The Endangered Ecosystems Alliance, a national conservation group working to protect native and endangered ecosystems across Canada, is providing an initial reaction to today's federal announcement of its “A Force for Nature: Canada’s Strategy to Protect Nature” plan, with some happiness but also consternation. A more detailed analysis will ensue in the coming days.
Today’s announcement provides significant funding of $1.6 billion for protected areas expansion (albeit reduced from the previous 2021 Enhanced Nature Legacy budget of $2.3 billion) over the next 5 years, as well as largely rehashing a commitment to continue pre-existing conservation projects. However, it also opens the door to potential creative accounting in tracking Canada’s progress towards meeting its 30% by 2030 protection target for the lands and waters across the country, by potentially including “fake protected areas”, often referred to as OECMs (Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures) that often lack the protection standards and permanency of real protected areas.
"An initial survey of the plan shows that some fairly significant funding will be provided for protecting nature, albeit a reduction from the previous budget of the Trudeau government, while pre-existing protected areas plans will continue,” said Ken Wu, Endangered Ecosystems Alliance Executive Director. “At the same time the federal government may be moving towards creative accounting to emphasize - in the worst case scenario - fake protected areas without the protection standards and permanency of real protected areas. For example, this can include areas under partial conservation regulations that still allow for industrial resource extraction or that have readily moveable boundaries, like various types of Wildlife Habitat Areas and Old-Growth Management Areas in BC, or military lands where significant environmental impacts can still occur unless additional legal conservation restrictions are enacted, and other designations that were not created to protect nature. These areas are often like the ‘Monopoly Money’ of protected areas. Ultimately, the devil will be in the details for several parts of the government's announced plans. We will be doing a more in-depth analysis and investigation over the coming days."
To be effective, the federal plan to protect nature needs to emphasize:
Funding for the provinces, where most protected areas expansion occurs in Canada, as the provinces are directly in control of Crown lands. Funding is needed for Indigenous protected areas initiatives, resource tenure buy-outs, and for private land acquisition. While federal protected areas like national parks are among the most important and strongly protected designations in Canada, their total scale and pervasiveness is dwarfed by the provincial protected areas in Canada - to adequately protect ecosystems in Canada fundamentally requires support for the provinces (as well as pressure on them), and for numerous Indigenous communities.
A focus on establishing real protected areas (which in Canada typically take the form of provincial parks, conservancies in BC, national parks, national park reserves, and other types of protected areas with the permanency and conservation standards that prohibit industrial logging, mining, oil and gas, major energy projects, and agricultural conversion of ecosystems) rather than OECMs that often lack the protection standards and permanency of real protected areas.
Ecosystem-based protection targets, that is, protection targets for every ecosystem to ensure their adequate protection, including the most contested and least represented ecosystems typically in southern Canada. Without ecosystem-based targets, governments will emphasize protecting areas with low to no value to resource industries - such as vast areas of tundra and muskeg, which are important ecosystems to protect, but are at a much lower risk of development per hectare compared to the heavily contested lands largely in southern Canada coveted for timber, agricultural conversion and suburban development.
Legally-binding accountability mechanisms to ensure that governments achieve the protection target of 30% by 2030 (and future targets from the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, likely to be 40% by 2040 and 50% by 2050).
Based on these criteria here is a quick overview of the good, the bad and the ugly of the government's new Nature Strategy:
The Good:
$1.63 billion for expanding the protected areas system over the next 5 years - potentially* (see the Ugly for a caveat).
A continuation of pre-existing commitments, such as plans to establish 10 new national parks, 10 new national marine reserves, 15 new national urban parks, and continued protected areas agreements with the various provinces and many First Nations in Canada.
$231 million to enhance the Indigenous Guardians Programs, often related to new protected areas projects.
The Bad:
No mention of ecosystem-based protection targets to ensure the large-scale protection of all ecosystems, including the most endangered ones. Instead, Key Biodiversity Areas, areas of high conservation value, are mentioned in the government plan, which are like keeping the "cherries on the cake" - a good thing - while most of the cake can still be eaten by industry without ecosystem-based targets.
No mention of reintroducing the Nature Accountability Bill (which was introduced by Trudeau in 2024, but which was delayed due to filibustering of Parliamentary progress by the Poilievre Conservatives in 2024, and then died when Parliament was prorogued in early 2025 for the federal election) to enshrine Canada's protected areas targets into law.
Very little mention of working with the provinces to expand the "conventional" protected areas system (ie. protected areas with stronger standards and permanency), typically provincial parks and conservancies, that is the backbone of real protected areas expansion in Canada, but instead an emphasis on OECMs (*again, see the Ugly).
The Ugly:
An emphasis on potential creative accounting by focusing up to 8% of new "protected areas" by including existing OECMs (non-protected areas like areas under partial conservation regulations, grazing pastures and military lands). This could be categorized as truly "Bad" - however if the federal government requires the enactment of additional legal conservation restrictions to upgrade various OECMs to forbid all industrial resource extraction (logging, mining, oil and gas, major energy projects, agricultural conversion) and to increase their permanency, then OECMs can contribute to real protection in Canada. The details are missing in the government's plan, hence it is "Ugly" for now.
Signals in general in the wording of the government's plan that they are looking at "flexitarian" standards for protected areas that may include industrial resource extraction - where the government draws the line on whether de facto “protected areas” or OECMs can include logging, mining, and oil and gas development, or if they can simply entail greater access for lower-impact activities, remains unknown at this time.
Numerous studies show that protected areas result in a major net economic benefit for surrounding communities, including by supporting tourism, recreation, and real estate industries, by attracting skilled labour which then supports other diverse businesses, supporting carbon offset projects, providing non-timber forest products, and providing ecosystem services like clean water, natural sewage treatment, counteracting floods and extreme weather events, and more.
A new CPAWS study released in February found that protected and conserved areas in Canada generated $10.9 billion in GDP in the 2023–24 fiscal year and supported about 150,000 jobs. The study found that every $1 spent by governments and non-profits on protected and conserved areas generated $3.62 in visitor spending.
Extensive studies also show that nature is vital to our health and well-being. Time spent in nature can help counter a wide range of ailments, including heart disease, stress, anxiety, ADHD, chronic inflammation, and cancer, through pathways such as the psychological benefits of nature, exposure to phytoncides—beneficial plant compounds that can boost our immune systems—and contact with diverse beneficial bacteria and other organisms that enrich our microbiomes.
“Protecting nature is a huge net benefit for the economy, for our health and wellness, and is vital for our survival,” stated Wu. “Canada has made big promises to the world on biodiversity, now the Carney government must show it is prepared to back those promises with strong protection standards and greater cooperation (and pressure where needed) with the provinces to expand the protected areas system, while supporting Indigenous protected areas initiatives.”