BC's approach to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Under construction; more links and Canada's page will be added soon.

 Background: jurisdiction squabbles

On June 12th the Vancouver SUN ran an article "Marine park planned in Charlottes". Noting that federal legislation had been introduced the day before to enable creation of creation of "marine conservation areas (that) would get legal protection similar to that of land-based national parks".

Then on September 1st, the SUN carried an article under the byline of Dirk Meissner saying Race Rocks and Gabriola Passage were announced as "pilot" marine reserves, with a third area to be soon made public.

What's up? Is Gwaii Haanas the third area? And why did NDP government cry foul the next day?

An Aside: Gitnagunuks house under the ocean as source of wealth

This house front (now in the Smithsonian) celebrates a Gitisu (Southern Coast Tsimshian) encounter with a "powerful sprit" in its house at the ocean bottom. Because Mouse Woman gave our hero sage council, he was able to return to his village with the good will of the spirit. His reward was continuous bounty by hunting so long as proper respect was maintained. (see Jay Miller Tsimshian Culture reviewed soon). I take the moral to be: coast people's wealth comes from the sea and the key to prosperity is maintaining a good relation with the "powers".

And that's not the powers in Ottawa or Victoria.

 Proper Relations who decides what?

$$$$-Growth potential-$$$$$

Coastal resource industries have potential to equal the present size of the entire goods-producing component of the economy (about $20 billion per year), particularly if mineral and oil and gas activities are included.

 

Not having the benefits of "Mouse Woman" to whisper in our ear the proper protocol we are left on our own.
What is the best "attitude" to show to our sea's source of wealth? At bottom honorable people have different approaches as to what is best.

But often even those philosophic differences are swept aside by power struggles or 'proper relations' between federal, provincial and local "sovereigns" jostling to decide whose will takes precedence.

I will give the Federal arguments on Marine Parks page and here will emphasize BC's approach. -------

(Sidebars are excerpts or summaries from BC's Position Paper)

From CORE to IRM ideology differences within the NDP

Underlying Principles

Sustainability
Community jobs
Leadership
Integration
Partnerships
Certainty
Transparency

 

. The June 1998 announcement of BC's " Coastal Zones Position Paper" is fronted by a smiling message from Premier Glen Clark - so you can pretty well guess we are looking at political posturing in reaction to the Feds tabling their Marine Parks legislation.

The stakes are control of marine waters which BC covets and Canada owns (thanks to the BNA Act).

At further stake (spin?) is Clark's position of the jobs versus environment see-saw. Clark pretty well trashed Mike Harcourt's balancing act (CORE process or Commission on Resources and Environment).

Under Clark the Protected Areas Strategy (PAS) has become an adjunct to forestry management plans (LRMP process) controlled by Integrated Resource Management (IRM) department of forestry (see below)

(On left is BC map, dating from the CORE era, showing marine eco-regions and smaller eco-sections. Hecate Straits (blue & green) is seen as complex terrain.

Using the stamp collecting approach of PAS either 12% of each region or section would be protected. )

With Clark the % has become for all protected areas rather than each sub category. And the emphasis has shifted from "viable, representative ecosystems" to resource access "certainty".
So where are the "rocks and ice" slated for "protection" in the marine? Why seamounts of course. "Bowie Seamount National Park"?

(For more discussion and links see below)

 

 

Goals for Coastal Resource Management

  1. Establish common goals
  2. Establish a finfish aquaculture policy
  3. Conserve, enhance important fish habitat
  4. Include recreation into coastal resource management

 

 

Marine Environmental Protection Goals

l eliminate toxic wastes reduce other wastes
l coordinated monitoring esp. Georgia Straits
l manage sewage discharge Oil spill response
l Cooperate to develop coast wide MPA system  

Planning or Conflict Resolution?

The above map shows the units for which public input into the coastal zone planning (and incidentally 'marine protected areas (MPAs) will take place. Note these are based on MOF forest districts.
In fact on the Central Coast Forestry LRMP process there is a marine component at present.
The paper work says a similar process will take place on the Charlottes and North Coast forest district LRMPs.

Ones interpretation will vary with ones beliefs about the usefulness of the LRMP process. Here is a fellow on Haida Gwaii who believes it's an exercise in confirming the status quo.

On the other hand the Cassiar LRMP appears to be a ground breaking episode which will have lasting results.

(For more discussion and links see below)

An Aside: Why is Coastal Zone Planning being done by Ministry of Forests?

Good question for which I can only guess. Probably the LRMP process is available and has a track record for achieving some degree of consensus among stakeholders. Note the who and what of the process are determined within resource (forestry) management context. (In BC all public lands not in parks are considered public forests.)
In BC the province has always fought to keep resource allocation in its hands. Local jurisdiction (municipal, regional government) is limited to private property. Its authority stems from and is at the whim of provincial legislation and funding.

The only local power that can and will contest the province are First Nations. The Delgamuukw decision gives legal standing to what has been an extra-parliamentary opposition. In Washington & Oregon this state of affairs is referred to as the "three sovereigns". I suspect the Gwaii Haanas marine park is stalled here. I will argue later that may not be so bad for us living around Hecate Straits.

  Is there a problem?

See SUN's article on Fate of Georgia Straits; for a scathing analysis of Clark's handling of environmental issues including protected areas and stream protection see Trust Betrayed by Sierra Legal Defense Fund. Of course the most pressing concerns locally are conflicts generated by aquaculture leases. See the FAO document which says aquaculture is exactly why integrated coastal zone management is required.

A Closer Look

Central Cost LRMP and Marine component is being tracked in issues of Georgia Strait newsletter. Howard Breen of GSA appears to be taking part in the process.

Here is useful what's new page for LRMPs PAS etc at LUCO site. For pre-Clark vision of of Protected areas see this file which still retains the essence of policy.

 There are many web sites with pages dedicated to United Nations "Year of the Ocean". I will put the ones I found useful on Canada's version of marine parks but SeaWeb was the best i.e., information without glitz.

The World Wildlife Fund site is relevant to BC as it track's both terrestrial and marine endangered spaces. BC got a C+ and D+ respectively.

First Nations

I believe local interest is best (in the sense of what power has most vested and long term interest in regional resources) served in the present context by First Nations. More on this later but here is Yukon example where land claims consultations were able to delay removing offshore drilling moratorium.