Download Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network

photo: marilyn mcclelland
Sustainable Financing Options
for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Falling Short. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Public Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Public-Private Partnerships (P3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Case Study: The California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Private Donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Case Study: The Arctic Home Campaign. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Payment for Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Blue Carbon Offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Marine Bioprospecting Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Resource Use Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Case Study: User Fees in Bonaire National Marine Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Community and First Nations Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Case Study: Gwaii Hanaas National Marine Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix 1: Summary Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Work Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
We gratefully acknowldege the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
which has made this report possible.
Vancouver Office
#207-343 Railway St.
Vancouver, BC V6A 1A4
604-696-5044
Sointula Office
235 First Street, Box 320
Sointula, BC V0N 3E0
250-973-6580
www.livingoceans.org | [email protected]
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Introduction
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are one of the most effective tools to conserve and protect
marine biodiversity. There are many different types of MPAs, but all are ocean places that are
set aside like parks through legislative or other means for the purpose of providing sanctuary for
individual species and entire food-webs so they can recover and thrive. When planned and managed effectively, MPAs can shield ecosystems from harmful human practices such as destructive
fishing practices, offshore oil and gas drilling and other industrial activities; they mitigate the
impacts of climate change by protecting coastal and estuarine areas that serve as carbon sinks;
they benefit the economies of coastal communities through businesses such as marine tourism
and sustainable fisheries. Additionally, MPAs ensure that coastal First Nations can carry out
traditional subsistence and ceremonial fishing (Gardner, 2009).
One of the most important factors in establishing and managing effective MPAs is ensuring that
sustainable, long-term financing is available. The level of stakeholder engagement necessary for
fisheries management in MPAs and the enforcement of the resulting fisheries closures can only
be achieved with adequate resources and capacity. The IUCN defines protected area financial
sustainability as “the ability to secure sufficient, stable and long-term financial resources, and to
allocate them in a timely manner and in an appropriate form.”1 In Canada, MPA development
and management has historically been governed and financed by the federal and provincial
governments. However, given the lack of progress in MPA establishment, it has become clear
that alternatives to the current model of MPA development and financing must be employed.
Therefore, a combination of financing options could be considered to fund the development
and management of a viable network of MPAs on Canada’s Pacific coast.
1. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/html/BP13-sustainable-financing/Part%20I-section3.html
photo: gary davis
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Falling Short
The Government of Canada has committed to establishing a network of Marine Protected Areas
(MPAs) in the country’s three oceans through international agreements such as the UN Convention on Biodiversity, through which Canada agreed to conserve 10 percent of its marine areas by
2020. This was confirmed at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (Hutching
et al., 2012). The Oceans Act also mandates that the federal government, through Fisheries and
Oceans Canada (DFO) and other federal agencies, establish and manage a network of MPAs
(Hutching et al., 2012; OAGC, 2012). However, Canada is not even close to meeting its commitments (Hutching et al., 2012; OAGC, 2012; Robb et al., 2011). In a 2007 study, Canada
ranked 70th out of 228 countries in establishment of MPAs (DFO, 2013a). This is particularly
true in British Columbia, where just 0.7 percent of the province’s waters have been designated
as MPAs (B.C. Ministry of Environment [BCMOE], 2009).
A 2012 report to the Auditor General of Canada listed ‘insufficient resources’ as one of the major
impediments to progress in establishing MPAs. This same report asserts that establishing a national
MPA network in Canada will take several decades due to a lack of funding (OAGC, 2012).
Public Funding
In Canada, MPAs are largely funded by the provincial and federal governments. The 1996 Oceans
Act mandated that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans coordinate the efforts to establish a
national network of MPAs. Environment Canada, Parks Canada, provincial government agencies and First Nations are also expected to play key roles. The Government of Canada’s plan to
establish a network of MPAs was further outlined in both the National Framework for Canada’s
Network of Marine Protected Areas and Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy (DFO,
2013a). The Canada British Columbia MPA Network Strategy2 was released in June 2014; it states
that funding for the B.C. network needs to be identified, and that timelines will depend, among
other things, upon resources required and available.
In a 2012 report by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
and Environment Canada stated that recent budget cuts may impede their ability to meet their
mandates regarding MPAs (OAGC, 2012). In 2013 The Green Budget Coalition, a network of
14 conservation organizations, suggested that the federal government would be required to spend
a minimum of $35 million per year, over the next three years, to establish MPAs in five percent
of the nation’s oceans (only half of Canada’s commitments under the Convention on Biological
Diversity ) (GBC, 2014). In the 2014 federal budget there was an announcement of a National
Conservation Plan, with a budget allocation of $37 million over five years to strengthen marine
and coastal conservation. That allocation works out to only $5.14 million per year over the life
of the plan, substantially less than what is required to meet Canada’s domestic and international
commitments regarding MPAs. While the federal government should continue to play a key role
in the establishment of an MPA network, budgetary cutbacks have necessitated that alternative
funding sources be considered to supplement public funding.
2. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/SLRP/pdf/ENG_BC_MPA_LOWRES.pdf Canada, 2014
photo: jeff george
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Public-Private Partnerships (P3)
There is a long history of private citizens, companies and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) purchasing or repurposing land and managing it for the purposes of biodiversity conservation. The Nature Conservancy, for example, uses private funds to purchase and set aside
land with high biodiversity value to preserve it from agricultural or industrial uses. However,
Canada’s oceans cannot be owned by a private entity. The federal government has sovereign
and jurisdictional rights over exploration and management within Canada’s 200-nautical-mile
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as well as the management of fishing and marine transportation
activities in all of Canada’s waters. Provincial governments have jurisdictional rights for tenured
activities and those waters within the “jaws of the land3.” Therefore, any attempts to manage
activities in marine areas in British Columbia must be done with the jurisdictional authority of
the federal and/or provincial government bodies that oversee the waters or activity in question.
A public-private partnership (P3) is a partnership between a public government agency and a
private entity (usually one or more NGO, charitable foundation, academic institution or private
company) for the purposes of achieving a stated goal. In P3s, the private entity provides funding
and sometimes also plays an active role in the planning and managing process.
P3s can provide numerous advantages for both planning and managing MPA networks. Private
entities have supplemented wavering government funds during the planning phases as well as
for ongoing management and monitoring purposes (Fox et al., 2013). P3s have also been shown
to diversify and strengthen the technical capacity, expertise and infrastructure available from
government sources (Fox et al., 2013). In many cases, the private entity has improved access to
data and research, and the efficiency and capacity for adaptive management (Ban et al., 2012).
Creating a management partnership can increase accountability and ensure that all members,
both public and private, are meeting the stated conservation goals (Weible, 2008). Those P3s
in which control has been decentralized may be more conducive to bilateral monitoring and
auditing, which could give stakeholders more trust in the process (Fox et al., 2013; Weible,
2008). This was demonstrated through the Natural Areas Conservation Program, a P3 between
the federal government and the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) for the purposes of
establishing terrestrial protected areas (NCC, 2013). Instead of managing the program directly,
the government disperses the funds to the NCC to purchase and manage lands for conservation.
The NCC, in turn, submits progress reports and audited financial statements to Environment
Canada, and undergoes third party audits and evaluations to determine that the program is
being run effectively and efficiently (NCC, 2013). There is potential to use this same funding
model for MPAs.
P3s in MPA network planning can be controversial if any of the parties involved fear that the
funding body might interfere to create a biased outcome that supports its own needs or agenda
(Kirlin et al., 2013). Such was the case in 2011 when the Government of Canada pulled out
of the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) planning process which
had been launched after years of work by conservation groups, the fishing sector, tourism outfitters, First Nations, scientists, and coastal residents. After consultation with a broad range of
stakeholders, the governments of Canada, B.C. and First Nations agreed to pursue a P3 funding
model where the federal government’s participation was paid for by a grant from The Gordon &
Betty Moore Foundation—which has a long track record working with U.S. state governments
on multi-use ocean planning. Nonetheless, the federal government withdrew from the funding
agreement and the planning process after the marine transportation sector repeatedly voiced
its concerns that the PNCIMA marine plan would stand in the way of its interests in moving
diluted bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to Asia.
3. The jaws of the land refers to the waters and submerged lands of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Strait of
Georgia, Johnstone Strait, Queen Charlotte Strait, and the waters and submerged lands between major headlands
which are owned by the province of British Columbia.
http://www.nauticapedia.ca/Articles/Waterfront_Property.php
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5267/index.do
5
However, challenges such as these can often be overcome through the creation of a binding
agreement between the parties that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities. For example,
the California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative created a binding memorandum of understanding to ensure all partners had full agreement from the outset (MLPAI, 2007). Such an
agreement can also create safeguards to ensure that no one institution has undue influence on the
process (Weible, 2008). There are also concerns about the long-term security of private funds,
as private funding entities could change their focus or face dramatic cutbacks, which could put
protected areas in jeopardy (Emerton et al., 2006). This has been overcome in some situations
by the creation of a jointly managed endowment fund in which only the interest accrued from
the fund is spent, with the capital remaining in place to grow and support the protected area
in perpetuity (van Beukering et al., 2006). When an endowment fund is not an option, then
P3 agreements at least need to hold the private entity responsible for maintaining funding for
a set amount of time, to allow for both short-term and long-term planning (Emerton et al.,
2006; Fox et al., 2013).
Case Study: The California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
In 1999 California passed the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which mandated that the state redesign its current MPA system in order to
build a coherent, effective network (CDFW, 2013). The legislation was ambitious and two early attempts at implementation were unsuccessful. The first attempt at MPA network planning was done by a relatively small group of government employees and scientists, with little to no
stakeholder involvement. When preliminary MPA plans were finally presented during public meetings, the response was largely negative and
the plans were shelved. During a second attempt in 2002, the government tried to organize regional stakeholder groups to better engage
the public, but a complete lack of financial, technical and human resources prevented success (Fox et al., 2013).
In 2004 implementation of the MLPA was indefinitely suspended due to the state’s severe budget crisis (Kirlin et al., 2012). Public outcry led
several members of the state’s legislature to lobby for the involvement of private, charitable foundations. That same year, a memorandum
of understanding (MOU) was signed by the California Resources Agency, the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Resources
Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF), an independent, non-profit organization (Kirlin et al., 2012). The MOU created the Marine Life Protection
Act Initiative (MLPAI), a public-private partnership designed to move the planning process forward despite large cutbacks in government
funding (CDFW, 2013).
The MOU set clearly defined roles and responsibilities for each of the three organizations. The two government agencies involved retained organizational control over the MPA planning process. The main roles of
the RLFF were to obtain, coordinate and administer philanthropic investment, provide additional contract
staff and ensure that opportunities for regular stakeholder input were available (Kirlin et al., 2012). Several
volunteer groups were formed, including regional stakeholder groups and a statewide interest group,
a science advisory team and a blue ribbon task force of experts from both science and public policy
sectors(Kirlin et al., 2012). These volunteers donated thousands of hours during the seven year planning
process. Private charitable foundations, including the Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation, the Keith Campbell Foundation and the Annenberg Foundation, contributed a total of $19.5
million (Fox et al., 2013). The state provided $18.5 million of public funds. As a result, MPA planning has
been completed in four out of the five regions (CDFW, 2013). The government is now in the process of
implementing 124 MPAs, covering over 16 percent of California’s waters, with 9.4 percent being no-take1
MPAs (Kirlin et al., 2012).
The success of this P3 can be attributed to several key factors:
• substantial public interest
• a high level of transparency and coordination between partners
• substantial funding ensured sufficient scientific data and expertise
• extensive and meaningful public consultation
It is important to note that the MLPAI took transparent steps to ensure that the private funders had no undue influence over the outcome of
the planning process. The signed MOU stated that private funding was solely in support of the process and not contingent on outcomes of
the planning process (MLPAI, 2007). The MOU also ensured that roles and responsibilities for each signatory were clearly defined from the
outset (MLPAI, 2007). As the implementation process moves forward, the MLPAI continues to serve as an important example of sustainable
MPA financing. •
1 A no-take zone is an area within a marine protected area that prohibits all extractive activity including fishing, dredging, dumping and construction. No
take zones can act alongside other conventional management tools to encourage the conservation and preservation of marine wildlife or heritage sites
and to improve fish stocks for future generations to enjoy.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/management-gestion/marineprotection-protectionmarine/boo-fram2011/faq-eng.htm
6
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Private Donations
While P3s involve direct collaboration between a public and private entity,
there are also many examples of individuals, companies and philanthropic
foundations funding conservation activities without becoming actively
involved in the process. Private donations are one important mechanism
for funding protected areas, often through donations to organizations that
are responsible for their establishment (Emerton et al., 2006). For example,
in the case of the MLPAI, some private entities became actively involved
in the process while several foundations simply provided much-needed
funding (Fox et al., 2013). While many donors support worthy causes
for altruistic reasons, it can also be beneficial for private companies to get
involved in cause marketing; increasingly, consumers are demanding that
companies be more environmentally and socially responsible. Donating
to conservation-related causes is one way that businesses seek to improve
their social license. Tying products to a larger conservation message can also
be an effective marketing tool (van Beukering et al., 2006; Emerton et al.,
2006). Large transnational corporations have donated millions of dollars
to marine conservation activities, including Shell, British Petroleum and
Coca-Cola (Emerton et al., 2006). Funding from private sources should
be accepted with caution, however, particularly when it originates from
companies with questionable environmental records.
Private funding can be channeled into an endowment fund to generate
long-term, sustainable funding. An endowment fund consists of an investment fund established by an institution or charity that accepts private
donations. The capital of an endowment fund is invested to generate a
long-term stream of funds through interest and investment income without
depleting the initial amount (van Beukering et al., 2006). There are already
examples of endowment funds used for conservation in British Columbia.
Coast Opportunity Funds is an independent organization that manages a
$116 million endowment provided by private foundations and provincial
and federal government agencies to support conservation and economic development in the Great Bear Rainforest (Coast Opportunity Funds, 2013).
Private funding can supplement existing funds in perpetuity and can also
generate an initial influx of funds for the planning process. The fund raising
campaign required to solicit these donations will also help to educate the
public and may lead to policy changes as a result of increased awareness.
However, there are some downsides to being overly reliant on private donations. Fund raising campaigns can require substantial up-front resources, which are often lacking in smaller regional conservation efforts (van
Beukering et al., 2006). Furthermore, the public is fickle in their charitable
giving and it is difficult to forecast the amount of funding that could come
from private donations far in to the future. Private donations, though, have
the potential to be an excellent source of supplemental revenue during the
MPA network planning process (Emerton et al., 2006).
Soliciting private donations often requires the managing body to create
a public relations or outreach campaign to promote the cause. There are
also many examples where substantial funds for particular causes are raised
from many individual donors. Conservation efforts usually strive to protect entire ecosystems, but fundraising campaigns often focus on a single
charismatic ‘flagship’ species that is easy for the public to connect with
(Leader-Williams, 2000). For example, the successful marketing campaign
to protect the northern coastal temperate rainforest ecosystem in B.C.,
now referred to as the Great Bear Rainforest, centered on the Kermode
or ‘spirit’ bear which became the rallying species for conservationists and
donors alike (Hayter, 2005).
7
Case Study: The Arctic Home Campaign
photo: ilo gassoway
In 2011 the Coca-Cola Company partnered with the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to support its Arctic Home
campaign for the conservation of polar bears (CocaCola, 2012). Coca-Cola pledged U.S. $3 million over
five years for the project (Coca-Cola, 2012). This has
been supplemented with funds generated from the
WWF’s private donors. While the polar bear is the
charismatic species used to market and promote
the campaign, it is more largely focused upon Arctic
habitat preservation. More specifically, the WWF is
helping to facilitate the creation of an integrated management plan for the Arctic region (Tesar, 2011). The
WWF states that their role is to “facilitate discussion
around the future management of this Last Ice Area,
add capacity (financial and technical), and coordinate
international interest (Tesar, 2011, 2).”
This campaign is an example of a mutually-beneficial
partnership between a conservation organization and
a transnational corporation. The WWF benefits through
substantial funding from Coca-Cola and increased
public awareness through Coca-Cola’s commercials
that highlight the soft drink company’s contributions.
Coca-Cola hopes to benefit by establishing a reputation as an environmentally-responsible company
through linking their product to a conservation cause.
Coke produced 1.4 billion cans of soda with polar
bear-themed labels which the company acknowledged was intended to increase product demand
(Weisberger, 2011). Furthermore, it represents an
excellent tie-in to their own branding, since Coca-Cola
has used polar bears in their advertisements for over
80 years (Weisberger, 2011). By focusing on conserving polar bears instead of promoting the more complex
and procedural regional management process, both
entities have generated public interest and support.
This effort has not been without detractors though.
There has been some controversy within local Inuit
communities due to the association between CocaCola’s product lines and obesity. •
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Payment for Ecosystem Services
Protected areas have historically been thought of as an economic cost to society, while the benefits
provided were considered to be cultural or intrinsic in nature. That mindset is changing, though,
as the economic impacts of environmental degradation caused by natural resource extraction
have come to light. Climate change is one example: the environmental impact of treating
Earth’s atmosphere as a free dump for carbon pollution is resulting in economic costs to our
society. As a result, the benefits that protected areas provide are now recognized as extending
beyond the intrinsic to include important services such as flood control and habitat resiliency
that protect economic interests. Healthy marine ecosystems contribute to human health and
well-being through services such as carbon sequestration and food production (OAGC, 2012;
DFO, 2013a). Heretofore, humans have not had to pay for these services rendered by nature,
despite their considerable value. A new concept called Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)
represents a collection of market-based approaches to promoting biodiversity and protected
areas. It is based on the idea that those who economically benefit from the exploitation of
natural resources should be required to pay to ensure the ecosystem’s continued viability (Potts
et al., 2012; Emerton et al., 2006).
There is significant potential to use PES as a way to generate funds for an MPA network.
In order to set up a PES, the ecosystem services must be identified and, wherever possible,
quantified (Pagiola, 2008). It also must be determined how these services would change or be
diminished by ecosystem degradation so that the method of charging ecosystem service users
can be established (Pagiola, 2008).
According to a 2008 report, “no PES programs have been implemented for coastal and marine
ecosystems (Pagiola, 2008, 15).” This can be largely attributed to the fact that benefits and costs
may be difficult to establish given the inherent uncertainties associated with marine ecosystems.
Often the ecosystem services provided by marine ecosystems are incredibly diffuse and occur
on a global scale. Given this complexity, provincial or federal governments may be the only
entity large enough to administer a PES program for coastal and marine ecosystems (Emerton
et al., 2006). However, there are two ecosystem services that have demonstrated the potential
for market development: blue carbon and marine bioprospecting.
Blue Carbon Offsets
Climate change is a major problem that is already affecting many aspects of our lives. The
ocean is also being significantly affected by changes to the atmosphere. One third of all carbon
dioxide emitted into the air is absorbed by the ocean which alters its chemistry and makes it
more acidic. Climate change is also resulting in warmer ocean temperatures. One of the major
ecosystem services provided by marine ecosystems is carbon sequestration. In coastal and estuarine habitat that contains salt marshes and seagrass beds, carbon is stored in mineral form in
the sediments for thousands of years (McLeod et al., 2011). In B.C. there are approximately
400 square kilometres of salt marshes and seagrass beds that sequester approximately 180,200
tonnes of carbon each year (Campbell, 2010). The ocean’s carbon storage capacity, often referred
to as ‘blue carbon’, is a key ecosystem service that has global benefits to humans. One way to
recognize this ecosystem service could be by creating blue carbon offsets. The World Resources
Institute defines carbon offsets as “a unit of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) that is reduced,
avoided or sequestered to compensate for emissions occurring elsewhere” (World Resources
Institute, 2013).
The use of carbon offsets is controversial and research continues into the appropriate use of
offsets. The IUCN has developed a “mitigation hierarchy” that gives guidance on the appropriate
parameters for the use of biodiversity offsets. Blue carbon offsets should specifically fund the
conservation and protection of coastal and marine vegetation to promote carbon sequestration.
In British Columbia, terrestrial carbon offsets have been used to create a carbon-neutral provincial government and public sector (Pacific Carbon Trust, 2014b). This was managed briefly
by Pacific Carbon Trust (PCT), a crown corporation that offset carbon through numerous
8
photo: janna nichols
A lion nudibranch rests in a
bed of eelgrass. Coastal ecosystems are up to 2,000 times
more efficient than land plants
at removing CO2 from the atmosphere.1 In order to take full
advantage of their “blue carbon” capabilities, we have to
make sure our seagrass and
salt marshes are safeguarded
as part of a network of marine
protected areas.
1. http://www.habitat.noaa.
gov/coastalbluecarbonreports.
html
projects, including those focused on alternative energy, forest and agricultural management
and improved energy efficiency (Pacific Carbon Trust, 2014a). Since PCT was folded in to
the B.C. Ministry of Environment’s Climate Action Secretariat (CAS) in 2013, the provincial
government has maintained its commitment to a carbon-neutrality. The CAS has not yet explored blue carbon offsets as a potential addition to the range of terrestrial offset projects that
it supports, although blue carbon offsets are being explored on a local level: a project led by the
Comox Valley Project Watershed Society is exploring the possibility of funding the conservation
of coastal ecosystems through blue carbon credits. The non-profit organization has partnered
with Vancouver Island University and the B.C. government to identify key blue carbon habitat,
evaluate costs of blue carbon projects and undertake conservation and restoration activities in
these key habitats (Project Watershed, 2013). While doing so, this partnership will explore the
creation of a viable, sustainable blue carbon market in the province. If blue carbon projects
could be developed and commercialized by public or private carbon offset companies subject
to stringent verification standard, offsets may present a significant source of funding for the
development and maintenance of nearshore MPAs.
The Mitigation Hierarchy
Figure 3. Ref: IUCN Technical
Study, April 2014
Managing impact on biodiversity for new projects is a serious
problem for resource extraction
industries. One way is to commit to developing new projects
in a way that avoids then minimizes impacts to biodiversity.
After project completion the residual impact of the project is
offset by investing in marine or
terrestrial biodiversity projects
that have been registered as
potential offset projects.
9
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Marine Bioprospecting Fees
One key service to humans provided by biodiversity is the provision of raw biological and
genetic resources for the development of products. ‘Bioprospecting’ involves the collection and
testing of these resources to determine whether they have potential to be used in products such
as medicines and cosmetics (Hunt and Vincent, 2006). There have been many examples of
exploitation or theft through bioprospecting as it has historically involved the use of local and
indigenous knowledge without compensation. For this reason, it has become increasingly accepted that private companies wishing to exploit biological resources must provide compensation
to indigenous peoples, conservation organizations or local governments (Demunshi & Chugh,
2010; Geary et al., 2013). This has been confirmed internationally by the Nagoya Protocol, an
amendment to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) that establishes guidelines for
fair and equitable use of biological and genetic resources (Geary et al., 2013). Canada is a signatory of CBD and must therefore comply with the guidelines laid out by the Nagoya Protocol.
There is potential for channeling a portion of these marine bioprospecting fees into marine
conservation initiatives (Geary et al., 2013). This was demonstrated in 1992 when the U.S.
National Cancer Institute paid the Coral Reef Foundation $2.9 million for reef samples needed
in cancer research (van Beukering et al., 2006). British Columbia’s marine environment is
incredibly diverse and therefore a strong potential exists for product development. If some portion of any future bioprospecting fee is dedicated to marine conservation, it could represent a
significant funding source for MPAs.
Resource Use Fees
Resource use fees are simply a payment made for non-extractive uses of an MPA, such as access
for tourism and recreation. This is a way to capture some of the intrinsic and scenic value of
the MPA which is used to fund its management (Emerton et al., 2006). This type of financing
has been very important to terrestrial parks and protected areas, and is now being extended to
MPAs around the world (van Beukering et al., 2006; Emerton et al., 2006) Resource use fees
are a common source of funding in developing nations’ MPAs, particularly those with tourismfriendly coral reefs (Thur, 2010; Green & Donnelly, 2003).
Activities such as whale watching, recreational fishing, scuba diving, surfing, kayaking and
sightseeing are enriched by the presence of an MPA network and can result in increased tourism
revenue for coastal communities (Dharmaratne et al., 2000). However, this increase in revenues
may not translate to funding for MPA management. In some jurisdictions, governments have
captured some of these benefits through payment vehicles such as entry fees, vessel surcharges
and licenses for recreational fishing or scuba diving to fund MPA management (Thur, 2010).
The presence of well managed and enforced MPAs ensures the values that draw the marine
tourism industry remain viable in the long-term (Thur, 2010).
User fees can be an important source of supplemental funding for MPAs, though in some cases
MPAs and marine parks have been exclusively funded in this way (Thur, 2010). The fees target
only those who directly benefit from the presence of the park and thus are likely to be more
socially accepted than a more general tax increase or reallocation. Furthermore, several studies of tourists who have paid user fees for an MPA have indicated the majority of tourists are
willing to pay (Thur, 2010). In British Columbia, users of provincial parks are accustomed to
paying a fee for entry. For example, canoeing the Bowron Lakes costs CDN $60 per person (BC
Parks, 2014). A 2014 survey conducted in British Columbia by Living Oceans Society found
that individual marine users, particularly recreationalists, were open to the concept of a user
fee as long as there was transparency about how it would be used. Similarly, tourism businesses
were tentative about paying a user fee unless it led to a more transparent MPA process (Living
Oceans Society, unpublished data, 2013).
Many of the disadvantages of user fees stem from the logistical difficulties associated with ensuring
fee payment. There are no physical barriers to entering an MPA and additional resources would
10
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
be required to monitor and enforce the payment system (van Beukering, 2006). There may also
be some backlash from tourists or tourism operators who resent having to pay additional fees or
increase their prices (Depondt & Green, 2006). One study of scuba divers in Bonaire Marine
Park (see case study) found that some tourists believed they did not get anything as a result of
the fee or disagreed with being charged in order to access nature (Thur, 2010). This could be
remedied if tourists and operators were properly educated on both the overarching and tourism
specific benefits of MPAs and how their fees contribute to its management. Finally, while user
fees have the potential to be an important source of revenue for MPAs near coastal communities,
those MPAs that are hard to access or closed to the public because of habitat sensitivity could
not generate revenue in this manner. If revenue from the accessible MPAs were used to finance
a full regional network, even the most remote MPAs would benefit.
Case Study: User Fees in Bonaire National Marine Park
photo: clark anderson/aquaimages
Bonaire National Marine Park is unique as a fully self-financed MPA (Thur, 2010).
Bonaire, a small island within the Dutch Antilles, generates a significant amount of
revenue from diving and marine tourism. The park is managed by the Netherlands
Antilles National Parks Foundation, an NGO that is entirely responsible for the park’s
day-to-day operations (STINAPA, 2013). The island’s waters were designated as a
Marine Park in1979 with the full support of the Dutch government and an initial influx
of revenue from the WWF in Holland (STINAPA, 2013). After its initial funds ran out,
the park experienced significant financial difficulties and lapsed in to a ‘paper park’
for several years (Thur, 2010). In an effort to revitalize the failing park, in 1992 an
annual user fee of U.S. $10 for scuba divers was implemented to support proper
management. This fee structure has since been expanded and now all visitors to the
marine park pay an annual fee ranging from $10 to $25 (STINAPA, 2013). Once this
fee is paid, visitors receive a ‘tag’ allowing access to the park for one year. Visitors
are also asked to participate in an orientation session to ensure the park is used in a
sustainable manner. While the park fees remain relatively modest, one recent study
found that scuba divers were willing to pay between U.S. $61 and $134, indicating
that an increase in user fees would not reduce demand for park access (Thur, 2010).
Several characteristics of this marine park made it a viable candidate for user fees.
There is a significant demand for recreation within the park, which would be reduced
if the park wasn’t properly managed. It is also in a relatively small geographic area,
making monitoring and enforcement more feasible. Furthermore, there was significant
support from the surrounding local communities; since tourism is at the center of the
island’s economy, residents are supportive of the park’s management and conservation. The fact that the user fees are paired with an educational component ensures
that tourists and visitors understand the fee and are respectful of the protected area. •
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Community and First Nations Management
Community-based ecosystem management (CBEM) is a bottom-up, holistic approach to
resource and environmental management. CBEM has grown increasingly common in the last
few decades and is now a central feature of many MPAs, particularly in developing countries
(Govan et al., 2009). For example, in the South Pacific, locally-managed MPAs have led to the
protection of over 12,000 square kilometres of ocean, while those managed at higher levels of
government have largely devolved into ‘paper parks’ (Govan et al., 2009). The benefits of establishing locally-managed MPAs include “recovery of natural resources, improved food security,
increased economic opportunities, improved governance, access to information and services,
health impacts, improved security of tenure, cultural recovery and strengthening community
organization (Govan et al., 2009).
There is an integral role for local communities and First Nations in MPA planning and management in British Columbia. A recent study by Edgar et al. (2014) found that the implementation
of fisheries closures and the effective enforcement of MPAs are two of five elements critical to
their success. It has been demonstrated that the support of nearby residents is a prerequisite to
successful protected areas; their involvement also has the potential to ease financial burdens and
generate funds for MPAs. Decentralization of management authority can reduce administrative
costs as well as the costs associated with monitoring and compliance since locals can play a role
in monitoring and are more likely to comply with regulations if they are actively involved in
management (Aalbersberg et al., 2008). There is also the potential for revenue generation for
MPAs through user fees and benefit-sharing agreements (Thur, 2010). First Nations and local
communities can bring traditional and place-based knowledge and values to the MPA planning
and management process, increasing its effectiveness (Parks Canada, 2010). However, using
CBEM in MPA management is not always a feasible option. There may be issues related to
jurisdiction and the ability of the local community to legally enforce regulations within their
MPA. Finally, it must be ensured that there is adequate capacity and resources within the community to manage the MPA effectively. Many of these issues can be remedied through a policy
environment favorable to CBEM and planning resources to deal with internal conflicts.
12
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Case Study: Gwaii Hanaas National Marine
Conservation Area Reserve
Gwaii Haanas Marine Conservation Area Reserve (GHMCA), located off the southeast
coast of Haida Gwaii, was established in 2010 as a formal government-to-government
partnership between the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada (Jones et al.,
2010). It is part of an integrated co-operative conservation plan of 5,0002 kilometers
of land and waters. This marine area contains 3,500 identified species and numerous different types of marine habitat (Parks Canada, 2010). It is integral to Haida
culture and history, and is an important source of livelihood. While only three percent
of GHMCA is a ‘no-take’ zone, there are differing levels of use restrictions throughout
the entire area. This agreement has been beneficial for the Haida through increased
tourism and other economic opportunities, sustainable use of their traditional marine
resources and incorporation of their knowledge and values in to the decision-making
and planning processes (Jones et al., 2010). The government has benefitted through
improved on-the-ground technical and logistic support from the Haida and increased
local support for the establishment of the GHMCA.
While the comprehensive marine use plan will not be completed until 2015, the
GHMCA represents a promising first step forward in First Nations management and
self-determination in the MPA planning process.
The GHMCA will be managed by the Government of Canada and the Haida Nation
and will be based upon the following management objectives:
Objective 1 Establish and implement effective collaboration for planning and management.
Objective 2 Protect, conserve and restore marine biodiversity and ecosystems.
Objective 3 Sustain the continuity of Haida culture and protect features of spiritual
and cultural importance.
Objective 4 Promote ecologically sustainable uses of marine resources.
Objective 5 Advance understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem functions, natural
and social sciences, cultural resource values and sustainable uses.
Objective 6 Enhance awareness and understanding, among local and national audiences, of the natural and cultural heritage.
Objective 7 Foster meaningful connections for all Canadians, and provide opportunities for memorable visitor experiences. •
Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida Heritage Site Interim
Management Plan and Zoning Plan, May 2010. www.pc.gc.ca/
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Conclusion
MPA networks safeguard the ability to seed and repopulate areas that are damaged elsewhere
on the coast because of human activity. Currently, only one percent of Canada’s oceans and
Great Lakes are protected in federally designated MPAs. If Canadians hope to find a way to
use the ocean without using it up, it is time to reverse the stagnation that has beset MPA planning and establishment. This paper has looked at a handful of the funding sources available
to finance an MPA network in British Columbia in the absence of adequate public funding:
public-private partnerships, private donations, payments for ecosystem services, user fees and
CBEM all present potential alternate options. However, comprehensive cost-benefit analyses
must be completed before alternative supplemental funding sources are sought out. This will
help to determine who stands to win and who would lose out in the development of an MPA
network, and ensure that the proper people, businesses and industries are paying for the benefits
derived as well as compensation for their losses. It is clear that the people of British Columbia
cannot be wholly reliant on government to protect their ocean ecosystems from degradation.
Despite federal government inaction on marine planning and budget cutbacks on this issue,
an MPA network is still an achievable and feasible goal. In order to succeed, however, MPA
managers will need to creatively seek out and arrange a diverse portfolio of funding sources
in order to ensure long term financial sustainability of protected areas if Canada is to meet its
international commitments to protect its oceans.
14
Appendix 1: Summary Table
Funding
Mechanism
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Case Study
PublicPrivate
Partnership
A partnership between a
government agency and
a private entity (usually
one or more non-governmental organization,
charitable foundation,
academic institution or
private company) for the
purposes of achieving a
stated goal. In P3s, the
private entity will often
provide funding as well
as play an active role in
the planning and managing process.
Diversifies funding
Public concern over bias
Increases public participation
Differing ideologies between
entities can create conflict
California Marine
Life Protection Act
Private
Donations
Payments for
Ecosystem
Services
User Fees
CommunityBased
Management
of MPAs
Individuals, companies
and philanthropic foundations provide short-term
or long-term funding to
conservation initiatives.
A collection of marketbased approaches that
ensures those who benefit from ecosystem services pay to ensure the
ecosystem’s continued
viability.
Resource use fees are
payments made by those
wishing to use the MPA
directly, often through
tourism and recreation,
which is then used to
fund the management of
the MPA.
MPAs are funded and
managed by a community
or First Nation independent of governmental jurisdictions, or in partnership
with them.
Improves transparency and accountability
Learn More:
Funding isn’t always longterm
http://bit.ly/1dl4h4p
Diversifies funding
Private funding can be fickle
Can improve marketing and
communications capacity
Expensive to solicit donations
The Arctic Home
Campaign
Increases awareness and public engagement
Concerns over private funders environmental record
(e.g. BP)
http://bit.ly/1fAoZ59
Diversifies funding
No prior example of PES
used for MPAs
NA
Improves technical capacity
and expertise
Increases public trust
Improves economic efficiency
by creating markets for MPAs
Provides justification for public
spending on MPAs
Learn More:
Logistically difficult/requires
extensive research
Can help to compensate those
who bear MPA costs
Diversifies funding
Ensures those who directly
benefit from MPA bear some
cost as well
Benefits the local economy
through ensuring long-term
tourism revenues
Difficult to enforce fees in
open ocean area
Bonaire National
Marine Park
Not applicable to remote
MPAs
Learn More:
Mat be backlash from tourism operators regarding decreased demands
http://bit.ly/1ahXc9y
Encourages public education
and outreach related to MPAs
Can lower conflict and increase
public support amongst resource users
May be conflict amongst
community members
Decentralization of MPA management
Can lead to uncoordinated
management amongst MPA
networks
Allows for use of traditional
knowledge
May not be legally recognized by the government
Easier to monitor and enforce
MPA rules
Improved relationship building,
coordination and communications between communities and
government.
Gwaii Haanas
National Marine
Conservation Area
Learn More:
http://bit.
ly/1im8A4C
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Work Cited
Aalbersberg, W., Govan H., Tawake, A., & Parks, J. (2008). Locally managed
marine areas: a guide to supporting community-based adaptive management.
FAO Working Paper.
Ban, Natalie, Joshua Cinner, Vanessa Adams, Morena Mills, Glenn Almany,
Stephen Ban, Laurence McCook, Alan White (2012). Recasting shortfalls of
marine protected areas as opportunities through adaptive management. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22: 262-271
BC Parks (2014). BC Parks User Fees. BC Parks Website. Available at: http://
www.env.gov.bc.ca/ bcparks/fees/
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; 2013). California Marine
Protected Areas. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/mpa/index.asp
Campbell, Colin (2010). Blue Carbon – British Columbia: The Case for the
Conservation and Enhancement of Estuarine Processes and Sediments in B.C.
Technical Paper. Prepared for Sierra Club of B.C.
Coast Opportunity Funds (2013). About the Funds. Coast Opportunity Funds
Website. Available at: http://www.coastfunds.ca/about-overview-funds
Coca-Cola Company (2012). The Arctic Home Campaign. Coca-Cola Live Positively Website. Available at: http://www.livepositively.ca/arctichome/index.
jsphttp://www.livepositively.ca/arctichome/ index.jsp
Demunshi, Y., & Chugh, A. (2010). Role of traditional knowledge in marine
bioprospecting. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(11), 3015-3033.
Depondt, F., & Green, E. (2006). Diving user fees and the financial sustainability
of marine protected areas: Opportunities and impediments. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 49(3), 188-202.
Dharmaratne, G. S., Yee Sang, F., & Walling, L. J. (2000). Tourism potentials
for financing protected areas. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 590-610.
Emerton, L., J. Bishop. and L. Thomas (2006). Sustainable Financing of Protected
Areas: A global review of challenges and options. International Union for the
Conservation of Nature.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO; 2013a). Spotlight on Marine Protected
Areas in Canada. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareaszonesmarines/mpa-zpm/spotlight-pleinsfeux/index-eng.htm
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO; 2013b) A description of Canada’s Maritime
Zones. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/canadasoceans-oceansducanada/marinezones-zonesmarines-eng.htm
Fox, E., M. Miller-Henson, J. Ugoretz, M. Weber, M. Gleason, J. Kirlin, S. Mastrup
(2013). Enabling conditions to support marine protected area network planning: California’s Marine Life Protection Act Initiative as a case study. Ocean
& Coastal Management 74: 14-23
16
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Gardner, Julie (2009). First Nations and Marine Protected Areas: An introduction to First Nations Rights, Concerns and Interests Related to MPAs on
Canada’s Pacific Coast. Prepared for Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
Available at: http://www.cpawsbc.org/upload/First_Nations_MPAs_Summary
_Report_Oct2009.pdf
Geary, J., Jardine, C. G., Guebert, J., & Bubela, T. (2013). Access and benefits
sharing of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in northern
Canada: understanding the legal environment and creating effective research
agreements. International journal of circumpolar health, 72.
Govan, H., Tawake, A., Tabunakawai, K., Jenkins, A., Lasgorceix, A., Schwarz,
A. M., ... & Obed, T. (2009). Status and Potential of Locally-managed Marine
Areas in the South Pacific: Meeting Nature Conservation and Sustainable Livelihood Targets Through Wide-spread Implementation of LMMAs: Study Report.
Green Budget Coalition (2013) http://greenbudget.ca/pdf/Green%20Budget%20
Coalition’s%20Recommendations%20for%20Budget%202014%20(November%207%202013).pdf (accessed July 7 2014)
Green, E., & Donnelly, R. (2003). Recreational scuba diving in Caribbean marine
protected areas: Do the users pay? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 32(2), 140-144.
Greiner, R., Young, M. D., McDonald, A. D., & Brooks, M. (2000). Incentive
instruments for the sustainable use of marine resources. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 43(1): 29-50.
Government of Canada, National Conservation Plan http://www.canada.ca/en/
services/environment/ncp/conserving.html (accessed July 7 2014)
Hayter, Roger (2005). Environmentalism Qua Environmental Non-Government
Organisations and the Contested Remapping of British Columbia’s Forests.
The GeoJournal Library 81: 17-32
Hunt, B., & Vincent, A. C. (2006). Scale and sustainability of marine bioprospecting for pharmaceuticals. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 35(2),
57-64.
Hutching, Jeffrey, Isabelle Côté, Julian Dodson, Ian Fleming, S. Jennings, Nathan
Mantua, Randall Peterman, Brian Riddell, Andrew Weaver, David VanderZwaa
(2012). Is Canada fulfilling its obligations to sustain marine biodiversity? A
summary review, conclusions, and recommendations. Environmental Review
20: 353-361
IUCN. Sustainable Financing, Part 1, Section 3. Available at: https://portals.iucn.
org/library/efiles/html/BP13-sustainable-financing/Part%20I-section3.html
Jones, R., Rigg, C., & Lee, L. (2010). Haida marine planning: First Nations as a
partner in marine conservation. Ecology and Society, 15(1), 12.
17
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Kirlin, J., M. Caldwell, M. Gleason, M. Weber, J. Ugoretz, E. Fox, M. MillerHenson (2013). California’s Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: Supporting
implementation of legislation establishing a statewide network of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 74: 3-13
Leader-Williams, Nigel, & Dublin, H. T. (2000). Charismatic megafauna as ‘flagship species’. Priorities for the conservation of mammalian diversity: Has the
panda had its day, 3, 53-81.
Living Oceans Society (2013). [Survey: Marine Protected Areas in British Columbia]. Unpublished raw data.
Mcleod, E., Chmura, G. L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Björk, M., Duarte, C. M.,
& Silliman, B. R. (2011). A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved
understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO 2 .
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(10), 552-560.
MLPAI (2007). Memorandum of Understanding. Working Document. Available
at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/mou121906.pdf
The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC; 2013). The Natural Areas Conservation Program: Frequently Asked Questions. NCC Website. Available at: http://
www.natureconservancy.ca/en/what-we-do/conservation-program/frequentlyasked-questions.html
NOAA Habitat Conservation. Blue Carbon Reports. Available at: http://www.
habitat.noaa.gov/coastalbluecarbonreports.html
Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAGC; 2012). Chapter 3: Marine
Protected Areas. Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Available at: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/
parl_cesd_201212_03_e_37712.html
Pacific Carbon Trust (2014a). Our Projects. Pacific Carbon Trust Website.
able at: http://pacificcarbontrust.com/our-projects/
Avail-
Pacific Carbon Trust (2014b). Carbon-Neutral Government. Pacific Carbon Trust
Website. Available at: http://pacificcarbontrust.com/our-projects/
Pagiola, Stefano (2008). Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Protect
Coastal and Marine Areas? Environment Matters/World Bank. Available at:
http://www.siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTENVMAT/8CanPayments.pdf
Parks Canada (2010). Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve
and Haida Heritage Site: Interim Management Plan and Zoning Plan. Parks
Canada Website.
Potts, Tavis, Emma Jackson, Daryl Burdon, Justine Saunders, Jonathan Atkins,
Emily Hastings, Olivia Langmead (2012). Marine Protected Areas and Ecosystem Services–Linking Conservation and Human Welfare? Valuing Nature
Network Working Paper.
18
Sustainable Financing Options for a Marine Protected Area Network in British Columbia
Project Watershed (2013). Unlocking Coastal B.C.’s Blue Carbon Opportunities.
Project Watershed Website. Available at: http://projectwatershed.ca/unlockingcoastal-bcs-blue-carbon-opportunities/
Robb, C. K., Bodtker, K. M., Wright, K., & Lash, J. (2011). Commercial fisheries
closures in marine protected areas on Canada’s Pacific coast: The exception,
not the rule. Marine Policy, 35(3), 309-316.
STINAPA (2013). Bonaire National Marine Park Website. Available at: http://
www.bmp.org/history.html
Tesar, Clive (2011). WWF Factsheet 2011: The Last Ice Area. Available at: http://
www.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lia_factsheet_2011_11_letter.pdf
Thur, S. M. (2010). User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine
protected areas: An application to the Bonaire National Marine Park. Marine
policy, 34(1), 63-69.
van Beukering (ed.), Wolfgang Haider, Esther Wolfs, Yi Liu, Kim van der Leeuw,
Margo Longland, Joel Sablan, Ben Beardmore, Sabina di Prima, Eric Massey,
Herman Cesar, Zeke Hausfather (2006). Sustainable Financing for Marine
Protected Areas. In The Economic Value of the Coral Reefs of Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: 88-118.
Weible, Christopher (2008) Caught in a Maelstrom: Implementing California
Marine Protected Areas, Coastal Management, 36(4), 350-373
Weisburger, Allison (2011). Coca-Cola and World Wildlife Fund Launch “Arctic
Home” Campaign for Polar Bear Protection. The Arctic Institute Center for
Circumpolar Security Studies. Available at: http://www.thearcticinstitute.
org/2011/11/7563-coca-cola-and-world-wildlife-fund.html
World Resources Institute (2013). Bottom Line of Offsets. Word Resources Institute Website. Available at: http://www.wri.org/publication/bottom-line-offsets
World Wildlife Fund (WWF; 2013). Arctic Home. WWF Website. Available at:
http://www.wwf.ca/takeaction/arctichome/?gclid=CIqVj6e5obwCFUiUfgodL
10AWg
19