Protected areas in Canada: decade of change

Protected areas in Canada: decade of change

PHILIP DEARDENDepartment of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8N 3P5 (e-mail: [email protected])

JESSICA DEMPSEYDepartment of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2 (e-mail: [email protected])

The last decade has witnessed more changes in

protected area systems in Canada than any other.

The area set aside has more than doubled, and almost

7 percent of Canada’s ecosystems are now protected

compared with 3 percent in 1989. Several high-profile

reports have indicated a decline in ecological integrity

of protected area systems. Major changes in legislation

and policy have followedwith a newNational Parks Act,

National Marine Conservation Areas Act, a Parks

Canada Agency Act and a revised national park’s

policy. The paper describes these major changes and

their implications, provides understanding of why they

occurred and suggests ongoing challenges facing

protected area systems in Canada in the future.

Introduction

Banff was set aside as Canada’s first national park in

1885. Since that time, the amount of land in park

systems in Canada has increased dramatically and

new legislation and policies have been introduced.

The last decade of the twentieth century, and up to

2002, has witnessed more changes than all from

the preceding century. This article reviews these

changes, provides some understanding of why they

happened and identifies areas of ongoing challenge.

The primary emphasis is on Parks Canada, although

some attention is directed towards significant

changes at the provincial level. The first part of the

paper synthesises the main changes that have

occurred. The second and third parts provide some

explanation for these changes and prognostication

for the future, respectively.

La derniere decennie a temoigne plus de

changements des systemes d’ aires protegees au

Canada que tout autre. Les aires mises de cote ont

plus que double et presque 7 pour cent d’ecosystemes

au Canada sont maintenant proteges compares a 3

pour cent en 1989. Plusieurs rapports de haut-profil

ont indique le declin dans l’integrite ecologique des

systemes d’ aires protegees. Des changements

importants de legislation et de police ont ete mis en

effet avec un nouvel Acte de Parcs Nationaux, un Acte

des Regions Marines Nationales de Conservation, un

Acte d’Agence de Parcs Canadiens et un Acte

National des Parcs revise. L’article decrit ces

changements principaux et leurs implications,

explique pourquoi ils se sont produits et suggere les

defis que les systemes d’ aires protegees au Canada

rencontreront a l’avenir.

The Canadian Geographer / Le Geographe canadien 48, no 2 (2004) 225–239

� / Canadian Association of Geographers / L’Association canadienne des geographes

Decade of Change

Increased size, scope and use of protected areasin Canada

Approximately 38 million hectares were added to

the protected areas system between 1989 and

2000 (Table 1). An estimated 6.84 percent of

Canadian ecosystems are now protected, compared

to 2.95 percent in 1989 (McNamee 2002a). This

increase mimics global trends—over 17.1 million

square kilometres of land are now protected

globally, covering approximately 11.5 percent of

the terrestrial earth compared with 4million square

kilometres in 1987, covering less than 2 percent of

the earth (World Commission on Environment and

Development 1987; Chape et al. 2003).

In the national park system in Canada, the area

protected has increased over 6 million hectares,

and 109,510ha have been set aside for future

parks. Furthermore in September 2002, Prime

Minister Chretien announced at the Global Summit

on Sustainable Development in South Africa plans

to increase the size of the national park system

by at least 50 percent. This would include 10 new

national parks and would see 35 of Parks Canada’s

39 natural regions represented (Environment

Canada 1990). The remaining four regions are

in Quebec where jurisdictional issues are still

outstanding. Negotiations have already been

completed for new parks in the Gulf Islands of BC

and Ukkusiksalik in Nunavut. Federal–provincial

negotiations continue for park proposals in the

Interlake region of Manitoba, the Torngat and

Mealy Mountains in Labrador, the South Okanagan

(BC) and the East Arm of Great Slave Lake (NWT).

Sites will also be identified in the Interior Northern

Plateau in BC and the Great Lakes St Lawrence

natural regions.

The federal government also committed to work

with partners to establish five new national marine

conservation areas (NMCAs), adding an estimated

15,000km2 to the system. Three sites have been

identified: Gwaii Haanas off BC’s Queen Charlotte

Islands, the Southern Strait of Georgia and in West-

ern Lake Superior. Sites for the remaining areas

are yet to be finalised.

There also have been significant additions to

provincial park systems (Table1). British Columbia

has added over 325 new protected areas and

increased the area in existing ones, making it the

only province to protect over 12 percent of its land

base. In Manitoba, parks now encompass 8.61 per-

cent of the province, up from 0.49 percent, the

largest percentage increase of all provinces. The

Ontario government created 378 new protected

areas, adding 2.4 million hectares. Nova Scotia

also has made considerable progress in represent-

ing natural regions, moving from 5.2 percent of

natural region coverage to 44.2 percent. This

increase is particularly significant given that only

30 percent of the Nova Scotia land base is Crown

owned (McNamee 2002a).

Table1

Amounts of land protected in each jurisdiction from 1989 to 2000 (modified from World Wildlife Fund 2000)

Area protected

1989 (hectares) Percent

Area protected

2000 (hectares) Percent

Increase in

percent protection

Federal 18,205,000 1.82 24,961,500 2.50 0.68

Yukon 3,218,300 6.67 5,008,000 10.38 3.71

Northwest Territories/Nunavut 6,978,550 2.03 17,941,954 5.22 3.19

British Columbia 4,958,300 5.25 10,770,100 11.40 6.15

Alberta 5,642,000 8.52 6,612,303 8.99 1.47

Saskatchewan 1,936,000 2.97 3,912,800 6.01 3.04

Manitoba 315,400 0.49 5,579,883 8.61 8.13

Ontario 5,152,900 4.79 9,405,300 8.74 3.95

Quebec 622,800 0.40 6,646,278 4.31 3.91

New Brunswick 88,800 1.22 232,500 3.19 1.97

Nova Scotia 138,700 2.51 458,615 8.30 5.79

Prince Edward Island 6,000 1.06 23,709 4.19 3.13

Newfoundland/Labrador 367,500 0.91 1,736,300 4.28 3.38

Total 29,425,250 2.95 68,327,742 6.84 3.90

The Canadian Geographer / Le Geographe canadien 48, no 2 (2004)

226 Philip Dearden and Jessica Dempsey

Significant events 1988–2001: legislation, policyand campaigns

This section describes the main changes in legisla-

tion and policy including some of the key reports

that helped focus attention on the need for these

changes. These changes are summarised in

Figure1, along with changes in national park

visitation and the amount of protected area in

Canada.

1988 Amendments to the 1930 National Park Act.

Parks Canada has struggled for many years with

the tension between the protection of and the

recreational use of national parks. The 1930

National Park Act ambiguously dedicated the

parks ‘to the people of Canada for their benefit,

education and enjoyment and such Parks shall be

maintained and made use of so as to leave them

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future gener-

ations’ (Canada 1930, section 4). The mandate

was clarified in the 1964 and 1979 national park

policies, which both clearly prioritise ecological

integrity and park protection over ‘enjoyment’

and tourism (Canada 1969, 1983). However,

because policy is not legally binding,

conservationists began to push for the legislation

of this single mandate into the National Parks Act

(McNamee 1988, 2002b), which led to the passing

of the 1988 National Park Amendments. The

amended Act states that the ‘Maintenance of eco-

logical integrity through the protection of natural

resources shall be the first priority when consider-

ing park zoning and visitor use in a management

plan’ (Canada 1988, 5.1.2). The 1988 amendments

also enabled the Governor in Council to give legal

recognition to wilderness zones within parks,

heightening the level of protection on these lands

by prohibiting any activities that are ‘likely to

impair the wilderness character of the area’

(Canada 1988, 5.8).

Several other amendments were designed to

strengthen agency accountability. Park manage-

ment plans, while already required by policy,

became a legislative requirement. The Minister

now must table park management plans in

Parliament within 5 years of new park establish-

ment. Public participation was strengthened

through the amendments, requiring the Minister,

NP

Act

am

endm

ents

ES

pace

s ca

mpa

ign

Nat

riona

l Par

k po

licy

revi

sion

Ban

ff-B

ow V

alle

y re

port

Aud

itor

Gen

eral

's r

epor

t

Sta

te o

f the

Par

ks r

epor

t

Par

ks C

anad

a A

genc

y A

ctE

colo

gica

l Int

egrit

y re

port

Eco

logi

cal I

nteg

rity

pane

lN

atio

nal P

arks

Act

Nat

iona

l Mar

ine

Con

serv

atio

n A

reas

Act

Prim

e M

inis

ter's

Act

ion

Pla

n

Par

k vi

sita

tion

(mill

ions

of v

isito

rs)

Year and events

Are

a pr

otec

ted

(mill

ions

of h

ecta

res)

Area protected

Park visitation

Figure1

Summary of main national park events since 1988 and increases in area protected and visitation


Protected areas in Canada 227

‘as appropriate’, to provide opportunities for public

participation in park matters. The Minister is also

now required to report to Parliament every 2 years

on the state of the national parks and progress

towards establishing new parks. The amendments

increased fines and punishments for poaching and

otherwise disturbing park ecosystems, legislated a

ban on further ski-hill development within park

boundaries, enabled local government for park

communities and included marine parks in Parks

Canada’s mandate for the first time.

1989 Endangered Spaces campaign unveiled. In

1989, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS)

challenged the federal, provincial and territorial

governments to complete their protected areas

systems by the year 2000 and the marine systems

by the year 2010 (Hummel 1989). This co-ordinated,

national Endangered Spaces (ES) campaign ‘sought

to turn the growing level of public support for envir-

onmental and wilderness protection during the

1980s into political actions that would protect the

nation’s disappearing natural diversity’ (McNamee

2002a, 51).

The campaign was prompted by several key

events in the late 1980s. In 1985, Parks Canada’s

centennial year, the federal government commis-

sioned regional caucuses to examine the state of

park establishment throughout the country.

Caucuses reported that the parks system was far

from complete (both federally and provincially)

and suggested that ‘public support, agency prior-

ity, and political will are the triad of necessary

prerequisites’ for moving forward on park estab-

lishment (Dearden and Gardner 1987, 37). In 1987,

Environment Canada’s Task Force on Park Estab-

lishment warned that suitable areas for wilderness

protection were disappearing quickly and that

Canada’s governments should act quickly to estab-

lish new parks (Environment Canada 1987). These

warnings, along with the release of Our Common

Future (World Commission on Environment and

Development 1987), partnered with increasingly

environmentally aware and concerned citizens,

‘all suggested that a co-ordinated campaign was

needed to push governments to protect the wild-

erness’ (McNamee 2002a, 52).

One of the strengths of the campaign was its

centrally based and relatively stable character,

but the campaign ensured strong regional pres-

ence by working with local organisations and

employing regional co-ordinators. National con-

servation groups worked with smaller organisa-

tions to increase public support and to further

influence governmental action. The campaign

also found support from industry and Aboriginal

groups, while philanthropic and foundational

resources ensured that the campaign was funded

for the decade-long period. The campaign gained

governmental support in 1992 when the Tri-Council

Statement of Commitment to Complete Canada’s

Networks of Protected Areas was signed by federal,

provincial and territorial governments. This state-

ment committed each government to ‘make every

effort to complete Canada’s networks of protected

areas representative of Canada’s land-based natural

regions by the year 2000 and accelerate the protec-

tion of areas representative of Canada’s marine nat-

ural regions’ (Federal Provincial Parks Council 2000,

5). By monitoring and publicly reporting govern-

mental progress on these goals in the form of a

yearly report card, the ES campaign was able to

keep pressure and media focus on the issue for

the entire decade (World Wildlife Fund Canada

2000).

1995 Revised National Park policy. Policy is import-

ant to give coherent and consistent direction to

park management. The 1964 National Parks Policy

(Canada 1964) was the first document clearly

establishing the protection of the environment as

the first priority for park decision-making. There

have been two major revisions since then (1979

and 1995), each placing successively greater

importance on ecological integrity. The 1995 revi-

sions further defined how national parks should be

managed to maintain ecological integrity. Sections

related to management planning emphasised the

primacy of ecosystem health and recognised the

important role of conservation biology and ecosys-

tem-based management for maintaining health

(section 3.2). Working with park neighbours on

land use and pollution issues (3.2.9), controlling

exotic species within parks (3.2.11) and maintain-

ing long-term monitoring data (3.2.6) were all

espoused within the 1995 policy.

This protective emphasis can also be seen in zon-

ing policies, which state that ‘Zones I and II will

together constitute the majority of the area of all

but the smallest national parks, and will make the

greatest contribution towards the conservation of



ecosystem integrity’ (Parks Canada 1995, 2.2.3.2).

There is also an entire section dedicated to policies

related to wilderness areas, a newmanagement tool

createdwith the 1988 amendments. Another signifi-

cant policy shift reoriented interpretation and edu-

cation towards ecological and environmental issues

and ‘on challenges to maintaining the ecological

integrity of national parks in order to foster greater

public understanding of the role that protected

spaces play in a healthy environment’ (Parks Canada

1995, 4.2.6). In addition, visitor management pro-

cesses were laid out clearly and national park com-

munities were limited to no new growth beyond the

legislated boundaries.

1996 Banff–Bow Valley Report. During the 1980s,

the ‘crown jewel’ of the Canadian National Park

system—Banff—experienced unprecedented com-

mercial development. Between 1985 and 1992,

over $360 million in building permits were issued,

and shopping space almost doubled from 1986 to

1994 (Dearden and Mitchell 1998). While Banff is a

large park (6,641km2), it is composed primarily of

ice and rock habitats, inhospitable to most spe-

cies. The most productive habitats, crucial for

wildlife, are the valleys. They are also the most

attractive for development. The BowValley Corridor

contains the Banff town site, the Trans-Canada

Highway, the 1A highway, a national railway, a 27-

hole golf course, three ski resorts and the village of

Lake Louise. Just east of Banff in the same valley,

there is the rapidly growing town of Canmore. In

response to these challenges, Sheila Copps, the

Minister responsible, placed a moratorium on

development and convened a task force—the

Banff–Bow Valley Study (BBVS)—to improve deci-

sion-making for the park.

The Task Force explored the environmental,

social and economic aspects of development in the

Park, in reference to the National Park mandate.

It found the grizzly bear populations declining

rapidly and the aquatic ecosystems compromised

due to exotic introductions and dams. The final

recommendations emphasised that current rates

of growth will cause ‘serious, and irreversible,

harm to Banff National Park’s ecological integrity’

(Banff-Bow Valley Study 1996, 4). The report called

for stricter limits to growth and more effective

methods of managing and limiting human use,

as well as regional co-ordination outside Park

boundaries. It suggested increased public involve-

ment in decision-making and improvements in

education, awareness and interpretation to inform

visitors of threats to ecological integrity. Inadequate

funding to meet the legislative requirement to main-

tain ecological integrity was identified as a main

challenge.

After the report’s release in 1996, Sheila Copps,

the Minister of Heritage, announced that no new

land would be made available for development. To

facilitate wildlife movement, the Banff airstrip

would be closed and the buffalo paddock and

cadet camp were removed. Copps also limited the

population of Banff to 10,000 residents and pledged

to restore aquatic diversity and to clean up sewage

that was found polluting waters in the park. Since

that time, further actions have been taken. For

example, in 1998, the Minister reduced the amount

of commercially zoned land in Banff, allowing only

350,000 ft2 of additional commercial development,

rather than the 850,000 ft2 the town council pro-

posed. The report generated considerable media

interest and raised the question, if Banff was under

threat, then what about the other parks?

1996 Auditor General’s Report. One month after

the BBVS Report was published, the auditor general

released another report on Parks Canada. The

audit was conducted ‘to review and assess whether

Parks Canada is effectively managing two compon-

ents of the programme for which it is accountable-

protection of ecological integrity and new park

establishment’ (Auditor General of Canada 1996,

31.25). The audit found that Parks Canada lacked

the knowledge base for sound ecosystem-based

management and that, in many cases, information

and monitoring of natural resources were out-

dated, with few parks having research plans. The

average age of park plans was found to be 12 years,

while the National Park Act states they must be

revised every 5 years. Few management plans had

clear ecological integrity statements, and links

between business plans and management plans

were also rare. In addition, the auditors were ‘con-

cerned that in some instances, management plans

emphasise social and economic factors over ecolo-

gical factors’ (Auditor General of Canada 1996,

31.9). The report recommended that the State of

the Parks Report improve information coverage to

include ecological integrity data. The auditors also

expressed concern over initiatives aiming to

increase visitation in already stressed parks and



the lack of clear direction and objectives in parks

in relation to tourism. Interpretation services, par-

ticularly for communicating ecological integrity

issues, were found to be lacking. The report

decried the slow creation of new national parks,

lack of progress on marine parks and the lack of

resources to support new parks.

In 1998, the auditor general completed a follow-up

audit. Since the earlier report, no new parks had

been created, 16 national parks still had outdated

management plans and many parks still had not

completed ecological integrity statements. The

follow-up report praised the BBVS and suggested

that changes made to the Banff management plan

due to the report be mirrored in other parks. The

follow-up report also noted positive changes to the

1997 State of Parks report and the increased import-

ance given to both monitoring and ecological

integrity indicators. However, the report also

noted that these improvements had not been able

to prevent an increase in the threat level to the

ecological integrity of most national parks (Auditor

General of Canada 1998).

1997 State of the Parks Report. Amendments made

to the National Park Act in 1988 required the Min-

ister to report to Parliament every 2 years on the

state of the national parks and progress towards

establishing new parks. The 1997 report (Ministry

of Public Works and Government Services Canada

1998), with improved ecological information,

marked a new phase in accountability and a greater

focus on ecological integrity. The report shows the

progress of new park establishment for both terres-

trial and marine parks, but most of the report

speaks to problems related tomaintaining ecological

integrity. Ecological indicators for biodiversity,

ecosystem functions and stressors in the parks are

identified. The results of the 1996 Stress Survey

Questionnaire are included in the report. Nineteen

of 36 parks reported stresses originating from park

management practices, 26 reported stresses from

visitor/tourism facilities and 21 reported stresses

from exotic vegetation. Other external stresses

included forestry (18), agriculture (17), mining (15)

and sport hunting (11). This report set a new stand-

ard for self-examination and critique that has been

rarely duplicated by a government agency.

1998 Parks Canada Agency Act. Throughout the

1990s, the federal government placed increasing

emphasis on fiscal responsibility and debt reduc-

tion. This resulted in decreased public funding,

public-sector lay-offs and privatisation of some

Crown corporations and services. Parks Canada

suffered a 25 percent decline in revenue between

1995 and 2000. Thus, the Parks Canada Agency Act

(PCAA) was created ‘to work towards the comple-

tion of the national parks system and to enhance

the systems of national historic sites and marine

conservation areas, while contributing to the

Government’s efforts to address the country’s fiscal

challenge’ (Parks Canada 1998, 1). With this Act,

passed in 1998, Parks Canada became an operating

agency (a distinct legal entity, a departmental cor-

poration) responsible for the same mandate as out-

lined in the National Parks Act. Primarily, the PCAA

pushed the organisation towards operating, as

Parks Canada CEO Tom Lee stated, ‘in a more busi-

ness-like manner’ (Searle 2000, 123).

The Act affected Parks Canada in four main areas:

accountability, financing, human resources and

administration. For accountability, the agency still

reports to the Minister, but a new position of chief

executive officer (CEO) was created, appointed by

the Governor in Council, to head the Agency. The

Act requires three new reports: a 5-year corporate

plan, an annual report on the agency’s operations

and a 5-year human resource management report.

The PCAA also strengthened accountability to the

public, by requiring theMinster to provide feedback

on the Agency’s performance.

Through this Act, Parks Canada gained greater

financial flexibility and responsibility, such as a

2-year rolling budget and full retention and reinvest-

ment authority for all revenues. The Act established

a dedicated account to be used to fund new national

parks, and the agency acquired authority to borrow

funds for land acquisition. For human resources, the

Agency became a separate employer from the federal

government, giving the CEO bargaining authority

with employees. Administrative changes enabled by

the Act also allowed increased flexibility. TheAgency

may now contract out operations to ‘maximize cost

effectiveness and efficiency’ (Parks Canada 1998). In

addition, the Agency is now able to accept gifts and

donations of property.

The Act provided Parks Canada with financial

flexibility to meet ecological integrity challenges,

and because of this, many environmental non-

governmental organisations (ENGOs) supported

the bill. However, there are also shortcomings,



particularly related to the overwhelming presence

of a business and corporate approach. The national

park mandate (to protect ecological integrity),

for example, is not mentioned anywhere in the

Act, except in the preamble, which is not legally

binding. Proposals for increased private contract-

ing creating staff redundancies led to staff demoral-

isation, and reduced revenues left park managers

scrambling to make up differences, sometimes

through increased user fees, visitation and ‘partner-

ships’ with private businesses, or simply through

reducing services.

2000 The Panel on the Ecological Integrity of

Canada’s National Parks. In response to these

earlier reports and pressure from conservation

groups, Sheila Copps, the Minster responsible,

established a Panel on the Ecological Integrity of

Canada’s National Parks (EI Panel) to ‘assess the

strengths and weaknesses of Parks Canada’s

approach to the maintenance of ecological integrity

and provide advice and recommend how best to

ensure that ecological integrity is maintained

across the system of national parks’ (Parks Canada

Agency 2000a, 1–2). The EI Panel made 127 recom-

mendations with the central message that ecological

integrity in the national parks is in peril. One

important cause of this situation, the Panel sug-

gested, was that Parks Canada lacked an internal

‘conservation culture’. That is, unlike the National

Parks Act, which prioritises ecological integrity,

Parks Canada, as an entity, views ecological integrity

as only one of many objectives. The Panel was ‘told

that the major hurdles to achieving the mandate can

be found within the organization’ (Parks Canada

Agency 2000a, 2–4).

The Panel found that Parks Canada lacked the

right tools for maintaining ecological integrity.

Science and traditional knowledge were rarely

used in decision-making; planning structures

were linear and inadequate for fostering increased

understandings of ecosystems and stakeholder

values; basic inventories and monitoring were

incomplete and insufficient; and laissez-faire man-

agement was causing harm to park ecosystems.

The report recommended an active adaptive man-

agement approach and noted the need for

increased co-operation across boundaries to deal

with external impacts on park ecosystems. The

Panel also found that park interpretation failed to

communicate the key purpose of national parks—

to protect and represent the main eco-regions in

Canada. The Panel recommended increased finan-

cing but acknowledged that resources are only part

of the solution, as the Panel chair, Jacques Gerin,

stated ‘there is no use increasing the budget for

national parks until a profound cultural shift

takes place within the organization’ (Canadian

Press Newswire 2000).

2000 National Parks Act. In October 2000, a new

National Parks Act was passed. The Act further

clarified the Parks Canada mandate and legislated

many recommendations made by conservation

groups, the EI panel, the Auditor General’s report

and academics. The term ‘ecological integrity’,

while used in the 1988 amendment, was clearly

defined in the new Act. The Act also legislated

greater detail in management plans, including a

long-term ecological vision and ecological integrity

objectives and indicators. Seven new parks were

established, poaching fines were raised, com-

mercial development in park communities was

capped and park establishment and enlargement

processes were simplified. The new Act further

refined the 1988 Wilderness Areas amendments,

to expedite their declaration, by requiring the

Governor in Council to declare Wilderness Areas

one year from the management plan approval.

Several recommendations made by the EI panel,

however, were not included in the new Act. For

example, the panel (Parks Canada Agency 2000a)

suggested additions to the Act that would encour-

age regional integration of park management with

surrounding lands and changes to the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act,which would require

environmental assessments of projects near parks

that might impact ecological integrity. The Panel

also recommended the legislation of Sunshine Ski

area boundaries, which would prevent expansion

of that area. In addition, the panel made very

detailed additions to section 11 of the Act pertaining

to the contents of management plans and ecological

indicators, including a 2-year deadline for imple-

mentation of indicators.

2002 National Marine Conservation Areas Act.

This Act specifically enables Parks Canada to

establish a system of representative marine pro-

tected areas (MPAs). The Act, however, has a very

different orientation than its terrestrial counter-

parts. Several agencies will have jurisdiction



within the MPAs, and the focus is on environmental

conservation rather than protection per se, working

in close co-operation with local interests. Total pro-

hibitions, such as hydrocarbon and mineral extrac-

tion, areminimal andwell-known, highly destructive

practices, such as bottom trawling, are not excluded.

This more flexible approach is signified in the name

of the Act, in that the areas set asidewill be known as

NMCAs, rather than national marine parks, the name

applied to the only designated national marine park

(Fathom Five) before passage of the Act.

Judging the success of this legislation will take

some time. First, some NMCAs have to be estab-

lished. Then it has to be seen whether the close

co-operation between different government agencies

and local interests results in conservation benefits

or just parks that exist in name only and provide

scenic backdrops for tourism. Key to the outcome

will be the internal zoning of the NMCAs that will

set aside some areas that allow no extractive activ-

ities. The location and size of these zones will be

crucial (Dearden 2002).

The Context for Change

The previous section has outlined some of themajor

changes related to Canada’s national parks over the

last 15 years. This section provides some under-

standing as towhy these changes occurred.No single

factor can be identified as the trigger behind the

changes; rather, a whole suite of pressures for

change coalesced to stimulate action and movement

for protected areas in Canada. These pressures origi-

nated from a wide variety of international to local

sources and cover many different factors ranging

from political to scientific. Furthermore, although

most of the significant changes occurred since

1988, the need for change was recognised by many

outside observers (e.g., Nelson 1984) many years

before the actual changes occurred. This section

outlines some of the main factors promoting change

at the international and national scales.

International factors

Globalisation is affecting and transforming many

aspects of society. Four main international elem-

ents are seen as important in promoting the

changes that have occurred in the Canadian pro-

tected areas system.

The deteriorating planet. On a global scale, there is

increasing evidence of environmental deterior-

ation including species extinctions, deforestation,

coastal degradation and poor water quality (World

Resources Institute 2000). Twenty-nine percent of

the earth’s total land area (almost 3.8 billion

hectares) has been converted to agricultural and

urban use. Humans appropriate over 40 percent

of the planetary net primary productivity for sup-

port (Vitousaek et al. 1997). Endangered species

counts reflect these changes with 2,046 mammals

and 1,992 birds, comprising 24 percent of all mam-

mal species and 12 percent of all bird species

(IUCN 2000) now endangered, respectively, com-

pared with 1990 figures of 698 mammals and

1,047 birds.1

Deteriorating livelihoods and economies. The

changes outlined above are not merely of scientific

or biophysical interest. There is a growing aware-

ness in society and, at a political level, of the links

between environmental and societal health. When

ecosystems collapse, livelihoods and economies

go with them. This interdependency between eco-

system protection and poverty is now recognised

by many international development agencies and

has helped spur the worldwide interest in pro-

tected area establishment. The Global Environ-

mental Facility of the World Bank, for example,

has funded protected area projects worth almost

US$1 billion since 1991 and plans an equal invest-

ment over the next 4 years (Global Environment

Facility 2002, 2003). Increased methodological

sophistication has also allowed monetary values

to be placed on ecosystem values. One team of

researchers put an average price tag of US$33 tril-

lion a year on fundamental ecosystem services like

nutrient cycling, soil formation and refugia. This

figure is nearly twice theglobal grossnationalprod-

uct (GNP) of US$18 trillion and demonstrates, in

economically understandable terms, the value of

the so-called free services of functioning environ-

ments (Costanza 1997).

Increased understanding on the role of Protected

Areas (PA) in protecting biodiversity. While the con-

cept of protected areas has been around for

well over a century, it is only in the last few dec-

ades that the concept has shifted from a primary

focus on recreation to ecological protection. Parks

are now recognised as important reserves for



biodiversity and endangered species (Soule and

Terborgh 1999). Although protected areas alone

are not enough to conserve biodiversity, recent

research shows that they are having some success.

A study by Bruner et al. (2001) based on a survey of

93 protected areas in 22 tropical countries found

that parks were ‘surprisingly effective at protect-

ing ecosystems and species within their borders in

the context of chronic under funding and signifi-

cant land use pressures’ (126). In Canada, the

national parks are home to 93 species designated

as ‘at risk’ by COSEWIC (Parks Canada Agency

2000b; Rivard et al. 2000). Although the national

parks currently cover less than 3 percent of the

country, they contain over 70 percent of the native

terrestrial and freshwater vascular plant species

and over 80 percent of the vertebrate species

(Dearden 2002).

International support for protected areas. With

the increased understanding of the value of pro-

tected areas, the last couple of decades have seen

international support for protected area growth.

There are several international treaties that have

furthered the development of protected area sys-

tems. For example, the Convention on Biological

Diversity (CBD), which entered into force in 1993,

requires signatories to develop biodiversity strat-

egies, identify and monitor important components

of biodiversity, to develop endangered species leg-

islation/protected areas systems and to promote

environmentally sound and sustainable develop-

ment in areas adjacent to protected areas (UNEP

1993). Canada is a signatory to the Convention

and has been implementing many of the strategies

required by the Convention over the last decade.

The Canadian Biodiversity Strategy (Ministry of

Supply and Services 1995) was developed as a

direct response to the requirements of the CBD,

and other developments, such as the new Species

at Risk Act, are also consistent with these needs.

The power of international obligations is variable,

as they abide by state sovereignty. However,

there has been enormous growth internationally

in protected areas. The UNEP-World Conservation

Monitoring Centre (Chape et al. 2003) estimates

that there is now an area equivalent in size to that

of South America in some form of terrestrial

protective designation. This represents a tremen-

dous investment by the countries of the world to

protect biological diversity.

National factors

At the national level, four main factors have

stimulated protected area growth over the last

decade.

Increased evidence of deteriorating national

environment. Concerns over declining global

environmental quality described above have been

mirrored nationally. Fisheries on both coasts have

collapsed, water supplies have become contamin-

ated, agricultural productivity is threatened by

droughts and there are increasing signs of many

implications of global climate change. In 1990,

statistics on endangered wildlife in Canada listed

194 species at risk, compared with 431 in 2003

(COSEWIC 2003). Improved environmental

accounting has allowed better international com-

parisons to be made. A recent assessment of the

environmental performance of 28 Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

countries ranked Canada at the twenty-seventh

position (Boyd 2001), and Canada ranks a

mediocre thirty-third among nations in protecting

wilderness in terms of the proportion of the land

base protected (McNamee 2002a).

Increased evidence of declining ecological integrity

within national parks. In addition to thegovernment-

commissioned reports discussed in the previous

section (e.g., Banff–Bow Valley Study, Panel on

Ecological Integrity), there have been numerous

other studies (e.g., Newmark 1995; Dobson 2002)

indicating deteriorating ecological integrity in the

national park system. A study by Landry et al.

(2001), for example, found that ‘the small size,

high visitation rates, and ecological isolation of

southern parks mitigate against Minimum Viable

Populations of wolves, black bears and grizzly

bears being maintained there . . .most of Canada’s

national parks cannot indefinitely sustain (MVPs)

of these large carnivorous mammals’ (19). The

unanimity of these reports constituted powerful

support for the conservation groups who were

pushing for changes in national park management

to reflect stronger adherence to biodiversity

protection.

Increased effect iveness and expert ise of

environmental non-governmental organisations.

ENGOs have become increasingly effective as they



have grown in size and sophistication over the

last decade. Nationally, groups like WWF and

CPAWS have expanded from small single offices

to gain a Canada-wide presence. The ES campaign,

described earlier, is a good example of the

increased influence and sophistication of ENGOs.

Groups also have become media savvy, respond-

ing to critical threats and issues quickly by organ-

ising responses and press releases, bringing

issues to the attention of the general public and

politicians. ENGOs have enhanced their research

and capabilities, producing technical reports such

as WWF’s gap analysis (Iacobelli and Kavanagh

1999) and David Boyd’s review of national and

provincial protected area legislation (Boyd 2002).

Many groups are also working with increas-

ing funding sources. For example, CPAWS revenue

grew from $440,743 in 1990 to $3,121,226 in 2000,

a growth of over 700 percent. Over the same

period, CPAWS membership grew by over 350

percent, from 4,470 to 16,199 (Hazell, personal

communication).

Discussion

Despite increases in the coverage of protected

areas and improved legislation and policy over

the last decade, many challenges to the protected

area system remain.

Systems completion

The national park systems plan still has 14 regions

unprotected and only 27 percent of the nation’s

486 natural regions at the provincial scale are

adequately or moderately represented, leaving just

under three-quarters of the nation’s natural regions

partially represented or unrepresented (World

Wildlife Fund Canada 2000). The Prime Minister’s

action plan to substantially complete the terrestrial

national park system discussed earlier would

improve these figures considerably. Similar com-

mitments have been made before, however. For

example, in 1992, through the TriCouncil Statement,

the federal government committed to completing

the national parks system by 2000 (Federal Provin-

cial Parks Council 2000), but financial resources

were not made available. The level of detail

contained in the current plan, plus the financial

commitment, gives greater reason for optimism.

The first federal budget after the announcement

allocated money ($74 million) only for the first

2 years of the plan. A subsequent announcement

on 24 March 2003 allocated another $144 million

over the 5 years of the plan plus another $54million

per year in funding at the end of 5 years to

ensure long-term support for the expanded park

system.

In terms of completing representation of the

terrestrial national park system, progress seems

to be assured. Some increments will also be made

in the marine environment, although much remains

to be done. Even with the five NMCAs promised in

Chretien’s plan, there are still another 24 natural

marine regions that require representation in

Parks Canada’s national marine system plan

(Mercier and Mondor 1995).

Increasing visitation

One of the major stressors on ecological integrity

is increased visitation in parks. In the 1997 State of

the Parks, 26 parks reported stress originating

from visitation and tourism facilities (Parks

Canada 1998). The National Parks receive over 14

million visitors each year, and the average annual

growth rate is approximately 4.5 percent, which, if

maintained, will result in double the visitors by

2015 (Parks Canada Agency 2000a). The tension

between use/enjoyment and ecological integrity

still remains, although clarified in legislation and

policy. Even after the extensive Banff–Bow Valley

study, which clearly highlighted the danger of

increasing visitor numbers through Banff and the

Valley, the area remains in high demand both by

pro-development interests and by conservation-

ists (Swinnerton 2002).

The impact of visitation on park ecosystems

varies based on the location, activity and people

involved. Increased visitation does not necessarily

have to impact negatively. Part of the problem

stems from Parks Canada’s limited research on, or

research capability for, human uses in the parks.

There is little information on visitors, what they

are doing within the park and what their impact is

or has been (Parks Canada Agency 2000a). A recent

Parks Canada Agency (2001a) report contains signs

that these deficiencies are starting to be addressed.

For example, increasing social science capacity to

develop improved human use management strat-

egies is being taken up in the Parks Canada Science

Strategy, currently under development (see also



Payne and Nilsen 2002). Furthermore, the report

notes that Parks Canada will work with the Tourism

Industry Association of Canada (TIAC) to move

their marketing, promotion and use of Canadian

parks closer to the ecological integrity mandate.

These are progressive movements, but this use–

abuse tension is likely to continue, particularly

with the parks increasingly dependent on their

own revenue- generation efforts to fund park

operations.

External pressures

Habitat fragmentation and isolation of parks as

‘islands’ is an ongoing problem. Banff is flanked

to the east by Canmore, which is outside the legis-

lative power of Parks Canada and whose popula-

tion doubled between 1988 and 1998, with

estimates as high as 30,000 by 2015 (Bachusky

1998). Applications for seismic lines and mining

are being considered near Nahanni National Park

in NWT by the local resource board. Over the last

few years, the rapid pace of development in the

NWT is creeping closer to the park, with 12 appli-

cations for the development of mines, oil and gas

activities around the park and near streams that

flow into the park (Struzik 2001). In Waterton

National Park, proposed housing developments

on park boundaries threaten to fragment pre-

viously contiguous landscapes (Parks Canada

Agency 2000a). These external developments are

widelyrecognisedasmajor impactsonpark integrity.

Recent research by Landry et al. (2001) shows

that virtually all protected areas are too small to

maintain ecological integrity on their own. In the

1997 State of the Parks survey, 24 of 36 parks

reported major or severe impacts from external

sources (Parks Canada 1998).

The need to think of protected areas as networks

is widely recognised in parks’ literature (Soule and

Terborgh 1999). Networks allow for wildlife move-

ment beyond the boundaries of parks, most of

which are too small to maintain viable populations

over the long term. The Greater Yellowstone initia-

tive, or Yellowstone to Yukon, which aims to build a

contiguous area of land for the Rocky Mountain

ecosystem across borders, is one example of such

a connected system (Locke 1997). In addition to

building networks of protected habitat for wildlife,

limiting fragmentation and the ‘island effect’ through

sustainable land management and ecosystem-based

management outside parks is central to these net-

works. However widely recognised these approaches

are, the co-ordination across borders (internation-

ally, national–provincial and private–public) has

been difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.

Many external threats stem from jurisdictional

problems between the provinces and the federal

government, or between departments within

governments. Provinces have jurisdiction over

much of the land base outside the parks, control

resource tenure on them and gain taxation revenue

from development activities on them and are

therefore reluctant to limit development anywhere

in their boundaries, including near parks. This is a

political problem embedded in Canada’s federal

system and therefore requires solutions beyond

what Parks Canada itself can provide. Even more

broadly, at the centre of this problem are land use

and resource-extraction practices outside parks

driven by a type of economic development that

fails to recognise the value of ecological health.

This is a problem that is obviously not going to

be solved by Parks Canada alone. There are signs

of hope that ecosystem-based management may

materialise in small steps (see, e.g., Feick 2002).

Pending resources, Parks Canada Agency (2001b)

supports recommendations made by the First

Minister’s Roundtable on Parks Canada to support

greater ecosystem management, advance regional

partnerships in at least three national parks and

advance a strategy to manage at least one contigu-

ous network of protected areas. However, these

partnerships and networks are still considered

lower-priority needs for Parks Canada and ‘will be

further evaluated as opportunities to pursue these

approaches arise at a later date’ (Parks Canada

Agency 2001b, iv).

Improving implementation

Changes in park legislation, policy and manage-

ment over the last decade all reinforce ecological

integrity as the primary concern for park manage-

ment. With these legislative and policy frameworks

built, Parks Canada is now entering a period of

consolidation and improving implementation.

Since the Panel on Ecological Integrity report, the

Minister has moved forward on several of the

recommendations. The new National Parks Act



included many (but not all) of the suggestions

made by the report, an Agency Charter underscor-

ing Park Canada’s ecological integrity mandate has

been adopted, a pilot ecological integrity training

program for park staff has been delivered, the

Guide to Management Planning reinforcing eco-

logical integrity has been revised and wilderness

areas have been declared in four national parks

(Parks Canada Agency 2001a). These are important

changes, hopefully signalling a shift from discuss-

ing ecological integrity to actually seeing it as a

priority on the ground.

Achieving andmaintaining ecological integrity is

also dependent on understanding and implement-

ing ecosystem-based and adaptive management

approaches. While these concepts are theoretically

sound, there is little experience in implementa-

tion. Moving forward with these changes will

require creative leaders and visionaries. Addition-

ally, activities central to these approaches, like

long-term monitoring, increased science capacity

and partnership building, are expensive and

require long-term stable funding. This depends

heavily on political commitment, which can vary

drastically over time and political party.

Fiscal resources and the business context

Throughout all of these challenges to protected

areas runs a ribbon of financial strain. Protection

and management are increasingly difficult with

declining or stagnant park budgets, especially

when accompanied by growing park systems. For

example, in BC, the number of parks has doubled

since 1991, yet the Ministry responsible has seen a

50 percent cut in its operating budget since 1994.

In 1985, the parks budget represented 0.5 percent

of the provincial budget. By 1998, this had

dropped to 0.15 percent (Dearden and Rollins

2002). In 2002, the government slashed park staff

by a further 34 percent, amounting to a loss of 63

positions to an already lean employee base, leav-

ing each field staff member responsible for seven

provincial parks. In Ontario, the park budget was

cut by 9.1 million dollars over 2 years (Silcoff

1996). Only Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and

Manitoba managed to maintain steady park bud-

gets over the years 1990–1995 (Sickle and Eagles

1998). Parks Canada has experienced a 24 percent

budgetary decline since the 1994/1995 fiscal year,

losing $104 million dollars (Parks Canada Agency

2000a). Support promised since the release of the

ecological integrity panel report was only forth-

coming some 4 years later. The need for increased

financial resources has been echoed on many

levels. Parks Canada CEO Tom Lee has publicly

stated the need for almost 1 billion dollars to

upkeep existing infrastructure and implement

changes recommended by the Panel on Ecological

Integrity (Mitchell 2001).

Owing to budget cuts, park agencies have been

raising revenue via alternative methods. Research

by Sickle and Eagles (1998) shows all provincial

park agencies facing pressure to increase revenue

and a trend away from tax-based public funding

towards self-sufficiency. For example, national

parks were expected to make up their budget

losses in revenue generation (Payne 1997).

Increased entrance fees and user fees for services

like interpretation are becoming common through-

out Canada. To make up a greater portion of their

operating revenue, park agencies are also focusing

on marketing and promotion to attract more

visitors for longer stays. When Ontario cut its

protected areas’ budget, it was accompanied by

a high-profile marketing campaign to increase visit-

ation (Silcoff 1996). There is increasing concern

that this pressure to meet revenue generation

targets could directly conflict with ecological

integrity goals. Through discussions with park

staff and management, the EI Panel heard repeat-

edly that ‘revenue generation activities in some

parks are driving activities or levels of activities

that are in conflict with the maintenance of ecolo-

gical integrity’ (Parks Canada Agency 2000a, 13-9).

These financial constraints, combined with neo-

liberal ideologies, are encouraging a business

approach to protected areas. For example, the

Ontario provincial parks system was overhauled

in 1996 to operate ‘more like a business’ and

to ‘provide our customers with the products and

services they want and need’ (Silcoff 1996, A6).

Accompanying this change in attitude and declin-

ing budget was a privatisation of services and

corporate partnerships. To facilitate thismovement

to a business approach, parks staff participated in

‘entrepreneurial skills’ and ‘customer service’ train-

ing (Silcoff 1996). Federally, the PCAA smoothed the

transition to a business-like approach with privati-

sation of services and corporatisation. A partner-

ship with Brewster Transportation and Tours built



the new visitor centre at the Columbia Icefield in

Jasper National Park. The mini-mall is three times

the size of the previous building and contains

gift shops, restaurants and hotel rooms. The inter-

pretation centre is now located in the basement

underneath the ice-cream dispensers and moose-

turd souvenirs.

There is concern that business values have over-

taken conservation values. Payne (1997) suggested

that the consequences of the Parks Canada Agency

‘business approach’ are mostly negative. Only park

activities directly connected to economic values

and benefits (infrastructure and revenue) were

found to benefit from this shift, while other values

such as ecological integrity and education suf-

fered. The Panel on Ecological Integrity Report

(Parks Canada Agency 2000a) also took issue with

the business-like language used within the Agency:

‘Currently the language of Parks Canada is oriented

towards business and development. The adoption

of business language within Parks Canada (terms

such as CEO, client, business plans, revenue and

resource management) while perhaps perceived as

only as semantic issue, clashes with the values of a

conservation based organization and symbolizes

the importance of the revenue and development

themes’ (2–6).

Conclusion

Canadians value parks highly (Environics Inter-

national 2000). To some extent, this significance

has been reflected in the additions to the amount

of area protected and changes to legislation and

policy over the last decade. Major improvements

have beenmade. Major challenges remain. However,

it should not be forgotten that protected areas are

simply a means to an end, to preserve certain

values, like intact ecosystems, in the landscape for

current and future generations. Ideally, values like

ecological integrity would be sustained throughout

the landscape without the need for centralised

bureaucracies, fenced-off ecosystems and enforce-

ment personnel. Moving towards such a goal means

forging new socioeconomic relations with the land

and creating new institutions and systems outside

the industrial models that make protected areas

necessary in the first place. Widespread public

awareness of the nature and importance of a land

ethic both inside and outside protected areas will be

fundamental to realise these broad and sweeping

changes. One of the main roles of park systems

is to build and nourish support for a land ethic.

Unfortunately, the educational role of parks is one

of the easiest for budget-cutting politicians and

bureaucrats to axe. In 2002, for example, the BC

government cut all interpretive services. Thechanges

that have occurred in protected areas over the

last decade have been dramatic but superficial in

this broader context. The deeper challenge is to

address the role of protected areas in forging new

kinds of relationships between society and the

natural environment over this next decade.

Acknowledgements

Jessica Dempsey thanks the Department of Geography at the Uni-

versity of Victoria, where research for this paper was completed.

References

AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA. 1996 ‘Parks Canada: Preserving Canada’s

natural heritage’ in 1996 Report of the Auditor General of

Canada http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/

9631ce.html (accessed 6 July 2002)

—. 1998 ‘Follow-up of recommendations in previous reports’ in

1998 Report of the Auditor General of Canada http://www.

oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9828ce.html#0.2.2z141-

z1.u7bwii.zsco2f.vd (accessed 26 May 2002)

BACHUSKY, J. 1998 ‘Copps shows bad faith, says Alberta minister’

Calgary Herald 30 November, B1

BANFF-BOW VALLEY STUDY. 1996 Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads.

Summary report of the Banff-Bow Valley Task Force, ed R. Page,

S. Bayley, J.D. Cook, J.E. Green and J.R.B. Ritchie (Ottawa,

Ontario: Minister of Canadian Heritage)

BOYD, D. 2001 Canada vs. The OECD: An Environmental Comparison

(Victoria: EcoResearch Chair in Environmental Law and Policy,

University of Victoria)

—. 2002 Wild by Law: A Report Card on Laws Governing Canada’s

Parks and Protected Areas, and a Blueprint for Making these Laws

More Effective (Victoria: Polis Project on Ecological Governance)

BRUNER, A.G., et al. 2001 ‘Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical

biodiversity’ Science 91(5501), 125–128

CANADA. 1930National Parks Act (Ottawa:Queen’s Printer for Canada)

—. 1969 National Parks Policy (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Canada)

—. 1983 Parks Canada Policy (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Ser-

vices) Cat. 62-109/1983E

—. 1988 An Act to Amend the National Parks Act—Bill C-30 (Ottawa:

Minister of Supply and Services Canada)

—. 2000 National Parks Act http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-14.01/

(accessed 6 July 2002)

CANADIAN PRESS NEWSWIRE. 2000 ‘Copps announces moratorium on ski

hills and golf courses, praises Task Force Report’ Canadian

Press 23 March

CHAPE, S., BLYTH, S., FISH, L., FOX, P. and SPALDING, M. 2003 2003 United

Nations List of Protected Areas (Gland, Switzerland, Cambridge

UK: IUCN/Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC)



COSEWIC. 2003 Canadian Species at Risk (Ottawa, Ontario: Environ-

ment Canada)

COSTANZA, R., et al. 1997 ‘The value of the world’s ecosystem services

and natural capital’ Nature 387, 256

DEARDEN, P. 2002 ‘Marine parks’ in Parks and Protected Areas in

Canada, ed P. Dearden and R. Rollins (Toronto, Ontario: Oxford

University Press) 354–378

DEARDEN, P., and GARDNER, J.E. 1987 ‘Systems planning for protected

areas in Canada: a review of caucus candidate areas and con-

cepts, issues and prospects for further investigation’ in Heri-

tage for Tomorrow: Proceedings of the Canadian Assembly on

National Parks and Protected Areas, Vol. 2, ed R.C. Scace and

J.G. Nelson (Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Supply and Services

Canada) 9–48. Cat. R62-232/2-1987E

DEARDEN, P., and MITCHELL, B. 1998 Environmental Change and Chal-

lenge: A Canadian Perspective (Toronto, Ontario: Oxford Univer-

sity Press)

DEARDEN, P., and ROLLINS, R., eds. 2002 ‘The times they are still

a-changin’’ in Parks and Protected Areas in Canada (Toronto,

Ontario: Oxford University Press) 3–20

DOBSON, B. 2002 ‘Flying in the face of change: cumulative effects of

land use in breeding bird habitat in Jasper National Park’ in

Managing Protected Areas in a Changing World, ed S. Sondrup-

Nielsen, et al. Proceedings of the Fourth International Confer-

ence on Science and Management of Protected Areas, Wolfville,

Canada, 306–320

ENVIRONICS INTERNATIONAL. 2000 Canadian Public Opinion on Nature and

Biodiversity (Toronto, Ontario: Environics International)

ENVIRONMENT CANADA. 1987 Our Parks—Vision for the 21st Century:

Report of the Minister of Environment’s Task Force on Parks

Establishment (Waterloo: Heritage Resource Centre, University

of Waterloo)

—. 1990 National Parks Systems Plan (Ottawa, Ontario: Supply and

Services Canada)

FEDERAL PROVINCIAL PARKS COUNCIL. 2000 Working Together: Parks and

Protected Areas in Canada (Ottawa, Ontario: Federal Provincial

Parks Council)

FEICK, J.L. 2002 ‘Evaluating ecosystem management in the Columbia

Mountains of BC’ in Managing Protected Areas in a Changing

World, ed S. Sondrup-Nielsen, et al. Proceedings of the Fourth

International Conference on Science and Management of

Protected Areas, Wolfville, Canada, 431–442

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY. 2002 ‘Donor countries agree to the highest

replenishment ever for the Global Environment Facility’ News

Release (Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility)

—. 2003 Strategic Business Planning: Directions and TargetsDocument

prepared for the meeting of the GEF Council, May 14–16

HUMMEL, M. 1989 Endangered Spaces: The Future for Canada’s Wil-

derness (Toronto, Ontario: Key Porter Books)

IACOBELLI, T., and KAVANAGH, K. 1999 ‘Spatial analysis of biodiversity

information: the Canadian experience of gap analysis and

conservation values analysis’ in Partnerships for Protection:

New Strategies for Planning and Management for Protec-

ted Areas, ed S. Stolton and N. Dudley (London: Earthscan)

3–12

IUCN. 2000 Red List http://redlist.org (accessed 28 June 2001)

LANDRY, M., et al. 2001 ‘Sizes of Canadian National Parks and the

viability of large mammal populations: policy implications’

The George Wright Forum 18(1), 13–23

LOCKE, H. 1997 ‘The role of Banff National Park as a protected area in

the Yellowstone to Yukon Mountain Corridor of western North

America’ in National Parks and Protected Areas: Keystones to

Conservation and Sustainable Development, ed J.G. Nelson and

R. Serafin (Berlin: Springer) 117–124

MCNAMEE, K. 1988 ‘The National Parks Act: expanding and preserving

Canada’s system of national parks and protected areas: a pos-

ition paper of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society on Bill

C-30: an act to amend the National Parks Act’ in Minutes of

Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill

C-30 (Ottawa: House of Commons—Issue Number 4, 18 May)

Second Session of the 33rd Parliament(4A: 5-4A: 73)

—. 2002a ‘From wild places to endangered spaces’ in Parks and

Protected Areas in Canada, ed P. Dearden and R. Rollins

(Toronto, Ontario: Oxford University Press) 21–50

—. 2002b ‘Protected areas in Canada: the Endangered Spaces

Campaign’ in Parks and Protected Areas in Canada, ed P. Dearden

and R. Rollins (Toronto, Ontario: Oxford University Press)

51–68

MERCIER, F. and MONDOR, C. 1995 Sea to Sea to Sea—Canada’s National

Marine conservation Areas System Plan (Hull, PQ: Heritage

Canada)

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADA. 1998 State of the

Parks 1997 Report (Ottawa, Ontario: Minster of Public Works and

Government Services Canada) Cat. R64-184/1997E

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES. 1995 Canadian Biodiversity Strategy:

Canada’s Response to the Convention on Biodiversity (Ottawa,

Ontario: Minister of Supply and Services)

MITCHELL, A. 2001 ‘Our parks crumbling, chief says’ The Globe and

Mail 22 January

NELSON, J.G. 1984 ‘An external perspective on Parks Canada strat-

egies,1986–2001’OccasionalPaperno.2.FacultyofEnvironmen-

tal Studies, University of Waterloo, Ontario

NEWMARK, D. 1995 ‘Extinction of mammal populations in western

North American parks’ Conservation Biology 9(3), 512–526

PARKS CANADA AGENCY. 2000a Unimpaired for Future Generations? Pro-

tecting Ecological Integrity with Canada’s National Parks, Vol. II,

Setting a New Direction for Canada’s National Parks, Report of

the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks

(Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government

Services)

—. 2000b State of Protected Heritage Areas 1999 Report (Ottawa,

Ontario: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada) Cat. R61-15/

1999E

—. 2001a First Priority: Progress Report on Implementation of the

Recommendations of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of

Canada’s National Park (Ottawa, Ontario: Minster of Public

Works and Supply) Cat. R62-336/2001E

—. 2001b Accountability, Consultation and Celebration: Response

to Recommendations of the First Minister’s Round Table on Parks

Canada Held April 1–4, 2001 (Ottawa, Ontario: Parks Canada

Agency)

PARKS CANADA. 1995 Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational

Policies http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/library/pc_guiding_

principles/park1_e.htm (accessed 31 March 2002)

—. 1998 Summary of the Canadian Parks Agency Legislation

(Ottawa, Ontario: Parks Canada)

PAYNE, R.J. 1997 ‘The new alchemy: values, benefits and business

in protected area management’ in Protected Areas in Our

Modern World, ed N. Munro. Proceedings of a Workshop held

as part of the IUCN World Conservation Congress, Montreal,

1996 Parks Canada Ecosystem Science Review Reports 005,

89–95

PAYNE, R.J., and NILSEN, P. 2002 ‘Human use management science

in Parks Canada: a strategic plan’ in Managing Protected



Areas in a Changing World, ed S. Sondrup-Nielsen, et al.

Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on

Science and Management of Protected Areas, Wolfville, Canada,

491–504

RIVARD, D.H., POITEVIN, J., PLASSE, D., CARLETON, M. and CURRIE, D.J. 2000

‘Changing species richness and composition in Canadian

national parks’ Conservation Biology 14, 1099–1109

SEARLE, R. 2000 Phantom Parks: The Struggle to Save Canada’s

National Parks (Toronto, Ontario: Key Porter Books)

SICKLE, K., and EAGLES, P.F.J. 1998 ‘Budgets, pricing policies and user

fees in Canadian parks’ tourism’ Tourism Management 19(3),

225–235

SILCOFF, S. 1996 ‘Ontario plants business roots in parks’ The Globe

and Mail 27 June, A6

SOULE, M.E., and TERBORGH, J., eds. 1999 Continental Conservation:

Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks (Washington,

DC: Island Press)

STRUZIK, E. 2001 ‘Worries for future of a natural wonder’ Edmonton

Journal 11 July, A1

SWINNERTON, G. 2002 ‘Banff and the Bow Valley’ in Parks and Protected

Areas in Canada, ed P. Dearden and R. Rollins (Toronto, Ontario:

Oxford University Press) 240–264

UNEP. 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity http://www.biodiv.

org/ (accessed 28 June 2001)

VITOUSAEK, P.M., MOONEY, H.A., LUBCHENCO, J. and MELELLO, J.M. 1997 ‘Human

domination of earth’s ecosystems’ Science 25 July, 494–499

WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT. 1987 Our Common

Future (Toronto, Ontario: Oxford University Press)

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE. 2000 World Resources 2000–2001: People

and Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life (Washington, DC:

World Resources Institute)

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND CANADA. 2000 Endangered Spaces: The Wilderness

Campaign That Changed the Canadian Landscape 1989–2000

(Toronto, Ontario: World Wildlife Fund Canada)



Documents

Protected areas in Canada: decade of change