Research Document - 2013/073

Review and analysis of key international approaches to establish conservation objectives, identify indicators and develop monitoring protocols that evaluate the effectiveness of Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks

By Glen S. Jamieson

Abstract

This report looks at the extent to which existing international Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) design, indicators and monitoring protocols can be applied to the Canadian context for MPA network development. A review of selected MPA networks from around the world was undertaken to address nine points relating to the development of MPA network objectives, design criteria, indicators and monitoring protocols, and management measures. These elements were summarized for the following overarching national MPA programmes and/or MPA networks: Australia’s National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and Victoria’s MPA network; California’s Marine Life Protection Act South and Central Coast Regions and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary MPA networks; the South African MPA network; the Phoenix Island Protected Area (PIPA) in Kiribati; Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR), network, and UK’s portion of the Natura 2000 MPA network. Networks that seemed the most functionally effective and documented were in Australia and California. In part this was because

1. only “single jurisdictions” and “ecosystems” were involved in each of these areas, which gave managers full authority to establish a comprehensive, functional network in a timely manner, and
2. because networks in these areas have been established for at least a decade, there has been more time for both refinement (adaptive management) and network evaluation.

Networks considered in other areas were either younger (PIPA), were developed in a more ad hoc and poorly funded manner (South Africa), or were the result of complex negotiations and compromises between numerous jurisdictions that shared common resources, resulting in a slower and more complex establishment process in their development of an effective MPA network (OSPAR and Natura 2000). The main conclusion is that MPA network experiences elsewhere have relevance to the development of a Canadian MPA network, and that they can indicate approaches which are effective, timely, and practical. Every situation is different and unique, but the approaches in MPA network development that are likely to be ultimately adopted in Canada’s oceans have invariably been considered and evaluated at least in part elsewhere at some time.

Complete document (PDF, 3,671 KB)