Canadian Protected Areas Status Report 2012 to 2015: chapter 3

Most jurisdictions made progress on the development and implementation of protected areas management plans for protected areas under their administration^Footnote1. A management plan sets goals and targets along with a course of actions on how these will be accomplished. Having a management plan in place is like having a blueprint to guide both day-to-day and long-term decisions according to the set vision for the area. At the end of 2015, all organisations reporting on terrestrial protected areas and six out of nine organisations reporting on marine protected areas reported that management plans were in place for at least some of their protected areas, and about 60% of organisations had increased the number of management plans in place, however, the overall number of protected areas in Canada with up to date management plans in place remained low. Only 16% of terrestrial protected areas and (among those that reported on management plans for marine protected areas) 28% of marine protected areas had up to date management plans. However, this proportion varies greatly among jurisdictions (table 10). For terrestrial protected areas, this may be explained in part because of the difficulty of keeping up with the increase in the number of protected areas. Since 2005, the number of terrestrial protected areas in Canada went from 3 642 to 4 660 in 2011, and 7 106 in 2015.

For terrestrial protected areas:

• Only six out of 15 organisations (40%) had management plans in place for more than half of their protected areas. Some progress has been made on updating management plans: seven out of 15 (47%) increased the proportion of their protected areas with up-to-date management plans since 2011 (British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Yukon, Environment and Climate Change Canada).
• Two organisations reported having management plans updated in the last 10 years for over half of their protected areas (Yukon and Parks Canada).
• Most organisations that established a number of new protected areas since 2011 reported a decreased proportion of protected areas with management plans in place (e.g. Ontario, Quebec and Parks Canada). In New Brunswick, six management plans are in place for private land trust protected areas and the province has made significant advancements in developing a management framework for its crown protected areas.^Footnote2
• For organisations reporting on terrestrial protected areas 10 out of 15 (67%) reported that they monitored the implementation of management plans, an increase from 31% in 2011. Additionally, such monitoring was being conducted in over 75% of protected areas with management plans for six jurisdictions (Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Ontario, Yukon and Parks Canada).
• Fourteen out of 15 organisations (93%) reporting on terrestrial protected areas were implementing management actions set out in management plans. Four out of 15 organisations (27%) reported having substantially implemented the actions set out in their plans (Manitoba, Nunavut, Quebec, Parks Canada); though still low, this is twice the number reported in 2011.
• Eight out of 15 organisations (53%) reported that they have partially implemented the actions in their management plans, up from 13% in 2011. Additionally, for Alberta, the implementation of management actions included in management plans varied greatly between sites and region around the province, ranging from unknown to substantially implemented.

For marine protected areas^Footnote3:

• Six out of nine organisations (67%) had management plans in place for a portion of their marine protected areas.
• All six organisations also reported that these included plans that were less than 10 years old. However, the proportion of marine protected areas covered by these up-to-date management plans varied widely among organisations from 1% for Quebec, 14% for Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia, a little over a quarter for New Brunswick, 50% for Parks Canada, and 88% for Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
• Only three jurisdictions had a portion of their existing management plans that were older than 10 years old. However, older management plans can still be valid when assessed on an ongoing basis. This is the case of British Columbia, which has policy that requires all management plans to be assessed internally at least every 5 years to determine if they should still be considered valid approved plans.
• Four out of nine organisations reporting on marine protected areas (44%) monitored the implementation of management plans. Only one of these reported that they conduct monitoring in over 75% of their marine protected areas (Parks Canada).
• Of the six organisations (67%) that reported on the implementation of management plans actions, as of 2015, four (Quebec, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Parks Canada) had substantially implemented management actions, while two reported having partially implemented management actions (British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador ). 

The majority of organisations reported on challenges or barriers related to the management of both terrestrial and marine protected areas in Canada (Table 11).

For terrestrial protected areas:

• All 15 organisations responsible for terrestrial protected areas (100%) identified the existence of management challenges.
• Twelve out of 15 reported that not having enough staff to manage protected areas and not having the resources for monitoring those sites were important barriers.
• The third most common challenge identified by organisations (seven out of 15) was the lack of management plans or objectives to guide decisions.
• Other challenges highlighted by some organisations included difficulty of meeting mutual interests with Indigenous governments, as well as a lack of priority and commitment by government authorities for managing protected areas, including the absence of long-term funding. 

For marine protected areas:

• Six out of nine organisations responsible for marine protected areas (67%) identified challenges to managing marine protected areas.
• The most common barriers mentioned by four out of these six organisations were a lack of resources for managing sites and for monitoring.
• Other management challenges identified included working with other governments and agencies (including Indigenous governments), a lack of appropriate tools for managing protected areas administered by more than one government agency, as well as financial and technical limitations especially for offshore and deep water monitoring.

Ecological integrity refers to “a condition that is determined to be characteristic of a natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes”^Footnote5. Increasingly maintaining the ecological integrity of protected areas is a key component of protected areas management for Canadian jurisdictions with the goal to preserve ecological processes as well as the region’s composition and abundance of native species (see Tables 13 and 14).

For terrestrial protected areas:

• Twelve out of 15 organisations (80%) indicated having measures in place for managing ecological integrity. This is an increase from 56% as reported in 2011.
• Out of the 12 organisations managing ecological integrity, five of them (42%) had such measures in place covering most of their network or system of protected areas, while the remaining seven (58%) had such measures implemented partially or covering only a portion of their sites.
• The extent to which organisations were monitoring ecological integrity varied greatly from a full monitoring program at Parks Canada to three provinces only conducting ecological integrity monitoring sporadically (British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador).
• Four provinces and territories (Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon) had ongoing ecological integrity monitoring activities for some or a portion of their protected areas. In Quebec only those sites under the Société des établissements de plein air du Québec were being monitored for ecological integrity.
• Parks Canada continues to be a leader, with a complete ecological integrity monitoring program, which it has implemented across all its national parks. Embedded in the Canada National Parks Act, the maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity is a priority for the Agency’s management of its protected areas. This has resulted in the recognition of Parks Canada expertise and guidelines on ecological integrity, including having influenced the principles and best practices developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature on the topic.
• Two jurisdictions made the results of their monitoring activities available online for the public: British Columbia through the annual BC Parks report and Parks Canada through the Ecological Integrity of National Parks indicator found through the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators webpage.

For marine protected areas:

• Six out of nine organisations (67%) reported having measures in place for managing ecological integrity in some or all of the protected areas in their network or systems. This is an increase from 33% reported in 2011.
• Like those reporting on terrestrial protected areas, a smaller number or two out of six (33%) organisations managing for ecological integrity had measures in place covering most of their marine protected areas while the remaining four organisations (67%) had partially implemented such measures for a portion of their sites only.
• Only two out of nine organisations (22%) were sporadically monitoring the ecological integrity of their marine protected areas (British Columbia and Fisheries and Oceans Canada).
• Results of monitoring activities conducted on the ecological integrity of marine protected areas are reported on in the BC Parks Annual Report.

Threats are part of the key elements that help guide decisions in protected area management. The Convention on Biological Diversity defines a protected area threat as "any human activity or related process that has a negative impact on key biodiversity features, ecological processes or cultural assets within protected areas". Some of the most common challenges and threats to protected areas in Canada include: incompatible land/ocean uses outside protected areas, invasive species, climate change, cumulative impacts and population declines. In addition, the lack of public awareness among Canada’s primarily urban populations could result in a lack of support for protecting and managing protected areas. These are only some of the challenges and threats protected areas managers are increasingly facing not only in Canada but also worldwide.

For terrestrial protected areas:

• Thirteen out of 15 organisations (87%) have conducted some assessment to identify threats to their protected areas. Out of these, seven out of 13 had identified such threats for most of their protected areas, while the remainder had partially done so as of December 2015.
• The principal threats identified by organisations reporting on terrestrial protected areas are comparable to those identified in past status reports as shown in Table 16 (table compares principal threats between 2005, 2011 and 2015) and include:
  • Incompatible land uses outside protected areas, which include activities from numerous economic sectors such as extractives (e.g. mining, oil and gas), agriculture, transport as well as urban expansion, which threaten the ecological integrity of protected areas.
  • Invasive species such as leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, hybrid cattail, scotch broom and green crabs. Four organisations reported invasive species as a serious threat with seven others mentioning the issue as important .
  • Climate change is expected to result in significant changes impacting protected areas including sea-level rise and loss of coastal areas, changing fire risk, insect outbreaks, and shifts in species ranges.
  • Cumulative impacts are still not well understood and difficult to estimate whether inside or outside protected areas. For three jurisdictions cumulative impacts are a serious threat and an important one for five others.  
  • Population declines, which also include all species listed at risk in Canada including Chestnut-collared Longspur, Greater Sage-Grouse, Short-eared Owl , Tri-colored Bat and Peary Caribou. The number of species listed on the Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act increased from 493 in 2011 to 521 in 2014, the most recent year with data available. Population declines are often the result of threats, such as those mentioned above. However, populations declines are also an important challenge for protected areas managers and can also be considered a threat to the ecological health of protected areas.
• Alberta further noted that principal threats to specific protected areas can vary widely throughout the province from increased visitor use or excessive recreation in the south, to oil and gas development in the north of the province.
• Nova Scotia noted three factors - isolation, disconnectedness and sites of small sizes - as the principle main threats to the health of individual protected areas.
• Saskatchewan highlighted that many protected areas are no longer in a natural state due to suppression of the natural fire regime, fragmentation of habitat by linear development and introduction of invasive species, in addition to some recreational activities that can have a detrimental impact on protected area ecosystems if not managed properly.

Over time, organisations may make changes that will affect the level of protection of an established protected area or its size. Reasons for such changes vary greatly and can include the rectification of boundaries with improved mapping, changes in management approach or for operational reasons such as to facilitate activities permitted, changing the status of the site because the protected area is no longer serving its original purpose or recognition that the site does not meet the definition of a protected area. Although organisations can also improve or upgrade the level of protection or increase the size of a protected area, this section mainly focuses on three types of actions undertaken during the reporting period, unless otherwise noted (see Table 17):

1. downgrading (decreasing the level of protection or restrictions),
2. downsizing (reducing the size of the site by changing its boundaries) or
3. degazetting/delisting/deregulating (removing its status so that the site is no longer considered a protected area).

• Six out of 15 organisations reporting on terrestrial protected areas (40%) and 5 out of 9 organisations reporting on marine protected areas (56%) reported that an assessment of the resources needed to effectively deliver on their protected areas program now or in the near future had been carried out.
  • Northwest Territories reported that while an assessment had been undertaken in 2005, a new assessment of the resources associated with long-term funding for the management and monitoring of new protected areas is needed.
  • Nova Scotia reported that a needs assessment was completed and and presented in support of the province’s annual budgeting process.
  • British Columbia reported that while the budget for BC Parks remained largely static during the 2012-2015 period, the cost of operating and maintaining the Province’s parks and protected areas system has risen each year due to increases in costs of a number of inputs including; labour, fuel, infrastructure amortization and maintenance. BC Parks has implemented a number of strategies to address the shortfall, including, shortening operating seasons, eliminating park ranger positions, reducing proactive maintenance activities and other program cuts. The British Columbia Parks Financial Sustainability Initiative, mandated in 2013, aims to enhance revenue, enhance relationships with Park Operators and business communities, enhance relationships with First Nations, provide greater levels and diversity of services to park visitors, and facilitate a change to BC Parks organisational culture.
  • With respect to assessing resource needs, British Columbia noted that it has a variety of assessment tools for identifying and prioritizing resource needs, including:
    • The Levels of Management - Visitor Services Project, which provides a provincial framework to prioritize the allocation of visitor services resources. This information is used to set park fee levels, supported decisions on service reductions, and to identify needed investments (or disinvestments) in services and facilities for each park.
    • The Conservation Risk Assessment contains information on a park by park basis of the values, threats and an overall conservation integrity score, which is then used to develop a list of management actions on an annual basis. The list is then prioritized and resources are allocated to the highest priority items.
• Environment and Climate Change Canada reported that its current needs assessment estimates that the Protected Areas Program would require significantly more funding to operate effectively. The estimated funding needs are based on a preliminary costing of final and draft protected area management plans, estimates of fixed costs, estimates related to the implementation of a Performance Measurement Framework for the Program, and resources required to support other parts of the department that enable program operations. This level of investment would result in expenditures of approximately $280 per km² for Environment and Climate Change Canada Protected Areas.
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada reported that an analysis of the costs associated with marine protected areas establishment and management has been undertaken.
• Saskatchewan reported that the provincial Parks Service does conduct assessments of capital budget and infrastructure needs. Specifically, an annual inventory of parks facilities and activities, including park visitation and costing of infrastructure operations is conducted - this is used as a basis for annual budget allocations to each park. 

Beyond their biodiversity conservation value, many organisations recognize the range of benefits, both direct and indirect, that protected areas provide to local communities and economies. These include opportunities for recreation, tourism and employment, scientific research and education, cultural heritage discovery and interpretation, human health and well-being, and a number of other ecosystem services. This range of benefits was demonstrated by initiatives and studies undertaken from 2012-2015, as highlighted below.

• In Alberta, the positive effects of protected area visitation on health and well-being are being recognized. Along the lines of previous studies on the subject, Lemieux et al. (2015)^Footnote6 examined the perceived and reported motives and benefits among Alberta park visitors. Over the summers of 2012 and 2013, 67.8% of survey respondents indicated improvement in several indices of mental and physical health and well-being following their day or overnight park experiences. The need for equal access to these types of benefits for all citizens is, in part, what drives the Push to Open Nature Initiative of Alberta Parks. Push to Open Nature works to remove barriers in new and existing facilities as well as in programs and daily operations in all of Alberta’s parks. The goal of the initiative is to ensure that people of all abilities can participate in nature-based experiences and outdoor recreation.
• Ontario is exploring how an ecosystem services framework can be used to assess and measure the contributions of parks and protected areas to human welfare. Predictive models can be used to evaluate the potential impacts of alternative management scenarios, or to map where and how benefits flow to communities in order to better target future land acquisitions. The results can be found in a 2013 report produced for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry entitled Mapping the Off-site Benefits from Protected Areas’ Ecosystem Services.
• Organisations reported many examples of how protected areas tourism boosts local community employment. Ecotourism associated with boat tours of Witless Bay Ecological Reserve continue to be an important local industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, while tourism generated from low-impact wilderness-based recreation brings a significant benefit to the communities surrounding many of the wilderness areas, reserves, and parks of Nova Scotia. A study done by the Société des établissements de plein air du Québec revealed that 5,200 people were employed in Québec provincial parks in 2014, and that for each day spent in a park, a visitor contributed $66 on average to the local economy. British Colombia reports how successful grizzly bear viewing tour operators in Khutzeymateen Provincial Park have contributed a percentage of profits to fund two First Nations interpreter positions in the park.
• The 2008 Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, signed between Environment and Climate Change Canada and five Designated Inuit Organisations in the Nunavut Settlement Area, has brought about positive changes to the 11 communities associated with these sites. Thanks to the core activities funded under the Agreement, benefits have started to flow including increased capacity to participate in conservation and research activities, and income related to tourism. The Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement expired in 2014, and its renewal was under negotiation as of December 31, 2015.

Tourism and visitation has been intricately linked to protected areas since their modern-era conception. Indeed, for many of us, it is only by visiting and pursuing recreation in protected areas that we come to understand and appreciate their value to nature conservation. In the fundamental sense, visitation to protected areas is about a process in which visitors personally connect with their natural and cultural heritage through compelling experiences, thereby fostering support for those and other protected areas.

The importance of visitation and tourism in protected areas conservation has been recognized by organisations and jurisdictions the world over. Yet many have also recognized the potential negative impacts of recreation and visitation, particularly on sensitive habitats which succumb quickly to the effects of human disturbance. As such, many protected area managers limit access to sensitive zones or limit time of use to try and minimize negative human impacts.

For terrestrial protected areas:

• In Canada, from 2012 to 2015, all 15 organisations who administer terrestrial protected areas allow public visitation. Just over half of these organisations open all of their protected areas to the public (Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Yukon, Nunavut, Northwest Territories and all of the National Parks of Parks Canada), while for the other half (British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Environment and Climate Change Canada) public access is possible in the majority of the protected areas (equivalenet to about 76-100% of the area).
• As a part of policy, planning and management of terrestrial protected areas, visitation is incorporated as a primary objective for four jurisdictions (Parks Canada, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nunavut); as a secondary objective for seven (Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, and Environment and Climate Change Canada); not an objective but mentioned in policy, planning and management for four (New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan).

For marine protected areas:

• Eight out of the nine organisations reporting on marine protected areas allow public access in 76-100% of a site. Prince Edward Island does not allow any visitors.
• For marine protected areas, the incorporation of visitation in their policy, planning and management is a primary objective for British Columbia and Parks Canada only; a secondary objective for Environment and Climate Change Canada and Quebec; not an objective but mentioned for Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Manitoba; and not mentioned at all for New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island.

Whether visitation is encouraged or not, certain aspects of visitation are controlled by a variety of policies, strategies or specific guidelines for all jurisdictions. Table 19 indicates the number of protected area organisations employing different types of measures.