Evaluation of the ECCC’s participation in the Pathway initiative

Final Report
August 2025

Acknowledgements

The Audit and Evaluation Branch thanks those who contributed to this project and acknowledges the support from Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) representatives and Pathway co-chairs who provided input and comments throughout this evaluation.

This report was prepared by the Evaluation Division of the Audit and Evaluation Branch, ECCC.

The report was approved by the Deputy Minister on August 25, 2025.

Accessibility Statement

As of the date of publication, the document has been verified for accessibility.

If you have any questions about this document, please contact us at: audit-evaluation@ec.gc.ca

List of acronyms and abbreviations

ECCC

Environment and Climate Change Canada

FPT

federal, provincial, and territorial

HCP

Habitat Conservation and Protection

ICE

Indigenous Circle of Experts

IPCA

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area

KBA

Key Biodiversity Area

NSC

National Steering Committee

OECM

other effective area-based conservation measures

1. Introduction

The Government of Canada has made several commitments towards protecting biodiversity through policies, funding initiatives, and legislation. These efforts are aimed at safeguarding Canada’s natural environment and the ecosystem services it provides, protecting wildlife habitat and connectivity corridors for species, and creating certainty for natural resource development.

The Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Habitat Conservation and Protection (HCP) Program aims to secure, protect, connect, improve, and restore ecologically sensitive habitat, including wetlands, to contribute to the conservation and protection of migratory birds, species at risk and other wildlife. It aligns with ECCC’s core responsibility to conserve nature.

1.1. Background

The HCP Program provides mechanisms to engage with organizations and individuals. The program’s partners include provincial and territorial governments; landowners; environmental non-governmental organizations; National Indigenous Organizations and Indigenous nations, governments, and communities; and other stakeholders. It contributes to the delivery of ECCC’s mandate under the Species at Risk Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the Canada Wildlife Act. Moreover, the HCP Program contributes to the achievement of targets related to protected areas and the conservation of biodiversity that Canada has committed to under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversityand the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance.

The HCP Program comprises the following 11 components:

• The Protected Areas Program
• The Ecological Gifts Program
• The Canada Nature Fund - Natural Heritage Conservation Program
• The Canada Nature Fund - Target 1 Challenge
• The Canada Nature Fund - Indigenous-led Area-Based Conservation Program
• The Canada Nature Fund - Indigenous Guardians Program
• The Nature Smart Climate Solutions Fund - Indigenous Partnership stream
• The Marine Conservation Targets Horizontal Initiative
• ECCC’s participation in the Pathway initiative
• ECCC’s participation in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada)
• ECCC’s participation in the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention)

This evaluation examined ECCC’s participation in the Pathway initiative.

1.2. Overview of ECCC’s participation in Pathway

The Pathway initiative (Pathway) was launched in 2016. It stands as a partnership between federal, provincial, and territorial (FPT) departments responsible for parks, protected areas, conservation, wildlife and biodiversity, on one hand, and National Indigenous Organizations, municipal governments, environmental non-government organizations, and youth, on the other.

Shortly after the launch, multi-stakeholder expert advisory bodies were created and were asked to provide recommendations on how Canadians could collectively achieve Canada’s national conservation targets, as committed to under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The National Advisory Panel and the Indigenous Circle of Experts mobilized best available science and traditional knowledge, and produced recommendation reports which form the basis of work undertaken under the Pathway initiative: the Canada’s Conservation Vision (PDF) and the We Rise Together (PDF) reports. The Local Government Advisory Body, comprised of municipal and regional governments across the nation, also provided recommendations on how local protected areas might contribute to the Pathway initiative. Building on this work, FPT departments responsible for parks, protected areas, conservation, wildlife, and biodiversity presented the One with Nature (PDF) report, articulating a renewed approach to land and freshwater conservation in Canada.

Pathway is not a program, nor is it a decision-making body on its own. The partnership creates a forum for collaborative work to advance shared pan-Canadian priorities for area-based conservation and safeguard Canada’s biodiversity. More information on the history of Pathway can be found on the Canada Conservation webpage.

1.2.1. Organizational elements

Federal, territorial, provincial, and municipal governments; Indigenous peoples and communities; and non-governmental organizations all have a role to play in protecting Canada’s biodiversity. They all have representation in Pathway, except for the Province of Quebec^{Footnote 1} , the Province of Prince Edward Island^{Footnote 2} , the Territory of Nunavut^{Footnote 3} , and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami^{Footnote 4} , as illustrated in Appendix 1. Pathway organizational chart.

The Pathway National Steering Committee (NSC) serves as the primary forum for advancing work on pan-Canadian priorities related to area-based conservation. The NSC is composed of director-level or equivalent members from FPT and municipal governments; National Indigenous Organizations and invited Indigenous leaders; environmental non-governmental organizations; and youth. The NSC Terms of Reference (Word document) provide more information.

1.2.2. ECCC participation in Pathway

ECCC's key roles under the Pathway Initiative are to:

• Exercise leadership as permanent co-chair of the NSC
• Act as the Pathway Secretariat and provide administrative support
• Provide expertise and participate in working groups to advance collaborative work on conservation priorities established by Pathway leadership

Over the evaluated period, ECCC spent $2.1 M to participate in and support Pathway, of which $1.6 M (or 73%) were salary expenditures.

Note 1. Financial information provided by ECCC staff. The salary expenditures reported in this table do not include Employee Benefits Plans.

Note 2. Lower expenditures recorded in 2018-2019 are attributable to a change in federal leadership in the Pathway initiative from the Parks Canada Agency to ECCC.

Note 3. Additional expenditures for corporate support services and for central charges are not reflected in this table.

Note 4. Due to rounding, totals may not add up.

1.3. About this evaluation

The present evaluation provides an assessment of the delivery and results of ECCC’s participation in Pathway from 2018-2019 to 2023-2024. The project mainly focused on program design, performance, efficiency, and delivery alternatives, as well as performance measurement and contribution to reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous Peoples. The evaluation was conducted using the following methodology:

• File review including work plans, records of decision, reports, research papers, news releases, backgrounders, and literature reviews (more than 250 files)
• Analysis of program administration and financial data (under 100 data points)
• Interviews with NSC co-chairs and supporting staff (4) and ECCC program administrators and officials (3)

2. Delivery and results

This section describes how the delivery of Pathway supported the achievement of expected results over the evaluated period, with an emphasis on ECCC’s contributions, Indigenous leadership in conservation, and ongoing conservation challenges of national scope.

2.1. Pan-Canadian collaboration on area-based conservation

2.1.1. A pan-Canadian forum for area-based conservation

The inception of the Pathway initiative in 2016 led to the creation of a national forum for area-based conservation. The forum has a wide membership and sustained participation through several changes in FPT governments. Initially under Parks Canada and continued through ECCC starting in 2018, Pathway adopted a collaborative approach, strengthened relations, and built a network of relationships across FPT and Indigenous partners.

Within Pathway, the NSC was established to: 1) build and strengthen relationships with partners to accelerate action on shared area-based conservation priorities; 2) broaden partnerships and establish innovative collaborations with an enhanced focus on guidance, tools, initiatives, and other creative solutions; and 3) identify and propose a collective path forward on area-based conservation, and recalibrate this path in response to emerging and shifting priorities.

According to NSC co-chairs, discussions facilitated by Pathway have been changing NSC members’ understanding of area-based conservation, moving away from a narrow focus on the number of conserved hectares towards a holistic approach that considers cultural value and people’s relationships to place; the recovery of species at risk; the socio-economic impacts of conservation; the conservation value of smaller areas; the advancement of reconciliation through Indigenous stewardship of the land; and the conservation value of working landscapes. While not all decisions in all jurisdictions reflect a holistic approach to area-based conservation, NSC co-chairs witnessed a shift in priorities towards the holistic approach over the evaluated period.

Pathway provides a venue for many partners to engage in an ongoing conversation on area-based conservation. In addition to representatives from FPT and municipal governments and National Indigenous Organizations, Pathway now includes other Indigenous leaders, representatives from environmental non-governmental organizations, and youth. According to interviewed co-chairs, members have indicated that if Pathway and its NSC did not exist, the Canadian conservation community would be working to create a national forum for nature conservation.

The Pathway Secretariat hosted by ECCC successfully delivered on its mandate to:

• Support NSC co-chairs and meetings
• Advance Pathway business to ECCC executive-level meetings
• Support NSC members’ participation in speaking events
• Liaise between NSC and its working groups

Interviewed co-chairs indicated that the Secretariat worked collaboratively and proactively to support the NSC and Pathway operations as a whole.

In December 2023, FPT ministers responsible for parks, protected areas, conservation, wildlife and biodiversity committed to continue their participation in Pathway, acknowledging the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework conservation targets. In 2024, the Pathway website was updated to improve communication and to make information more accessible to users.

2.1.2. Results achievement

The 2019 One with Nature (PDF) report established four shared pan-Canadian priorities for area-based conservation. These priorities were reaffirmed in the 2021 Pathway Journey (PDF) report as follows:

• Expand the systems of FPT protected and conserved areas
• Promote greater recognition and support for existing Indigenous rights, responsibilities, and priorities in conservation
• Maximize conservation outcomes
• Build support and participation in conservation with a broader community

The One with Nature report also presents the potential actions for achieving shared pan-Canadian priorities for area-based conservation. While there is collective support for these priorities and corresponding potential actions, Pathway members recognize and yield to the principle that jurisdictions may adapt these potential actions or undertake separate efforts, according to their unique contexts and needs. Similarly, the proposed actions in the 2021 Pathway Journey report do not create obligations for or represent formal commitments on behalf of those who continue to carry this work forward.

Over the evaluated period, members of the Pathway initiative were successful in advancing all four priorities, as evidenced by the following results:

• Established definitions for protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Based on internationally agreed-to definitions, Pathway developed pan-Canadian definitions and criteria for determining what sites qualify as protected areas or as other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM). These definitions and criteria are laid out in the One with Nature (PDF) report, the pan-Canadian approved Decision Support Tool (PDF) as well as in Common questions and answers on OECMs (PDF).
• Developed guidance for and documentation on Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas. While there is no strict definition of what constitutes an Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area (IPCA), Pathway developed pan-Canadian guidance on the essential elements of such areas in Appendix 4 of the 2019 One with Nature (PDF) report, based on recommendations from the Indigenous Circle of Experts and their 2018 We Rise Together report (PDF). Pathway also documented Common questions and answers related to IPCAs (PDF) and a knowledge gathering process (PDF) on conditions for the success and resilience of IPCAs and other forms of Indigenous leadership in conservation.
• Established systematic national accounting. While protected areas have been tracked and reported in Canada since the 1990s, conservation partners did not have a standardized, national way of identifying them until recently. Pathway addressed this situation by defining accounting principles (PDF) for protected and other conserved areas. Based on the foundational work completed by the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, Pathway also led the establishment of the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database, a national public database containing information on areas included in Canada’s network of protected areas and OECMs. This database is now managed by ECCC’s Protected Areas Program.
• Increased the extent of Canadian protected and conserved areas. According to the NSC co-chairs, the extent of Canadian protected and conserved areas has increased over the evaluated period, due in part to work undertaken under Pathway. In the seven years between 2017 and 2024^{Footnote 5} , 356,423 square kilometers of new protected and conserved areas were added to the national network, bringing the proportion of Canada’s conserved land and freshwater from 10.2 percent to 13.8 percent. The increase represents a total area roughly the size of Japan.
• Increased ambition for nature conservation. Provinces and territories govern 76 percent of Canada’s lands and inland waters, playing a key role in the conservation of biodiversity across the country. Due in part to Pathway, several provincial and territorial governments have increased their conservation commitments by updating their previous area-based conservation targets or by adopting new targets, as described below:
  • British Columbia committed to conserve 30 percent of its territory by 2030, up from a target of 17 percent established in 2015.
  • Manitoba committed to conserve 30 percent of its territory by 2030, up from a target of 12 percent of its “natural regions” established in 1993.
  • Yukon committed to conserve 25.1 percent of its territory (an additional 4 percent to the current 21.1 percent) by 2025.
  • Nova Scotia committed to conserve 20 percent of its territory by 2030, up from a target of 13 percent established in 2015.
  • New Brunswick committed to conserve 15 percent of its territory, up from a target of 10 percent established in 2019.
• Started work to identify Canada’s Key Biodiversity Areas. Under Pathway, Canada became one of the first countries to actively pursue the identification of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), based on the global standard published in 2016 (PDF). The KBA Standard is used to identify sites that are critical to the conservation of biodiversity at the national scale. KBAs can be used to advance or support diverse conservation goals and to ensure conservation efforts and land acquisition are focused on areas that contribute to meeting both quantitative and qualitative targets for biodiversity conservation. As recommended by the Pathway National Advisory Panel (PDF), a national KBA standard (PDF) was developed to account for national conservation priorities, making Canada the first country in the world to develop a national standard. This work continues to be advanced by the KBA Canada coalition in partnership with Pathway and its members.

2.2. Indigenous leadership in conservation

2.2.1. Indigenous Circle of Experts

The Indigenous Circle of Experts (ICE) (PDF) was established to provide advice and recommendations to the Government of Canada on how to best fulfill conservation commitments while honoring the spirit and practice of reconciliation with the Indigenous Peoples of Canada. A key element in this has been considering how IPCAs could be realized in Canada. The 2018 We Rise Together (PDF) report summarizes the work undertaken by ICE members over two years and presents recommendations. Members of ICE included a core group of Indigenous experts from across Canada, and officials from FPT jurisdictions.

Prior to the creation of Pathway, there was no forum for Indigenous conservation leaders to engage directly with FPT representatives. According to NSC co-chairs, Pathway played a significant role in reframing the role of Indigenous Peoples in Canada with respect to nature conservation. Establishment of both ICE and the IPCA working group and inviting National Indigenous Organizations to sit on the NSC with an equal voice with FPT governments were a tangible recognition of Indigenous leadership in conservation.

The 2018 We Rise Together report identifies Four Moose^{Footnote 6}  that regularly come up in conversations about Indigenous-led conservation: jurisdiction, financial solutions, capacity development, and cultural keystone species and places. These issues need to be addressed to foster conservation partnerships in the spirit of reconciliation. According to NSC co-chairs, the report completed by ICE was and continues to be recognized as the reference for recommendations and measures to support and advance Indigenous leadership in conservation in Canada.

When the ICE shared their recommendations in March 2018, a Sacred Bundle was presented to federal and provincial ministers, who were then co-leads of the Pathway initiative, through a formal, in-person Indigenous ceremony held in Ottawa.

2.2.2. Ethical space and two-eyed seeing

Ethical space is understood as a framework for collaboration for Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous peoples to meaningfully interact with one another in mutual respect of their distinct worldviews and knowledge systems, and to collaborate, co-create solutions, and achieve common ground.

Ethical space reflects the historic approach to engagement between Indigenous Peoples and settler society at the signing of the first treaties, which were founded on mutual respect and co-existence. While agreeing to formally enter ethical space may be straightforward for most parties, being within that space together requires a flexibility based on valuing relationships and honoring commitments. According to the We Rise Together report, parties may frequently need to pivot to cope with unforeseen situations that cannot be envisioned at the initial stage. While engaged in ethical space, no party can claim to have achieved or entered into processes of consultation or accommodation as defined under existing or previous provincial or federal legislation or policies, as this is not the purpose of ethical space.

The creation of an ethical space has challenged conventional approaches and ways of knowing. Over the evaluated period, Pathway members have strengthened their recognition that there are multiple ways of knowing and that we are better off when these systems are put into conversation, according to NSC co-chair and Pathway reports. This idea is called “two-eyed seeing” and it posits that all knowledge systems are equal, with no single system having more weight or legitimacy than another.

The next two subsections highlight how the ethical space was established and maintained by Pathway partners over the evaluated period.

2.2.3. Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas

The One with Nature and the We Rise Together reports describe IPCAs as lands and waters where Canada’s Indigenous Peoples have the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance, and knowledge systems. This encompasses areas that may be different in terms of ecology, jurisdiction, or management. Despite these differences, IPCAs are generally characterized by the following three elements:

• They are led by Indigenous Peoples
• They represent a long-term commitment to conservation
• They elevate Indigenous rights and responsibilities

Initial calls for Indigenous-led area-based conservation proposals through the Canada Nature Fund made funding available both for establishment and for preliminary work towards the establishment or recognition of protected and conserved areas. In the early days, ECCC sought proposals directly from Indigenous groups, and provincial or territorial governments were not always involved from the start. According to NSC co-chairs, Pathway proved to be a good forum for all conservation partners to work out better ways for ECCC to support Indigenous-led area-based conservation while working inclusively with all relevant partners. The subsequent calls for proposals involved provincial and territorial partners and showed evidence of learning by doing, according to NSC co-chairs.

Over the evaluated period, Pathway conservation partners reported on lessons and experiences with IPCAs across the jurisdictional landscape of Canada (PDF). For example, some respondents used dual designation systems to provide support and validation for conservation projects. The principle of dual designation allows partners to agree to disagree on jurisdiction while moving forward together to do the work of achieving shared goals. In dual-designation systems, both Indigenous and Crown government laws establish the protected area in parallel, demonstrating creativity and flexibility in addressing the “Moose” of jurisdiction. ECCC participated in this experimentation and, as a result, the Edéhzhíe protected area, the first IPCA in Canada established since the inception of Pathway, is designated both as a Dehcho Protected Area (2018) and as a National Wildlife Area (2022).

2.2.4. Representation and participation in Pathway

The innovative, relationship-based pan-Canadian approach adopted by Pathway from the outset contrasts with the traditional FPT-Indigenous engagement on conservation. From the initial invitation, through to having an equal voice at the NSC and participating in working groups, Indigenous Peoples of Canada have been represented and have participated in Pathway.

This being said, although Pathway is making space for Indigenous leadership, the number of Indigenous members of the NSC is low, as pointed out by the co-chairs. Over the evaluated period, both the Assembly of First Nations and the Métis National Council have been members of the NSC. While the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami has a standing invitation to the NSC, it has chosen not to participate for the time being and to advance conservation efforts through other avenues instead. As a result, the NSC has had two representatives of Indigenous organizations over most of the evaluated period. Recently, one additional Indigenous leader joined the NSC as an independent Indigenous representative.

In addition to NSC membership, Indigenous representation in Pathway has been a priority within the previous IPCA working group and the current Indigenous-led area-based conversation working group. However, there has been limited and inconsistent Indigenous participation in the working groups. NSC co-chairs pointed out three interrelated reasons for limited and irregular Indigenous participation:

• Pathway does not offer compensation for the workload associated with these roles
• Most Indigenous experts in conservation are highly solicited and already committed to work and have limited capacity to take on more responsibilities
• Positive outcomes through participation in the working groups are not clear for all participants, in large part because Pathway is not a decision-making body on its own

The Métis National Council observed in the 2021 Pathway Journey (PDF) report that “as efforts moved from building relationships and seeking recommendations into what was referred to as the ‘implementation phase’, there was a noticeable loss of transparency in the process. This resulted in what felt like an erosion of relationships, collaboration and capacity support of Métis Nation partners. It felt as though the role of Métis Nation representatives shifted from being active and equal participants to being one, smaller voice among many.” In addition, the Métis National Council highlighted that its limited capacity translated into a difficulty to manage many interrelated nature discussions. This concern is echoed by the Assembly of First Nations, which highlight in their contribution to Canada’s 2030 Nature Strategy the importance of addressing capacity needs.

Over the evaluated period, there were no funded mechanisms or dedicated efforts to increase Indigenous conservation experts’ participation in Pathway. Unfunded efforts to increase Indigenous participation in Pathway included inviting Indigenous representatives to become members of working groups and inviting additional Indigenous leaders to join the NSC, one of whom accepted the invitation. With the understanding that capacity and funding is a limiting factor for the participation of Indigenous partners under the HCP Program, distinctions-based Nature Tables were co-developed with National Indigenous Organizations to support First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Nation capacity to provide ECCC, and other relevant departments, with strategic advice, recommendations, and innovative solutions on shared nature priorities. Contribution agreements provide capacity for Indigenous partners’ involvement in the Tables.

2.3. Ongoing national conservation challenges

In the 2019 One with Nature (PDF) report, FPT departments responsible for parks, protected areas, conservation, wildlife and biodiversity lay out a common approach to advancing area-based conservation. The Pathway approach seeks to address the following three ongoing challenges to biodiversity conservation in Canada:

• Protecting the right amount of habitat to support viable populations for all species
• Protecting the right areas so that protected and conserved areas can function as a representative ecological network, not simply as “islands of green”
• Managing areas in the right way, emphasizing cooperation across jurisdictional boundaries and respecting natural boundaries where possible

These challenges highlight the continued need for FPT and Indigenous collaboration in area-based conservation because wildlife populations, species at risk, ecological regions, and areas of high conservation value do not align with man-made jurisdictional boundaries.

Two related national conservation challenges are highlighted in the expert literature but were not part of the Pathway initiative mandate: addressing climate change impacts on conservation values and advancing biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning across Canada.

Going forward, pan-Canadian collaboration on these conservation issues could be supported by Pathway or a dedicated structure similar to Pathway.

2.3.1. Climate change impacts on biodiversity

The 2018 One with Nature and the 2021 Pathway Journey reports both recognize a link between climate change and area-based conservation. This link is characterized as protected and conserved areas having the ability to help mitigate or adapt to climate change, framing area-based conservation as a “natural solution to climate change.” According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, nature-based solutions “address societal challenges through actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems, benefiting people and nature at the same time.”

There is another important way in which climate change and biodiversity conservation are linked: the impact of our changing climate on biodiversity and ecosystems. According to a recent horizon scan of emerging issues related to protected and conserved areas in Canada, climate change impacts is one of the key areas where attention is required to manage risks to protected areas design, planning, and management. Specifically, the study identified the following emerging issues related to climate change impacts:

• Long-term and large-scale ecosystem-level effects of climate change
• Ecological integrity in a climate-change context
• Species translocations to and from protected areas
• Effects of changing snow patterns on protected area management
• Effects of interplay between wildland fire and climate change

Climate change is increasing average temperatures and shifting weather patterns across Canada and is expected to continue to do so for centuries to come. This trend is expected to have significant impacts on Canada’s ecoregions: higher average temperatures, more intense precipitation, declines in snow cover, raising coastal water levels, stronger storms, and warmer lakes and rivers, to name a few. These impacts are expected to compound existing threats to biodiversity, such as invasive species, and may give rise to new challenges for protected and conserved area management, such as the need to address climate refugia and assisted migration.

According to a national panel of conservation experts, targeted research is needed to assess the effectiveness of current management actions and policies in supporting the conservation of biodiversity under different scenarios for climate change. ECCC’s 2024 report on national priorities for climate change science and knowledge also highlights the need for: improving our understanding of climate change impacts on ecosystems attributes and biodiversity resilience and change; advancing multidisciplinary science and knowledge to inform climate adaptation solutions that promote resilient ecosystems in a changing climate; and synthesizing and mobilizing knowledge of ecosystem resilience to support and improve adaptive conservation management in a changing climate. Best practices for integrating climate change into protected and conserved area management plans and planning processes include taking a regional perspective and fostering landscape-scale conservation, which may in certain cases require collaboration across Canadian jurisdictions.

2.3.2. Biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning

According to conservation experts, biodiversity-inclusive national spatial planning is required to achieve important conservation outcomes, such as addressing national conservation deficits, representing ecosystem diversity, conserving remaining wilderness, ensuring connectivity and resilience, and managing conservation values in the face of climate change, while accounting for socio-economic considerations.

Without systematic spatial planning, conservation has been shown to exhibit biases and ecological representation deficits. Globally, historical conservation decisions have led to the establishment of protected areas on lands with higher elevations and steeper slopes, and located far from population centers and in northern regions. Canada exhibits similar patterns of protected area establishment. As a result, only 15 percent of all terrestrial vertebrates, plants, and butterflies in Canada, representing only 6.6 percent of species at risk, are adequately represented in existing protected areas across the country.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework also highlights the importance of systematic spatial planning, which comprises its Target 1 – Plan and Manage all Areas To Reduce Biodiversity Loss. Target 1 aims to bring the loss of areas of importance for biodiversity, including areas of high ecological integrity, close to zero by 2030, through participatory, integrated, and biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning at the national scale. Systematic spatial planning makes it possible to consider land- and sea-use change at appropriate geographic scales, involving all jurisdictions as well as Indigenous Rights holders across the full extent of national territory. Systematic spatial planning to bring the loss of areas of importance for biodiversity close to zero by 2030 would complement Pathway work to support the expansion of the network of protected and conserved areas.

Biodiversity outcomes cannot be achieved through existing protected and conserved areas alone. Some of Canada’s most productive and biodiverse areas are located in southern regions, which have experienced the largest decline in habitat and biodiversity due to their history of agricultural, urban, and industrial land uses. These pressures on habitat and biodiversity continue to this day, with the highest threats to biodiversity being recorded in areas with the greatest amount of agriculture and largest population centers. Systematic national spatial planning supports management decisions that can benefit ecosystems, wildlife, and people as it considers the full range of human activities, as well as potential conflicts among competing uses, to ensure that species and ecosystems can persist and thrive, including under changing climatic conditions.

Biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning is inherently complex. Addressing the full breadth of biodiversity requires involvement from multiple stakeholders across jurisdictions, each with different values, traditions, and relationships with the land, coast, sea, and ice. ECCC estimates suggest that at least 60 percent of Canada's land and freshwater area is covered by some kind of spatial planning, though not all existing plans or planning processes would be considered as meeting the standard set by the Global Biodiversity Framework: spatial planning ought to be participatory, integrated, and inclusive of biodiversity.

In its 2030 Nature Strategy, the Government of Canada has committed to advance Target 1 in the marine environment, where it has jurisdictional authority. However, in the terrestrial environment, provincial and territorial governments have responsibility for resources (except on federally administered lands) and their leadership is crucial to achieving this target, with the federal government and Indigenous Peoples playing a supporting role. The Strategy notes that additional avenues may be explored, such as pursuing strategic opportunities to advance and support spatial planning in other jurisdictions, and developing pan-Canadian guidance, including definitions tailored to the Canadian context where needed, to support biodiversity integration in spatial planning. This body of work would benefit from pan-Canadian coordination and leadership, informed by a relationship-based approach similar to the Pathway initiative.

3. Conclusion

The Pathway initiative (Pathway) has successfully fostered collaboration among diverse stakeholders, advancing Canada's conservation goals through a holistic approach. Over the evaluated period, significant progress was made in expanding protected areas, supporting Indigenous conservation efforts, and increasing conservation commitments across Canada. The establishment of Pathway provided a pan-Canadian forum for area-based conservation and enhancing relationships and partnerships. While the initiative has promoted ethical space and two-eyed seeing, there are opportunities to increase Indigenous participation. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) played a pivotal role as the permanent co-chair of the National Steering Committee, providing leadership and administrative support. The department’s expertise and active participation in working groups were crucial in advancing collaboration on conservation priorities. Pathway's innovative, relationship-based approach sets a strong foundation for future conservation efforts. A similar approach could be helpful in addressing ongoing conservation challenges of national scale which would benefit from pan-Canadian coordination and leadership, such as managing climate change impacts on biodiversity and moving towards biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning.

4. Appendix 1. Pathway organizational chart

Source: 2023 Pathway organizational chart (PDF)