Pacific north coast integrated management area plan

Table of Contents

• Complete Text
• Preface
• Executive Summary
• List of Acronyms and Initialisms
• Acknowledgements
• 1.0 Plan Context
  • 1.1 Global Context
  • 1.2 PNCIMA Context
  • 1.3 Plan Scope
  • 1.4 Governments Working Together: a Foundation for the Plan
• 2.0 The Planning Area
  • 2.1 Marine Environment
  • 2.2 Human Use
  • 2.3 Future of the Planning Area
• 3.0 The Planning Process
  • 3.1 Governance Arrangements
  • 3.2 Engagement of Interested Parties
  • 3.3 Development of the Plan
  • 3.4 Related Marine Planning Processes
• 4.0 Ecosystem-Based Management Framework
  • 4.1 EBM Assumptions and Principles for PNCIMA
  • 4.2 Goals, Objectives and Strategies for PNCIMA
• 5.0 Implementation
  • 5.1 Priority Setting for Action
  • 5.2 Plan Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
• References
• Glossary of Terms

Appendices

• Appendix 1 Federal and Provincial Legislative and Regulatory Summary Tables
• Appendix 2 PNCIMA Supporting Documents
• Appendix 3 Marine Activity Profiles and Future Outlook
• Appendix 4 Maps
• Appendix 5 Committees and Participants
• Appendix 6 Record of Meetings
• Appendix 7 Valued Ecosystem and Socio-economic Components

List of figures

• Figure 2-1 Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA)
• Figure 3-1 PNCIMA Process Structure
• Figure 3-2 Options for Participating in the PNCIMA Process
• Figure 3-3 PNCIMA Timeline
• Figure 4-1 Components of the PNCIMA Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) Framework
• Figure A7-1 Process for Identifying Valued Ecosystem Components
• Figure A7-2 Realms of the Socio-economic System

List of tables

• Table 2-1 Communities in the Coastal Watersheds in PNCIMA
• Table 4-1 Goals, Objectives and Strategies for PNCIMA
• Table A1-1 Federal Agencies with Direct Roles in Ocean Management in PNCIMA
• Table A1-2 British Columbia Agencies with Direct Roles in Ocean Management in PNCIMA
• Table A3-1 Summary of Marine Activity Profiles and Future Outlook

5.0 Implementation

The success of the PNCIMA plan depends on continued participation, support and commitment from the Government of Canada (and its various departments), the Province of British Columbia, participating First Nations, local governments and stakeholders to advance its objectives and implement its strategies. A collaborative approach to plan implementation will help ensure the coexistence of healthy, fully functioning ecosystems and human communities.

A true measure of the plan’s success will be how well the EBM framework and its associated tools are integrated into the regular course of business for federal, provincial and First Nation governments, along with stakeholders.

The PNCIMA plan identifies five priorities for short-term implementation. These priorities will be implemented within existing programs and resources, where possible. Some strategies and associated actions may ultimately lead to the identification of new work which will be implemented as funding permits.

5.1 Priority Setting for Action

While all of the strategies identified in the EBM framework are important elements of a holistic approach to EBM in PNCIMA, five priorities that address many of the EBM strategies will be the focus of plan implementation. This does not preclude action from being taken on other strategies identified in the plan, but it is expected that many of those strategies will be implemented over the longer term. Continued collaboration and integration will be essential as work on the priorities is conducted.

The following priorities have been identified to address PNCIMA EBM goals:

• governance arrangements for implementation
• marine protected area network planning
• monitoring and adaptive management
• integrated economic opportunities
• tools to support plan implementation

Implementation of these priorities will be based on the recognition that they relate to and support one another, in the same way that elements of the EBM framework are interconnected. Collaborative development of work plans associated with these priorities and shared implementation will strengthen that integration. Other planning processes can assist with implementation of some of the priorities discussed below.

Governance arrangements for implementation

Successful implementation of the plan will depend on maintaining and supporting an ongoing governance arrangement that is flexible enough to address implementation needs as they arise. Ongoing implementation of the plan will also be dependent on continued engagement and involvement of diverse stakeholders.

Enduring governance and engagement processes will provide accountability regarding the plan’s implementation; make important connections to ongoing work to which PNCIMA’s EBM framework, information base and associated tools can contribute; and provide a venue for continued integrated management of marine use within PNCIMA.

Next steps under this priority include:

• revising the 2008 PNCIMA Collaborative Governance MOU to reflect a collaborative governance model that will facilitate First Nations, federal and provincial oversight of the implementation of the PNCIMA plan;
• fostering transparent stakeholder engagement through ongoing communications and advisory processes;
• facilitating the accessibility to and exchange of environmental and socio-economic data among First Nations, federal and provincial agencies, coastal communities and marine user groups;
• integrating the PNCIMA EBM framework, including social, cultural and socio-economic considerations, into current fisheries management and marine policy initiatives (e.g., sustainable fisheries framework, forage fish policy, cumulative effects, benthic habitat policy, management strategy evaluations); and
• integrating with other processes and different scales of planning, as appropriate, to support implementation of the PNCIMA plan.

Marine protected area network planning

The governments of Canada and British Columbia jointly developed the Canada–British Columbia Marine Protected Area Network Strategy. The MPA network strategy will guide systematic conservation planning on the Pacific Coast of Canada. The MPA network’s key purpose will be to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. This in turn will safeguard communities and ensure that future generations will inherit the beauty and productivity of the Pacific Ocean. The Strategy is consistent with and guided by the National Framework for Canada’s Network of Marine Protected Areas.

The Strategy identifies a vision and goals and guiding principles for the design of a network of MPAs in Canada’s Pacific waters, with implementation occurring at the bioregional scale beginning in the Northern Shelf Bioregion (the boundary of which aligns with PNCIMA). A network of MPAs for the Northern Shelf Bioregion will be collaboratively developed among First Nations, federal and provincial governments. Implementation plans will be developed with input from local governments and stakeholders so that the unique ecological, socio-political, economic and cultural characteristics of different regions of coastal British Columbia are respected.

The Strategy states that “First Nations’ support and participation is an essential part of creating an effective MPA network. The special relationship between the Crown and First Nations will be provided for; both governments will respect the continued use of MPAs by First Nations for food, social and ceremonial purposes and other traditional practices, provided that these uses are consistent with the objectives for the MPA. The establishment of any MPA will not affect ongoing or future treaty negotiations or agreements and will seek to address opportunities for First Nations to benefit from MPAs.”

Currently, each planning process in the Northern Shelf Bioregion (e.g., MaPP, PNCIMA, Gwaii Haanas) has its own associated advisory body. Many of these advisory bodies are associated with MPAs, involve similar stakeholders and address similar issues. Terms of engagement are not consistent, however, and despite ongoing work to address duplication of effort between processes, improvements are always possible.

Next steps for MPA network development in the Northern Shelf Bioregion include:

• developing an enduring collaborative governance structure for MPA network planning and management that adopts or expands existing governance structures, as appropriate;
• identifying ecological, social, cultural and economic objectives and zoning designations for a Northern Shelf Bioregion MPA network;
• compiling and sharing best available scientific data and traditional and local knowledge, where appropriate;
• reviewing how existing conservation and protection tools in the Northern Shelf Bioregion contribute to the MPA network objectives, and identifying sites and recommended tools for area-based protection;
• proposing a timeline and identifying resource requirements for the development of this MPA network that integrate with existing planning and governance processes, where possible;
• coordinating regional and sub-regional stakeholder engagement for MPA network planning, and identifying common principles for engagement; and
• incorporating inputs from other processes and scales of planning (e.g., MaPP) to support development of an MPA network for the Northern Shelf Bioregion.

Monitoring and adaptive management

The effects of human behaviour on complex ecological and social systems are not easily predicted and create significant uncertainty. Monitoring and research enable management progress in the face of these uncertainties.

Adaptive management is a monitoring and management approach that assists in decisionmaking related to science-based processes. It is a prescriptive, formalized, systematic method that enables management to learn from the outcomes of implemented management actions. The process involves several interrelated steps:

• collecting and synthesizing existing knowledge (baseline);
• identifying and monitoring indicators;
• evaluating outcomes by using pre-determined strategies; and
• exploring alternative actions through the forecasting of outcomes.

Collectively, these steps create a mechanism for evaluating whether or not the plan is achieving desired goals and objectives.

Indicators are required to monitor the health of the ecosystem or its components. In an EBM context, it is equally important to understand human well-being, which requires indicators for society, economy, culture and governance. The use of a suite of predictive EBM indicators will assist in understanding the underlying processes that drive change. Targets are also needed as reference points that correspond to the state and direction of the indicator, and which can be used to guide management action.

Opportunities exist to build on an extensive body of work that has been conducted or is currently under way in order to provide baseline ecosystem assessments and identify indicators. This work includes State of the Oceans reporting, development of lists of valued ecosystem and socio-economic components, Ecosystem Status and Trends reporting, State of the Environment reporting, monitoring plans for individual MPAs, and marine planning outputs undertaken at different scales, such as through MaPP.

Next steps for this priority include:

• developing a monitoring and adaptive management framework for PNCIMA that integrates with other processes and different scales of planning, as appropriate. The framework will include but will not be limited to identifying ecological, socio-economic and cultural indicators and targets.

Integrated economic opportunities

The value of integrated management lies in bringing many different users together to address issues, discuss potential opportunities to collaborate, create efficiencies and build trust in order to foster enduring relationships.

A commitment to ecosystem-based management requires a commitment to achieving healthy, fully functioning ecosystems and human communities.

A key component of this commitment is ensuring that sustainable economic opportunities and diversification among ocean-related businesses support all users. Economic opportunities are also identified as a priority in the MaPP plans.

Next steps under this priority include:

• assessing current and emerging social and cultural conditions in PNCIMA and the economic opportunities available to PNCIMA sub-regions; and
• assessing social, cultural and economic effects of resource management decisions on users.

Tools to support plan implementation

Application of an ecosystem-based approach to management requires a strong foundation in science, including the incorporation of traditional and local knowledge. Planners and scientists have developed a suite of tools to promote a better understanding of ecological and human systems and to implement society’s goals for the marine environment. PNCIMA priority implementation will focus on developing tools for assessing risk and cumulative effects. In addition, tools developed through other planning processes will also help inform the implementation of the strategies.

Risk assessment tools

In general, risk assessments seek to identify the best management option to mitigate, reduce or eliminate stressors to species, communities and ecosystems. In PNCIMA, it will be important to identify and address risks by using a targeted and stressors-based approach that is strategic, feasible, responsive and results-oriented.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has developed an ecological risk assessment framework to assess the potential risk to valued ecosystem components from human activities and their associated stressors (DFO 2012a). This framework may be helpful in beginning to identify management issues that arise from the environmental effects of human activities, and may guide future action in PNCIMA.

The framework uses a modular risk assessment methodology to determine single and cumulative risk to valued ecosystem components, and ultimately, to rank stressors/valued ecosystem components based on single and cumulative risks from human activities. DFO’s proposed process for developing a list of valued ecosystem components is under development, and is presented in Appendix 7. The ecological risk assessment framework is intended to help assess the relative risk to ecosystems, and it provides methods for explicitly capturing, reporting, and incorporating uncertainties in data quality, which may guide decision-making for future management strategies and actions.

While a risk assessment framework is an appropriate decision support tool for analyzing risks to valued ecosystem components, it may or may not be appropriate for other social, economic, or cultural components. Feedback throughout the planning process has consistently indicated that understanding and assessment of ecological issues has been well developed for PNCIMA, but equivalent consideration of social, cultural and economic issues and risk tolerance is required to better assess how human well-being is affected by sources of stress on the ecosystem.

Application of the risk assessment framework will provide a starting point for management and regulatory gap analysis to determine whether additional management measures are necessary to address risks to valued ecosystem components. The ecological risk assessment framework will be a useful tool for comparing various management scenarios that could be proposed based on the results of this work, and will also aid in identifying areas of uncertainty that require further research or assessment.

In addition to the DFO ecological risk assessment framework, other risk assessment tools may help inform the implementation of this plan.

Next steps for risk assessment tools include:

• reviewing and assessing new and existing tools and ensuring that they are user-friendly and understandable to managers;
• collaboratively developing risk assessment tools for PNCIMA;
• developing methods to incorporate traditional and local knowledge into risk assessment;
• developing methods to incorporate socioeconomic values and interests into risk assessment; and
• collaboratively undertaking an ecological risk assessment for PNCIMA.

Cumulative effects framework

Cumulative effects arising from human use of marine goods and services can result from multiple sectors competing for and using the same finite resources. Historical sector/ resource-based decision-making, different approaches to assessment and management, and changing marine environments have contributed to cumulative effects on marine ecosystems (Halpern et al. 2008; Crain et.al. 2009). This may cause risks to key ecological values in some areas, affect Aboriginal rights, Aboriginal titles and/or treaty rights, and create uncertainty and instability for all users.

The Province of British Columbia is implementing a cumulative effects framework that will help provide better, more sustainable management outcomes for identified values; support for assessing impacts to First Nations interests and rights, and; more efficient, consistent and transparent decision making.

The framework indentifies economic, environmental, cultural and social values that will serve as the baseline for assessment. Through implementation, the Province envisions developing cumulative effects decision support tools that are applicable to all proposed projects and authorizations, and broad scale assessments to assist with strategic level consideration and management over larger areas. A number of land-based assessments are underway, and there is interest in expanding the framework to the marine area.

Next steps for this tool include:

• establishing a cumulative effects working group that involves First Nations, federal and provincial governments in order to streamline efforts in assessing cumulative effects and developing a methodology that is consistent across organizations. The working group will engage stakeholders in the review of proposed methodologies and cumulative effects assessments.

Work planning for PNCIMA implementation

The plan’s implementation will be achieved through the collaborative development of work plans that clarify the accountability of parties to the initiative and indicate specific actions and timelines for completion. Federal and provincial agencies, First Nations and stakeholders will play essential roles in ensuring that plan implementation is focused and relevant.

The general approach for work planning for PNCIMA implementation is anticipated to include:

• establishment of work planning teams
• identification of performance measures and baseline information
• development of individual work plans for specific priorities
• implementation of work plans
• updates on progress made
• measurements of performance

Work planning will reflect individual and collective priorities and will recognize work that is ongoing at different scales, such as MaPP and First Nations marine planning initiatives. It will respect the jurisdictional authorities of each party, and will engage with stakeholders who have a particular interest in the strategy or management measure at issue.

5.2 Plan performance monitoring and evaluation

An essential component of plan implementation will be the development of a suite of indicators to assess plan outcomes or performance against EBM goals, objectives and strategies. The plan requires a practical and transparent reporting system to enable all participating governments, agencies and sector groups to demonstrate plan implementation by integrating its strategies into their regular courses of business.

A second aspect of PNCIMA plan performance evaluation will focus on the effectiveness of the integrated management process itself, particularly in terms of value added to those involved. Evaluation of process effectiveness may include consideration of key aspects of integrated management, such as engagement, endorsement, communication and conflict prevention/resolution. The evaluation may also include assessments of adherence to principles and objectives, as well as reviews of the effectiveness of the collaborative planning model. In general, the identification of any efficiencies gained through participation in the integrated management of PNCIMA will serve as indicators of success of the process.

The plan will undergo a review every five years to assess progress made towards the implementation of objectives and strategies. Less formal evaluations will be conducted at regular intervals to assess short-term progress on the implementation of strategies. Mechanisms for evaluation may include the use of external specialists or reviewers and the production of regular reports that describe annual progress and achievements.

Findings from the performance evaluation and reporting process, along with emerging management needs and priorities, will be considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into implementation so that the plan reflects changing circumstances and conditions as they arise. This adaptive approach will allow information about the past to feed back into management and improve the way it is conducted in the future. For example, where improved knowledge or monitoring results indicate that different strategies or management approaches would be better suited to achieving EBM goals and objectives, the parties will respond to those needs.