DETERMINING USER NEEDS FOR A MARINE CADASTRE[^1]

*The Musquash Marine Protected Area Case Study*

Sam Ng'ang'a[^2], Michael Sutherland, Susan Nichols

**ABSTRACT**

Most users view spatial data as a means to an end. They all desire
reliable, up-to-date data as quickly and as inexpensively as possible.
They have in most cases come to expect reliable transfer of graphics,
text, audio and video without considering the special problems involved
in spatial data exchange. In this paper we look at the special cadastral
user needs when visualizing the marine space.

Visualization of the complexity of rights in marine spaces is of
particular importance in understanding the multidimensional context in
which marine activities take place. Most marine rights, such as
aquaculture, mining, fishing, mooring rights and even navigation have an
inherently multi-dimensional nature that makes a two-dimensional
definition of these rights legally inadequate. This multidimensional
information relative to a jurisdiction, regarding the effects of its
private and public laws on the marine environment (e.g. spatial extents
and their associated rights, responsibilities, and restrictions etc.)
would be stored in a marine cadastre.

This paper uses Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as a case study to
identify some of the user needs in a marine cadastre. The authors
propose that problems encountered in identifying user needs in MPAs are
similar to those expected to be encountered in a marine cadastre. This
paper reviews the concept of a marine cadastre; uses it as a starting
point for identifying user needs; and then uses the example of the
Musquash MPA in New Brunswick, Canada to develop a list of user needs.
The paper concludes by outlining a webGIS[^3] cadastral information
sharing solution; based on CARIS Spatial Fusion software; whose real
power lies in letting users control the display on the client interface.

**Introduction**

The World Bank predicts that by 2020 three-quarters of the world's
population will live within 60 kilometres of the coast placing severe
pressure on our ocean's resources. This intense use threatens global
health, as well as the social and economic sustainability of these
coastal and marine environments. Wetlands, which are used for essential
fish breeding habitats, buffers against coastal erosion, and sediment
sinks, are being filled for development at a rapid rate. Settlement
along the coast leads to the construction of seawalls that accelerate
the erosion of habitats. Pollution from land-based activities and ocean
dumping is increasing, as is the world's population. Predictions of
climate change and sea level rise also threaten populations that inhabit
coastal areas. Governance of activities within coastal and marine spaces
is therefore of utmost importance if resources are to continue being
used with a sustainable development objective in mind.

Governance has been defined as the process of decision-making with a
view to managing change in order to promote people\'s well being
\[Kyriakou and Di Pietro, 2000\]. Governance is also about providing
information to decision makers about the impact that certain decisions
will have on the rights and interests of individuals. Together with
other information, a record of the nature and extent of rights is what
is contained in a cadastre. This paper uses Marine Protected Areas
(MPAs) as a case study to identify some of the user needs in a marine
cadastre. The authors suggest that problems encountered in identifying
user needs in MPAs are similar to those expected to be encountered in a
marine cadastre that would encapsulate all types of marine space. This
paper reviews the concept of a marine cadastre; uses it as a starting
point for identifying user needs; and then uses the example of the
Musquash MPA in New Brunswick, Canada to develop an assessment of user
needs. The paper concludes by outlining a webGIS cadastral information
sharing solution; based on CARIS Spatial Fusion software; whose real
power lies in letting users control the display on the client interface.

**The Governance of Our Oceans**

To attain informed decision-making for the governance of coastal and
marine resources, there is the requirement to obtain and manage a range
of information must be collected and managed. There is need to manage
information on (but not limited to) living and non-living resources,
bathymetry, spatial extents (boundaries), shoreline changes, marine
contaminants, seabed characteristics, water quality, and property
rights. In one way or another these datasets all contribute to the
sustainable development and good[^4] governance of coastal and marine
resources \[e.g., Nichols, Monahan and Sutherland, 2000\].

Clearly, there is need for a wider dissemination of knowledge relevant
to the importance of coastal and marine environments. Good governance
(e.g., information dissemination, management.) is a key factor in the
sustainable use of these environments and will require an integrated,
coordinated and equitable approach \[Crowe, 2000\]. If governance is
about decision-making and steering, then up-to-date, accurate, complete,
and usable information (which feeds into the acquisition of knowledge)
is indispensable to governance. This is especially critical in the
information age of rapid changes, interconnectivity, and globalization
that have brought more information to more people, making them acutely
aware of the unsustainable nature of current social, economic and
political use of marine and coastal spaces \[Juillet and Roy, 1999;
Miles, 1998\]. But how is this to be accomplished? This paper looks at
the marine cadastre as a starting point for the initial exploration of
ideas.

**The Marine Cadastre**

The reliability and completeness of information on the marine
environment, its resources, and uses is critical in identifying,
evaluating, and managing resources in marine space. Resource management
does not exist in isolation; it balances the objectives of conservation
with property rights (both public and private) associated with the
resource. This implies that two boundaries must be delineated: one
defining the resource extent and the other defining the extent of rights
within, or in the vicinity of the resource. This latter boundary is
referred to as the legal or administrative boundary. The primary
objective of a legal boundary is to ensure that it gives notice of the
spatial extent of rights of individuals (or groups of individuals). This
provides information to decision makers about the impact that certain
decisions will have on the rights and interests of individuals. Together
with other information, a record of the nature and extent of rights is
what is contained in a cadastre.

Grant \[1999\] defines a marine cadastre as a "system to enable the
boundaries of marine rights and interests, to be recorded, spatially
managed and physically defined in relationship to the boundaries of
other neighbouring or underlying rights and interests". Extending this
definition, this paper further defines a marine cadastre as an
information system that facilitates the visualisation of the effect of a
jurisdiction's private and public laws on the marine environment (e.g.,
rights, responsibilities, restrictions, and administration and their
associated spatial extents). Other relevant information such as that
regarding the physical and biological natures of the environment may be
connected to the cadastre using spatial referencing to give the cadastre
a multipurpose function. In this paper then, the marine cadastre is
viewed as a tool to facilitate good governance of marine spaces.

What we know today about Canada's ocean frontier is similar to what
Canadians knew of the Prairies and the Arctic in the 18th and 19th
centuries \[Ocean Mapping Group 1999\]. We have made scattered
explorations of our marine territory, primarily in pursuit of narrow
goals, e.g., development of identified oil and gas reserves,
communication infrastructure, and coastal navigation. The oceans - their
resources, their potential, and their current use - therefore remain
uncharted territory for the most part. This lack of knowledge is
complicated by the fact that exploration and knowledge of the oceans
must be conducted in four dimensions. A fifth dimension, jurisdictional
uncertainty, is a major factor in the lack of comprehensive approaches
to ocean resource problems. Hoogsteden and Robertson \[1998,1999\] note
that in many ways the development of the offshore (or marine cadastre)
parallels the pioneer role of land surveying during the settlement phase
of new world development. A lack of comprehensive and detailed knowledge
about prospective tracts of new territory and the resources that they
contain was prevalent. Reconnaissance, resource use and development are
still being undertaken spasmodically in the oceans. Any marine cadastre
would therefore have to take these special shortcomings into
consideration. Another issue in the oceans is the fact that there are
many levels of often ill-defined jurisdiction and rights involved. The
proposed Marine Protected Area for the Musquash Estuary is an example of
the marine cadastre challenges.

**Marine Protected Areas in Canada**

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are becoming important tools for
encouraging the sustainable use and conservation of marine resources
around the world. There are currently over 1,300 MPAs around the world
\[Canada, 1997a\] ranging from small, highly protected reserves that
sustain a particular resource or habitat type to larger, multiple-use
areas in which conservation is balanced with various socio-economic
activities. MPAs are established for numerous reasons, and as a result,
take a variety of forms and approaches[^5]. As the marine environment
faces increasing threats from human activities on land and sea, marine
protected areas (MPAs) are becoming important tools for promoting the
sustainable use and conservation of natural resources \[Canada, 1997a,
1997b\].

MPAs in Canada are defined in Section 35 of Canada's *Oceans Act*
\[1996\] as, "an area of the sea designated for special protection that
forms part of the internal waters of Canada or the exclusive economic
zone of Canada". An area can be designated as an MPA to conserve and
protect one or more of the following:[^6]

i)  Commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources, including marine
    mammals and their habitats;

ii) Endangered and threatened marine species, and their habitats;

iii) Unique habitats;

iv) Marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity;

v)  Any other marine resource or habitat as is necessary to fulfill the
    mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

MPAs can be considered a laboratory for developing and testing elements
of the marine cadastre based on the following:

i)  There are several clearly defined objectives for MPAs. These
    objectives are used to design a management plan and evaluate the
    success or failure of the MPA.

ii) MPAs usually contain a multitude of resources that are
    simultaneously the focus of economic and conservation objectives.
    The management of these resources in an MPA is therefore
    representative of those found in any marine space.

iii) Some MPAs are adjacent or in close proximity to upland owners and
     private property rights. This scenario further complicates tenure
     in marine space and provides an ideal site for testing tenure
     issues to be found in any marine cadastre.

**Defining MPA Cadastral User**[^7] **Needs**

MPAs are being implemented to address a wide range of marine resources
and management dilemmas. Well-planned MPAs not only protect critical
habitats and general ecosystem functions, but also meet the needs and
even enhance the opportunities of many different stakeholders living in
the region \[National Research Council, 2001\]. The user requirements
therefore vary substantially depending on whether there is a primary
objective, or whether there is a ranking of the different MPA
objectives. To further illustrate this point, marine conservation
management principles are briefly reviewed.

A number of management principles have been enumerated in the *Oceans
Act* \[1996\] and the MPA program policy in order to facilitate the
development and implementation of the MPA programs. They include the
principles of sustainability, precautionary approach, consultation,
integrated management, adaptive management, ecosystem, regional
flexibility, and partnering[^8]. The principles are seen as
acknowledging the importance of balancing several conflicting objectives
(e.g. economic development and environmental protection) in marine
space. However, the precautionary approach is generally considered a
priority in MPA establishment and management. It advocates for errors to
be made on the side of caution in making decisions about sensitive
marine resources and habitats. Therefore, even though the consultation
principle may encourage the participation by parties with a stake in the
resource[^9], in the end ecological values may be more important
\[Canada, 1998\].

In this paper, MPA user requirements are separated into 2 broad
categories: those dealing with the location of a system of MPAs, and
those dealing with the management of an MPA once it is nominated and
accepted as a proposed MPA. User requirements for the first category are
driven predominantly by scientific objectives. This means that collected
information is strongly disposed towards science. The Report from the
Roundtable on Marine Protected Area System Planning \[Fenton and
Westhead, 2000\] supports this observation by indicating that a strong
emphasis is placed on the collection of biological and ecological
information. Although several sources of information are usually
considered[^10], acknowledgement of the importance of cadastral
information is not at the same level as biological and ecological
information. This is to be expected since ecosystem[^11] overviews are
seen as enabling MPAs to be developed in a systematic manner, assist in
the evaluation and selection of MPAs, and have indicators that can be
used to evaluate the success of MPAs \[Canada, 1998\].

User requirements for the second category deal with the tenure and
administration of MPAs. The focus is on being able to visualize how the
MPA will affect the rights of community, stakeholders and the general
public. Clearly, public and private rights in the MPA have to be taken
into consideration. The user requirements for the decision maker in this
category have to include those living adjacent to, or relying on,
resources in need of protection, together with all those interested in,
or affected by, the MPA designation. For example, where existing and
proposed activities within, or near an MPA, may conflict with the
conservation objectives of an MPA, a management plan can be used to
provide for a phasing out of these activities. A scallop dragger may
therefore have a provincial lease for related fishing activities within
the proposed MPA but an agreement may be sought with the lease-holder
(with regard to the restriction of scallop dragging) in order to
accomplish the objective of protection of the MPA resources. This is an
acknowledgement of the interplay between public and private rights in an
MPA; and by extension highlights the importance of cadastral
information.

**The Musquash MPA Project**

On February 8, 2000, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
announced publicly that Musquash Estuary had been accepted as an Area of
Interest (AOI), the first milestone in the official Marine Protected
Areas (MPA) process[^12]. Musquash is the Maritimes second inshore
\"Area of Interest\" in the Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Program under
the *Oceans Act*. On June 23, 1999 DFO announced support for
conservation efforts in Basin Head P.E.I, the first inshore Area of
Interest. Identification of a site as an \"Area of Interest\" is the
first step in the Department\'s evaluation process to identify and
protect important ecological areas in the marine environment. The
proposed MPA outer limits included all subtidal and intertidal areas
inside a line drawn from the Musquash Head through the southern tip of
Gooseberry Island, and extending to the coastline at the western tip of
Gooseberry Cove. The inland limit was the head of the tide at the
Musquash Hydro Station.[^13]

In June 2000 a team of researchers from four universities (University of
New Brunswick, Memorial University, University of Ottawa, and University
of Victoria) initiated a project with the Geomatics for Informed
Decisions (GEOIDE) Research Network under the National Centres of
Excellence.[^14] The project is entitled "Good governance of Canada's
Oceans: the Use and Value of Marine Boundary Information." The research
aims to address some of the marine boundary issues in Atlantic Canada
using case studies \[Ocean Governance, 2000\]. One of the case studies
in the research focuses on private, public, municipal, environmental,
and coastal zone boundaries associated with Marine Protected Areas (MPA)
for DFO under the new *Oceans Act*. It specifically deals with the
management of the proposed Musquash MPA in the Bay of Fundy in Atlantic
Canada.

**Management of the Proposed Musquash MPA**

As part of its MPA co-management strategy, DFO put together a Musquash
Marine Protected Areas Planning Group (MPAPG)[^15] in a bid to
facilitate stakeholder and community input into a management plan for
the proposed MPA \[Singh et al., 2000\]. The overall objective of the
management plan was described as the "protection and restoration of the
Musquash estuary and surrounding salt marshes". The following goals were
identified \[Singh et al., 2000\]:

-   Maintain biodiversity of the area;

-   Maintaining a healthy fishing industry;

-   Protecting highly productive habitats;

-   Increasing the natural habitat and bird life in the marsh and
    surrounding land;

-   Preserving the area for future generations;

-   Ensuring the conservation and the sustainable use of the marsh.

What was unique about Musquash was that it was a coastal MPA and
therefore issues related to property rights, administration, and
jurisdiction were extremely important. There was a possibility that
there would be multiple and unclear jurisdictional boundaries
representing federal-provincial, inter-provincial limits, or even
provincial-county boundaries. Since the MPA program was still new[^16],
issues surrounding the co-management arrangements for the proposed MPA
were still being tested at other proposed MPAs. At the same time, there
lacked a single agency that would be the focal point for managing marine
rights and boundaries. This meant that information about the boundaries
and rights would have to be shared across departments and agencies.
Musquash was therefore an opportunity to address the resulting
complexity of data integration issues (involving scale, datums,
projections etc) within the mandate of the Ocean Governance project.

Previous MPA designations had focused more on developing the science
requirements that would be needed to monitor MPAs. In the beginning, the
focus of information collection (and summary) in the Musquash was
scientific data; including, area morphology, oceanography, water quality
(i.e. nutrients and contaminants), plankton and fish larvae, marsh
ecology, birds, and terrestrial plants \[Singh et al., 2000\]. Later on,
it became clear that in order to obtain the information required for the
evaluation of the proposed MPA, as well as for the development of an
appropriate management plan, existing information about public and
private rights within the MPA (and in the surrounding vicinity) would
have to be collected, summarized and used to form the management plan
for the MPA.

**Cadastral Information Collection**

To provide the base for analyzing the boundary and other cadastral
issues, a hydrographic, oceanographic and geophysical survey was carried
out by the UNB Ocean Mapping Group. Undergraduate students were
responsible for collecting the information as part of a 5th year
Hydrographic Field Operations undergraduate course. As outlined in the
following sections, the hydrographic survey information proved important
in providing evidence of tenure in the proposed Musquash MPA.

Visits to the Musquash estuary indicated that private fishing rights (in
the form of herring weirs) had at one time been effective in the
estuary. In fact, sidescan imagery also indicated that some fishing
weirs had been abandoned and were neither visible at high nor low
tide[^17]. These weirs could easily be indicative of present, abandoned
or expropriated private fishing rights within the spatial extent of the
fishing weirs. Evidence of other public rights observed while traversing
the Musquash estuary as part of the Musquash hydrographic survey was in
the form of ship wreckages. Some of the wreckages could not have been
detected without multibeam and sidescan technology. These shipwreck
sites could easily have been earmarked for protection under the Historic
Sites Protection Act, but on further investigation this was not the
case.

A survey[^18] of the ordinary high water mark was also carried out in
order to determine whether the actual surveyed limit of upland property
coincided with provincial mapping in the coastal lands database. The
resulting inconsistency was not surprising, as the delimitation of
features and limits in the coastal lands database was based on
interpretation of orthophoto maps[^19] \[Nichols and Monahan, 1999\].
The uncertainty caused by the inconsistency between the mapping and
legal limits of private property rights is currently under investigation
especially in light of the fact that the description of the boundaries
in the proposed MPA had referred to the ordinary high water mark. The
New Brunswick Department of Municipalities, Culture, and Housing Draft
Proposal for a Provincial Land Use Policy \[NB, 1996\] for New
Brunswick's Coastal Lands further compounds this uncertainty. In the
proposed coastal zone policy any new development within 30 meters of a
coastal feature is restricted. Clearly this represents a governance
problem involving the infringement of private property rights by public
policy. This is an issue of great importance in any cadastre. As Nichols
and Monahan \[1999\] observe,

> ...The major problem for the upland owner still remains...if the
> policy was enacted, upland owner rights of use to a large proportion
> of the average land parcel, including lands within the intertidal
> zone, would be extremely limited. Owners of grants to low water or of
> water lots are similarily restricted. Yet no compensation is provided.
> Furthermore, the uncertainties involved in delimiting both the
> intertidal limits, marsh boundaries, etc., in addition to the seaward
> property boundary of the upland leave the path open for much
> litigation.

The province of New Brunswick considers some lands below the ordinary
high water mark as provincial crown lands and records information about
them in a separate registry referred to as the submerged lands
registry[^20] \[Canada, 1997b\]. Tenure information regarding submerged
lands was subsequently obtained from the Crown Lands Branch, Department
of Natural Resources and Energy (DNRE). In addition, the research group
was able to obtain information from DNRE on mineral leases in the
vicinity of the estuary. DNRE also authorizes permits and licenses to
operate pipelines in the province. The research group observed that
there are currently two pipelines licensed to transit crude oil from the
Bay of Fundy to Mispec Point. The exact location of the pipelines was
clearly visible on the multibeam imagery collected during the
hydrographic survey.

One partner[^21] in the project, Service New Brunswick (SNB), was also
able to provide access to cadastral information about parcels adjoining
the proposed MPA. This allowed the group to inspect the nature of tenure
surrounding the proposed MPA and determine whether any water lots had in
fact been granted in the Musquash estuary. Further, it was important to
determine (through an inspection of individual deeds) the individual
rights of riparian owners on land adjoining the Musquash River. As the
project progressed then, it became increasingly clear that there was a
multitude of tenure information sources held in different locations that
could be used to build the Musquash MPA cadastre. Table 1 provides a
roadmap of provincial marine cadastral information.

Table 1: Roadmap of Provincial Marine Cadastral Information \[after
Canada, 1997b\]

+----------------+------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Provincial   | **Department /   | **Cadastral Information**        |
| Government     | Branch and       |                                  |
| Department**   | Program**        |                                  |
+----------------+------------------+----------------------------------+
| Department of  |                  | i)  Land use location and animal |
| Agriculture    |                  |     manure management affecting  |
| and Rural      |                  |     pollution of the marine      |
| development    |                  |     environment                  |
|                |                  |                                  |
|                |                  | ii) Location of dyked land       |
+----------------+------------------+----------------------------------+
| Department of  | i)  Beach        | i)  Location of beach            |
| Economic       |     development  |     improvement programs         |
| Development    |     Program      |                                  |
| and Tourism    |                  | ii) Area affected by licenses    |
|                | ii) Day          |     for Marine ecotourism        |
|                |     Adventure    |                                  |
|                |     Program      |                                  |
+----------------+------------------+----------------------------------+
| Department of  | i                | i)  Freshwater aquaculture and   |
| Environment    | )  Environmental |     fishwaste disposal           |
|                |     Evaluation   |                                  |
|                |     Branch       | ii) License to store dredged     |
|                |                  |     materials and approval for   |
|                | ii) Assessment   |     salt marsh proposals         |
|                |     and          |                                  |
|                |     Approvals    | iii) License to construct and    |
|                |     Branch       |      operate municipal and       |
|                |                  |      private water and           |
|                | iii) Municipal   |      wastewater systems          |
|                |      Services    |                                  |
|                |      Section     |                                  |
+----------------+------------------+----------------------------------+
| Department of  | i)  Resource     | i)  Responsibility for site      |
| Fisheries and  |     Management   |     allocation and tenure        |
| Aquaculture    |     Team         |     administration at marine     |
|                |                  |     aquaculture sites and        |
|                |                  |     associated facilities        |
+----------------+------------------+----------------------------------+
| Service New    | i)  Coastal      | i)  1:10000 complete digital     |
| Brunswick      |     Mapping      |     orthophotography of          |
|                |     Program      |     province's coastal lands     |
|                |                  |                                  |
|                | ii) Submerged    | ii) Future location of central   |
|                |     Lands        |     submerged lands registry     |
|                |     Registry     |                                  |
+----------------+------------------+----------------------------------+
| Department of  |                  | i)  Issues permits to install    |
| Health and     |                  |     septic systems and on-site   |
| Community      |                  |     sewage disposal              |
| Services       |                  |                                  |
|                |                  | ii) Recreational Waters testing  |
+----------------+------------------+----------------------------------+
| Department of  | i)  Coastal Land | i)  Administration of Coastal    |
| M              |     Use Planning |     Lands Management e.g.        |
| unicipalities, |                  |     Coastal Land Use Policy      |
| Culture and    | i                |                                  |
| Housing        | i) Archeological | ii) License for archeological    |
|                |     Services     |     explorations and location of |
|                |     Branch under |     protected shipwreck sites    |
|                |     *Historic    |                                  |
|                |     Sites        |                                  |
|                |     Protection   |                                  |
|                |     Act*         |                                  |
+----------------+------------------+----------------------------------+
| Department of  | i)  Under the    | i)  Responsible for other        |
| Natural        |     *Aquaculture |     submerged land management    |
| Resources and  |     Act*         |     activities e.g. previous     |
| Energy         |                  |     commitments, conflicting     |
|                | ii) Crown Lands  |     land uses, protection of     |
|                |     Branch       |     native fish, interference    |
|                |                  |     with riparian rights         |
|                | iii) Fish and    |                                  |
|                |      Wildlife    | ii) Leases, licenses or          |
|                |      Wetlands    |     easements for permanent      |
|                |      and Coastal |     developments or improvements |
|                |      Habitat     |                                  |
|                |      Program -   | iii) Conservation Areas and      |
|                |      Parks and   |      Coastal Parks: issues such  |
|                |      Recreation  |      as permits for gravel       |
|                |      Branch      |      extraction                  |
|                |                  |                                  |
|                | iv) Under        | iv) Minerals, Oil, Natural Gas   |
|                |     *Mining Act* |     exploration and production   |
|                |     and *Oil and |                                  |
|                |     Natural Gas  | v)  Permits to construct and     |
|                |     Act*         |     licenses to operate          |
|                |                  |     pipelines                    |
|                | v)  Under the    |                                  |
|                |     *Pipeline    |                                  |
|                |     Act and      |                                  |
|                |     General      |                                  |
|                |     Regulation*  |                                  |
+----------------+------------------+----------------------------------+
| Department of  |                  | i)  Bridge rehabilitation, shore |
| Transportation |                  |     protection and related       |
|                |                  |     structures                   |
|                |                  |                                  |
|                |                  | ii) Operation of Ferries         |
|                |                  |                                  |
|                |                  | iii) Operation of Wharves and    |
|                |                  |      Ramps                       |
+----------------+------------------+----------------------------------+

**Accessing the Cadastral Information**

Identifying the different types of cadastral information was one issue;
being able to obtain and analyse the information was a totally different
challenge altogether. From Table 1 it can be seen that the separation of
responsibilities between government departments and agencies is going to
provide a multitude of different marine information, in different
scales, formats, accuracy, completeness and precision because it is
collected for various uses. In practice, each department or agency would
have acquired their own Geographic Information System (GIS) specialists
to process data, often dealing with the complexities of data formatting,
structuring, analyses and presentation. Specific land and marine
software would also have been acquired in order to carry out these
tasks. Increasing limitations in resources would have forced agencies to
focus primarily on their immediate responsibilities and be rarely
interested in collecting and managing marine cadastral information for a
broader marine cadastre.

**Accessing Information through the Internet**

Recent developments in internet communications, band width and
transmission speeds, and web-GIS and internet cartographic tools have
made it possible for spatial information to more easily be shared among
geographically dispersed groups via the worldwide web. Specifically,
developments in internet-enabled spatial data integration and analysis
tools are now allowing decision-makers the opportunity to have access in
real-time (or near real-time) to data stores critical to them, but not
necessarily managed or maintained by them. Some of the above
technologies handle only vector data (e.g. MapGuide, MicroStation
GeoGraphics) while others like MapObjects, Spatial Net, GeoMedia Web Map
and CARIS Spatial Fusion handle both vector and raster data. Certain
web-GIS technologies now facilitate the transmission, integration,
visualization and analysis via the worldwide web of spatial information
stored in geographically dispersed locations. Some of these new
technologies also support different data formats (e.g. ESRI shape files,
CARIS, Oracle 8I, orthophotography etc.), projections, scales, datums
etc., with conversions and visualization being done \"on the fly.\"

In some instances data will have to all reside on one server and then be
geographically dispersed via the worldwide web. Some web-GIS
technologies however allow for data to reside on potentially any number
of geographically dispersed map servers, which is a most beneficial
feature. A user with permission to access the geographically dispersed
data sets need only have access to a web browser in order to view,
query, and analyze the data sets. The full range of analytical
capabilities available in most contemporary desktop GIS however is not
available on the web browser (or WebGIS client) since they are built on
the thin-client concept. To include more functionalities at the client
end would seem to defeat the concept of the low cost and convenience of
utilizing only a web-browser to access spatial data.

Although still effectively in their infancy, these new technologies show
remarkable promise for rapid development. Major potential benefits to
stakeholders from the use of web-GIS technologies include having access
to another's data set and thereby affording cost-effective data sharing
and integration to support the pursuit of each stakeholder's mandate.
Also, having access to another stakeholder's data set facilitates
combined decision support toward the sustainable development of
whichever resource is of interest. Additionally all this can be done
without the costs associated with maintaining a wide range of data sets
outside of one's mandate, as well as the costs associated with
maintaining computer networks, and employing a large body of qualified
human resources among other things \[Shu-Ching et al, 2000\].

**The CARIS Spatial Fusion Web Mapping Solution**

One of the objectives of the "Good Governance of Canada's Oceans"
project was to develop and enhance visualization tools for marine
boundary delimitation. CARIS, a project partner, provided the CARIS
Spatial Fusion software that allowed the project to access marine
cadastral information from different locations. CARIS Spatial Fusion is
a \"web-mapping\" technology that lets users integrate distributed data
sources, in various data formats[^22], using a web browser. Raster
images such as BSB and HCRF raster charts as well as digital orthophotos
in Tiff or GeoTiff can be brought in as backdrops to vector and point
data. The software also allows flexibility to expand the functionality
of the software through customization with CARIS Spatial Fusion
Developer tools \[Fitzgerald, 2000\].

CARIS Spatial Fusion is made by fusing Java Bean technology with Orbix,
that is the leading CORBA Object Request Broker (ORB) from IONA
technologies \[Caris, 1999\]\]. This combination makes possible to have
a link between distributed services and thin customizable clients. The
data is not downloaded and processed by the web browser but is instead
performed by the Fusion services \[Fitzgerald, 2000\]. Not only does
this keep the client thin, but also it secures the data itself by
keeping it on the server.

Spatial Fusion consists of a customized Java client and a number of
Fusion Data Services. On the server side, Spatial Fusion is made up of
the following components \[Caris, 1999, Fitzgerald, 2000\]:

1.  *A Web Server:* The web server is not bundled with Spatial Fusion
    and one must already be running on the network. For the Musquash MPA
    the Microsoft Personal Web Server was installed and used to run the
    Spatial Fusion Data Service.

2.  *Orbix™ Runtime*: This component needs to be installed on every
    machine that hosts a Fusion Data Service. The Orbix™ Runtime lets
    the Spatial Fusion applet and the Data Services communicate across
    the Internet. Since the project was using CARIS Spatial Fusion
    Version 2.5.1, Orbix service was configured to start automatically
    when the data server computer was rebooted.

3.  *Catalog Service:* This service is used to list all of the available
    Fusion Data Services. For the Musquash MPA, this was analogous to
    providing an index service to the various geographical locations of
    the marine cadastral information identified in Table 1.

4.  *Fusion Data Services:* These services are registered with the
    OrbixWeb™ Implementation Repository and contain an accompanying
    configuration file that contains the name used to register the
    service and the location of the data source.

5.  *Configuration Utilities:* CARIS MapSmith™ is provided together with
    CARIS Spatial Fusion to help customize the display of the supported
    data formats. The data is prepared into the different data layers,
    and can be re-projected into a different projection.

**The Musquash MPA Spatial Fusion Application**

The Musquash MPA Spatial Fusion Application was built in conjunction
with Service New Brunswick and CARIS. The site is password protected and
only authorized users are able to gain access to the services provided.
As far as the authorized user is concerned, they simply download the
Fusion applet from the Musquash MPA Spatial Fusion web server and they
can easily open data from any fusion service they have access to,
providing them with a secure and fully scalable environment. The browser
lets users customize the client, by letting them select which datasets
they want to appear on their legend, which data sources they want to
connect to, and the order in which the want the datasets to be overlaid.
Figure 1 shows a screen capture of the Musquash Spatial Fusion
Application.

![](media/image1.png){width="7.211805555555555in"
height="5.750694444444444in"}

Figure 1: Screen Capture of Musquash MPA CARIS Spatial Fusion
Application

In this example the user has selected 18 different layers of cadastral
(and non-cadastral) information to view. Here, the user determines what
kind of information they want need for their specific problem while
having the luxury of adding and dropping other layers at will. The order
of layer drawn is usually from top to bottom, but the user is also able
to change this order by pointing to, clicking, and dragging each layer
up or down. The user can also turn on and off the display layers by
selecting the layer and placing a check mark against it. The user is
therefore able to determine what information is relevant for making a
particular decision without having to worry about the issues surrounding
data formats or the geographical location of data.

From Figure 1, it is clear that the representation of the different
boundaries in marine space is only partially appreciated by a 2D
representation. For example, the nature of interests in the existing
water lots in the Musquash estuary can only be obtained by running a
query on the database and reading through a text-based report. This is
comparable to automating an existing registry of information rather than
allowing users to be able to view the interaction of the interests in
multidimensional marine space by for example, showing how the
designation of the MPA would affect these interests. At the same time, a
2D representation will not show whether particular interests refer to
resources found in the water column, seabed or subsurface; or to
resources that move or vary with time.

Subsequently, research in the Ocean Governance project has evolved to
address the multidimensional nature of marine cadastre requirements.
This is an attempt to allow stakeholders, communities and decision
makers to be able to visualize the interaction of interests in marine
space. In future this might involve the creation of a prototype that
allows the visualization of the physical marine space (i.e. sea surface,
water column, seabed, and subsurface), the laws and regulations in
effect, and the spatial extent of static and dynamic (i.e. time varying
interests e.g. fisheries closures) interests. This is important because
in the oceans where resources and activities, and therefore rights and
restrictions, can co-exist in time and space and can move over time and
space, the interaction of public and private interests is rarely
captured by a static 2D view. Results on this phase of the project will
be made public as they are obtained.

**Summary**

Interested persons, and those who would in any way be affected by the
designation of MPAs, should be consulted in decision-making. This is
encapsulated in the consultation principle of the *Oceans Act* \[1996\]
and in the Marine Programs Policy. This paper has used the Musquash
Marine Protected Area case study to identify marine cadastral
information user needs. Cadastral information captures the interest of
stakeholders and communities in the MPA vicinity. This information would
allow users (e.g. MPA planning groups and other decision makers) to
attempt to ensure harmony between competing objectives in marine space;
such as, the environmental objective of MPA designation, economic
objectives of existing activities in the area, and public/private rights
of stakeholder and the community. Together with other marine
information, a record of the nature and extent of marine rights is what
would be contained in a marine cadastre.

**ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS**

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the Geomatics for
Informed Decisions (GEOIDE) network for their financial support.

**References**

Brody, S.D \[1998\]. An Evaluation of the Establishment Processes for
Marine Protected Areas in the Gulf of Maine: Understanding the Role of
Community Involvement and Public Participation. Report #3 on the Gulf of
Maine Marine Protected Areas Project, July 1998. Available at
http://www.gulfofmaine.org/library/mpas/process_eval_0798.pdf

Canada , Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Communications Directorate
\[1997a\]. An Approach to the Establishment and Management of Marine
Protected Areas under the Oceans Act- A Discussion Paper. Ottawa: Supply
and Services Canada, January 1997.

Canada , Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Communications Directorate
\[1997\]. Role of Provincial and Territorial Governments in the Oceans
Sector. Ottawa, Canada.

Canada , Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Communications Directorate
\[1998\]. Marine Protected Areas Program. Ottawa: Supply and Services,
Canada.

CARIS-Universal Systems Ltd \[1999\]. Caris Spatial Fusion 1.0 Users
Guide. Caris Spatial Components. Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

Crowe, V. \[2000\]. Governance of the oceans. Short report on the Wilton
Park Conference 586, December 3-5, 1999.

Fitzgerald J. \[2000\]. CARIS Spatial Fusion: an Internet GIS. White
Paper #7 http://www.spatialcomponents.com/techpapers/fusion.pdf.
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, February 4.

Godin, B., and D. Vessie \[2001\]. Internet Mapping Technology for
Integrated Coastal Zone Mapping. In proceedings of the CoastGIS 2001
Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, un-paginated CD-Rom.

Juillet, L. and J. Roy \[1999\]. Investing in people: the public service
in an information age (reflections on the 1999 APEX conference). In
Optimum, Vol. 29, No. 2/3.

Kelleher, G.C. Bleakley and S. Wells. 1995. *A Global Representative
System of Marine Protected Areas*. Vol. 1.

Kyriakou, D. and G. Di Pietro \[2000\]. \"Editorial.\" In *The IPTS
Report,* No.46, June 2000.

Miles, E. L. \[1998\]. The concept of ocean governance: Evolution
towards the 21st century and the principle of sustainable ocean use.
Paper prepared for SEAPOL workshop on ocean governance and system
compliance in the Asia-Pacific context. Rayong, Thailand, 1997.

National Research Council \[2001\]. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for
Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. Committee on the Evaluation, Design, and
Monitoring of Marine Reserves and Protected Areas in the United States,
Ocean Studies Board. National Academy Press.

New Brunswick (NB) \[1996\]. Draft Proposal for a Provincial Land Use
Policy for New Brunswick's Coastal Lands. Fredericton: Department of
Municipalities, Culture, and Housing.

Nichols, S. and D. Monahan. \[1999\]. Fuzzy Boundaries in a Sea of
Uncertainty: Canada's Offshore Boundaries. In The Coastal Cadastre -
Onland, Offshore - Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors
Annual Meeting, Bay of Islands, NZ, Oct 9-15, pp. 33-43.

Nichols, S., D. Monahan and M. D. Sutherland (2000). Good Governance of
Canada's Offshore and Coastal Zone: Towards and understanding of the
Maritime Boundary Issues. In *Geomatica*, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 415-424.

Ocean Mapping Group \[1999\]. Challenges and Opportunities for Ocean
Mapping in Canada. Contract Report submitted to the Oceans Policy
Secretariat, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Ontario, March,
33 pp.

Shu-Ching, C. et al \[2000\]. A high-performance web-based system design
for spatial data access. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Symposium on
Advances in Geographic information Systems, ACM Press.

Singh, R., M.I. Buzeta, M. Dowd, J.L. Martin and M. Gresley \[2000\].
Ecological Overview of Musquash Estuary: A Proposed Marine Protected
Area. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2538,
St. Andrews, Canada, August 2000.

**Biography**

Sam Ng\'ang\'a is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Geodesy and
Geomatics Engineering and is developing software tools for visualizing
3D marine boundary information for coastal and ocean management.

Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering

University of New Brunswick

P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3

nganga@unb.ca, 506-447-3259

Michael Sutherland is a Ph.D. student and Senior Research Assistant in
Land Administration and Cadastral Systems in the Department of Geodesy
and Geomatics Engineering and is developing global models regarding the
need for marine boundary information in coastal and ocean governance.

Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering

University of New Brunswick

P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3

msutherl@unb.ca, 506-451-6812

Dr. Sue Nichols is a professor in the Department of Geodesy and
Geomatics Engineering concerned with property rights issues on land and
at sea. She has also been involved in research on national spatial data
infrastructures in the US and Canada since 1990.

Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering

University of New Brunswick

P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NB,

E3B 5A3

nichols@unb.ca, 506-453-5141

[^1]: In this paper a marine cadastre is an information system that
    allows rights in marine space to be defined, recorded, visualised
    and managed

[^2]: ^^ Principal Author: Sam Ng'ang'a, Department of Geodesy and
    Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick, PO Box 4400,
    Fredericton, NB, Canada, E3B 5A3. Tel: 506-447-3259, Fax:
    506-453-4943, Email: nganga@unb.ca.

[^3]: Defined in this paper as internet mapping and cartographic tools
    containing limited spatial analysis and allowing spatial information
    be shared among geographically dispersed groups via the worldwide
    web.

[^4]: "Good" governance is a subjective term that assumes that the
    stakeholders have predefined goals and benchmarks for what is good.

[^5]: Generally, it is accepted that MPAs are established for: helping
    to preserve important fisheries, for protecting historical and
    cultural resources, for conducting scientific research, for
    preserving natural communities and freeing them from exploitation,
    and for establishing parks for diving \[Canada, 1997a\].

[^6]: This is very close to the definition of MPAs developed at the 4th
    World Congress and adopted by the International Union for the
    Conservation of Nature (IUCN): "Any area of intertidal or subtidal
    terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora,
    fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by
    law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed
    environment".

[^7]: This paper specifically defines the user as an individual who is
    interested in, consulted on, or is responsible for decision making
    in the MPA.

[^8]: See Appendix B at
    <http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceanscanada/newenglish/library/discussion/discussion.htm>
    for a description of the management principles.

[^9]: The consultation principle has been observed to increase the level
    of understanding and support for marine protection, thereby reducing
    potential conflicts and the need for heavy enforcement \[Brody,
    1998\].

[^10]: e.g. traditional knowledge, ecological knowledge, scientific
    survey data and various data modeling techniques.

[^11]: Used to characterize ecosystem types; and includes biological and
    ecological studies.

[^12]: There are 6 steps in the framework for establishing and managing
    individual MPAs; AOI identification, initial screening, evaluation
    and recommendation, development of a management plan, designation,
    and management.

[^13]: These are general boundary descriptions of the proposed Musquash
    MPA. The boundaries are described as including all salt marshes, mud
    flats and estuary below the high water mark \[Singh et al., 2000\].

[^14]: Funding sources included: GEOIDE NCE, DFO, NRCan and Service New
    Brunswick

[^15]: See
    [http://www.musquashmpa.ca/mpa/index_mpa.htm](http://www.musquashmpa.ca/)
    for more information on the MPAPG.

[^16]: Race Rocks, the first Canadian MPA to be proposed as an AOI, was
    declared a pilot MPA in September 1998 and officially designated in
    September 2000.

[^17]: To obtain a copy of the echogram contact Dr. John Hughes Clarke,
    Ocean Mapping Group, University of New Brunswick at jhc@omg.unb.ca

[^18]: This was done as part of the survey camp for GGE undergraduate
    students at UNB. For more information contact Dr Peter Dare at
    <dare@unb.ca> , Geodetic Research Laboratory, University of New
    Brunswick.

[^19]: From a large coastal mapping project carried out by the
    Department of Municipalities, Culture, and Housing.

[^20]: Submerged lands are currently registered as provincial Crown
    lands in county registries. New legislation is being developed that
    will see all lands covered by a central registry.

[^21]: For a complete list of project partners go to
    www.unb.ca/gge/research/OceanGov/partners.html

[^22]: supported formats include CARIS, Oracle 8i Spatial, ESRI Shape
    files, and MapInfo Mid / Mif files.