.

"It is now clear that science must and can play a fundamental role in maintaining ecological integrity."

-Parks Canada Agency, 2000b

Improving Knowledge For Management Decisions: A Sample Of Projects 2006–2011

  • Citizen science programs engage the public in collecting data to support management decisions. Parks Canada Agency has coordinated public volunteers to measure salamander abundance and the rate of soil decay in Kejimkujik National Park, and to monitor aquatic invertebrates in Gros Morne National Park. Results from these programs are integrated into the ecological integrity monitoring and reporting program. For more information, see PDF file.
  • Ontario Parks published a report in 2006 entitled Natural Fire Regimes in Ontario, which analyzes natural fire regimes and fire effects for forest regions in Ontario. It provides a summary of how ecosystems interacted with fire in the past, under a minimum of human influence, and how fire processes can be used to help restore ecological integrity to protected area landscapes. The report will inform decisions in protected areas regarding preliminary fire management goals, objectives and options for maintaining and restoring fire-dependent ecosystems. For more information, see PDF file.
  • The Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative reported in 2006 on its work to model the impacts of climate change on 19 protected areas in the prairie ecozone in Saskatchewan. The report assesses the capacity of current protected areas policies to represent and sustain ecological health under future climate scenarios, proposes climate change responses for Saskatchewan's protected areas, and provides a template that can be used to review protected area policy in other jurisdictions. For more information, see PDF file.

Trends In Funding For Protected Areas

Terrestrial organizations in Canada spent on average about $6.00 per ha per year on protected areas, down from about $22.00 in 2005, although expenditures for individual organizations range from less than a dollar per ha to almost $30.00. Financial resources for Fisheries and Oceans Canada's MPA programs amount to roughly 1% of the amount spent on terrestrial protected areas programs.

  • The total area protected in Canada has continued to increase (9.4% increase in lands to 993 242 km2 and 60.0% increase in marine waters to 49 354 km2 as of 2011). Funding per square km varies by organization, but on average it has dropped from about $22.00 in 2005 to approximately $6.00 in 2011.
  • Eight of 16 terrestrial organizations and 2 of 3 marine organizations (the remaining marine organizations do not assess this separately from their terrestrial program) have assessed resources required to deliver their protected areas program. Recent reports have expressed concern that inadequate funding and staffing of protected area programs has hindered the capacity of organizations to manage protected areas. For example, according to its own analyses, Environment Canada has allocated insufficient human and financial resources to address urgent needs or activities related to the maintenance of sites and enforcement of regulations in National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries.
  • (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2008). The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario observed that the Ontario parks system has been underfunded for many years, to the point where the ministry has not been able to meet its legislated responsibilities (Office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2007). A recent Evaluation of the Health of the Oceans reported that partners and stakeholders identified insufficient resources as one of three key challenges in the establishment and management of MPAs (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2012). Parties to the CBD identified at their 2010 Conference in Nagoya, Japan, that "sustainable finance" was the top protected areas issue requiring greater attention.
  • The Office of the Auditor General of Canada plans to release a report in 2013 on ecological integrity in federal terrestrial protected areas, and has released (in 2013) an audit of Fisheries and Oceans Canada's and Parks Canada Agency's MPAs and the national MPA network.

"Doing Less With  Less":  The Impact Of Budget Shorthfalls On Fulfilling The Parks Mandate In Ontario

Excerpt from a case study featured in Doing Less with Less: How shortfalls in budget, staffing and in-house expertise are hampering the effectiveness of Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2007)

"The public has a strong and emotional connection to Ontario's parks, conservation reserves and wilderness areas; even those residents that aren't regular park visitors expect the system (of both operating and non-operating parks) to be protected and properly maintained. Unfortunately, the parks system has been underfunded for many years, to the point where the ministry has not been able to meet its legislated responsibilities, or to provide adequate services to the public. [Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)] does not have the capacity to manage the system, which is growing in size and complexity. Over the past few years, the number and area of protected areas has grown substantially, and new parks legislation has added a new scientific mandate and more rigorous requirements. At the same time, the amount of money allocated from general revenues to protected areas has been cut repeatedly. While park revenues have increased, they have not been sufficient to offset the combination of severe cuts in government funding, the dramatic growth of the parks system and the expanded responsibilities of MNR."

For more information, see PDF file.

Management Effectiveness Evaluation

Less than half of Canada's protected area organizations evaluate management effectiveness. Seven terrestrial and four marine organizations employ a wide range of approaches to management effectiveness evaluation.

  • Ontario and British Columbia focus on the maintenance of ecological integrity to determine management effectiveness within their protected area frameworks, as does Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which uses results from scientific monitoring, where possible, and routine strategic planning and reporting processes. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Alberta, and Saskatchewan also use routine business or strategic planning and reporting processes to evaluate management effectiveness. Parks Canada Agency measures the delivery of key protected area objectives.
  • The results of the 2007 Protected Areas and Climate Change Survey (see Chapter 2), and the findings of independent audits on the management effectiveness of protected areas agencies indicate that there is an over-riding need for more resources to build capacity for effective management within protected areas institutions (Lemieux et al., 2010).
  • In Canada, an ecosystem-based management system has been proposed to guide protected area management evaluation in Canada. Designed to reflect the diversity of natural and socio-economic conditions of protected areas throughout the country, and consistent with the IUCN definition of management effectiveness evaluation, it focuses on the achievement of targets for objectives rather than on pre-determined indicators alone (Sammett and Quinn, 2009).

Management Effectiveness In Protected Areas

"Protected areas will only be able to significantly contribute to biodiversity conservation if they are managed effectively. Standardised repeat assessments of management effectiveness have become a powerful tool to support adaptive and effective management of protected areas over time. They help to ensure that protected areas meet their conservation objectives and deliver the desired conservation outcomes."

-World Conservation Monitoring Centre

What Is Management Effectiveness Evaluation?

The IUCN defines management effectiveness evaluation as the assessment of how well protected areas are being managed-primarily the extent to which management is protecting values and achieving goals and objectives.

The term management effectiveness reflects three main "themes" in protected area management:

  • 1. design issues relating to both individual sites and protected area systems;
  • 2. adequacy and appropriateness of management systems and processes; and
  • 3. delivery of protected area objectives including conservation of values.

-Hockings et al., 2006 (retrieved August, 2013). For more information, see PDF file.

International Efforts On Protected Area Management Effectiveness Evaluation

The IUCN World Commission for Protected Areas released the second edition of a framework for management effectiveness (Hockings et al., 2006) to provide a consistent basis for designing assessment systems, provide guidance about what to assess and broad criteria for assessment. Based on this Framework, different systems that apply a range of evaluation 'tools' can be used to conduct evaluations at different scales and depths.

For more information, see PDF file.

The global study into management effectiveness evaluation (Leverington et al., 2010) was conducted between late 2005 and 2010. The study aimed to strengthen the management of protected areas by compiling the existing work on management effectiveness evaluation, review and summarize methodologies, find patterns and common themes in evaluation results, and investigate the most important factors leading to effective management.

Programme of Work on Protected Areas Target 1.4 states that all IUCN protected areas should have effective management by 2012. Decision X/31.19 invites Parties to "continue to expand and institutionalize management effectiveness assessments to work towards assessing 60 per cent of the total area of protected areas by 2015 using various national and regional tools and report the results into the global database on management effectiveness maintained by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre".

For more information, see Leverington et al., 2010 (Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas-a global study).

State Of Protected Areas Reporting

About half of protected area organizations - 8 of 16 terrestrial organizations and 5 of 9 marine organizations-confirm that they assess and report on the state of their protected areas on a systematic basis either alone or more broadly through state of the environment reporting.

At the present time, eight protected area organizations (PCA, AAFC, BC, SK, MB, ON, QC and PE) implement measures in order to report on a regular basis on the state of their protected areas reporting. For all of these organizations except Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, BC and MB such reporting is entrenched in legislation. For EC and YT, measures to require protected areas reporting are sporadic. This compares to only three organizations that legislated such reporting in 2005. On the marine side, Parks Canada Agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec report on the state of their protected areas, with all but Manitoba complying with a legislative or policy requirement to do so.

Nunavut's ongoing legislative review recommends that state of parks reporting be included in the new Territorial Parks Act. British Columbia is in the process of developing a more comprehensive annual report that would feature information from the long-term ecological monitoring framework, and the threat assessments in the B.C. Parks Conservation Risk Assessment would provide information to assess and report on the state of protected areas. British Columbia is in the process of developing a more comprehensive annual report that would feature this type of information.

Within Fisheries and Oceans Canada bioregions, Marine Protected Area Advisory Committees share progress reports with the broader stakeholder community, and review annual work plans and performance reports.

Assessments Of Benefits Of Protected Areas

In addition to biodiversity conservation, organizations increasingly promote protected areas for their benefits to local, regional and national economies, cultural heritage conservation, human health and well-being, climate change adaptation and mitigation, clean water and other ecological services, and scientific research and education. A number of studies during 2006-2011 highlight the specific value of protected areas for a range of benefits.

Economic impact studies conducted on Canada's national, provincial and territorial protected areas concluded that they are vital contributors to tourism and the economy. Spending by governments and by the visitors that come to protected areas has a substantial and recurring impact, producing tax revenue for governments, creating jobs, and generating income for local businesses, particularly in rural and remote areas of Canada (CPC, 2011b). A study of Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Area-managed community pastures revealed annual benefits of almost $55 million (Kulshreshtha et al., 2008) (Table 16).

Race Rocks Ecological Reserve: Education And Research On The Local And Global Levels

Race Rocks Ecological Reserve was established in 1980 under British Columbia's Ecological Reserve Act. Located in the strong tidal currents of Juan de Fuca Strait, the rocks lie where nutrient-rich coastal waters mix with oceanic influences. The site is unique in rarity, abundance and diversity of benthic invertebrates and reef fish, and is a meeting and breeding place for marine mammals and seabirds.

MPA status has focused government and public attention to protect nature through access management, best practices for allowable activities and harvest restrictions. Local tourism and marine educators visit Race Rocks to provide their clients with direct observations of nature. Ecological and geophysical scientists have conducted research in the reserve. Restricted access for harvesting and time- series environmental data has established Race Rocks as an ecological benchmark site.

In addition, Race Rocks Ecological Reserve is virtually accessible to the world over the Internet. Interactive cameras and webcasts both on land and underwater provide education and research opportunities for people around the globe.

For more information, see Race rocks site.

Table 16 : Studies/literature reviews of protected areas benefits from 2006 to 2011

The Economic Impact of Canada's National, Provincial and Territorial Parks in 2009 (CPC, 2011b)

Spending associated with national, provincial and territorial parks in 2009:

  • Added $4.6 billion to Canada's Gross Domestic Product;
  • Generated $2.9 billion in labour income (the equivalent of over 64 000 full time jobs); and
  • Provided $337.1 million in tax revenue to governments.

For more information, see PDF file.

Economic Impact of Parks Canada (The Outspan Group Inc., 2011)

Spending associated with National Parks, National Historic Sites and National Marine Conservation areas in 2008-2009:

  • Added $3.0 billion to Canada's Gross Domestic Product;
  • Generated $1.9 billion in labour income; and
  • Provided $217.9 million in tax revenue to governments.

For more information, see Parks Canada -Economic Impact.

Distribution of Public and Private Benefits on Federally Managed Community Pastures in Canada (Kulshreshthaet al., 2008)

For all the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration-managed community pastures, annual benefits to society (including patrons of the community pastures) are estimated at $54.9 million, yielding a ratioof benefits to costs of 2.5 to 1.

For more information, see PDF file.

Marine Protected Areas and MPA Networks: The Benefits and Costs to the Fishing Industry (Draft) (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2010)

The following benefits to fish harvesters of MPA establishment have been well documented in the scientific literature:

  • increased size, abundance and diversity of fish (including other marine organisms);
  • stability for fish harvesters through replenishment of stocks;
  • protection of marine habitats and biophysical processes;
  • improved ecological resilience to resist or recover from disturbances;
  • fostered sustainable tourism including activities such as recreational fishing, scuba diving and kayaking;
  • buffering of coastal communities from storm impacts; and
  • protection of spiritual or cultural heritage value such as archaeological sites, shipwrecks and traditional use areas.

For more information, see PDF file.

Human health and well-being motivations and benefits associated with protected area experiences: an opportunity for transforming policy and management in Canada (Lemieux et al., 2012)

The perceived benefits received from the experiences were substantial. Visiting protected areas can be considered a highly positive life experience, and the greatest well-being benefits were perceived tobe psychological/emotional, social, cultural and environmental.

Visitation to parks was perceived to have important benefits for child development, especially in terms of physical development, social knowledge and competency, and cognitive learning and language.

For more information, see PDF file.

  • MPAs have been shown to generate many benefits, including the stabilization of fish stocks, spill-over of fish into adjacent fishing areas, ecological resilience and sustainable tourism (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2010). A study focused on human health and well-being motives and benefits associated with visitation to and experiences provided by protected areas concluded that these benefits were substantial (Lemieux et al., 2012) (Table 16). Ontario is working on quantifying ecosystem service benefits (e.g., watershed protection, carbon sequestration and waste assimilation) to help develop and maintain its Natural Heritage System.
  • Organizations report many examples of additional benefits of protected areas. British Columbia highlights the scientific and educational value of protected areas. Alberta emphasizes the social benefits to a wide range of Canadians, including persons with disabilities, new Canadians and athletes. Newfoundland and Labrador points to the story of Witless Bay Ecological Reserve, where boat tours of globally significant seabird colonies have helped to revive the local economy after the 1990s fishery collapse. Organizations from east to west highlight the benefits of protected areas for providing clean water to municipalities.

"My Head Is Breathing Out Here"

Alberta reports that persons with disabilities have expressed an increase in self-confidence and a positive sense of interdependence through programs such as "Push to Open Nature." Canmore Nordic Centre Provincial Park has identified benefits to athletes who train in a natural setting versus a more urban setting. New Canadian participants in a "Nature as a Second Language" program have recognized that their experiences in parks helped them relax and feel more welcome in their new homeland. One participant commented: "I feel like my head is breathing out here."

Aboriginal Participation In Protected Area Management

Almost all of Canada's protected area organizations are pursuing forms of Aboriginal cooperative management, particularly in the northern territories and in provinces that have vast and remote northern areas.

  • In northern Canada, land claims and Aboriginal interests and rights with respect to protected areas and wildlife are an essential and driving component of protected area management in the territories. Organizations operating in northern Canada (i.e., PCA, EC, DFO, YT, NT and NU) most often work with Aboriginal communities through formal cooperative management agreements or advisory structures such as management boards.
  • In the south, land claims play a more limited role, but other agreements, legislation and policy provide for increasing levels of Aboriginal participation in protected area management.
  • Some provincial jurisdictions report advances in Aboriginal involvement in protected areas: British Columbia has 35 collaborative management agreements with First Nations governing the management of protected areas; under the Manitoba East Side Traditional Lands Planning and Special Protected Areas Act, land management plan implementation agreements reached with First Nations provide for the establishment of management boards with equal Manitoba-First Nation representation; Nova Scotia and the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs established The Mi'kmaq-Nova Scotia Protected Areas Selection and Management Technical Advisory Group to assist in advancing Mi'kmaw and provincial goals with respect to protected areas planning and management; Quebec parks in its northern territory protect biodiversity and help to preserve traditional activities while at the same time sharing this way of life with visitors.
  • Other provincial cooperative management efforts involve implementation of park operations, participation in management committees, and design and implementation of monitoring programs. Collaboration generates economic benefits such as jobs and contract services as well as hunting and fishing rights; and benefits to visitors such as guiding, outfitting, campgrounds and interpretation programs.
  • One third of organizations (YT, BC, NU, SK, NS and QC) identify Aboriginal partnerships for protected area management as a priority for the next five years.

Quebec Partnership With Indigenous People For The Development And Management Of Northern Parks

A necessary adaptation to respect differences

The Quebec government recognizes the rights of indigenous people on territory covered by agreements, treaties and conventions. National (provincial) Parks that are located on the territory covered by the Convention of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) give beneficiaries certain rights, ensuring the Inuit and Cree can continue traditional activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping and establishment of camps. This facilitates the acceptance of park projects as they do not interfere with the rights of indigenous peoples.

Within the territories under the JBNQA in Quebec, parks not only protect a territory, but they help to preserve traditional activities while at the same time sharing this way of life with visitors.

Shared vision with partners in Aboriginal communities

The Quebec government ensures the involvement of the community by entrusting the operation of parks to the Kativik Regional Government (KRG) and the corresponding Cree community for each park in the area covered by the JBNQA.

Today, Pingualuit National Park (established in 2004) and the National Park Kuururjuaq (created in 2009) are operated by the KRG, and many employees come from host villages. There are 6 permanent and several part-time jobs that are generated within each of the national parks, and a team of 10 administrative employees. Local knowledge is emphasized in the activities and services offered in these parks.

The proposed national park Tursujuq is the result of a concerted effort between the Government of Quebec, the Inuit and the Cree, who participated in all stages of park planning. Community support and understanding of the local context are being sought. Respect for cultures, protection of natural heritage park, and employment and training are under discussion.

Collaborative Opportunities Associated With Protected Areas 2006–2011

From case studies featured in
Aboriginal Peoples and Canada's Parks and Protected Areas
(Canadian Parks Council, 2011)

Katannilik Park Knowledge Camp: With 60% of its population under the age of 25, Nunavut is by far the "youngest" province or territory in Canada. Both challenges and opportunities exist in developing programs and activities for youth, particularly in smaller communities. Nunavut Parks has developed a "Knowledge Camp" for Katannilik Territorial Park, to establish connections between youth and Elders, and extend traditional knowledge and skills through generations. Opportunities to develop similar camps in other territorial parks in Nunavut are being explored. For more information, see PDF file.

Grizzly Bear Viewing in Ni'iinlii'Njik (Fishing Branch)-A cooperative Eco-Tourism Venture with the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, Vuntut Development Corporation, Yukon Parks and Bear Cave Mountain Eco-Adventures: The case study of Ni'iinlii'Njik illustrates the positive role that land claims can have in conservation and the effectiveness of partnership in management especially as it relates to the developing of a new, highly specialized activity within the eco-tourism industry. With effectively managed viewing opportunities, public appreciation of grizzly bears and bear ecology may increase, tourism activity could provide economic benefits, while at the same time protecting the bears and their habitat. For more information, see PDF file.

Tsleil Waututh Nation and BC Parks-Collaborative Management of Say Nuth Khaw YumHeritage Park/Indian Arm Provincial Park: A collaborative management agreement signed between the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and the Province of British Columbia forms the foundation of a relationship that has brought both parties forward in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. Under the agreement, both the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and the province (represented by BC Parks) are active participants in the planning, management and operations of the park. In September 2006, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation and B.C. Parks celebrated the completion of the Bioregional Inventory Atlas and the end of Phase 1. The second stage of the planning process is currently focused on drafting the Park Management Plan. For more information, see PDF file.

AkKutiliuk-Making a Path: Torngat Mountains National Park Reserve of Canada: During the summer of 2006, the first official operating season for this park, Parks Canada Agency organized a base camp on Shuldham Island in Saglek Bay at the southern entrance to the Park Reserve. One of the objectives of the base camp, which was managed by Inuit from Nain, was to explore ways to maximize the presence of Inuit in the park and to ensure the participation of Inuit in park management by merging agendas and objectives of Parks Canada Agency and Inuit as the first step to a productive and long-term cooperative management relationship. For more information, see PDF file.

Local Communities And Protected Areas Management

Most organizations continue to work with communities on management decisions concerning their local protected areas.

  • Two thirds of all protected areas organizations with responsibility for marine and/or terrestrial protected areas (13 of 17) have enshrined community participation in legislation, policy, land claims agreement or impact and benefits agreement (PCA, EC, DFO, YT, NT, BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC, NS and NL).
  • In practice, all but two of these organizations provide opportunities for community participation in management decisions at most or all of their protected areas; those two organizations seek local participation rarely.

Local Community Participation In ProtectedArea Management Decisions-Organizational Comments

Nunavut: "In the past, park establishment and management stakeholders have involved community committees adjacent to the parks including representatives from the Hamlet, Tourism Associations, Hunters and Trappers Associations, Elders and Youth, Heritage Societies, and Community Land and Resource Committees."

Alberta: "An online consultation and notification process called 'Involving Albertans' was developed in 2009 to provide further opportunities to provide feedback and input into management decisions of all types... Opportunities for public involvement are provided on designation of new parks or addition of lands to existing parks, boundary amendments, facility development and park management. Locally held consultation mechanisms such as open houses, information sessions or public/stakeholder meetings are also used wherever warranted."

Manitoba: "Community participation in management decisions varies by site... Local communities with Resource Co-Management Boards participate in protected area management decisions for sites falling within their Resource Management Areas (RMAs). The Resource Co-Management Boards review and provide recommendations on all proposed activities within the RMA, which includes those protected areas located within the RMA. The boards are made up of members from the First Nation and the Government of Manitoba."

Footnotes

Text Content Footnote

Footnote1

"Up-to-date" management plans were defined in the Canadian Protected Areas Status Report 2000-2005 (Government of Canada, 2006) as those "less than 10 years old." This definition has been applied here for the sake of consistency, although it is recognized that protected areas organizations may have a different schedule for updating management plans.

Return to Footnote 17 referrer

Footnote2

Organizations ranked threats from a list that contained the following: loss of habitat, species extirpations, population declines, invasive species, habitat fragmentation, interruption of natural cycles, increased visitor use, changing visitor use, compromised air quality, compromised water quality, climate change, incompatible uses outside of protected areas, cumulative impacts, overuse of natural resources, catastrophic events, "other (identify)."

Return to Footnote 18 referrer

Footnote3

Organizations were asked to rate the availability and quality of the following types of information: natural resource inventories, community structure and function, ecological processes, traditional ecological knowledge, visitor use/impacts, invasive species occurrence, and adjacent land use activities.

Return to Footnote 19 referrer

Date modified: