Most marine refuges in Canada don’t meet global standards: study

By Holly Lake
iPolitics

Most marine refuges in Canada don’t meet globally accepted protection standards — some of which this country had a hand in creating.

That’s the finding of a new report published Wednesday by SeaBlue Canada, a coalition of six national conservation organizations that includes the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Ecology Action Centre, Oceans North, West Coast Environmental Law, and the World Wildlife Fund Canada.

While Canada has come a long way in a short time, having designated 7.9 per cent of its oceans as protected since 2015, the report shows stronger standards are needed to better protect biodiversity. SeaBlue found that only 40 per cent of the areas closed under the federal Fisheries Act met the highly protected marine refuge criteria. The other 60 per cent need improvements to meet international standards.

Even when measured against Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)’s own guidance, 27 per cent of marine refuges were unlikely to meet the criteria to be counted as protected.

The group reviewed all 54 areas protected through the Fisheries Act and assessed how these areas met DFO’s own criteria, as well as those set by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and guidance adopted last fall at the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD).

Canada is a party to the convention, which set a target in 2010 to protect 10 per cent of the world’s marine areas by 2020. This was to be accomplished by creating marine protected areas (MPAs), as well as what’s known as other effective area-based measures (OECMs). Initially, little guidance existed to determine those other measures, since they’re different from full MPAs, and not protected under MPA legislation.

(In Canada, marine refuges can be established relatively quickly, compared to a marine protected area, which can currently take between five and 10 years to create under the Oceans Act and National Marine Conservation Areas Act.)

In recent years, however, CBD has been trying to come up with guidance for refuges, and, last fall, it was adopted when parties to the Convention gathered in Egypt. Meeting CBD criteria determines if a site can count as “protected” at an international level. Among the criteria? That a refuge should be effective.

“Effective protection of biodiversity sort of precludes industrial activity,” said Susanna Fuller of Oceans North, a co-author of the report.

And yet, of the 7.9 per cent of marine areas Canada has protected, more than half are marine refuges created through measures in the Fisheries Act. That means that while the impact of commercial fishing is restricted in many of them, the legislation can’t prohibit mining or oil and gas activity.

“That’s our biggest problem in Canada,” Fuller said. “It doesn’t make any sense to preclude one industrial activity and allow another that has similar impacts.”

Last November, new oil and gas leases were awarded by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for areas that fall within the Northeast Newfoundland Slope Conservation Area. Designated in December 2017 by the federal government, it’s one of the largest marine refuges in Canadian waters — and the largest single closure on Canada’s East Coast — covering 46,833 sq. kilometres.

The refuge was created under the Fisheries Act, and prohibits all bottom-contact fishing activities within its boundary to protect sensitive sponges and corals — which are considered vital fish habitat.

This past December, criticism was swift after the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board launched the bidding process for two exploration licences to look for oil in the waters around the province’s iconic Sable Island. That process was launched just days after Parks Canada finished a survey of how to manage a national park reserve there.

“Let’s just say Atlantic Canada is being a bit recalcitrant on the federal government’s objectives (for) marine conservation,” Fuller said. “They see it as inhibiting economic development, but we can well protect 10 per cent of the ocean and still have sustainable economic development.”

Given that the fishing industry has worked with government and conservation organizations to set aside areas for protection, Fuller said SeaBlue Canada is recommending protected areas be off-limits to other industrial activities that threaten fish and fish habitat. That’s key to maintaining the trust not only of the fishing industry, but of Canadians as a whole.

“It’s (adding) insult to injury that oil and gas is allowed in where the fishing industry isn’t. It’s not a predictable regulatory regime,” she said. “We wouldn’t protect an area of forest from clear-cutting and then allow mining. So let’s do things in a comprehensive manner in the marine environment.”

Bill C-68, the overhaul of the Fisheries Act that’s currently before the Senate, may help in that regard. It restores habitat protection provisions, which could extend to any activity that destroys habitat.

Fuller said oil companies don’t even want to drill in protected areas, necessarily, but their boundaries don’t show up on oil and gas leasing maps.

“Making those boundaries clear would be a step in the right direction. Then companies could decide if they want to bid on areas with fisheries closures.”

The report found that some types of marine refuges are more likely to meet international standards than others. When it comes to protecting corals and sponges, Canada is doing well. What’s known as sensitive benthic-area closures were more likely to meet protection standards than multi-species and single-species closures. They’re meant to protect the seafloor and make up 84 per cent of marine refuges.

“There has been major, major progress on that, which is great,” Fuller said. “They’re protected from all bottom fishing. How do we make sure they’re protected from other habit-destructive activities?”

In addition to aligning with international standards and passing Bill C-68, the report says each marine refuge must be monitored and managed to ensure biodiversity is being conserved. It also says smaller areas that only protect a single species should be removed from consideration by protection targets, because they don’t contribute to the overall protection of biodiversity.

SeaBlue also wants a review of the Atlantic Offshore Accord Agreements so that oil and gas exploration and development is restricted from areas that are closed to protect fish and fish habitat.

In October, the National Advisory Panel on Marine Protected Area Standards issued its final report, which said no oil and gas development, seabed mining, or bottom-trawling fishing should be allowed within the boundaries of MPAs. The panel didn’t recommend extending that same protection to refuges. Fisheries and Oceans Minister Jonathan Wilkinson hasn’t responded to the report, but told iPolitics in December it was coming soon.

“I think there is a will to make some improvement,” Fuller said. “Canada always said, when there was international guidance, they would look at it.”

Jocelyn Lubczuk, Wilkinson’s press secretary, confirmed that. She noted Canada has played a leadership role in developing the CBD’s guidance by sharing DFO’s science-based criteria for what qualifies as a marine refuge, which helped shape what was adopted at the CBD conference in November 2018.

“As a party to the CBD, Canada has committed to further aligning our conservation efforts with those that have been internationally adopted,” she said.

Over the next few months, DFO’s marine refuge standards and criteria will be reviewed, while also considering recommendations made by the MPA advisory panel.

As for whether there needs to be some give from the oil and gas industry to help ensure federal protection efforts succeed, as Fuller suggested, Lubczuk said a key criterion of DFO’s operational guidance is that conservation objectives must be clear, and any permitted activity can’t conflict with those objectives. Each marine refuge will be evaluated regularly to ensure that continues over time.

“Oil and gas activities in marine refuges will continue to be subject to regional or project-specific assessments, as well as regulatory decisions from the offshore board responsible,” she said.

From a legacy perspective, Fuller said the best thing to do is act on SeaBlue’s recommendations.
​
“Other countries have protected a great share of their ocean. Let’s make sure (that) what Canada does, it does it well. We can lead (by) doing it well.”

READ MORE: https://ipolitics.ca/2019/01/23/most-marine-refuges-in-canada-dont-meet-global-standards-study/