overview of québec’s protected areas network – period 2002/2009 · 2010-05-20 · 5 resume on...
TRANSCRIPT
Overview of Québec’s Protected Areas NetworkP E R I O D2002 / 2009
Overview of Québec’s Protected Areas networkP E R I O D2002 / 2009
a Wo R D f R o m t H E mi n i s t E R
pR o t E c t E D a R E a s : a n i m p o R t a n t c o n t R i B U t i o n t o s a f E G U a R D i n G B i o D i v E R s i t Y
Over the past seven years, Québec has made great achievements in the field of nature conservation. An ambi-tious target had been set: create a network of protected areas representative of the local biodiversity that covers 8% of the province’s territory. In March 2009, the Québec Premier, Jean Charest, and I proudly announced that protected areas now cover 8.12% of Québec’s territory. In meeting this collective challenge, we offer a gift to nature, ourselves and generations to come.
Our aim goes beyond protecting over 135 000 km2 of natural environment, in establishing our commitment to ensuring that these protected areas guarantee the preservation of Québec’s biodiversity. Today, we deliver on another important commitment, that of drafting the Overview of Québec’s Protected Areas Network. This unique work provides a realistic and scientific description of the network and offers an extensive source of information on its diversity and quality, in regards to the diversity of ecosystems as well as species of plants and animals. In addition, it illustrates the vast effort invested in protecting natural environments from 2002 to 2009. The Overview of Québec’s Protected Areas Network also analyzes the effectiveness of the network in ful-filling its conservation functions.
2010 was proclaimed the “International Year of Biodiversity” by the United Nations. The present overview constitutes a significant contribution by Québec to the goal of preserving and enhancing biodiversity. Québec’s protected areas network allows us to meet major global biodiversity conservation challenges by providing us with a possibility of assuming our role as guardians of the quality and diversity of life on our territory. Because of the network, Québec has radically transformed the conservation map in all of its regions. We can now right-fully say with pride that the protected areas network has become a pillar for Québec’s sustainable development.
We will continue working in order to further improve the network based on the information presented in the Overview of Québec’s Protected Areas Network. By 2015, we will increase the zones consecrated as protected areas to 12% of the province’s territory. In this way, our local biodiversity will be even better represented by the network.
The Minister Line Beauchamp
3
5
resuMe
On March 29th, 2009, Québec announced that 8.12% of its territory was designated as protected areas, that is 135 326.05 km2, while the percentage of Québec designated as protected areas amounted to less than 1%, before 2003.
In 2002, the protected areas network extended over a small part of the territory. Since 2009, the zones devoted to nature conservation are better distributed throughout Quebec’s territory. Protected areas in the strict sense (management categories I, II and III of the IUCN) occupied only 20% of the network, compared to the present 81%. The territories dedicated to nature protection increased in all the natural provinces with the exception of the St. Lawrence Estuary.
From 2002 to 2009, the natural provinces of the low hills of the Grande-Rivière (from 0 to 13.84%), the highlands of Mistassini (from 0 to 9.82%) and the plateau of the Basse-Côte-Nord (from 1.91 to 10.02%) show the strongest growth. A gap analysis conducted by the Ecological Reference Framework of Qué-bec shows that certain types of natural habitats continue to be poorly represented or not represented at all in every one of the natural provinces. These deficiencies are more pronounced in the Northern natural provinces and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. They are often overlapped by deficiencies measured according to cover types and potential vegetation.
Of all the vegetation zones of Québec, it is in the boreal zone that the protected areas network has experienced the highest growth; the proportion waxing from 2.46 to 9.05%, for the most part because of a marked increase in the non-commercial portion of the continuous boreal forest (from 0.86 to 12.18%). For its part, the commercial portion of this same forest saw its percentage pass from 3.87 to 5.14%.
Phot
o :
R. B
alej
Phot
o :
A. T
hiba
ult
Phot
o : A
. Gir
oux
6
In seven natural provinces out of eight, where forest age is measured, the percentage of old growth forest is below 20% of the productive forest area. More than 80% of endangered or vulnerable species assessed have at least one occurrence in the protected areas network established in 2009.
With regards to the range of woodland caribou, the proportion of protected territories increased from 0.6% in 2002 to 7.9% in 2009. One protected area covers over 10,000 km2 and nine others over 1,000 km2; four of which are greater than 3,900 km2.
In 2009, the protected areas network presents a human encroachment that equals or is lower than that of the environment in which it was formed. It also shows an index of connectivity from medium to high for the majority of the territory. Other areas are characterised by a connectivity index from medium to low, as a result of being located in developed areas or because of the large distance between protected areas.
From 2002 to 2009, the MDDEP received 766 proposals for protected areas for the entire territory. These proposals earmarked 278,892 km2, or 16.7% of the province of Québec. Superimposing these on the 2009 protected areas network shows that 23% of the network comes from the suggestions proposed by the population and those having a vested interest.
The achievement of this report helped to address the state of protected areas by measuring the gains achieved in the matter of nature conservation from 2002 to 2009, and by determining the main short-comings that still exist. It allows for the network quality to be determined both in terms of representa-tiveness of natural environments and species, as well as effectiveness to conserve biodiversity.
Phot
o :
A. G
irou
x
Phot
o : R.
Bal
ej
Phot
o :
SÉPA
Q
7
WorK teaMsco m m i t t E E D i R E c t o R
• Serge Alain, Patrick Beauchesne, Christiane Bernard, Léopold Gaudreau and Jean-Pierre Laniel
RE p R E s E n t a t i v E n E s s co m m i t t E E
• Adeline Bazoge, Michel Bergeron, François Brassard, Tingxian Li and Frédéric Poisson
na t U R a l n E s s co m m i t t E E
• Adeline Bazoge, Michel Bergeron, Dominic Boisjoly, André R. Bouchard, François Brassard, Julie Simone Hébert and Alain Thibault
co m m i t t E E o n so c i o-Ec o n o m i c Ex p E c t a t i o n s
• Marc-André Bouchard, André R. Bouchard, Michel Bergeron, François Brassard, Vincent Desormeaux, Julie Simone Hébert, Claude Leblanc and Marilou Tremblay
co m m i t t E E o n En D a n G E R E D o R vU l n E R a B l E sp E c i E s
• Michel Bergeron, François Brassard, Gildo Lavoie and Bernard Tardif
ma p i n G a n D Da t a B a s E
• Sophie Benoît, Jean Bissonnette and Yves Lachance
ma n Y t H a n K s t o t H E Ex t E R n a l sc i E n t i f i c co m m i t t E E , a l l t H E W o R K t E a m s a n D t H E f o l l o W i n G p E o p l E :
• Dominique Berteaux, UQAR• Caroline Cloutier, MDDEP trainee• Paule Delisle, MDDEP• Christian Dussault, MRNF• Stéphanie Gaudreau, MDDEP trainee• Sylvie Gauthier, CFL• Vincent Gerardin• Jochen Jaeger, University of Concordia• Serge Labrecque, MDDEP• Francine B. Lapointe, MDDEP• Hélène Mercier, MDDEP• Marcel Paré, MRNF• Members of the table paging on protected areas1
1. See Appendix 1 for list members.
autHorsFrançois Brassard, André R. Bouchard, Dominic Boisjoly, Frédéric Poisson, Adeline Bazoge, Marc-André Bouchard, Gildo Lavoie, Bernard Tardif, Michel Bergeron, Jacques Perron, Rodolph Balej and Daniel Blais*
* All these people belong to the Direction du patrimoine écologique et des parcs du ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs.
eXterNaL sCieNtifiQue CoMMittee• Louis Bélanger, Louise Gratton, Éliot McIntire and Normand Villeneuve
PHoto CreDits for CoVer Page
• Rodolph Balej
tabLe of CoNteNts
A WORD FROM THE MInISTER 3
RESUME .................................................................................................... 5
HIGHLIGHTS .............................................................................................17
1. InTRODUCTIOn AnD BACKGROUnD ...................................................211.1 INITIAL TARGETS AND TOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221.2 GENERAL CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231.3 REPRESENTATIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231.4 EFFECTIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241.5 SOCIAL ECONOMIC EXPECTATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2. GEnERAL COnTEXT .............................................................................252.1 EVOLUTION OF AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262.2 PUBLICATION OF THE REGISTER OF PROTECTED AREAS OF QUÉBEC . . . . . . . . . . . . 282.3 IUCN MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302.4 ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342.5 FOREST MANAGEMENT UNITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.6 PLAN NORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3. REPRESEnTATIVEnESS .........................................................................433.1 NATURAL PROVINCE LEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423.2 NATURAL REGION LEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443.3 THE NATURAL PROVINCES IN DETAIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3.1 The Appalachian Natural Province ................................................................................................ 483.3.1.1 Types of Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 483.3.1.2 Cover types .................................................................................................................... 523.3.1.3 Potential Vegetation Types ............................................................................................ 54
3.3.2 The St. Lawrence Lowlands Natural Province ............................................................................... 553.3.2.1 Types of Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 553.3.2.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................... 593.3.2.3 Potential Vegetation Types ............................................................................................ 61
3.3.3 The Southern Laurentians Natural Province ................................................................................. 623.3.3.1 Types of Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 623.3.3.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................... 663.3.3.3 Potential Vegetation Types ............................................................................................ 68
3.3.4 The Central Laurentians Natural Province .................................................................................... 693.3.4.1 Types of Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 693.3.4.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................... 733.3.4.3 Potential Vegetation Types ............................................................................................ 75
3.3.5 The Basse Côte-Nord Plateau Natural Province ............................................................................ 763.3.5.1 Types of Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 763.3.5.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................... 803.3.5.3 Potential Vegetation Types ............................................................................................ 82
3.3.6 The Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands Natural Province ................................................................ 833.3.6.1 Types of Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 833.3.6.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................... 873.3.6.3 Potential Vegetation Types ............................................................................................ 89
8
9
3.3.7 The Mistassini Highlands Natural Province ................................................................................... 903.3.7.1 Types of Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 903.3.7.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................... 943.3.7.3 Potential Vegetation Types ............................................................................................ 96
3.3.8 The Low Hills of Grande-Rivière Natural Province ........................................................................ 973.3.8.1 Types of Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 973.3.8.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................. 101
3.3.9 The Nord-Du-Québec Central Plateau Natural Province ............................................................. 1033.3.9.1 Types of Physical Environment .................................................................................... 1033.3.9.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................. 107
3.3.10 The Ungava Peninsula Natural Province ..................................................................................... 1093.3.10.1 Types of Physical Environment .................................................................................... 1093.3.10.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................. 113
3.3.11 The Ungava Bay Basin Natural Province ..................................................................................... 1153.3.11.1 Types of Physical Environment .................................................................................... 1153.3.11.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................. 119
3.3.12 The Torngat Mountains Natural Province ................................................................................... 1213.3.12.1 Types of Physical Environment .................................................................................... 1213.3.12.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................. 125
3.3.13 The St. Lawrence Estuary Natural Province ................................................................................ 1273.3.13.1 Types of Physical Environment .................................................................................... 1273.3.13.2 Cover Types ................................................................................................................. 1333.3.13.3 Potential Vegetation Types .......................................................................................... 135
3.4 VEGETATION ZONES ................................................................................................. 1363.4.1 Continuous Boreal Forest ............................................................................................................ 1383.4.2 Bioclimatic Domains .................................................................................................................... 140
3.5. OLD GROWTH FORESTS ............................................................................................ 1423.5.1 Description .................................................................................................................................. 1423.5.2 Findings (Figures 146, 147 and 148) .......................................................................................... 144
3.6 PRODUCTIVE AND UNPRODUCTIVE FOREST TERRITORIES ....................................... 1453.6.1 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 145
3.7 ENDANGERED OR VULNERABLE SPECIES .................................................................. 1473.7.1 The Species .................................................................................................................................. 1483.7.2 Occurrences ................................................................................................................................. 150
3.7.3 Classification of Protected Areas ................................................................................................. 1543.7.4 Classification of Natural Provinces.............................................................................................. 1553.7.5 The Hotspots of EMV Conservation and Gap Analysis ................................................................ 1573.7.6 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 159
3.8 WOODLAND CARIBOU – FOREST AND MONTANE ECOTYPES .................................. 1593.8.1 Woodland Caribou Range Area ................................................................................................... 1603.8.2 Woodland Caribou Winter Track Networks ................................................................................. 1623.8.3 The Val-d’Or Herd ....................................................................................................................... 1643.8.4 The Charlevoix Herd .................................................................................................................... 1653.8.5 The Gaspé Peninsula Herd .......................................................................................................... 166
3.9 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT TYPES ............................................................................... 1673.9.1 Characterisation and Classification ............................................................................................. 1673.9.2 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 168
4 EFFECTIVEnESS 1734.1 HUMAN ENCROACHMENT ......................................................................................... 173
4.1.1 Scale of Québec ........................................................................................................................... 1744.1.2 At the Natural Provinces Level .................................................................................................... 1764.1.3 Scale of Physiographic Sets ......................................................................................................... 1784.1.4 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 180
4.2 DIMENSIONS AND CONSERVATION CORE ................................................................ 1814.2.1 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 182
4.3 DIMENSIONS AND RECENT PATTERNS OF FOREST FIRES ......................................... 1854.3.1 Overview...................................................................................................................................... 1854.3.2 Findings (figure 184) ................................................................................................................... 186
4.4 CONNECTIVITY .......................................................................................................... 1874.4.1 Findings (figure 185) ................................................................................................................... 188
4.5 CLIMATIC CHANGES .................................................................................................. 1894.5.1 Envisioned Approaches ............................................................................................................... 190
10
5 SOCIO-ECOnOMIC EXPECTATIOnS 192
5.1 REGIONAL PROPOSALS ............................................................................................. 1925.2 CONSULTATION WITH INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES ................................................ 1945.3 CONSULTATION WITH RIGHT-HOLDERS ................................................................... 1945.4 CONCERNS SIGNALLED IN THE CONSULTATION PROCESS ...................................... 196
5.4.1 Biodiversity and Aquatic Reserves .............................................................................................. 1965.4.2 National Parks ............................................................................................................................. 1985.4.3 Biological Sanctuaries ................................................................................................................. 2005.4.4 Exceptional Forest Ecosystems .................................................................................................... 200
6 SUMMARY 2026.1 SOUTHERN ZONE ...................................................................................................... 2046.2 MARINE ZONE AND ANTICOSTI ISLAND ................................................................... 2056.3 CENTRAL ZONE ......................................................................................................... 2066.4 NORTHERN ZONE ...................................................................................................... 208
7 COnCLUSIOn 210
8 AnnEXES 214ANNEXE 1 LIST LIST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ROUND TABLE ON PROTECTED AREAS .............................. 214ANNEXE 2 LANDSAT COVER TYPES ............................................................................................................... 215ANNEXE 3 DEFINITION OF VARIABLES USED TO DESCRIBE WETLAND TYPES .............................................. 216ANNEXE 4 QUALITY SCALE FOR MULTI-SPECIES HABITATS ELABORATED FOR CONNECTIVITY ................... 219ANNEXE 5 AGE CLASS DEFINING OLD-GROWTH FORESTS ACCORDING TO FOREST SPECIES ..................... 220ANNEXE 6 PROCESS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS ....................................................... 221
9 WORKS CITED 226
11
List of figuresFigure 1 Yearly evolution of the proportion and land area of protected areas in Québec, from 2002 to 2009 ...................................................... 26
Figure 2 Geographical distribution of the protected areas network in Québec, on May 28, 2002 ............................................................................ 27
Figure 3 Geographical distribution of the protected areas network in Québec, on May 21, 2009 ............................................................................ 27
Figure 4 Geographical Distribution of the territories subtracted at the time of publication of the Québec Protected Areas Register in 2007 ... 29
Figure 5 Geographical Distribution of the territories added at the time of publication of the Québec Protected Areas Register in 2007 .......... 29
Figure 6 Evolution of the land area of protected areas from 2002 to 2009, per IUCN category ................................................................................ 32
Figure 7 Geographical distribution of IUCN management categories in the protected areas network, in 2002 ..................................................... 33
Figure 8 Geographical distribution of IUCN management categories in the protected areas network, in 2009 ..................................................... 33
Figure 9 Proportion of protected areas per administrative region, in 2002 and 2009 ................................................................................................ 34
Figure 10 Distribution of protected areas in the administrative regions in 2002 ............................................................................................................ 35
Figure 11 Distribution of protected areas in the administrative regions in 2009 ............................................................................................................ 35
Figure 12 Evolution of the proportion of protected areas in the forest management units, from 2002 to 2009 ....................................................... 36
Figure 13 Distribution of protected areas in the forest management units according to proportion, in 2002........................................................... 37
Figure 14 Distribution of protected areas in the forest management units according to proportion, in 2009........................................................... 37
Figure 15 Proportion of protected areas in the zone of application of the Northern Plan and south of this zone, in 2002 and 2009 .................. 38
Figure 16 Distribution of the protected areas network in the zone of application of the Northern plan, in 2002 .................................................... 39
Figure 17 Distribution of the protected areas network in the zone of application of the Northern plan, in 2009 .................................................... 39
Figure 18 Proportion of protected areas in the natural provinces, in 2002 and 2009 ................................................................................................... 42
Figure 19 Geographical distribution of the protected areas network in the natural provinces, in 2002 ..................................................................... 43
Figure 20 Geographical distribution of the protected areas network in the natural provinces, in 2009 ..................................................................... 43
Figure 21 Evolution of the percentage of protected areas in the natural regions, by percentage class, from 2002 to 2009 ................................... 44
Figure 22 Geographical distribution of protected areas in the natural regions, by percentage class, in 2002 .......................................................... 45
Figure 23 Geographical distribution of protected areas in the natural regions, by percentage class, in 2009 .......................................................... 45
Figure 24 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the Appalachians natural province .......................................................... 48
Figure 25 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Appalachians natural province, in 2002 ............................................................... 50
Figure 26 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Appalachians natural province, in 2009 ............................................................... 50
Figure 27 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the Appalachians natural province ............................................... 51
Figure 28 Proportion of cover types in the Appalachians natural province ..................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 29 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the Appalachians natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ......................................... 52
Figure 30 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Appalachians natural province, in 2002 ........................ 53
Figure 31 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Appalachians natural province, in 2009 ........................ 53
Figure 32 Abundance of potential vegetation types and protection ratio in the Appalachians natural province ...................................................... 54
Figure 33 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the St. Lawrence Lowlands natural province .......................................... 55
Figure 34 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the St. Lawrence Lowlands natural province, in 2002 ............................................... 57
Figure 35 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the St. Lawrence Lowlands natural province, in 2009 ............................................... 57
Figure 36 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the St. Lawrence Lowlands natural province ............................... 58
Figure 37 Proportion of cover types in the St. Lawrence Lowlands natural province .................................................................................................... 59
Figure 38 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the St. Lawrence Lowlands natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ......................... 59
Figure 39 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the St. Lawrence Lowlands natural province, in 2002 ....... 60
Figure 40 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the St. Lawrence Lowlands natural province, in 2009 ....... 60
Figure 41 Abundance of potential vegetation types and protection ratio in the St. Lawrence Lowlands natural province ..................................... 61
Figure 42 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the Southern Laurentians natural province ............................................ 62
Figure 43 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Southern Laurentians natural province, in 2002 ................................................. 64
12
Figure 44 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Southern Laurentians natural province, in 2009 ................................................. 64
Figure 45 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the Southern Laurentians natural province ................................................................... 65
Figure 46 Proportion of cover types in the Southern Laurentians natural province ...................................................................................................... 66
Figure 47 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the Southern Laurentians natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ........................... 66
Figure 48 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Southern Laurentians natural province, in 2002 .......... 67
Figure 49 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Southern Laurentians natural province, in 2009 .......... 67
Figure 50 Abundance of potential vegetation types and protection ratio in the Southern Laurentians natural province ........................................ 68
Figure 51 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the Central Laurentians natural province ............................................... 69
Figure 52 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Central Laurentians natural province, in 2002..................................................... 71
Figure 53 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Central Laurentians natural province, in 2009..................................................... 71
Figure 54 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the Central Laurentians natural province....................................................................... 72
Figure 55 Proportion of cover types in the Central Laurentians natural province .......................................................................................................... 73
Figure 56 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the Central Laurentians natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .............................. 73
Figure 57 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Central Laurentians natural province, in 2002 ............. 74
Figure 58 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Central Laurentians natural province, in 2009 ............. 74
Figure 59 Abundance of potential vegetation types and protection ratio in the Central Laurentians natural province ........................................... 75
Figure 60 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau natural province ...................................... 76
Figure 61 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau natural province, in 2002 ........................................... 78
Figure 62 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau natural province, in 2009 ........................................... 78
Figure 63 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau natural province ............................................................. 79
Figure 64 Proportion of cover types in the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau natural province ................................................................................................ 80
Figure 65 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ..................... 80
Figure 66 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau natural province, in 2002 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 67 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau natural province, in 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 81
Figures 68 Abundance of potential vegetation types and protection ratio in the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau natural province .................................. 82
Figure 69 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands natural province ......................... 83
Figure 70 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands natural province, in 2002 .............................. 85
Figure 71 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands natural province, in 2009 .............................. 85
Figure 72 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands natural province................................................. 86
Figure 73 Proportion of cover types in the Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands natural province .................................................................................... 87
Figure 74 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ........ 87
Figure 75 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands natural province, in 2002 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 76 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands natural province, in 2009 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 77 Abundance of potential vegetation types and protection ratio in the Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands natural province ..................... 89
Figure 78 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the Mistassini Highlands natural province .............................................. 90
Figure 79 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Mistassini Highlands natural province, in 2002 ................................................... 92
Figure 80 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Mistassini Highlands natural province, in 2009 ................................................... 92
Figure 81 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the Mistassini Highlands natural province ..................................................................... 93
Figure 82 Proportion of cover types in the Mistassini Highlands natural province ........................................................................................................ 94
Figure 83 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the Mistassini Highlands natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ............................. 94
Figure 84 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Mistassini Highlands natural province, in 2002 ............ 95
Figure 85 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Mistassini Highlands natural province, in 2009 ............ 95
Figure 86 Abundance of potential vegetation types and protection ratio in the Mistassini Highlands natural province .......................................... 96
13
Figure 87 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the Low Hills of Grande-Rivière natural province .................................. 97
Figure 88 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Low Hills of Grande-Rivière natural province, in 2002 ....................................... 99
Figure 89 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Low Hills of Grande-Rivière natural province, in 2009 ....................................... 99
Figure 90 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the Low Hills of Grande-Rivière natural province ....................................................... 100
Figure 91 Proportion of cover types in the Low Hills of Grande-Rivière natural province .......................................................................................... 101
Figure 92 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the Low Hills of Grande-Rivière natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ............... 101
Figure 93 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Low Hills of Grande-Rivière natural province, in 2002 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 94 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Low Hills of Grande Rivière natural province, in 2009 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 95 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the Nord-du-Québec Central Plateau natural province ...................... 103
Figure 96 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Nord-du-Québec Central Plateau natural province, in 2002 ........................... 105
Figure 97 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Nord-du-Québec Central Plateau natural province, in 2009 ........................... 105
Figure 98 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the Nord-du-Québec Central Plateau natural province ............................................. 106
Figure 99 Proportion of cover types in the Nord-du-Québec Central Plateau natural province ................................................................................ 107
Figure 100 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the Nord-du-Québec Central Plateau natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ..... 107
Figure 101 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Nord-du-Québec Central Plateau natural province, in 2002 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 102 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Nord-du-Québec Central Plateau natural province, in 2009 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 103 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the Ungava Peninsula natural province ................................................ 109
Figure 104 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Ungava Peninsula natural province, in 2002...................................................... 111
Figure 105 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Ungava Peninsula natural province, in 2009...................................................... 111
Figure 106 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the Ungava Peninsula natural province........................................................................ 112
Figure 107 Proportion of cover types in the Ungava Peninsula natural province ........................................................................................................... 113
Figure 108 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the Ungava Peninsula natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ............................... 113
Figure 109 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Ungava Peninsula natural province, in 2002 .............. 114
Figure 110 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Ungava Peninsula natural province, in 2009 .............. 114
Figure 111 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the Ungava Bay Basin natural province ................................................ 115
Figure 112 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Ungava Bay Basin natural province, in 2002 ..................................................... 117
Figure 113 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Ungava Bay Basin natural province, in 2009 ..................................................... 117
Figure 114 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the Ungava Bay Basin natural province ....................................................................... 118
Figure 115 Proportion of cover types in the Ungava Bay Basin natural province ........................................................................................................... 119
Figure 116 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the Ungava Bay Basin natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ............................... 119
Figure 117 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Ungava Bay Basin natural province, in 2002 .............. 120
Figure 118 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Ungava Bay Basin natural province, in 2009 .............. 120
Figure 119 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the Torngat Mountains natural province .............................................. 121
Figure 120 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Torngat Mountains natural province, in 2002.................................................... 123
Figure 121 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the Torngat Mountains natural province, in 2009.................................................... 123
Figure 122 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the Torngat Mountains natural province...................................................................... 124
Figure 123 Proportion of cover types in the Torngat Mountains natural province ......................................................................................................... 125
Figure 124 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the Torngat Mountains natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ............................. 125
Figure 125 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Torngat Mountains natural province, in 2002 ............ 126
Figure 126 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the Torngat Mountains natural province, in 2009 ............ 126
Figure 127 Geographical distribution of the physiographic unit classes in the St. Lawrence Estuary natural province............................................ 127
14
Figure 128 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the St. Lawrence Estuary natural province, in 2002 ................................................. 129
Figure 129 Geographical distribution of protected areas, according to their contribution to the representativeness of physical environment types, by physiographic unit class in the St. Lawrence Estuary natural province, in 2009 ................................................. 129
Figure 130 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types on Anticosti Island ................................................................................................................ 130
Figure 131 Percentage of physiographic unit classes per protected area class according to its contribution to attaining representativeness of associations of physical environment types in the marine environment ................................................................................................. 132
Figure 132 Proportion of cover types in the St. Lawrence Estuary natural province ...................................................................................................... 133
Figure 133 Proportion of protected areas for each cover type in the St. Lawrence Estuary natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .......................... 133
Figure 134 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the St. Lawrence Estuary natural province, in 2002 ......... 134
Figure 135 Geographical distribution of protected areas according to cover types in the St. Lawrence Estuary natural province, in 2009 ......... 134
Figure 136 Abundance of potential vegetation types and protection ratio in the St. Lawrence Estuary natural province ....................................... 135
Figure 137 Evolution of protected areas in the vegetation zones of Québec, from 2002 to 2009 ............................................................................... 136
Figure 138 Geographical distribution of protected areas in the vegetation zones of Québec, in 2002 ....................................................................... 137
Figure 139 Geographical distribution of protected areas in the vegetation zones of Québec, in 2009 ....................................................................... 137
Figure 140 Evolution of protected areas in the contiguous boreal forest, from 2002 to 2009 ..................................................................................... 138
Figure 141 Geographical distribution of protected areas in the contiguous boreal forest, in 2002 ............................................................................. 139
Figure 142 Geographical distribution of protected areas in the contiguous boreal forest, in 2009 ............................................................................. 139
Figure 143 Evolution of protected areas in the bioclimatic domains, from 2002 to 2009 ............................................................................................. 140
Figure 144 Geographical distribution of protected areas in the bioclimatic domains of Québec, in 2002 ................................................................. 141
Figure 145 Geographical distribution of protected areas in the bioclimatic domains of Québec, in 2009 ................................................................. 141
Figure 146 Land area of old-growth forests in the inventory zone of the natural provinces and protected areas in 2002 and 2009 .................... 143
Figure 147 Proportion of old-growth forests in the inventory zone of the natural provinces and protected areas in 2002 and 2009 .................. 143
Figure 148 Geographical distribution of old forests of the inventory zone in the protected areas in 2009................................................................ 144
Figure 149 Proportion of productive and unproductive forest territories in the inventory area and in the protected areas, in 2009 ................... 146
Figure 150 Geographical distribution of unproductive forests in the inventory zone .................................................................................................... 146
Figure 151 Diachronic representation of endangered or vulnerable species of Québec in protected areas, according to taxonomic group ....... 149
Figure 152 Diachronic representation of endangered or vulnerable species (animals or plants) of Québec in protected area, according to status………………………………….. ............................................................................................................................... 149
Figure 153 Diachronic representation of the occurrences of endangered or vulnerable species of Québec in protected areas, according to taxonomic group ............................................................................................................................................................................ 150
Figure 154 Diachronic representation of occurrences of endangered or vulnerable species in protected areas, according to water quality ...... 151
Figure 155 Diachronic representation of occurrences of endangered or vulnerable species in protected areas, according to the number of occurrences protected ............................................................................................................................................................... 151
Figure 156 Diachronic representation of the occurrences of designated floristic species, in protected areas, according to conservation priority ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 152
Figure 157 Geographic distibution of the 55 occurrences of endemic species in the St. Lawrence Estuary associated with the extension of the protected areas network, from 2002 to 2009 ............................................................................................................... 153
Figure 158 Classification of individual protected areas according to the number of occurrences of EMV. The location of each of the five most performing protected areas is indicated and described (see text box) ................................................................................. 154
Figure 159 Proportion of occurrences of endangered or vulnerable species represented in protected areas, in each natural province .............. 155
Figure 160 Diachronic representations (A) of endangered or vulnerable species and (B) corresponding occurrences in protected areas, in each natural province ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 156
Figure 161 Biodiversity indices for endangered or vulnerable species in protected areas in Québec, based on data retained on endangered or vulnerable species ..................................................................................................................................................................... 157
Figure 162 Diachronic representation of occurrences used to determined hot spots associated with the protected areas network, according to the taxonomic group ..................................................................................................................................................................... 158
Figure 163 Occurrences defining hot spots which are located outside of the protected areas network and represented according to the minimal distance from one of these areas .......................................................................................................................... 158
Figure 164 Evolution of the number of protected areas, per land area class, in the forest caribou range ................................................................. 160
Figure 165 Geographic distribution of protected areas in the forest caribou range, in 2002 ....................................................................................... 161
Figure 166 Geographic distribution of protected areas in the forest caribou range, in 2009 ....................................................................................... 161
Figure 167 Geographic distribution of protected areas and forest caribou trails in the inventory area...................................................................... 163
Figure 168 Geographic distribution of protected areas and trail network density for forest caribou in the inventory area .................................... 163
Figure 169 Geographic distribution of the home range areas for the isolated herd of Val d’or and protected areas .............................................. 164
Figure 170 Geographic distribution of the home range areas for the isolated herd of Charlevoix and protected areas ......................................... 165
Figure 171 Geographic distribution of the home range areas for the isolated herd of Gaspésie and protected areas ............................................ 166
Figure 172 Organisation of variables used to describe aquatic habitats on the scale of Québec ................................................................................ 167
15
Figure 173 Geographical distribution of the main types of human encroachment on the territory ............................................................................ 175
Figure 174 Proportion of human encroachment types on Québec territory ................................................................................................................... 175
Figure 175 Human encroachments at the scale of the natural provinces of Québec ..................................................................................................... 177
Figure 176 Main types of human encroachment by natural province in Québec .......................................................................................................... 177
Figure 177 Human encroachments at the scale of the physiographic units of Québec ................................................................................................. 179
Figure 178 Human encroachments at the scale of the protected areas network of Québec ........................................................................................ 179
Figure 179 Comparison between encroachments in the protected areas network with that in the physiographic unit to which it belongs ........ 180
Figure 180 Evolution of the size of protected areas, from 2002 to 2009, and conservation core in 2009, in Québec .............................................. 183
Figure 181 Geographical distribution of protected areas network of 2002, according to land area class .................................................................. 183
Figure 182 Geographical distribution of protected areas network of 2009, according to land area class .................................................................. 184
Figure 183 Land area of conservation cores in the protected areas network in 2009 ................................................................................................... 184
Figure 184 Comparison between the size of the protected areas in the network and that of forest fires in the inventory area of Québec ......... 186
Figure 185 Québec protected areas network connectivity index in 2009 ........................................................................................................................ 188
Figure 186 Geographical Distribution of proposed protected areas, collected by the MDDEP between 2002 and 2009, and protected areas network in 2009 ................................................................................................................................................................ 193
Figure 187 Superimposition of land areas covered by rights granted over the domain of the State in Québec ....................................................... 195
Figure 188 Location of projected biodiversity and aquatic reserves submitted to public hearing before attribution of a permanent status ....... 196
Figure 189 Sectors with low protected area coverage in all of Québec in 2009 ............................................................................................................. 202
Figure 190 Sectors with low protected area coverage in the southern area in 2009 ..................................................................................................... 204
Figure 191 Sectors with low protected area coverage in the Marine zone and Anticosti Island in 2009 .................................................................... 205
Figure 192 Sectors with low protected area coverage in the Centre zone in 2009 ........................................................................................................ 206
Figure 193 Sectors of low protected area coverage in the Northern zone in 2009 ........................................................................................................ 208
16
List of tabLesTable 1 Impact of the publication of the Québec Protected Areas Register in 2007 ................................................................................................... 28
Table 2 Definition of the IUCN categories for the management of protected areas ................................................................................................... 31
Table 3 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the Appalachians natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ................ 49
Table 4 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the St. Lawrence Lowlands natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Table 5 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the Southern Laurentians natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Table 6 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the Central Laurentians natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70
Table 7 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 77
Table 8 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands natural province, in 2002 and 2009 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84
Table 9 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the Mistassini Highlands natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91
Table 10 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the Low Hills of Grande-Rivière natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98
Table 11 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the Nord-du-Québec Central Plateau natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 104
Table 12 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the Ungava Peninsula natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 110
Table 13 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the Ungava Bay Basin natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 116
Table 14 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the Torngat Mountains natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 122
Table 15 Scarcity index and protection ratio of physiographic unit classes in the St. Lawrence Estuary natural province, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 128
Table 16 Scarcity index, salinity and protection ratio of classes of physical environment types in the marine environment, in 2002 and 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 131
Table 17 Endangered or vulnerable species followed by the CDPNQ - Total data and data retained for the analysis of representativeness in protected areas ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 147
Table 18 Contribution to the conservation of the diversity of aquatic habitats, across all classes ........................................................................... 168
Table 19 Contribution to the conservation of the diversity of aquatic habitats in the lentic domain ....................................................................... 169
Table 20 Contribution to the conservation of the diversity of aquatic habitats in the lotic domain ......................................................................... 170
Table 21 Proportion of human encroachment by natural province, estimated in 2009 ............................................................................................ 174
Table 22 Number of proposals received from community stakeholders (2002-2009) .............................................................................................. 193
Table 23 Summarization of concerns noted during public consultations addressing the creation of four national parks ................................... 199
Table 24 Zones retained for this summarization .............................................................................................................................................................. 203
17
HigHLigHts
co n c E R n i n G t H E p E R i o D f R o m 2002 t o 2009
GE n E R a l co n t E x t
1. In the spring of 2009, 8.13% of Québec’s ter-ritory is reserved for protection, totalling an area of 135,636.67 km2. This is the result of a seven year of application of the Strategic Action Plan on Protected Areas (PASAP). Protected areas dedicated to conservation of biodiversity are now better distributed over the Québec territory. In 2002, the protected areas amounted to 48,060.85 km2, or 2.88% of the territory. This amounts to a net gain of 87,575.82 km2, or 5.25%, during the seven year period. This happened despite the fact that in 2007, with the publication of the Register of Protected Areas, Québec had to reduce its protected areas, as recorded in 2002, by 1.90%.
2. From 2002 to 2009, the number of sites desig-nated as protected areas went from 1,112 to 2,488, an increase of 1,376 protected areas, which represents almost 200 areas protected per year or a little more than 12,500 km2
reserved annually since 2002, or about 1,000 km2 per month.
3. Referring to the IUCN management categories, the current protected areas network shows a reversal of the portrait of protected area man-agement categories. In 2002, protected areas in the strict sense (management categories I to III) occupied 20% of the network com-pared to the present 81%.
RE p R E s E n t a t i v E n E s s
4. From 2002 to 2009, the largest percentage increases in protected areas was observed in the natural provinces of the low hills of the Grande-Rivière (0% to 13.84%), the highlands of Mistassini (0 to 9.82%) and the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau (1.91 to 10.02%).
5. In 2002, 85% of the 79 natural regions had less than 4% of their territories designated as protected area. In 2009, only 33% of these regions remain in this situation.
6. A representativeness analysis carried out by the Québec Ecological Reference Framework (ERF) shows that certain types of natural habitats continue to be poorly or not at all represented in every one of the natural prov-inces. These deficiencies are more pronounced in the northern natural provinces and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. They are often over-lapped by deficiencies measured according to cover and vegetation type.
7. In the natural province of the Appalachians, the proportion of protected areas rose from 4.21 to 4.89%. An analysis of the ERF reveals deficiencies in three major zones; one in the Southwest, one in South-Central natural prov-ince and finally, one at the heart of the Gaspé Peninsula where broadleaf and wetland cover types are under-represented. Representative-ness would be enhanced by adding potential vegetation types such as sugar maple-yellow birch, yellow birch-balsam fir-sugar maple, sugar maple-basswood, balsam fir-red maple as well as balsam fir-red spruce.
8. In the natural province of the St. Lawrence Lowlands, the proportion of protected areas varied from 2.22 to 4.50%. An analysis of the ERF reveals that the principle deficien-cies originate from the fact that this natural province has a large proportion of privately owned land. Mixed, broadleaf and conifer cover types are poorly represented in the net-work. Representativeness would be enhanced by a better protection of potential vegetation such as yellow birch-balsam fir-maple, sugar maple-basswood, yellow birch-balsam fir, sugar maple-bitternut hickory as well as bal-sam fir-black spruce and sphagnum moss.
9. In the natural province of the Southern Lau-rentians, the proportion of protected areas rose from 2.52 to 6.51%. Following an analy-
sis of the ERF, major deficiencies are found on the periphery of the Gouin Reservoir as well as in the northern part of Jacques-Cartier Lake Massif. Wetlands, sparse con-ifers, as well as bryophytes and lichens cover types are poorly represented. Representative-ness would be enhanced by adding poten-tial vegetation such as the balsam fir-yellow birch, black spruce-sphagnum moss and bal-sam fir-black spruce and sphagnum moss, balsam fir-montane black spruce as well as the balsam fir-montane white birch.
10. In the natural province of the Central Lau-rentides, the proportion of protected areas increased from 1.09 to 7.66%. An analysis of the ERF shows that the principal deficient zones are situated by the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean northern boundary. Some progression is observed in cover types that are often caused by recent human disturbance. Representative-ness would be enhanced by a better protec-tion of potential vegetation such as balsam fir-black spruce, black spruce-moss-ericacea and balsam fir-red maple, black spruce-trem-bling aspen as well as balsam fir-maritime white birch.
11. In the Basse-Côte-Nord Plateau natural prov-ince, the proportion of protected areas rose from 1.91 to 10.02%. From the analysis of the ERF, the major deficiencies are located between
18
the projected borders of the Lac Belmonts and Magpie biodiversity reserve and the pro-jected Natashquan River Valley biodiversity reserve, as between the aforementioned and the projected Guernesé Lowlands Valley bio-diversity reserve. Representativeness would be enhanced by adding potential vegetation types such as balsam fir-black spruce, bal-sam fir-white birch, balsam fir-black spruce and sphagnum moss as well as black spruce-lichen and black spruce-sphagnum moss.
12. In the natural province of the Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands, the proportion of pro-tected area surfaces varied from 0.41 to 7.37%. Analysis of the ERF shows that the main defi-ciencies are found in the centre and north of the territory. Progressions are observed in cover types such as wetlands, or those that are often attributed to recent anthropogenic disturbances. Representativeness would be enhanced by a better protection of poten-tial vegetation types such as black spruce- trembling aspen, balsam fir-white birch, yel-low birch-balsam fir, balsam fir-black spruce and sphagnum moss as well as balsam fir-maritime white birch.
13. In the Mistassini Highlands natural province, the proportion of protected areas increased from 0 to 9.82%. According to the ERF, the main deficiencies are located in the centre of this territory. Mixed, wetland and herb-
aceous cover types are poorly represented. Progression is measured in cover types that often result from recent human disturbance. Representativeness would be enhanced by adding potential vegetation types such as black spruce-moss-ericacea, black spruce- sphagnum moss, balsam fir-white birch and black spruce-trembling aspen as well as the balsam fir-white cedar.
14. In the Low Hills of Grande-Rivière natural province, the proportion of protected areas increased from 0 to 13.84%. The ERF reveals that there exist major deficiencies in half of the natural province. Mixed and broadleaf cover types are not represented in the pro-tected areas network of this natural prov-ince.
15. In the Nord-du-Québec Central Plateau natural province, the proportion of protected areas increased from 0.09 to 7.62%. The main deficiencies are located in the center of the natural province. Herbaceous plant, broad-leaf, and wetland cover types are poorly represented or even absent in the protected areas network of this natural province.
16. In the natural province of the Ungava Penin-sula, the proportion of protected areas varied from 5.49 to 6.55%. The main shortcomings are located in the centre and southern por-tion. Shrubs and water cover types are poorly
represented, and conifer and mixed cover types are poorly represented or even absent in the protected areas network of this natural province.
17. In the Ungava Bay Basin natural province, the proportion of protected areas rose from 5.55 to 8.44%. Analysing the ERF reveals that the main shortcomings are located in coastal regions and in the Labrador Trough. Mixed and broadleaf cover types are absent from the protected areas network of this natural prov-ince.
18. In the Torngat Mountains natural province, the proportion of protected areas varied 22.23 to 26.01%. From analysing the ERF, one can see that there are a few areas of deficiency located in both the north and south. Mixed cover is missing from the protected areas net-work of this natural province.
19. In the natural province of the St. Lawrence Estuary, the proportion of protected areas dropped from 7.09 to 2.99%. From the analy-sis of the ERF, concerning the island of Anti-costi, the principal shortcomings are located at the eastern and western extremities of the island. Representativeness would be enhanced by a better protection of potential vegetation including black spruce-moss-ericacea, black spruce-sphagnum moss, balsam fir-black spruce and sphagnum moss, sugar maple-
yellow birch as well as balsam fir-maritime white birch. Concerning the marine environ-ment, the shortcomings cover the entire Gulf of St. Lawrence.
20. In regards to Québec’s vegetation zones, it is in the boreal zone that the protected areas network experienced the highest growth; its proportion passing from 2.46 to 9.05%, notably due to a marked increase in the non-commercial portion of the continuous boreal forest (0.86 to 12.18%). As to the commercial portion of this forest, its percentage rose from 3.87 to 5.14%.
21. Concerning bioclimatic domains, the largest progressions are observed in the herbaceous arctic tundra (from 0.24 to 14.05%), the forest tundra (from 5.27 to 14.40%) and the spruce-moss (0.81 to 8.84%) domains. In 2009, three bioclimatic domains that are poorly repre-sented in the protected areas network are the sugar maple-basswood (3.43%), the balsam fir-white birch (5.35%) and the balsam fir-yellow birch (5.45%) domains.
22. In seven natural provinces out of eight, where forest age is measured, the percentage of old growth forests in the protected areas network is below 20% of their productive forest area. In four natural provinces out of eight, this proportion is greater than the actual overview
19
of old forests presented for the inventoried territories in those natural provinces.
23. The protected areas network of the Central Laurentians, the Abitibi and James Bay Low-lands and the Mistassini Highlands natural provinces display an overrepresentation of unproductive forest.
24. Concerning the endangered or vulnerable species (EMV), more than 80% of the EMVs analysed occur at least once in the 2009 pro-tected areas network from, which corresponds to two-thirds of all EMV of Québec. However, 70 EMVs are missing from the existing net-work. These species are, for the most part, among the least visible in the territory.
25. The percentage of protected areas within the woodland caribou range went from 0.6 to 7.9%. Since 2009, there exists a protected area of over 10,000 km2 and nine others over 1,000 km2 (of which four are over 3,900 km2). In the woodland caribou inventory zone, there are only five protected areas encompassing zones of dense woodland caribou trail net-works.
26. In respect to the protection of the aqua-tic environment throughout Québec, for all classes combined, changes for the network went from 20 to nearly 40%.
Ef f E c t i v E n E s s
27. Overall, in 2009, the protected areas network presents a human encroachment equal to or less than that of the environment in which it was formed. In the physiographic units with very high degrees of human encroachment, in almost all cases the human encroachment within the protected areas network is at least two times lower than that of the physio-graphic units they belong to.
28. The number of protected areas whose acre-age is between 1,000 km2 and 10,000 km2 has increased by nine fold in seven years. This is an aspect where the protected areas offer the best performance as the root of conservation, showing a contribution rate of 70%. However, the median size of protected areas is often less than or equal to that of forest fires measured in the inventory zone.
29. In 2009, the protected areas network has a connectivity index of medium to high for the major part of the territory. Some zones have a connectivity index of medium to low, aris-ing from significant human encroachment or from the large distance between protected areas.
30. The representativeness of the protected areas network at regional and global scales are designated as a fundamental need for miti-
gating the impacts of climate change on the natural environment. The protected areas net-work connectivity is also essential for several species in the early stages of anthropogenic climate change.
so c i a l -Ec o n o m i c Ex p E c t a t i o n s
31. From 2002 to 2009, the MDDEP received 766 proposals for protected areas from across Québec. These proposals measure close to 278,892 km2 that is 16.7% of Québec. Super-imposing these on the 2009 protected areas network shows that 23% of the network comes from the suggestions proposed by the popula-tion and those having a vested interest.
32. Aboriginal communities wish to participate in the creation and management of protected territories. They insist on the respect of rights, uses and aboriginal values. Between 2002 and 2009, pany protected areas were created based on proposals from aboriginal commun-ities. These proposed areas encompass sites that posess cultural and traditional signifi-cance.
33. The economic losses caused by the creation of protected areas, though minimized by the Government’s approach, are of concern to the regional and local peoples. According to them, the losses should have been offset
through adequate financing for management and by Government support of initiatives for the development of protected areas.
IntroductIon and Background1
Phot
o :
R. B
alej
22
1 •
Intr
od
uct
Ion
an
d B
ackg
rou
nd
1 IntroductIon and Background
In the spring of 2009, Québec reserved 8.13% of its territory as protected areas, totalling 135,636.67 km2, the result of seven years of work in applying the Strategic Action Plan on Pro-tected Areas (PASAP) of Québec. Protected areas dedicated to nature conservation are now present throughout the entire territory of Québec.
The objective of reserving 8% of Québec’s terri-tory as protected areas is now achieved. Major gains have also been made concerning biodivers-ity representativeness, and several cultural, social and economic concerns have been incorporated into the constitution of the protected areas net-work during the 2002 - 2009 period.
In February 2007, the publication of the Registry on Protected Areas of Québec helped consolidate the quality of the entire protected areas network, in accordance with recognized international standards and as written in the Natural Heritage Conservation Act. To achieve this, 31,764 km2 of protected areas, or 1.9% of Québec’s territory, had to be removed from the Registry publication. In
order to achieve the objective of 8% of land in protected areas, this area had to be filled in by applying the PASAP.
Beyond accounting for the size of protected areas, the quality of the network determines its perform-ance to conserve biodiversity. What are the gains in this area during the 2002 – 2009 period? In 2009, what is the real contribution of the network to the conservation of biodiversity throughout Québec? Specifically, what ecosystems and spe-cies are best protected by this network? Is the protected areas network adequate to fulfil its role as a player in the protection of species and the natural dynamics of ecosystems? Does it meet the social and economic expectations of the popula-tion? Do there remain serious shortcomings con-cerning representativeness of ecosystems, habitats and species? Do we need to create other protected areas in Québec? If so, what are the scientific cri-teria required to guide Québec’s future actions in planning its protected areas network? To answer these questions and many others, the Ministère du Développement Durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP) decided to publish an over-view of the state of biodiversity of the protected areas network, based on the data of the 2002 – 2009 period.
This report is inspired by the Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity to which Québec adheres. This program recommends that governments produce reports before continuing to implement new measures for
the protection of the territory. It proposes carrying out a gap analysis to determine to what degree a protected area network represents the fullness of biodiversity and to what extent this network is capable of maintaining the biodiversity of the ter-ritory. It recommends representativeness analyses of protected area network habitats, ecosystems, endangered species, etc. It also suggests that the state authorities assess threats to protected areas, based on the general degree of knowledge and distribution of those threats across the landscape according to the varying types of human pres-sures exerted on the territory (Ervin and Dudely, 2008).
The Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biodiversity pursues, among other things, the overall objective of establish-ing and maintaining (concerning land areas in 2010 and marine areas in 2012) complete networks of protected areas, that are effect-ively landscaped and highly representative of ecological realities, in order to reduce the overall rate of loss of biodiversity throughout the planet.
1.1 In I t I a l ta r g e t s a n d t o o l s
Remember that on June 21, 2000, the Govern-ment of Québec adopted guidelines from the Qué-bec protected areas strategy (SQAP). One of these guidelines was to complete, once the network has been established, an assessment of the objectives achieved related to protected areas and to the safeguard of biological diversity representative-ness and to make the necessary adjustments, if necessary. So, on May 15, 2002, the Council of Ministers of Québec adopted PASAP in accord-ance with the SQAP. This action plan ended with the announcement on March 29, 2009, that the target of 8% protected areas within the territory of Québec had been reached. The exercise also seeks to determine the extent to which the Gov-ernment responded to the guidelines laid down in the SQAP and the PASAP. Keeping in mind the following three master guidelines:
• Attainanapproximate8%ofprotectedareain Québec.
• Ensurethatnewprotectedareasarerepre-sentative of the biodiversity of the natural provinces of Québec.
• Takeintoaccounttheconcernsofthevariousparties concerned with the expansion of the protected areas network.
1 •
Intr
od
uct
Ion
an
d B
ackg
rou
nd
23
To ensure fulfilment of the three main direc-tives of the PASAP, the MDDEP has set the following goals to help advance the territory’s protected areas.
• Achieveanareaofapproximately8%ofeach of the natural provinces.
• Protectarepresentativesampleofalleco-systems found in Québec.
• Obtainabalancedspatialdistribution.• Ensurethepresenceofatleastonelarge
protected area per natural region, and one large river per natural province.
• Proposeover8%oftheterritorytoallowfor analysis of the various options.
• Prioritise the ecological integrity of theprotected area retained.
• Increase,ifpossible,theacreageofsmallprotected areas.
• Forthemostpart,createprotectedareasof more than 100 km2.
• Invitethepopulationandconcernedpar-ties to participate in the implementation process and creation of the protected areas network, including proposing ter-ritories for the purpose of creating new protected areas.
In order to ensure an adequate legal framework for the actions taken to protect biodiversity, Qué-bec adopted in December 2002 the Act for the Conservation of Natural Heritage. Six new legal statutes were thus established, firstly to create legal provisional measures of conservation, but also to better tailor the statutes to the various new realities of biodiversity conservation. This includes aquatic reserves, biodiversity reserves and humanized landscapes, as much projected as permanent.
1.2 ge n e r a l Co n t e x t
In the PASAP, the objective of creating a protected areas network reaching coverage of 8% has been set for the whole Québec territory. This target has now been reached. Nevertheless, it is important to understand how these protected areas are dis-tributed, according to different territorial layouts. Thus, for the purpose of the situation at hand, the evolution of the protected areas is first analysed by considering the overall size, the publication of the 2007 Register, the Management categories of Protected Areas of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the administrative regions, forest management units (FMU) and the application zone of the Plan Nord. The protected areas recognized by the Québec Government, from May 28, 2002 to May 21, 2009, were used to make diachronic analyses2.
1.3 re p r e s e n t a t I v e n e s s
The PASAP is primarily based on the principle of ecological representativeness during the 2002–2009 period. For a protected areas network to be effective in biodiversity conservation, it must ensure not only the protection of rare, unique and exceptional elements, but also the protection of representative and common elements that define the biodiversity of the territory (Noss, 1995). The principle of representativeness is to create a net-work which would ensure the protection of at least one sample of each of the ecosystem types that characterize the territory to a scale of percep-tion chosen for this purpose. Biodiversity repre-sentativeness was first measured using permanent criteria that define ecosystems according to the Québec Ecological Reference Framework (ERF).
The ERF is a mapping and ecological land classi-fication tool that delineates the major ecosystems by mapping their natural features according to several levels of perception. Mapping makes it possible to distinguish ecosystems on the basis of the permanent territorial elements, such as geol-ogy, reliefs and soils (Gerardin et al., 2002). These elements determine the nature of major eco-systems. Indeed, given the climatic context, the physical basis of a territory allows the establish-ment of life forms (plant and animal) which are potentially associated.
Thus, depending upon the chosen perception level, we hope to capture the full diversity of the ecological units. It is then assumed that all life forms associated with them are also included. This so-called “coarse filter” approach theoretic-ally covers most of the biodiversity of Québec. The ERF divides the territory in 13 natural provinces (first level perception of the territory). These nat-ural provinces serve as a basis for the representa-tiveness analysis of the protected areas network. This representativeness analysis of the permanent variables of the territory was completed by sev-eral other, so-called “fine filters». The latter is to determine rare elements such as the presence of EMV of flora or fauna (i.e. woodland caribou) or particular physical elements. The complementar-ity of the fine and course filter approaches opti-mizes the degree of ecological representativeness of selected territories. The notion of old growth forest conservation has also been incorporated in the protected areas selection process in those nat-ural provinces subject to forestry so that they may also contribute to resolving this ecological issue in forest environments.
In 2009, the representativeness of the protected areas network is founded upon the best eco-logical knowledge available across the territory. The contribution of protected areas to species and ecosystem protection is measured using a mix of different approaches to the ecological charac-terization of ecosystems and species. Thus, rep-resentativeness analyses are performed using a
2. Comparisons and references relating to the years 2002 and 2009 correspond to the portrait of protected areas network of these two precise dates.
1 •
Intr
od
uct
Ion
an
d B
ackg
rou
nd
24
characterization of the physical surroundings, aquatic and marine, cover types, potential vege-tation, vegetation zones, bioclimatic domains, old forests, productive and unproductive forest ter-ritories as well as EMVs. These analyses are used to identify the gains achieved in terms of repre-sentativeness of biodiversity in the network dur-ing the 2002 – 2009 period, and determine the deficiencies which may still exist.
1.4 ef f e C t I v e n e s s
As recommended by the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas, this overview shows the extent of human pressures on the territory and the effectiveness of the protected areas network to safeguard the biodiversity in face of these pres-sures. The MDDEP has devoted considerable effort in selecting sites within the zones that are the least disturbed, based on each of the ecosystems looked for. Determining the location and bound-aries of each of the protected areas were crucial steps in ensuring their conservation role. Eco-design concepts are then made in relation to the objective of maintaining the ecological integrity of natural components covered by the choice of the protected area.
Inthecontextoftheprotectionofrepresenta-tive samples of major ecosystems, the eco-logical design consists of giving a geographical shape to a protected area that contributes to maintaining the integrity of natural processes and ecosystems in a territory of interest for con-servation.Inthiscontext,thesizeofaprotectedarea depends also on the nature of the systems’ components that we seek to protect. (Lamarre, 2005).
For the purposes of this report, effectiveness is described with the help of specific cases of human encroachment, inspired by the concept of «natur-alness» (Anderson, 1991; Aegidius, 2004; Barrette and Guay, 2008), of the dimensions of protected areas and the conservation core area, of the con-nectivity of protected areas in the territory as well as their capacity to cope with present day forest fire threats. Analysis of these specific portraits helps to estimate, using indexation, the capacity of the protected areas network to safeguard the bio-diversity control zones in a context of landscaped territories. The role of the protected areas in adap-tation to climate change is also addressed.
1.5 so C I a l eC o n o m I C ex p e C t a t I o n s
The creation of all these new protected areas, from 2002 to 2009, required an important harmonisation effort, mainly between economic interests related to the exploitation of natural resources and the interests of territory conservation. To begin with, the MDDEP invited citizens, organizations and communities to submit proposals for protected areas3. This invitation was extended during infor-mational sessions that debuted the designation of territories of interest for the purposes of creat-ing new protected areas in each of the admin-istrative regions concerned. The main holders of exploitation rights in the territories covered by the protected areas projects were consulted with the collaboration of the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (MRNF) before any deci-sion to set aside territories for the purposes of protected areas was made4. During the period 2002 - 2009, the consultation process for regional players was adapted according to the evolution of regional governance and governmental obliga-tions to indigenous nations. Furthermore, the Bur-eau d’Audiences Publiques sur l’Environnement (BAPE) also made more than a dozen public con-sultations on territories set aside for the purpose of protected areas by assigning them permanent protection status. This report therefore presents
the different actions taken to account for the social and economic expectations that have been expressed in the context of the creation of new protected areas.
3. On the domain of the state land.
4. Some forest certification processes contributed positively to the creation of protected areas in the upgraded forest zones.
GeNeral coNteXt2
Phot
o :
R. B
alej
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
26Figure 1 Yearly evolution of the proportion and land area of protected areas in Québec, from 2002 to 2009
2 GeNeral coNteXt
2.1 ev o l u t i o n
o f ar e a s
On May 28, 2002, the total amount of protected areas in Québec was 48,060.85 km2. By May 21, 2009, it reached 135,636.67 km2; a net gain of 87,575.82 km2. By consequence, the proportion of protected areas in Québec rose from 2.88 to 8.13%, or an increase of 5.25% in 7 years (see figure 1).
The number of protected areas increased from 1,112 to 2,488, totalling 1,376 new protected areas, which represents close to 200 additional protected areas, or a little more than 12,500 km2
per year since May 28, 2002.
In 2002, the network was mainly concentrated in the narrow corridor following the St. Lawrence River and consisted mostly of small areas sites (see figure 2). In 2009, the protected areas are bet-ter distributed in the territory and many of them cover thousands of square kilometres (Figure 3).
The two calving grounds of the tundra caribou and the major part of Anticosti Island constituted the largest protected areas in 2002. These three jurisdictions were not recognized as protected areas when the Register of Protected Areas was published in 2007, which explains the reduction observed that year (see figure 1).
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
27Figure 2 Geographical distribution of the protected areas network in Québec, on May 28, 2002 Figure 3 Geographical distribution of the protected areas network in Québec, on May 21, 2009
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
28
2.2 Pu b l i c a t i o n o f t h e re g i s t e r o f P r o t e c t e d a r e a s o f qu é b e c
A better knowledge and interpretation of Inter-national Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as well as a rigorous analysis carried out while establishing the constitution for the Register of Protected Areas, helped to highlight inconsis-tencies concerning the recognition of certain stat-utes and territories viewed in 2002 as protected areas. Indeed, the legal or administrative frame-works, the implementation of certain activities and new standards of the IUCN no longer allowed certain significant domains in Québec to be rec-ognized as protected areas.
Upon the publication of the Register of Protected Areas, adjustments were made to the account of territories considered as such. From the start, 34,434 km², or 2.07% of the Québec territory, had to be cut from the total amount of protected areas (see figure 4). This included:
• twoimmenseterritoriesinthecariboucalv-ing areas north of the 52nd parallel for a total of 26,321 km²;
• 162territoriesinsalmonriverstrips,anetarea 869 km²;
• allterritoriesinthewhitetaildeerconfine-ment area on Anticosti Island, or 7,244 km².
Next, the availability of the public area delimita-tions within wildlife habitats of mixed tenure (pri-vate and public) allowed for some of these terri-tories to be added as protected area. The two types of wildlife habitat are mainly affected by these additions are waterfowl concentration areas and white-tailed deer containment areas. In the con-text of the publication of the Register of Protected Areas, this positive adjustment totals 2,670 km², or 0.16% of the Québec territory (figure 5).
Cumulatively, all these adjustments result in gains or losses across the natural provinces (see table 1 and the figures 4 and 5). These adjustments resulted in a net decrease of rec-
ognized protected areas of 31,764 km² or 1.90%. At the time of the publication of the Register of Protected Areas, on February 15, 2007, the total range of protected areas went from 97,948 km² or 5.87%, to 66.184 km² or 3.97%. These important changes to the protected areas network explain
several variations in specific portraits of repre-sentativeness and effectiveness presented in sec-tions 3 and 4.
Natural ProviNces subtractioN aDDitioN DiffereNce
appalachians 228 677 449
st. lawrence lowlands 5 686 681
southern laurentians 17 803 786
central laurentians 122 15 -107
basse-côte-Nord Plateau 309 4 -305
abitibi and James bay lowlands 0 14 14
Mistassini Highlands 0 0 0
low Hills of Grande-rivière 0 0 0
Nord-du-Québec central Plateau 13 0 -13
ungava Peninsula 13,018 0 -13,018
ungava bay basin 5,695 0 -5,695
torngat Mountains 7,779 0 -7,779
st. lawrence estuary 7,248 471 -6,777
ToTal 34,434 2,670 -31,764
Table 1 Impact of the publication of the Québec Protected Areas Register in 2007
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
29Figure 5 Geographical Distribution of the territories added at the time of publication of the Québec Protected Areas Register in 2007
Figure 4 Geographical Distribution of the territories subtracted at the time of publication of the Québec Protected Areas Register in 2007
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
30
2.3 iucn m a n a g e m e n t c a t e g o r i e s
The IUCN publishes a guide on the protected area management categories (by objective). This guide defines what is and what it is not a protected area. For a territory to be recognized as a protected area, it must first meet the following definition: a pro-tected area is a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature whith associated ecosystem services and cultural values (Dudley, 2008).
On a global scale, the “protected area” designa-tion embraces a wide range of territories con-servation management approaches. It includes strict protection sites, national parks that inte-grates recreation and preservation, and even sites where protection cohabitates with sustainable use of natural resources on the same territory. The IUCN recognizes six categories of protected areas management (see table 2). Internationally, they are often regrouped into three groups. The first group includes strict protection sites (categories I and II), the second regroups those reserved for the development of habitat (category III and IV) and the third brings together those that enable sustainable use of resources (categories V and VI). In 2005 these groups respectively covered 38.3, 20.3 and 41.4% of the land in protected areas of the globe (Chape et al, 2008). In Québec however, category III areas can be generally associated with strict protection conditions, since industrial activ-ities are prohibited.
Example of category I Rolland-Germain Ecological Reserve
Example of category II Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier
Example of category III Proposed Rivière-Dumoine aquatic reserve
Phot
o :
A. G
irou
x, M
DD
EP
Phot
o :
SÉPA
QPh
oto
: M
.-A
. Bou
char
d, M
DD
EP
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
31
Example of category IV Canton Varin whitetail deer confinement area
Example of category V Estran humanized landscape project
Example of category VISaint-Joachim aquatic birds staging area
Table 2 Definition of the IUCN categories for the management of protected areas
iucN cateGory
NaMe MaiN MaNaGeMeNt aPPlicatioNs
i strict nature reserve (ia) or Wilderness area (ib)
ia : strict protection of exceptional ecosystems to ensure protection of the conservation values. ib : strict protection of an area that is generally large and unmodified, so as to preserve its natural condition.
ii National park large natural area set aside to protect ecological processes, species, characteristics of the ecosystems of a region and promote educational and recreational activities.
iii Natural monument or feature
this is an area set aside to protect specific natural features as well as the associated biodiversity and habitats.
iv Habitat/species management area
area set aside to protect, sustain, and restore particular species or habitats. active management is an option, depending on priorities.
v Protected landscape/seascape
area set aside to protect and sustain landscapes or seascapes, as well as the associated natural environment and other distinct characteristics created by human interactions and traditional management practices. Preserving the integrity of these interactions is vital to the conservation of nature.
vi Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources
Generally large, these areas aim to protect natural ecosystems and habitats as well as cultural values and systems for the management of associated natural resources. a proportion is under sustainable natural resource man-agement compatible with nature conservation.
Freely adapted from Dudley 2008
Phot
o :
R. B
alej
Phot
o : R.
Bal
ejPh
oto
: L.
G. P
hilip
pe d
e La
bori
e
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
32
f i n d i n g s ( f i g u r e s 6 , 7 e t 8)
• From2002 to 2009, there is an inversionof the management categories for protected areas in Québec. While strict protection sites (categories I to III) occupied 20% of the net-work in 2002, they are now occupy 81%.
• The protected areas category Ia increased slightly from 2002 to 2009, going from 1,573 km2 to 1,621 km2. However, in regards to the proportion of the network, the pro-tected areas of the Ia category occupied 3% in 2002, compared to 1% in 2009.
• In2002categoryIIprotectedareasoccupied7,778 km2, or 16% of the network; in 2009 they occupy 40,249 km2, or 30%.
• In2002categoryIIIprotectedareaswerevir-tually absent from the network; in 2009 they occupy 67,841 km2, or 50%.
• In2002categoryIVprotectedareascovered6,240.15 km2, or 14% of the network; in 2009 they cover 3,388.62 km2, or 2.5%.
• NocategoryVprotectedareawascreateddur-ing this period and none exists in the Québec territory in 2009.
• In2002categoryVIprotectedareasoccupied29,979 km2, accounting for 62% of the net-work; in 2009 they occupy 4,211 km2, or 3%. This decrease is mainly due to the decommis-sioning two tundra caribou calving areas5.
• In2002unclassified(uncategorized)protectedareas occupied 2,176 km2, or 4.5% of the net-work; in 2009 they occupy 18,507 km2, or 13%. These territories correspond to those put in administrative reserve for the purposes of protected areas.
Figure 6 Evolution of the land area of protected areas from 2002 to 2009, per IUCN category 5. See section 2.2.
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
33Figure 8 Geographical distribution of IUCN management categories in the protected areas network, in 2009Figure 7 Geographical distribution of IUCN management categories in the protected areas network, in 2002
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
34
2.4 ad m i n i s t r a t i v e re g i o n s
From 2002-2009, the northern region of Québec (10) has seen the greatest increase in the propor-tion of protected areas which passed from 3.35 to 10.27%. Next, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue (08), the Montérégie (16) and the Ottawa (07) regions saw their proportions in protected areas progress from 0.57 to 6.34%, 1.8 to 3.78% and 1.37% to 5.65% respectively (see figures 9, 10 and 11).
The regions of Montreal (06), the National Capital (03), Northern-Québec (10) and the Lanaudière (14) have the highest percentages of protected areas in 2009 at 15.48%, 10.83%, 10.27% and 9.57% respectively. These regions have therefore more than 8% of protected areas within their ter-ritory. Other administrative regions are below this threshold.
Figure 9 Proportion of protected areas per administrative region, in 2002 and 2009
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
35Figure 11 Distribution of protected areas in the administrative regions in 2009Figure 10 Distribution of protected areas in the administrative regions in 2002
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
36
2.5 fo r e s t ma n a g e m e n t un i t s
Forest management units (FMU) are administra-tive divisions used for forest management in Qué-bec. A special effort was devoted to the expansion of the protected areas in the zones devoted to for-est management during the period 2002 - 2009.
Of the territories covered by the FMU, the per-centage of protected area surface rose from 1.86 to 6.01% from 2002 to 2009. In 2002, 37 of the 74 FMUs did not have any protected areas6. In 2009, only five of FMUs still did not have any protected areas. The majority of the FMUs have more than 4% territory as protected areas. There are now nine FMUs whose proportion set aside as protected areas ranges from 8 to 12%, and 15 FMUs at 12% or more (see figures 12, 13 and 14).
Figure 12 Evolution of the proportion of protected areas in the forest management units, from 2002 to 20096. Although UAF cutting did not exist in 2002, the common areas were then in force; which was used as a benchmark.
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
37Figure 14 Distribution of protected areas in the forest management units according to proportion, in 2009Figure 13 Distribution of protected areas in the forest management units according to proportion, in 2002
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
38
2.6 Pl a n no r d
The Plan Nord is a vast development, enhance-ment and protection project which covers 1.1 mil-lion km2 in Québec. The Plan Nord application zone affects the land portion of Québec which is north of the 49th parallel, except for Anticosti Island. It therefore covers 71.59% of Québec’s ter-ritory. The proportion of protected areas in this area has passed from 2.40 to 9.40% between 2002 and 2009. Of the territory situated south of the Plan Nord application zone, the proportion rose from 4.10 to 4.97% during the same period (see figures 15, 16 and 17).
Figure 15 Proportion of protected areas in the zone of application of the Northern Plan and south of this zone, in 2002 and 2009
2 •
Gen
eral
Co
nte
xt
39Figure 16 Distribution of the protected areas network in the zone of application of the Northern plan, in 2002 Figure 17 Distribution of the protected areas network in the zone of application of the Northern plan, in 2009
