Madam Chair, I'm pleased to present an overview of our audit work tabled in the House of Commons in 2012 and 2013 with regard to terrestrial and marine parks, and conservation areas.
I'm accompanied by George Stuetz, Francine Richard, and James Reinhart, directors who were responsible for these audits. I'd like to note that we have not audited actions taken since these reports were completed.
Canada is the second-largest country in the world and we have the longest coastline. With our small population, large land base, and coastline, Canada, unlike many other countries in the world, has the ability to establish large and linked protected areas. In effect, one of Canada's main approaches to protecting biodiversity is to establish protected areas to maintain habitats for wildlife including migratory birds and species at risk.
In 2012, we reported on the status of marine protected areas in Canada. This audit found that 20 years after Canada signed the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, only about 1% of our oceans and Great Lakes was protected. At the time of our audit, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had established eight marine protected areas, and Parks Canada had officially established two national marine conservation areas, and two more were in the works.
Our audit showed that at the rate of progress we observed, it would take Canada many decades to establish a fully functioning network of marine protected areas and to achieve the international target of conserving 10% of marine areas. In the interim, significant conservation and economic benefits would not be realized.
Some of the economic benefits of marine biodiversity include fishing, both commercial and recreational, fish processing, and marine tourism. Together, these contributed $7.6 billion to Canada's GDP in 2006.
In our fall 2013 audit of protected areas for wildlife, we found that Environment Canada had not met its responsibilities for preparing management plans and monitoring the condition of its protected areas.
Environment Canada's protected areas, including national wildlife and migratory bird sanctuaries, were roughly the size of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia combined.
Only about one quarter of national wildlife areas, and less than one third of migratory bird sanctuaries, were assessed as having adequate or excellent ecological integrity.
In addition, 90% of national wildlife areas did not have adequate management plans, and these plans were more than 20 years old.
Finally, monitoring was done sporadically. The department could not track ecosystem or species changes and address emerging threats.
We recommended that Environment Canada develop relevant management plans to ensure that its protected areas would fulfill their intended purpose as refuges for wildlife.
In our fall 2013 audit of the conservation of migratory birds, we found that grassland bird populations had declined by 45% since the 1970s, mostly due to habitat destruction. However, efforts to conserve other bird species had been successful. From 1986 to 2012, Canada and the United States invested almost $2 billion in the North American waterfowl management plan.
The plan resulted in securing eight million hectares of wetlands and uplands habitat in Canada, with increases in many different waterfowl populations. We also found in that audit that Environment Canada had a goal of developing 25 strategies for bird conservation regions by 2010. As of July 2013, nine of the 25 strategies were completed and four were in draft form. However, Environment Canada, essentially the Canadian wildlife service, had no budget to contribute to the implementation of these strategies, unlike under the North American waterfowl management plan.
In our fall 2013 audit of ecological integrity in national parks, we found that despite Parks Canada's significant efforts in many areas, the agency was struggling to protect ecosystems in Canada's parks.
Staffing in the science work stream was reduced by 33% in the 2013-14 fiscal year, compared with the average staffing during the previous seven years. In addition, in 2008, the agency allocated $42,000 per park to implement ecological monitoring programs. The actual funding was subsequently reduced to $15,000 per park.
At the time of our audit, Parks Canada had yet to assess the condition of 41% of park ecosystems in order to determine conservation requirements. Of the 59% it had assessed, many were in poor condition and a third were in decline. The agency had not clarified how and by when it intended to complete its assessments or address threats to the integrity of ecosystems in Canada's parks.
Protecting Canada's natural heritage is a challenge and an opportunity. The federal government has a global responsibility to carry out its important leadership role in protecting species and spaces, particularly in a large country like Canada. The economic benefits are significant. They include sustaining commercial and recreational fisheries, tourism, and the provision of ecosystem services such as clean water, climate control, and pollination.
Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. I would like to sincerely thank you and your committee members for the invitation to appear today to speak about our past audit work. As parliamentarians, you play a crucial role in the accountability process. We would be happy to answer your questions.