dc.description.abstract |
The evolution of ocean governance began in the late 1960s and early 1970s with a
number of resource-specific acts aimed at protecting certain species or environments.
In the midst of this legislative activity, policy-makers realized that current measures
would not protect all aspects of a marine environment. The result of this realization
was the enactment of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
Title III of which is now known as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). The
NMSA was the first, and remains the only,
place- and ecosystem-based piece of ocean management. The mission given the National
Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) was to manage and protect these areas while incorporating
existing regulatory authorities, facilitating between multiple jurisdictions, and
representing the interests of all international, public, and private communities and
their uses. Given the continuing decline of our ocean environments, and increasing
recommendations to move towards the type of management the NMSP practices, there is
a need to better understand the current status of the program and how it can be improved.
This masters project evaluates the progress the NMSP has made towards achieving its
mandate of resource protection, focusing on habitat conservation. Research was undertaken
to investigate the Program as a whole, in addition to habitat protection in three
individual sanctuaries. Inquiries focused on four key conservation project components:
goals and objectives; science and monitoring; management tools; and, performance measures.
An evaluation method already in use by the NMSP was modified to assess habitat conservation
at the program and the individual site levels based on the four components.
Results indicate that while the Program does have habitat conservation as a working
goal, methods implemented to better guide individual sanctuaries in achieving this
goal are recent. As a consequence, the new program measures are still being incorporated
into each sanctuary management structure. Time will therefore be required for the
program’s achievements to be recognized at the site level. The results of the case
studies indicate varying degrees of habitat conservation per site. While one site
was able to facilitate and regulate a good measure of protection, another study essentially
failed on both levels and continual degradation of the habitat in this region readily
occurs. A multitude of factors influence the performance of each sanctuary and ultimately,
the sanctuary is only as good as the sum of its many parts.
|
|