Status Report on Protected and Conserved Areas 2016-2020

Introduction

Protected areas in Canada

As Canadians, we are fortunate to enjoy a country rich in natural landscapes. These natural landscapes are woven into the cultures and livelihoods of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples and are the fabric of Canada. Parks, wildlife refuges, recreation areas, and a myriad of other protected and conserved areas have been established to protect and conserve this natural legacy. These areas now form a network^{Footnote 1}  that plays a vital role in conserving nature in the face of urbanization, industrial development, and climate change. Protected and conserved areas preserve biodiversity, safeguard ecosystems and wildlife habitat, and help us mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. They provide opportunities for recreation; they support tourism activities and cultural activities; and they foster healthy connections with nature that improve the quality of our lives and our health^{Footnote 2} .

About the report

This Canadian Protected Areas Status Report is the fourth in a series of reports that provides a detailed overview of the extent and growth of Canada’s terrestrial^{Footnote 3}  and marine protected and conserved areas network. The Canadian Protected Areas Status Report provides a benchmark to assess the progress and trends in area-based conservation in Canada. This report is the fourth in the series and covers the period from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. The previous edition of this report covered a four-year period from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015, and the first two editions covered a six-year period from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2005, and from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2011, respectively.

This report summarizes the actions undertaken by Crown governments, Indigenous Peoples, land trust organizations, and others to protect important ecosystems, conserve biodiversity, safeguard the services provided by ecosystems, plan and manage areas effectively, and improve the connectivity between conserved areas. The scope of this report includes Canada’s protected and conserved areas network as a whole and at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels.

Types of protected and conserved areas reported

Canada’s conservation network is as diverse as it is unique—and it consists of more than just National Wildlife Areas and National Parks. Canada’s conserved lands and waters also include regional, provincial and territorial parks and protected areas, privately protected areas, Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas, and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECM). Together, these conserved lands contribute to our protected and conserved areas network and support progress towards achieving Canada Target 1. For the purposes of this report, protected and conserved areas are grouped into two categories: protected areas and OECMs. Guidance and minimum requirements for assessing sites as protected areas or OECMs in Canada is provided through the Pathway to Canada Target 1 Decision Support ToolFootnote 4 . Guidance for assessing federal marine OECMs is provided through the Marine OECM guidance.

Protected Areas

All protected areas included in this report meet the pan-Canadian definition, which aligns with the international definition, of a protected area:

“A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values^{Footnote 5} ”.

Protected areas organizations in Canada classify protected areas according to their management approach and governance regime in accordance with the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) management categories and governance typology^{Footnote 6} . This includes protected areas governed by various levels of government (federal, provincial, territorial, regional), as well as Indigenous-led areas, private protected areas, and shared governance models (e.g., co-management protected areas).

Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECM)

OECMs are areas that are governed and managed in ways that achieve the conservation of biodiversity over the long term, regardless of the primary objective for which the area-based measure was initially established. As such, biodiversity conservation is not the primary purpose of terrestrial OECMs^{Footnote 7} , although marine OECMs established in Canada so far have often had biodiversity conservation as their primary purpose. The pan-Canadian OECM guidance for terrestrial OECMs and the DFO interim Operational Guidance for Identifying OECMs in Canada’s Marine Environment (in place during the 2016-2020 reporting period) align with the international guidelines and standards established by the IUCN and UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD’s definition of OECMs, adopted by Canada, is:

“a geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values.^{Footnote 2} ”

Examples of OECMs include portions of military training areas, municipal watershed areas set aside for water protection, among others. In Canada, marine and terrestrial OECM were formally recognized in 2017 and 2018, respectively, and contributed to the extent and growth of Canada’s protected and conserved areas network from 2015 to 2020.

Strategic initiatives to conserve nature

The 2016-2020 timeframe aligns with Canada’s reporting on the 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada —including Canada Target 1— and reporting to the Convention on Biological Diversity on its contribution to the Convention’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020.

International Targets

In 2010, a Strategic Plan for Biodiversity was adopted internationally at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve biodiversity and enhance its benefits to people. This plan included 20 global biodiversity targets, known as the Aichi Targets. Each party to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to contribute to achieving the targets by the year 2020. Canada, the European Community and the other 195 parties in this global plan were encouraged to develop their own national targets using the Aichi Targets as a guide^{Footnote 8} . In response, Canada adopted a suite of national targets in 2015 known as the 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada. The four goals and 19 targets cover issues ranging from species at risk, to sustainable forestry, to connecting Canadians to nature. The first target, Canada Target 1, inspired by Aichi Target 11 (see textbox below), aimed to conserve 17% of Canada’s terrestrial areas and inland water – roughly four times the size of Germany – and 10% of coastal and marine areas by the end of 2020 through Protected Areas or Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures.

Pathway to Canada Target 1

Pathway to Canada Target 1 (hereafter referred to as Pathway) was launched in 2016 to help accelerate progress toward the 17% terrestrial and inland water portion of Canada Target 1. Pathway is a partnership of federal, provincial, and territorial departments responsible for conservation, biodiversity, parks, and protected areas, as well as Indigenous representative organizations and municipal governments. Members worked together to expand the system of protected and conserved areas across the country, build support for conservation, and promote greater recognition for Indigenous rights and priorities in conservation. This included the creation of the multi-stakeholder National Advisory Panel and the Indigenous Circle of Experts. These expert advisory bodies were asked to provide recommendations on how Canadians could collectively achieve Canada Target 1 using the best available science and traditional knowledge.  The marine and coastal component of Canada Target 1 is planned through a separate process led by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard in collaboration with the provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples and other stakeholders^{Footnote 9} .

One with Nature

In 2018-2019, Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial departments responsible for parks, protected areas, conservation, wildlife and biodiversity released pan-Canadian guidance for protected and conserved areas in the One with Nature report. This multilateral report highlights priorities and actions that Pathway members can take and promote to progress towards achieving Canada Target 1^{Footnote 9} . The One with Nature report prioritized the expansion of federal, provincial and territorial protected and conserved areas systems and defined an agreed-upon approach to a renewed pan-Canadian accounting system for many protected and conserved area types.

Departments and agencies that contributed to the report

The Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Status Report 2016–2020 was produced by Environment and Climate Change Canada in close collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Parks Canada, under the supervision of federal, provincial and territorial Assistant Deputy Minister members of the Conservation, Wildlife and Biodiversity Steering Group (CWBSG).

The report is based on information and data provided by a number of protected and conserved area organizations and government departments:

• Alberta: Parks Operations Division, Alberta Forestry, Parks and Tourism and Lands Division, Alberta Environment and Protected Areas
• British Columbia: BC Parks and Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship
• Manitoba: Conservation and Climate (previously Sustainable Development)
• New Brunswick: Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development and Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture
• Newfoundland and Labrador:  Policy, Planning and Natural Areas Division, Department of Environment and Climate Change and ParksNL, Department of Tourism, Culture, and Recreation
• Northwest Territories: Environment and Natural Resources, Environmental Stewardship and Climate Change Branch
• Nova Scotia: Protected Areas and Ecosystems Branch, Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Parks Division, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources and Renewables
• Nunavut: Department of Environment, Parks and Heritage Division
• Ontario: Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Ontario Parks
• Prince Edward Island: Forests, Fish and Wildlife Division, PEI Department of Environment, Energy, and Climate Action (previously Communities, Land and Environment)
• Quebec: Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs, Direction principale des aires protégées^{Footnote 12} 
• Saskatchewan: Ministry of Environment, Fish, Wildlife and Land Branch and Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport
• Yukon: Parks Branch and Fish and Wildlife Branch, Department of Environment
• Government of Canada: Environment and Climate Change Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Parks Canada
• Non-governmental organizations: Nature Conservancy Canada and Ducks Unlimited Canada

Data sources

The Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database (CPCAD) is the primary source of data for analysis presented in this report. CPCAD is managed by ECCC. Responsibility for source data accuracy and completeness lies with the protected and conserved areas data providers.

Data from the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database (CPCAD)

CPCAD is managed by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and used for national and international reporting. CPCAD contains the most up to date spatial and attribute data on marine and terrestrial protected areas and OECMs, which consolidated from all jurisdictions with responsibilities for protected and conserved areas in Canada^{Footnote 13Footnote 14} . Although CPCAD is the common system for collective reporting, it does not negate jurisdictions having their own spatial and data reporting systems.

At least once each year, federal, provincial and territorial departments and agencies submit geospatial and ancillary data for protected and conserved areas within their jurisdiction to CPCAD. Data on areas controlled by Indigenous or non-governmental organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ducks Unlimited Canada, are included where a jurisdiction has recognized and reported those areas. Data submitted includes the name of the area, its geospatial location, boundaries, official area, biome (terrestrial/marine), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected area management category, managing jurisdiction, and protection date, among other information.

The percentages of terrestrial and marine area protected and conserved were calculated using a terrestrial area of Canada of 9 984 670 km² and a marine area of 5 750 000 km². Data are current as of December 31, 2020. Detailed information on CPCAD’s data sources and methods can be found in the appendix.

Questionnaire Data

A standardized questionnaire was completed by protected and conserved area organizations in fall and winter 2022-2023, to report on conditions for the 2016-2020 reporting period. In responding to the questionnaire, organizations provided information on several topics including: protected areas design, planning and establishment; legislation, policy, objectives, and management; monitoring and reporting; participation, collaboration, and leadership of Indigenous Peoples; engagement and consultation of local communities, private landowners and other organizations in the establishment and management of protected areas; ecological integrity and connectivity; climate change, ecological threats, and other challenges; updates and accomplishments; financial resources for protected areas; and visitation.

This questionnaire is an integral source of information for the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Status Report series to understand progress made in each jurisdiction. Many questions from previous editions of the questionnaire remain unchanged to enable comparison with previous results. Some questions have been edited for clarity and to facilitate responses and a few new questions have been added.

Data limitations

Questionnaire data

Questionnaire data is inherently subject to certain methodological limitations. Firstly, the accuracy of the data collected is dependent on the respondents’ ability to provide accurate answers. Secondly, the respondents’ interpretation of the questions may differ from what was intended by the questionnaire designer, leading to inaccurate data. Unlike qualitative methods such as interviews, questionnaires can lack depth and context. They are static and do not allow for follow-up questions based on responses. This can limit the richness of the data collected.

Questionnaires have been designed and analyzed by Environment and Climate Change Canada with a consideration for potential limitations and varying interpretations of questions. Questionnaires have been refined over time to minimize ambiguities reported by respondents. ECCC sent the questionnaire specifically to informed practitioners in protected and conserved areas, operating under the assumption that respondents were familiar with the topics addressed. During the analysis phase, any off-topic or ambiguous questionnaire responses were flagged to prevent bias in the results.

The responsibility for ensuring data accuracy from questionnaires ultimately lies with the respondents (provinces, territories, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and federal departments responsible for area-based conservation).

CPCAD Data

CPCAD data are regularly reviewed and updated. The completeness of the database is continuously being improved as qualifying protected and conserved areas are reviewed and added to the database. Information on the protection date for sites with previously unreported dates may influence trend calculations. The data in this report only encompasses areas that have been officially reported to the national database.   Some protected and conserved areas may not have been officially reported.

Trends are estimated based on the date a site was established, rather than the date when it was recognized as a Protected Area or Other Effective area-based Conservation Measure (OECM). As such, totals for the previous year may change as data are updated. Comparisons with previous reports should be made with caution, as data quality and completeness continue to improve. Privately protected land and OECMs contribute to achievement of Canada's targets, but many are not yet captured within the database.

For more information on data limitations, refer to Appendix 2.

Chapter 1: Portrait of Canada’s protected and conserved areas: extent, growth, governance, and ecological representativeness

Context

The period from 2016 to 2020 was a crucial time for Canada’s conservation efforts. Over this period, the country set a goal to conserve 17% of its terrestrial areas and 10% of its marine areas by 2020 (Canada Target 1).  Most importantly, this period also saw the recognition of Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs), which are areas that do not meet the formal definition of protected areas but are managed in a way that effectively conserves biodiversity over the long term.

This chapter provides an overview of the extent and growth of Canada’s terrestrial and marine protected and conserved area network from the beginning of 2016 to the end of 2020. Furthermore, it presents an analysis of the ecological representativeness, governance, and geographical distribution of protected and conserved areas.

Distribution and size of protected and conserved areas

The distribution and size of protected and conserved areas varies. Not surprisingly, larger terrestrial protected and conserved areas tend to be in northern Canada, where there is less competition for land use and limited or no agriculture, forestry, settlements, and road networks. Larger marine protected and conserved areas tend to be located in offshore areas or in northern Canada, where human activities are often less intensive^{Footnote 18} . In areas with denser populations and competing land uses, protected and conserved areas tend to be smaller but more numerous (Map 1).

Canada had over 9,292 terrestrial protected and conserved areas, as well as 844 marine protected and conserved areas at the end of 2020.

Map 1: Mapping Canada's network of protected and conserved areas (2020)^{Footnote 19} 

Navigate data using this interactive map.
Note: Terrestrial area includes land and freshwater. Data are current as of December 31, 2020.
Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada (2020) Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database.

Extent and growth of the network^{Footnote 21} 

By the end of 2020, Canada had successfully protected and conserved an area encompassing 1.25 million km² of land and freshwater, a region larger than Ontario, along with 795,000 km² of oceans, an area larger than Alberta. This covers 12.5% of Canada’s land surface and 13.8% of its oceans and coastal areas. Although conservation efforts have been ongoing for decades, the period from 2016 to 2020 was particularly pivotal in expanding Canada’s network of protected and conserved areas (as depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2). During this time, an additional 120,312 km² of lands and freshwater were conserved, marking an 11% increase in the size of the terrestrial network. Moreover, the marine network saw a tenfold increase with the conservation of 723,459 km² of marine territory.

Governance of Canada’s protected areas

Governance describes who holds authority and responsibility for a specific protected and conserved area. Protected areas and OECMs fall within a spectrum of “governance types”^{Footnote 23} recognized by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), including:

• Governance by governments (i.e., federal, provincial, territorial and local/municipal)
• Shared governance (collaborative, joint and/or transboundary management)
• Private governance (i.e., individual owner, non-profit organizations, for-profit organizations); and
• Governance by Indigenous Peoples and/or local communities (i.e., Indigenous Peoples’ conserved areas and territories, community conserved areas)

Governments and organizations in Canada began reporting on IUCN governance types for protected areas in 2015 (see Figure 3). This reporting expanded to include OECMs in 2017 for marine areas^{Footnote 24} and 2018 for terrestrial areas^{Footnote 16} .

Governance by government

A large majority of reported protected and conserved areas are governed by provincial, territorial, or federal governments when we consider sites by area (Figures 4 and 5). Of this^{Footnote 21} :

• Provincial and territorial governments administer or jointly administer 57% (738,000 km²) of terrestrial protected and conserved areas, and 1.5% (11,800 km²) of marine terrestrial protected and conserved areas
• The federal government administers or jointly administers 43% (541,000 km²) of terrestrial protected and conserved areas and 98% (787,000 km²) of marine protected and conserved areas

Federally, Parks Canada (PC) and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) are responsible for the majority of terrestrial protected and conserved areas in terms of total area, and PC, ECCC, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) are responsible for the majority of marine protected and conserved areas. In addition, the National Capital Commission is responsible for the management of Gatineau Park in Quebec, and Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada has historically been involved in the joint management of the Nunavut portion of the Thelon Game Sanctuary.  The Department of National Defense (DND) manages Suffield National Wildlife Area and the portions of Canadian Forces base Shilo that have been recognized as Canada’s first OECM.

Shared governance

Shared governance typically refers to a collaboration between government agencies (federal, provincial, or territorial governments) and other parties (Indigenous Peoples, a municipality, a property owner, or a land trust), in which partners share the authority by making decisions collectively. This can be done through the establishment of a governance body or other cooperative or co-management mechanisms^{Footnote 25} . Over 40 000 km² of terrestrial and marine protected and conserved area across six provinces and three territories are administered through shared governance arrangements. These consist mostly of protected and conserved areas that are co-managed by federal/ provincial/ territorial governments and Indigenous governments or communities.

Private governance

Private land conservation areas make an important contribution to Canada’s protected and conserved areas network; often protecting sensitive and significant natural habitat in otherwise developed landscapes. Private conservation areas appear almost exclusively in southern Canada.

Private protected areas include areas governed by individual landowners and non-governmental organizations. Private conservation areas include lands owned outright (in fee-simple) by conservation organizations, and partial interests including conservation easements, covenants, and servitudes.

Governance by Indigenous Peoples^{Footnote 26}

This form of governance extends to protected areas and OECM where the authority and responsibility for land management is with Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) are an example of governance by Indigenous Peoples that protect nature and cultural values. IPCAs are lands and waters where Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance, and knowledge systems^{Footnote 62} . They can encompass a variety of land protection initiatives including Tribal Parks, Indigenous Cultural Landscapes, Indigenous Protected Areas, and Indigenous conserved areas.  While IPCAs can be co-managed, many forms of governance are possible and vary according to the preference of Indigenous governments.  For instance, Wehexlaxodıale, covering an area of 976 km² in Northwest Territories, which was established in 2013 through the Tłįcho˛ Land Use Plan Act, and is exclusively governed by the Tłįcho˛ Government.

Ecological representativeness^{Footnote 27}

Ecozones

An ecozone is an area where organisms and their physical environment endure as a system y. Each ecozone is unique and can provide special value that may benefit from conservation.  Canada can be divided into 18 terrestrial ecozones (Table 1, Map 2), 12 marine ecozones (Table 2, Map 2), and 1 freshwater ecozone (Table 2, Map 2). The proportion of protection within each ecozone varies widely, from less than 1% in the Hudson Bay Complex to over 35% in the Tundra Cordillera and Arctic Basin ecozones^{Footnote 28} . The disparity in protection can be attributed to many factors. Some ecozones are well protected because their aesthetic value has attracted protection efforts over the decades (e.g., mountains and glaciers). Conversely, other ecozones have conversely attracted little protection efforts because they are deemed remote and less valuable for human enjoyment (e.g. bogs, swamps, and lowland wetlands).

Different ecozones in Canada face different threats^{Footnote 29} . For example, following the rapid conversion of grassland ecozones to row-crop agriculture, these ecozones continue to face threats from habitat loss for agriculture, urban development, and industry. The Boreal Shield and Boreal Plains ecozone is managed largely for fiber extraction, which makes a large portion unavailable for protected areas establishment. In the marine realm, the Pacific Maritime ecozone is impacted by urbanization, pollution, and habitat loss, as well as by climate change that affects ocean currents, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.

The map below demonstrates how well Canada’s protected and conserved areas represented different ecozones as of December 31, 2020.

Note: Area conserved includes area protected as well as area conserved with other measures. Data are current as of December 31, 2020.
Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada (2020) Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database

Terrestrial ecozones

• At the end of 2020, the majority of Canada’s terrestrial ecozones (15 out of 18), primarily in the north and west of the country, had at least 5% of their area protected and conserved and over half (11 out of 18) had 10% or more of their area protected and conserved. This is an increase from 2015 where less than half (seven out of 18) of the terrestrial ecozones had 10% or more protected and conserved. The largest increase was in the Tundra Cordillera ecozone, which increased from 24.6% to 35.8% protected and conserved
• Two terrestrial ecozones (Mixedwood Plains and Atlantic Highlands) had less than 5% of their area protected in 2020 although there has been an expansion of area protected in both since 2015

Marine and freshwater ecozones

By the end of 2020, a significant growth in protected and conserved area was observed in the majority of Canada’s marine ecozones, with 9 out of 12 showing an increase from 2016 to 2020. This is a substantial improvement compared to the 2010-2015 reporting period, when only the Gulf of Saint Lawrence ecozone showed a slight increase in its protected and conserved areas, from 1.6% to 1.9%.

• Out of the 12 marine ecozones, nine (75%) had at least 5% of their area protected and conserved in 2020, and three of which (Offshore Pacific, Arctic Basin, and Eastern Arctic) had over 20% protected and conserved. This is an increase from 2015 when only one (Northern Shelf) was at least 5% protected

• Over 13% of the Great Lakes ecozone was protected in 2020, which is the same as 2015

Ecoregions

Terrestrial ecozones can be divided into smaller units known as ecoregions, which contain characteristic, geographically distinct assemblages of natural communities and species. These characteristics encompass various elements such as climate patterns, landform types, vegetation cover, soil composition, and the presence of specific flora and fauna (Refer to Map 3). Within Canada, there are 215 terrestrial ecoregions^{Footnote 31} .

The Canadian Terrestrial Ecological Framework (CTEF) holds the updated spatial and attribute data on ecozones and ecoregions in Canada as of 2019. While not an official update to Canada’s ecoregions, the CTEF has been developed to support national reporting on ecological representation under the Pathway to Canada Target 1 initiative. It is compiled and managed by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), in collaboration with provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

Of the 215 ecoregions in Canada, at the end of 2020:

• 75% (161 ecoregions) have less than 17% of their area conserved
• 10% (22 ecoregions) have between 17% and 30% of their area conserved
• 15% (33 ecoregions) have more than 30% of their area conserved

Note: Area conserved includes area protected as well as area conserved with other measures. Data are current as of December 31, 2020.
Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada (2020) Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database.

All ecoregions have at least part of their area protected. Ecoregions with large protected areas, such as the Peace-Athabasca Delta ecoregion (94%; Wood Buffalo National Park) and the Mount Logan ecoregion (100%; Kluane National Park and Reserve) have the highest proportions protected. On the other hand, ecoregions in urban or agricultural landscapes have the lowest rates. The Lake Simcoe and Lake Erie-Lake Ontario ecoregions each have less than 3% of their area conserved.

International union for conservation of nature management categories^{Footnote 21} 

Canada uses the IUCN management categories (Map 4, Figure 7) to classify protected areas according to their management objectives. IUCN categories only refer to protected areas – not OECMs. Government entities responsible for protected areas classify their protected areas in the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database using one of the following management categories:

• Ia. Strict Nature Reserve
• Ib. Wilderness Area
• II. National Park
• III. Natural Monument or Feature
• IV. Habitat/Species Management Area
• V. Protected Landscape/Seascape
• VI. Protected Area with Sustainable Use of Natural Resources

Protected areas are classified according to their management objectives, not their designation. For instance, national parks in Canada are not always managed according to IUCN’s Category II. If the objective of the national park includes the sustainable use of natural resources, they would be classified as Category VI. Conversely, the governance category “national park” (Category II) does not necessarily mean a protected area designated under the Canada National Parks Act. Rather, Category II groups large natural or near-natural areas protecting large-scale ecological processes with characteristic species and ecosystems.

For terrestrial protected areas:

• The vast majority (95% by area) of Canada’s terrestrial protected area falls into categories Ia to IV, categories that tend to focus on maintaining natural conditions
• Category II (national parks) areas make up the largest proportion of terrestrial protected area at 60.2%. For these, public access and recreation is usually permitted
• The second largest proportion of terrestrial protected area, with 31.1%, is classified as category Ib (Wilderness Areas). These include large, predominately northern, federal Migratory Bird Sanctuaries as well as provincial and territorial parks. Management of these areas is focused on maintaining natural conditions. Public access may be permitted, however built infrastructure tends to be minimal

For marine protected areas:

• 7.8% of the marine area protected in Canada is classified in categories Ia to IV
• The highest proportion of marine protected area (68% by area) is unclassified
• The second most extensive category (23% by area) is Category VI (Protected Area with Sustainable Use of Natural Resources)

International perspective

At the global level, at the end of 2020, 16.6% of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 7.7% of marine areas were classified as protected and conserved areas^{Footnote 32} .

As of May 2021, only 5 countries had submitted OECMs to the World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures. Canada accounted for 22% of the total area of OECMs. Efforts to recognize OECMs have significantly increased terrestrial coverage since 2019. However, the protection of terrestrial areas has been outpaced by growth in the protection of coastal waters and the oceans. This is thanks in large part to the designation of growing numbers of very large marine protected areas. This trend appears likely to continue into the next decade, with a further 8.8 million km² committed or otherwise planned for protection at the start of 2021, from just five proposed marine protected areas^{Footnote 32} .

A comparison with 10 countries based on data from the World Database on Protected Areas, helps in understanding Canada’s position^{Footnote 33} . Selected countries were the G7 (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States), Australia (the population density and territorial extent of which are similar to Canada’s), Russian Federation (a large northern country) and Sweden (similar climate). Canada ranked 4th of 10 countries with respect to the total terrestrial area protected, behind the Russian Federation, Australia, and the United States. Results for Canada are as follows:

• Canada ranked 9th out of 10 countries with respect to the percent of terrestrial area protected
• Canada ranked 4th out of 10 countries with respect to the total marine area protected
• Canada ranked 8th out of 10 countries with respect to percent coverage of their marine territory that is protected

Results for Canada, shown here using international data sources only, are not as current or complete as the national data for Canada presented elsewhere in this report. However, the information does provide a basis for comparisons among countries.

Chapter 2: Protected and conserved area planning: objectives, strategies, and commitments

Canada has a long history of planning for and establishing protected areas. Canada established its first municipal park (Mont-Royal) in Montreal in 1872. Fifteen years later, the Rocky Mountains Park Act was enacted by the Parliament of Canada, establishing Banff National Park which was then known as "Rocky Mountains Park".  These parks were created for recreation and tourism. At the same time, the concept of setting aside areas to protect the natural environment emerged. Also, in June 1877, two weeks before the Rocky Mountains Parks Act was enacted, the Governor in Council declared Last Mountain Lake a refuge for wild fowl, becoming the first federal bird sanctuary in North America.

In 1911 and 1930, Dominion Parks Branch (now the Parks Canada Agency) and the National Parks Act were created to oversee the national parks system. At that time, the mandate established through the National Parks Act placed equal emphasis on public leisure and conservation of wildlife. Subsequent legislative tools, such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1917), the Canada Wildlife Act (1973), and the 2000 revisions of the National Parks Act, allowed Canada to regulate the hunting of transcontinental migratory birds, create conservation measures with a focus on wildlife protection, and establish ecological integrity as the first priority for national parks management.

In light of the important investments and frameworks developed in the last twenty years for nature conservation, a pan-Canadian approach^{Footnote 34} was developed in 2018 to support progress towards achieving terrestrial and inland water conservation targets by:

• Implementing—and where possible, enhancing—Canada’s protected areas establishment programs, plans and strategies in recognition of the importance of expanding protected areas to achieve Canada Target 1
• Taking into account Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) in pan-Canadian standards and recognizing their contribution to Canada Target 1

As a continuation of the previous chapter, Chapter 2 delves into targets and commitments for protected and conserved areas in more detail, at the level of provinces and territories. It provides an overview of legislation, planning, collaborations, and important objectives to support conservation (biodiversity, habitat connectivity, climate change mitigation, etc.). It also highlights some of the challenges related to establishing protected and conserved areas.

Protected and conserved area targets

In additional to Canada’s national targets, provinces and territories have their own area-based conservation targets (see Table 1). Some provinces’ and territories’ targets mirror Canada Target 1 (17% terrestrial and 10% marine area conserved by 2020), but most do not.

Protected and conserved areas legislation

Every jurisdiction in Canada has developed a broad suite of legislative and regulatory tools for the establishment and management of protected areas. These tools are diverse, which can lead to a variety of possible designations including national parks, provincial parks, wildlife areas, conservation areas, heritage rangelands, private nature reserves, sanctuaries, and marine parks. At present count, there are 56 separate Acts that are used, or could be used, to establish terrestrial and marine protected areas in Canada (Table 3). Some areas have dual designation to achieve conservation goals in cases where one Act is not sufficient to protect all the values at a site.

Between 2016 and 2020, several updates to provincial, territorial, and federal enabling legislation for terrestrial and marine protected and conserved areas have been made, which are summarized below:

• Manitoba updated The Crown Lands Act to enable the designation of community pastures, although no community pastures are reported as of December 2020. Community pastures support grazing and haying on rangelands in a way that maintains and conserves the area's ecological integrity and natural biodiversity
• New Brunswick made administrative amendments to a regulation under the Protected Natural Areas Act to replace administrative maps with more accurate maps
• Northwest Territories brought into force The Protected Areas Act in 2019. This new legislation consolidated protected areas authorities into one piece of legislation (removing protected areas classifications from the Territorial Parks Act). It enables the Government of Northwest Territories to enter into legal agreements with Indigenous governments and organizations for the co-management of the protected areas
• Nova Scotia made several amendments to the Wilderness Areas Protection Act in 2019 to enable parking areas to be established within wilderness areas; to designate two additional off-highway vehicle trails in two wilderness areas; and to enable the granting of motorized access licenses to private landowners only partially surrounded by wilderness area
• Ontario amended the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act for enhancements to the management of third-party use and occupation of land, streamlining language for management planning, and updating financial management approaches
• Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) amended the Wildlife Area Regulations in 2020. The amendment was made to prohibit activities that are likely to disturb, damage, destroy or remove any wildlife, whether alive or dead, wildlife residence or wildlife habitat. This prohibition has been broadened in the amended regulations to include any wildlife, wildlife residence, or wildlife habitat
• Parks Canada amended the Canada National Parks Act with minor clauses regarding law enforcement, and adjustments to ski boundary areas in Banff National Park
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) made amendments to the Oceans Act under Bill C-55, which received Royal Assent on May 27, 2019. These amendments included adding the ability for interim protection, through the use of a Ministerial Order, updates to enforcement provisions, and the inclusion of a precautionary principle

With the recognition of marine and terrestrial Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECM) in 2017 and 2018, respectively, several provinces, territories and federal government agencies have enabling policy allowing for the recognition of terrestrial and marine OECMs. Contrary to protected areas, legislative tools are not necessary to recognize terrestrial OECMs, as any mechanism that leads to the long-term and effective conservation of biodiversity can be used and recognized. However, legislative tools are needed in marine OECMs. Since ‘OECM’ is a policy term and it can include a range of activities other than conservation, there is no single piece of policy or legislation for marine OECMs in any jurisdiction.

Network planning and strategies

Conserving biodiversity depends not only on protecting enough habitat, but also on protecting the right areas so that protected and conserved areas can function together as an ecological network. Strategies, including systematic strategies and planning frameworks, support jurisdictions to establish a set of protected and conserved areas both nationally and within a given region that work collectively to protect species, habitats and their interactions^{Footnote 34} .

Updates on the development and implementation of these strategies at a provincial, territorial, and federal level are summarized below and in Figure 1. Responses are based on the status report questionnaire, delivered to 13 provinces and territories, as well as 3 federal conservation departments (Environment and Climate Change Canada, Parks Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada).

Terrestrial protected and conserved areas:

• Of the 13 provinces and territories, eight (61%) had a strategy in place for the development and implementation of a network (AB, MB, NB, NL, NWT, ON, QC and SK). Manitoba and Quebec were updating their strategies, while Yukon had a park system plan being developed under the Parks Strategy. Nova Scotia, Nunavut, and Prince Edward Island did not have a strategy in place at the time of reporting. In BC, the Protected Areas Strategy was rescinded and protected areas were expanded on an ad-hoc basis.
• Of the provinces and territories that had a strategy in place:
• Seven (87%) reported that their network planning was based on an ecological framework (Alberta, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Ontario, and Quebec).
• Three (37%) indicated that their strategy had been substantially implemented (Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec), and three (37%) indicated that their strategy had been partially implemented (New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan). Manitoba indicated that implementation of their updated strategy had not yet begun. Newfoundland and Labrador’s released a strategy in 2020.  
• Federally, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) reported that their strategy was under development and partially implemented, and Parks Canada Agency (PC) indicated that their strategy was in place and substantially implemented. Both ECCC and PC reported that their network planning was based on an ecological framework.

Marine protected and conserved areas:

• Of the 7 provinces and territories that report on marine protected and conserved area (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia), two (29%) had strategies in place that were either partially implemented (British Columbia) or substantially implemented (Quebec). Both provinces reported that their network planning was based on an ecological framework. Remaining provinces and territories did not have strategies in place; however, Manitoba’s marine protected and conserved areas are generally a component of a larger terrestrial protected and conserved areas.
• Federally, ECCC reported that their strategy was under development and partially implemented, while both Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and PC had strategies in place and partially implemented. DFO and PC reported that their network planning was based on an ecological framework.

Intergovernmental collaboration

Most collaboration between governments on protected areas occurred between the federal government and individual provincial or territorial governments, as well as with Indigenous governments (Chapter 5 describes in further detail collaboration with Indigenous governments). A smaller number of collaborations occur between adjacent provinces and/or territories and between the federal government and the United States in establishing or managing interprovincial or international transboundary protected areas (Table 5).

Conservation objectives for protected and conserved areas planning

This section reports on progress within each jurisdiction with respect to the following conservation objectives:

• Biological diversity (biodiversity)
• Ecological representation
• Habitat connectivity
• Large, intact or unfragmented areas
• Ecosystem services
• Ecological integrity
• Climate change mitigation and adaptation
• Supporting Indigenous leadership in conservation or advancing reconciliation

Some jurisdictions have additional conservation objectives including encouraging recreation, fostering the protection of areas of cultural and historical value, protection of endangered or threatened species, enhancing carbon storage, implementing nature-based solutions, protecting areas of water provisioning, and flood mitigation. For marine areas, other conservation objectives include preserving commercial and non-commercial fishery resources and conserving unique habitats. However, this document will mainly report on the objectives listed above, as they are systematically reported on by Canadian jurisdictions.

Figure 2 below illustrates the prioritization of conservation objectives for terrestrial and marine protected and conserved area networks as reported by provinces, territories, and federal agencies. Additional details on each conservation objective are provided in the sections that follow. 

Conservation of Biological Diversity

Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is the variety of life on Earth, in all its forms, from genes and bacteria to entire ecosystems such as forests or coral reefs. By conserving biodiversity, we can protect the natural heritage of our planet and ensure its resilience to natural and human induced environmental changes. Canada’s success in conserving biodiversity over the long term depends not only on protecting enough habitat to support viable populations of all species, but on protecting the right areas. Further, protected and conserved areas should function together as a network and represent a wide range of ecosystems^{Footnote 34} .

Through a questionnaire, jurisdictions were asked to what extent they recognized the conservation of biological diversity in their goals, mandates, or conservation objectives; whether full information on biological diversity within their network was available to them; whether they evaluated progress or undertook a gap analysis with respect to this objective; and whether their network is complete in terms of biological diversity. See results in Figures 4 (terrestrial) and 5 (marine).

Ecological Representation

Conservation of a representative sample of the diversity of natural ecosystems is key to conserving the biological diversity found across and within ecosystems^{Footnote 44} .

Through the status report, jurisdictions were asked to evaluate their progress related to ecological representation during the 2016-2020 period. See results in Figures 6 (terrestrial) and 7 (marine).

Conservation of Large, Intact or Unfragmented Areas

The primary goal of protected areas should be the long-term maintenance of biodiversity, acknowledging that many protected areas were not necessarily established for this purpose. An ongoing debate in conservation biology is whether this goal is best achieved through the creation of large protected areas or several small connected areas^{Footnote 4546} . The answer is likely a combination of both but is contingent on the local context^{Footnote 47} . However, an established principle of island biogeography is that size impacts how effective a protected area is at maintaining a diversity of species over time. Most protected and conserved areas organizations recognize the need to include large, intact or unfragmented areas but the level of importance of this objective varies.

Through the status report questionnaire, jurisdictions were asked to evaluate their progress related to protecting representative areas during the 2016-2020 period. See results in Figures 8 (terrestrial) and 9 (marine).

Efforts to Maintain Ecological Integrity

An ecosystem has ecological integrity when it has the living and non-living elements expected in its natural region, and its processes (the interactions that make an ecosystem work, e.g., fire, flooding, predation) occur with the frequency and intensity expected in its natural region^{Footnote 48} . In Canada, ecological integrity is a key objective for national parks and under the Canada National Parks Act is the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of management of parks.

Through the status report questionnaire, jurisdictions were asked to evaluate their progress related to ecological integrity during the 2016-2020 period. See results in Figures 10 (terrestrial) and 11 (marine).

Preserving Habitat Connectivity

Habitat connectivity refers to the degree to which protected and conserved areas facilitate the movement of individuals among habitats and allow the operation of broad-scale ecological processes^{Footnote 49} . By allowing the free movement of individuals, habitat connectivity allows for organisms to find food and mates, which promotes healthy gene flow.

Through the status report questionnaire, jurisdictions were asked to evaluate their progress related to habitat connectivity during the 2016-2020 period. See results in Figures 12 (terrestrial) and 13 (marine).

Conservation of Ecosystem Services

 ‘Ecosystem services’ are the benefits our natural systems provide to us, individually and collectively. Ecosystem services can be categorized and include the following, according to the United Nations System of Environmental Economic Accounting^{Footnote 50}:

1. Provisioning services, which represent the material and energy contributions generated by or in an ecosystem to economic and human activities
2. Regulating services, which result from the ecosystems regulating climate, hydrologic and biochemical cycles, earth surface processes and various biological processes

3. Cultural services, which are generated from the physical settings, locations or situations that give rise to intellectual and symbolic benefits experienced by people from ecosystems through recreation, knowledge development, relaxation and spiritual reflection

One of the many benefits of protected areas is that they help maintain the ecological processes that generate ecosystem services. Through the status report questionnaire, jurisdictions were asked to evaluate their progress related to ecosystem services during the 2016-2020 period. See results in Figures 14 (terrestrial) and 15 (marine).

Protected area planning with respect to climate change

Compared to previous time periods, jurisdictions have placed greater emphasis on mitigating the effects of climate change during the 2016-2020 period. Protected and conserved areas are essential tools to mitigate the effects of climate change and support climate change adaptation^{Footnote 51} . Protected and conserved areas can contribute to climate resilience by protecting the ecosystem services that buffer the effects of climate change. Further, management actions including the restoration of degraded ecosystems can enhance climate regulation and adaptation, and can enhance the connectivity of protected areas to facilitate the movement of species in response to changing conditions^{Footnote 52} .

Through the status report questionnaire, jurisdictions were asked to evaluate their progress related to climate change mitigation during the 2016-2020 period. See results in Figures 16 (terrestrial) and 17 (marine).

Some jurisdictions (7 out of 15) have evaluated or are in the process of assessing how climate change affects their terrestrial protected and conserved areas, and some (5 out of 15) have integrated adaptation or mitigation measures into their planning or management. However, only a few (3 out of 10) have done the same for their marine protected and conserved areas, which are more vulnerable to the effects of ocean warming, acidification and sea level rise.

Prince Edward Island was a pioneer in integrating climate change mitigation measures into terrestrial protected or conserved areas management plans. British Columbia was the only jurisdiction evaluating marine impacts of climate change and integrating adaptation measures at the network level, as well as in marine management plans.

Availability of information and resources to support protected and conserved area design

Protected and conservation area organizations rely on various sources of information to support protected and conserved area design. The maps below portray the extent of information available for many data sources as a percentage of jurisdictions.

As the figures reveal, information about terrestrial data sources is available (and sometimes readily available) in most jurisdictions, although stress assessments and indicators could be improved. However, for marine data sources, information is less available than for terrestrial sources across the board.  Information to supportarea design, stress assessments, and monitoring is lacking in many jurisdictions.

Challenges to protected area planning and establishment

Nearly all organizations reporting on protected areas (14 out of 15 for terrestrial and eight out of nine for marine) indicated they were facing multiple challenges to the establishment of protected and conserved areas in Canada.

For organizations reporting on protected areas:

• The most common challenge to establishing both terrestrial and marine protected areas is competing interests for available lands and waters.
• The lack of resources is also often cited as a barrier, including both staff resources for network planning and financial resources for land acquisition.
• Other important establishment challenges include lack of appropriate legal/policy tools to support ecological connectivity; lack of public support for candidate sites; lack of appropriate legal tools to designate marine protected areas at the provincial level; lengthy regulatory processes.

For organizations reporting on OECMs:

• The most common challenges for OECM recognition are competing land uses and a lack of understanding of OECMs, including by decision-makers and land managers

Chapter 3: Protected and conserved area management

Efforts are underway to increase the area of Canada that is protected and conserved. Once established, protected and conserved areas need to be effectively managed. This chapter explores challenges in management and whether protected and conserved areas are fulfilling the conservation goals for which they were established.

Management effectiveness

Management effectiveness is defined as the assessment of how well protected and conserved areas are being managed – primarily the extent to which management is achieving goals and objectives for which the area was created. All jurisdictions acknowledged the necessity of measuring the effectiveness of management. The evaluation and improvement of management effectiveness is a key objective under the Convention on Biological Diversity Programme of Work on Protected Areas (Goal 4.2).

Management effectiveness tools (such as the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool – or METT) are available to evaluate whether appropriate systems (legal systems, governance systems) and resources (financial resources, human resources) are in place to ensure that management goals and objectives can be met (see textbox below)^{Footnote 53} . One jurisdiction (ECCC) reported using the METT to track management effectiveness. Some jurisdictions tracked ecological integrity as an output of management effectiveness but did not track inputs (e.g., legal status, management objectives, management plans, staff numbers, current budget, etc.).

For terrestrial areas, 6 out of 17 jurisdictions (35%) actively evaluate management effectiveness, and 3 more (17%) are in the process of developing an evaluation process. For marine areas, 3 out of 10 jurisdictions (30%) evaluate management effectiveness, and 2 more (20%) are developing an evaluation process. 

Management plan development and implementation

Management plans are like a blueprint used to guide daily operations and long-term decision-making to achieve objectives.

Between 2016 and 2020, most jurisdictions have made progress developing and implementing management plans.

Note: Saskatchewan did not provide the total number of areas with management plans. However, all Representative Area Ecological Reserves, provincial parks and protected areas established by non-governmental organizations had management plans.

In addition, most areas managed by Ducks Unlimited Canada (62%), Nature Conservancy of Canada (95%), and Parks Canada (93%) had management plans. Environment and Climate Change Canada reported having management plans for 45% of its protected and conserved areas.

Plans are only as effective as their implementation. Twelve jurisdictions monitor the implementation of a large proportion of their management plans, and 6 of these reported significant progress in implementing them. For marine protected and conserved areas, most jurisdictions (5 of 7) monitored the implementation of management plans, and 4 of these reported substantial implementation of management plans.

Management plans are most useful when they are up to date. The proportion of protected and conserved areas with management plans less than 10 years old remained low. It ranged from 0% to 36% among provinces and territories. Federal departments reported slightly higher numbers, with ECCC at 45% and PC at 46%. The Nature Conservancy of Canada has the highest proportion of recent management plans (94%).

Information in support of management

Protected and conserved area managers rely on a variety of information sources to guide their decision-making. Data obtained from direct observation and surveys, as well as remote sensing and environmental monitoring is used to inform management.  Moreover, Indigenous Knowledge is increasingly valued and integrated into decision making.

Information availability varies across categories: ecological processes, natural resource inventories, visitor use, ecological connectedness, Indigenous Knowledge, visitor impact, community structure and function, invasive species, and adjacent human activities (Figures 2 and 3).

For each category, the availability of information was evaluated. No category had full information available across all jurisdictions. Information on ecological processes appeared to be particularly limited for all jurisdictions. For marine protected and conserved areas, information available was more limited than for terrestrial areas.

Assessment and reporting

Assessment and reporting provide insights into various aspects of management, from ecosystem health to daily operations. This process is often a legal and policy-driven obligation to ensure accountability and transparency in the management of protected and conserved areas.

Terrestrial protected and conserved areas

In six out of the eight provinces and territories that responded, assessment and reporting was entrenched in policy or legislation (NWT, PEI, SK, ON, BC, and AB). This was also true for the Nature Conservancy of Canada, PC, and ECCC. Eight jurisdictions out of 17 systematically assessed and reported on the state of terrestrial protected and conserved areas, although NU and AB reported only sporadic implementation, and NS did not undertake reporting. Online reporting is available for Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Parks Canada.

Marine protected and conserved areas

Marine assessment and reporting were entrenched in legislation or policy for ECCC, PC, DFO, and BC, but not in NB, PEI, and NL. Most jurisdictions that manage marine protected and conserved areas (NB, MB, BC, ECCC, DFO, and PC) were undertaking assessment and reporting on a systematic basis. PEI and NS did not conduct regular reporting, and QC undertook reporting sporadically.

Monitoring protocols

Monitoring collects data needed for evaluating ecosystem health and informing management decisions. When data for monitoring protocols are collected in a consistent way, they support comparability across protected and conserved areas.

Terrestrial protected and conserved areas

Eight out of 15 (53%) jurisdictions had monitoring protocols in place for at least one of their protected and conserved areas. The proportion of protected areas covered by monitoring protocols varied, ranging from less than 3% in Manitoba to 97% in Prince Edward Island.

Among the jurisdictions with protocols, only a small fraction (5-20%) had protocols less than 10 years old, with Prince Edward Island being an exception (35%). British Columbia and New Brunswick were actively working on drafting new protocols to encompass additional sites. At the federal level, ECCC was developing the Ecological and Conservation Monitoring Program (ECOMaP), which aims to be operational in all 154 protected and conserved areas by 2030. PC made substantial progress in developing monitoring protocols, with 90% of their 47 parks having established monitoring protocols.

Marine protected and conserved areas

Three out of seven provinces (43%) – Quebec, New Brunswick, and British Columbia – have established monitoring protocols for at least one of their marine protected and conserved areas, the majority less than 10 years old. However, the proportion of marine areas covered by these protocols remains low, with less than 5% coverage in provincial jurisdictions.

Looking ahead, two provinces have signaled intentions to expand their existing monitoring efforts. British Columbia is developing protocols for two additional marine areas, and Quebec will be monitoring the Réserve aquatique de Manicouagan. Federally, PC has monitoring plans for two-thirds of its marine conservation areas and was drafting one for the remaining site. DFO had monitoring protocols in place for half of its marine protected areas, with plans in development for the remaining half. Monitoring reports for some of DFO’s marine protected areas are also available online, such as the Eastport Marine Protected Area Monitoring Report. Environment and Climate Change Canada had yet to develop monitoring protocols for its marine areas.

Monitoring and managing for ecological integrity

Ecosystems have ecological integrity when they have their native species, landscapes, and functions intact^{Footnote 55} . This includes the physical environment, such as soil and water, as well as the variety and numbers of native species and their communities and the interaction between them over time^{Footnote 56} .

The table below summarizes the frequency of monitoring for ecological integrity across jurisdictions.

No province or territory had a monitoring program for ecological integrity in all its protected areas. For OECMs, two jurisdictions were partially or fully monitoring for ecological integrity (MB, SK), while the remaining three were not (NWT, PEI, NS), and one (BC) was developing a monitoring program. The two jurisdictions that reported on marine OECMs were not monitoring for ecological integrity.

The information obtained while monitoring for ecological integrity can be used to guide management. Because ecosystems are constantly changing, protected and conserved area managers need to assess whether ecological processes reflect natural conditions. The table below summarizes the state of managing for ecological integrity.

Jurisdictions occasionally modify protected areas by adjusting protection levels or altering the area’s size and boundaries. These adjustments are part of the dynamic nature of managing protected areas, ensuring that they continue to meet conservation objectives.

Modifications can be driven by various factors. These include changes to the cadastral framework, a need to address or respond to activities and threats, and infrastructure expansion or realignment. Sometimes, a change in status is warranted if the area no longer meets the criteria for a protected area. This section focuses on three types of protected area adjustments:

• Downgrading reduces the level of protection or eases restrictions within the area.
• Downsizing decreases the area’s size by changing its boundaries.
• Degazetting/Delisting/Deregulating revokes the area’s status as a protected region, effectively removing it from the list of protected sites.

Downgrading

Nationally, only one protected area was reported as downgraded. Saskatoon Mountain, Alberta, was downgraded to a Provincial Recreation Area (PRA) in 2018. The reported rationale for downgrading was to better balance recreational use and conservation of lands^{Footnote 58} . Long-standing issues with recreational uses of the land – off-highway vehicles in particular – were impacting the landscape and disrupting other uses of the area. The reclassification to a PRA allowed for a wider suite of regulatory tools to manage recreational uses.

Downsizing

British Columbia downsized 20 provincial parks and protected areas (totaling less than 1 km²), as well as Ontario (0.5 km²), because of road realignments, lands for community uses, and digital mapping corrections.

Degazetting

During the 2016-2020 reporting period, degazetting was the most common alteration of protected areas. In Manitoba, the Pemmican Island Park Reserve (0.2 km²) was degazetted as its status expired and was not renewed. In Prince Edward Island, 0.2 km² of private land was degazetted when the landowner decided to remove the designation as a protected area. In Saskatchewan, Wildlife Habitat Protection Act Lands of lower ecological value were being degazetted and sold to lessees. In addition, 15 km² were degazetted when The Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. Rocanville Division Representative Area Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) lapsed.

No marine protected area was downgraded, downsized, or degazetted.

Threats to Canada’s protected and conserved areas

We tend to think of protected and conserved areas as pristine areas, protected from outside influences. The reality is very different. Protected and conserved areas bear the history of previous land management decisions such as forest harvesting, insect control activities, water control structures, and fire control. Even remote areas are influenced by pollutants and climate change. The fact is, protected and conserved areas are part of larger ecosystems, subject to support and stresses from various sources, and must be managed accordingly^{Footnote 59} .

Threats to protected and conserved areas include stressors that have the potential to impact the current and future biodiversity, ecological processes, or cultural assets within these areas^{Footnote 60} . In Canada, protected and conserved areas face a variety of challenges and threats including nearby land uses that are incompatible with conservation. Invasive species and climate change are other threats that originate outside protected and conserved areas but affect the ecosystems and species within them. This section describes threats reported and ranked by jurisdictions. Twenty-one principal threats were ranked by each jurisdiction on a scale of 1 (no threat) to 5 (serious threat). Scores of 4 and 5 were considered notable threats. The threats to terrestrial protected and conserved areas were analyzed to determine what percentage of provinces and territories had ranked each one as either a 4 or a 5 (Figure 4 and 5).

For terrestrial protected areas, provinces and territories ranked threats differently than the federal government (ECCC and PC) or non-governmental organizations (Ducks Unlimited and Nature Conservancy Canada). The highest ranked threats across all respondents were climate change, incompatible land uses, and invasive species. Non-governmental stakeholders ranked unauthorized access to protected areas as an important threat. Threats that were biological in nature (e.g., invasive species, population declines) were ranked as high or higher than infrastructure or human threats (e.g., infrastructure development, visitor use and recreation).

For terrestrial OECMs, the highest ranked threats were invasive species, unauthorized access into OECMs, and incompatible land uses.

Threats to marine protected areas were reported in British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec (as well as the federal government through DFO, ECCC, and Parks Canada). Climate change was most frequently ranked as a serious threat, while species population decline, and invasive species were also ranked high. Increased visitation and human activities within the protected areas were reported as lower threats. Responses from federal government departments were similar to provinces and territories.

Only DFO reported threats to marine OECMs. They named loss of habitat, invasive species, and infrastructure development inside the OECMs as the most serious threats.

Resource development

Canadian jurisdictions have their own set of environmental assessment and permitting processes that consider the impact on neighboring protected and conserved areas. One jurisdiction (NB) did not provide information on resource development.

Alberta: Protected and conserved areas, both existing and those earmarked for future preservation, were integrated into land-use planning. The government collaborated with developers to mitigate impacts on these areas, requiring environmental reviews for any development within parks.

British Columbia: The province’s historic land use plans, which cover over 90% of its land base, guide where resource development and protected and conserved areas occur. Environmental assessments evaluate the potential effects of proposed developments within these regions.

Manitoba: The Protected Areas Initiative reviewed environmental assessments and permitting processes to identify and minimize potential adverse effects on designated protected areas. Candidate protected areas were avoided by major projects where feasible.

Newfoundland and Labrador: Environmental assessments and permit approvals took existing and planned protected areas into account when impacts of proposed projects were identified and mitigation measures developed.

Northwest Territories: While the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement did not explicitly mention protected areas, in practice these were factored into regulatory and Environmental Impact Assessment processes.

Nova Scotia:  Environmental assessments took existing and planned protected areas into account when impacts of proposed projects were identified and mitigation measures developed.

Nunavut: Environmental assessments and permitting were conducted on an individual project basis, with current data insufficient to comment on the protection of natural areas.

Ontario: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s Natural Heritage Reference Manual provide direction on conservation during land use planning.

Prince Edward Island: Environmental Impact Assessments could establish buffer zones around wetlands, but these did not directly influence decisions on protected areas.

Quebec: Only certified forestry companies were required to consider protected and conserved areas as part of their decision-making.

Saskatchewan: Environmental assessments focused on the immediate impact of projects on natural areas, without considering the broader conservation context within the region.

Yukon: Land use activities in adjacent areas that have the potential to affect protected areas are identified by the Government of Yukon, Yukon First Nations and Indigenous governments and groups during assessment and regulatory processes.

Challenges to protected and conserved area management

Most jurisdictions reported that they experienced challenges or barriers related to the management of terrestrial (100%) and marine (90%) protected and conserved areas in Canada. These challenges ranged from operational limits to barriers to effective conservation decision-making.

The most frequently cited challenges were a lack of resources for site monitoring and a lack of staff for site management (see Figure 6). For terrestrial protected and conserved area management, nearly half of the jurisdictions cited a lack of management objectives or management plan to guide decisions. On the marine side, the most frequently cited challenge was a lack of legal/policy tools for managing human activities to be compatible with conservation objectives.

Challenges raised by only one jurisdiction include lengthy regulatory processes, low partner capacity, the need to work with multiple landowners, lack of tools for managing a multi-jurisdictional area, limited capacity for survey design and execution, and inadequate baselines for monitoring. For marine areas, challenges also include a lack of provincial mandates for advancing marine protection, and the high cost of offshore and deepwater monitoring.

Barriers highlighted by the territories differed from the provinces. The Northwest Territories mentioned slow progress settling land claims. Similarly, Yukon highlighted a lack of First Nation land claim agreements in some areas, as well as limited capacity of Indigenous partners to participate in planning processes that could result in protected areas. In Nunavut, challenges exist but have not been reported by the jurisdiction in the questionnaire.

Visitation

Many protected and conserved areas attract tourism, recreation, and the opportunities to learn about the value of nature. For many Canadians, visiting and enjoying recreation in protected and conserved areas helps inspire their appreciation of nature. Visitors connect personally with their natural and cultural heritage through engaging experiences, thereby fostering support for protected areas and conservation.

Protected and conserved area managers may restrict access to sensitive zones or limit time of use by visitors to minimize any negative impacts caused by excessive visitation.

Terrestrial protected and conserved areas:

From 2016 to 2020, all 15 jurisdictions responsible for terrestrial protected and conserved areas in Canada welcomed public visitation, though the extent varied. Most jurisdictions permitted access to between 76-100% of their protected areas, with Quebec allowing visitation to 51-75% of its areas.

Generally, visitation is considered a secondary aspect in protected and conserved area management, but it is one of the primary objectives in 3 jurisdictions (Nunavut, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador).

Marine protected and conserved areas:

Most marine protected and conserved areas (76-100%) were open to visitors in QC, PEI, NB, MB, NL, NS, and BC. The importance of visitation as a management objective varies, with two provinces and Parks Canada treating it as a primary objective, and one more considering it a secondary objective. Many provinces did not mention visitation as an objective.

Whether visitation was encouraged or not, certain aspects of visitation were controlled by a variety of policies, measures or specific guidelines for all jurisdictions. The most cited measures were:

• Design of buildings and infrastructure to minimize environmental impacts.
• Reduced energy use.
• Reduced water use.
• Waste management.
• Spatial restrictions on visitor access to avoid sensitive areas.

Ten out of 15 terrestrial jurisdictions and one out of 7 marine jurisdictions reported that they had programs or initiatives in place to increase visitation. This took place through programs to engage youth, engage new Canadians, link parks with healthy/active lifestyle, and provide opportunities for sustainable recreation.

Chapter 4: Indigenous contributions and leadership in conservation

Indigenous Peoples have been the skillful stewards of ecosystems within their traditional territories for millennia, shaping the distribution and abundance of wildlife. Indigenous worldviews recognize the need for respectful relationships between people and the land.

In 2017, Indigenous government representatives, Elders, and community members formed the Indigenous Circle of Experts (ICE) to offer guidance on how Indigenous-led conservation initiatives could contribute towards Canada’s conservation goals as part of Pathway to Canada Target 1^{Footnote 62} . Their report, We Rise Together, argued that the time had come for Indigenous knowledge, legal traditions, and cultural practices to be appropriately recognized as valid and binding conservation mechanisms.

At the end of 2020, governments had made progress in recognizing Indigenous contributions to conservation and supporting Indigenous leadership. According to the Indigenous Leadership Initiative, 90% of protected areas established in Canada in the last two decades were supported by Indigenous partnerships or Indigenous leadership^{Footnote 63} . Many Indigenous Nations are establishing Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), which promote Indigenous-led decision-making, revitalize ancestral lands, and provide economic opportunities^{Footnote 64} .

This chapter reports on the participation of Indigenous Peoples in the establishment and management of protected and conserved areas, as well as progress made by jurisdictions to recognize IPCAs and Indigenous-led area-based conservation, protect sites of cultural importance, value and apply Indigenous Knowledge, and develop agreements that provide Indigenous economic and social benefit.

Establishment of protected and conserved areas

All jurisdictions (100%) report having mechanisms in place for the participation of Indigenous Peoples during protected and conserved area establishment.

Terrestrial protected and conserved areas:

• Eight out of 15 jurisdictions (53%) reported that the participation of Indigenous Peoples in the design, planning and establishment of protected and conserved areas resulted from processes related to modern land claims, treaties, and other agreements
• The following mechanisms were used to include Indigenous Peoples in design, planning and establishment:
  
  • Targeted consultations with Indigenous communities (100%)
  • Public consultations (77%)
  • Treaties and other agreements (69%)
  • Land-use planning (62%)
  • Advisory bodies (e.g., Wildlife Management Boards) (54%)
  • Other mechanisms specified in modern land claims (54%)
• Some jurisdictions provided funding to Indigenous organizations for the identification of areas of interest to Indigenous communities, as well as the creation of IPCA steering committees to support the advancement of local IPCA proposals (e.g., the tripartite Mi’kmaq-federal-provincial forum in Nova Scotia)

Marine protected and conserved areas:

• Four out of seven provinces and territories (57%) indicated that Indigenous communities were formally involved in design, planning, and establishment of protected and conserved areas. A significant example is Indigenous involvement in the creation of the MPA Network in the Northern Shelf Bioregion in British Columbia. Consultation (public consultations, targeted consultation with Indigenous Peoples) was the most frequently cited mechanism for participation (42%), followed by sea-use planning processes, and advisory bodies. Mechanisms for participation in marine areas were largely the same as terrestrial areas
• Indigenous participation was mandated through policy or law in 7 out of 10 jurisdictions

Management of protected and conserved areas

Indigenous participation ensures that management addresses objectives that are important to Indigenous communities. It is a way to include the valuable perspective of knowledge holders and to lead to more equitable decision-making.

Terrestrial protected and conserved areas:

• Targeted engagement (92%), advisory bodies (e.g., Wildlife Management Boards) (69%), co-management of protected areas (69%), and Indigenous-led management (23%) were the most cited mechanisms for Indigenous participation
• In every jurisdiction (100%), Indigenous participation is mandated through law, policy, or management plans of specific areas

• Four organizations reported that Indigenous groups were fully managing specific protected and conserved areas (British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island, and Yukon)
• Most jurisdictions (69%) reported that co-management regimes were in place or being developed with Indigenous Peoples

Marine protected and conserved areas:

• Indigenous participation was reported in 42% of marine jurisdictions. Co-management of marine conservation areas and advisory bodies were the most cited mechanisms for participation
• Federal departments reported an obligation to negotiate impact and benefit agreements (DFO, ECCC, PC)
• Indigenous participation is mandated by law in British Columbia and Manitoba, and in Quebec through management plans of specific areas
• At the federal level, policy requires Indigenous participation during establishment as well as management
• DFO is experimenting with the co-management of marine areas, such as Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Area and Anguniaqvia niqiqyuam Marine Protected Area (both with the Inuvialuit and other partners). In Anguniaqvia niqiqyuam, a Fisheries Joint Management Committee and the community of Paulatuk provide guidance on monitoring and research decisions for the MPA

DFO adopted an adaptive co-management approach, based on a combination of adaptive management and co-management. Together, these two approaches form a dynamic process where management actions are collaborative and continuously improved based on the monitoring of outcomes and the incorporation of new knowledge^{Footnote 65} . This process is applied in the SGaan Kinglas Bowie Seamount MPA. Both scientific and traditional knowledge systems are valued and utilized, leading to more resilient and sustainable management outcomes.

Indigenous knowledge

Indigenous Knowledge is a cumulative body of knowledge, know-how, practices and representations maintained and developed by peoples with extended histories of interaction with the natural environment. These sophisticated sets of understandings, interpretations and meanings are part and parcel of a cultural complex that encompasses language, naming and classification systems, resource use practices, ritual, spirituality and worldview^{Footnote 66} . Indigenous Knowledge has been increasingly valued and considered during protected area management (see textbox below).

• One jurisdiction (Nunavut) reports that Indigenous Knowledge is considered as part of all decisions related to conservation. Four jurisdictions reports that Indigenous Knowledge substantially informs decisions, and seven that Indigenous Knowledge informs a subset of decisions. Only one province reports not using Indigenous Knowledge as part of decision-making yet
• Respecting and acknowledging the preferences and rights of Indigenous communities is an important part of sharing Indigenous Knowledge. In Ontario, the inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge is handled on a case-by-case basis. There are instances where communities may choose not to share information with the Crown for various reasons. These can include relationship concerns, lack of capacity, or cultural beliefs, among others
• On ECCC sites, the consideration of Indigenous Knowledge is required where protected areas are co-managed or established on treaty settlement lands and Aboriginal title lands

Recognizing IPCAS

As defined in the We Rise Togetherreport, Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) are lands and waters where Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance, and knowledge systems.

The term “IPCA” encompasses a broad range of existing and possible legal and governance structures. IPCAs are not a legal designation for areas fully managed or co-managed by Indigenous Peoples. An Indigenous government or community declaring an IPCA solely depends on the preference of the Indigenous community and does not require recognition from federal, provincial, or territorial governments. However, to be federally recognized as a protected area or OECM, IPCAs must meet the pan-Canadian criteria^{Footnote 4} . In other areas such as BC, some IPCAs will include areas where some forms of development can occur, and those specific areas may not meet the criteria of a protected area or OECM.

Indigenous partners have the flexibility to use culturally relevant names, such as the Edéhzhíe Dehcho Protected Area.

While some jurisdictions are developing specific designations for marine and terrestrial IPCAs, most do not currently report any marine IPCAs or IPCA-like areas. The level of Indigenous involvement in marine protected and conserved areas varies across these jurisdictions.

• Most jurisdictions (86%) do not have a specific designation for IPCAs, either at the terrestrial or marine level. However, designations for IPCAs are being developed by three jurisdictions: Parks Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick
• In Manitoba, an area may be designated as an Indigenous traditional use park under The Provincial Parks Act if its main purpose is to preserve lands that are significant to Indigenous Peoples. Manitoba can also designate protected areas under The East Side Traditional Lands Planning and Special Protected Areas Act. The purpose of this Act is to enable First Nations on the east side of Lake Winnipeg to engage in land use and resource management planning for designated areas of Crown land that they have traditionally used
• As of 2020 British Columbia did not have a legal or policy framework to recognize IPCAs. However, the Province created the conservancy designation in 2006 as a way to preserve and maintain First Nations’ social, ceremonial and cultural uses of the land when creating a protected area. 158 conservancies covering over three million hectares have been established in BC in consultation with First Nations

This section will only describe IPCAs reported in CPCAD as protected or conserved areas that meet federal criteria. In total, three jurisdictions have reported a terrestrial IPCA in CPCAD: ECCC (Edéhzhíe Dehcho Protected Area), the Northwest Territories (Wehexlaxodiale), and PC (Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve).

Photo Credit: Canadian Wildlife Service, Jocelyn Gregoire

For marine protected and conserved areas, only one IPCA has been reported: Gwaii Haanas, a National Park Reserve, National Marine Conservation Area Reserve, and Haida Heritage Site.

Sites of cultural importance

Protected and conserved areas are not only important for the protection of ecosystems and wildlife habitat but also for the protection of sites of cultural importance. Sites of cultural importance include areas where traditional land use practices have taken and continue to take place, as well as areas that hold spiritual value.
Terrestrial protected and conserved areas:

• 14 out of 15 jurisdictions (93%) indicated that sites of cultural importance were identified through their protected and conserved area planning
• Sites of cultural importance were also protected through the establishment of terrestrial protected and conserved areas in 13 out of 15 jurisdictions (86%), and in many cases are also protected through legislation other than protected area legislation (86%)

Many sites of cultural importance have been protected across the country:

• Northwest Territories: Sites of cultural importance often overlap with protected areas. Examples include Ezodziti (Tłįchǫ Final Agreement), Kelly Lake (Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement), Wehexlaxodiale (Tłįchǫ Land Use Plan), Thaidene Nëné and Ts’udé Nilįné Tuyeta (Protected Areas Act), and conservation zoning in the Sahtu and Gwich’in Land Use Plans. These sites are also protected under federal legislation (National Parks Act, Canada Wildlife Act) and Dene Laws
• Nunavut: All established territorial parks and proposed parks include sites of cultural importance. These sites are also protected under Nunavut Archaeological and Palaeontological Sites Regulations (SOR/2001-220)
• Québec: Some sites are protected or conserved through the establishment/recognition of protected areas. Examples include Montagne de Chert in the Parc National du Lac-Témiscouata
• ECCC: While ECCC does not have a strategy for identifying sites of cultural importance, areas of importance to wildlife intersect with areas of cultural importance to Indigenous peoples. Examples include candidate National Wildlife Areas in the NWT and the 8 Migratory Bird Sanctuaries and 5 National Wildlife Areas in the Nunavut Settlement area. These sites are co-managed by Indigenous communities, for whom cultural sites are an important aspect of planning and management
• Prince Edward Island: No such sites are protected or conserved through protected and conserved areas
• Parks Canada: Parks Canada protects site of significant cultural importance to Indigenous communities, such as Saoyú-ʔehdacho National Historic Site, protected under the National Historic Sites of the Canada Order.
• New Brunswick: No such sites are protected or conserved through protected and conserved areas
• Yukon: As protected areas in the Yukon are identified in collaboration with First Nations and Inuvialuit, sites of cultural importance often overlap with protected areas.  Examples include Kusawa Territorial Park, Asi Keyi Territorial Park, Ch’ihilii Chìk Habitat Protection Area, Ddhaw Grow Habitat Protection Area, Ni’iinlii Njik (Fishing Branch) Settlement Land and many others
• Manitoba: Some cultural sites are included in protected areas, Whiteshell Provincial Park, Chitek Lake Anishinaabe Provincial Park, Brokenhead Wetland Ecological Reserve, Astatiwisipe Aki Traditional Use Planning Area, Pimitotah Traditional Use Planning Area, and others
• Nova Scotia: Planning includes the identification of sites of cultural importance such as Kluscap Wilderness Area, Tobeatic Wilderness Area, Katewe’katik, Pu’tlaqne’katik, and several smaller wilderness areas and nature reserves; Blomidon Provincial Park, Five Islands Provincial Park, Mersey River Provincial Park Reserve. The Mi’kmawey Debert site is also protected under the Special Places Protection Act
• Saskatchewan: Planning includes the identification of sites of cultural importance to Indigenous communities.
• Ontario: Some cultural sites are included in protected areas. These sites are also protected under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act and the Ontario Heritage Act
• Newfoundland and Labrador: Sites of historic cultural significance can be protected through land claims agreements, or the Historic Resources Act
• British Columbia: British Columbia uses First Nation’s cultural heritage as a criterion for identifying candidate protected areas. As a result, a significant number of the protected areas in this jurisdiction contain sites of cultural importance. While these culturally significant sites may be referred to in public information, details on the nature of the cultural significance or location of the site are often kept confidential at the request of the First Nation

Photo Credit: Alberta Parks

• Alberta: Some sites are included in protected areas, such as Writing-on-Stone / Aisinai’pi Provincial Park, which received a World Heritage Site designation in 2019

Marine protected and conserved areas:

• Sites of cultural importance are a part of planning for marine conservation in two provinces, as well as in three federal departments (ECCC, DFO, PC)
• Six out of nine jurisdictions (67%) reported that sites of cultural importance were protected through legislation other than protected area legislation
• Several of Canada’s MPAs and OECMs provide protection to culturally important sites or species, in addition to being ecologically significant. For instance, the beluga in Tarium Niryutait holds cultural significance as an integral part of the Innu culture and traditions around food. The protection of this area helps to ensure the survival of the beluga population, which in turn preserves cultural practices and traditions
• In DFO’s marine protected and conserved areas, fishing and collecting traditional foods is allowed. Where there is overlap between a Marine Protected Area and an existing food, social and ceremonial fishery, this fishery will continue to take place if conservation objectives are not compromised
• While DFO protects sites of cultural importance, its the legislation (the Oceans Act; 1996) does not provide for the protection of sites of cultural importance. However, the prohibition of activities within a geographic area, with the aim of achieving Marine Protected Area conservation objectives, may result in indirect protection of Indigenous cultural sites

Customary use of biological resources

• Indigenous communities can fully practice the customary use of biological resources (e.g., fishing, hunting, trapping and gathering) in 53% of jurisdictions, while 46% of jurisdictions restrict customary use to specific areas. This is made possible because of legislative provisions and, in some cases, treaties
• For marine biomes, seven out of nine jurisdictions (78%) indicated that their legislation enabled the customary use of biological resources within all their marine protected and conserved areas

The allowances for the customary use of biological resources vary by jurisdiction and by location within the jurisdiction. For example, hunting and trapping are not allowed in all southern parks managed by the Société des établissements de plein air du Québec (Sépaq), but fishing and gathering are allowed in certain areas within these parks. However, in parks located in the James Bay area, beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement are permitted to continue traditional activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering.

Agreements that provide indigenous economic and social benefit

Formal agreements for social impact, benefit, and co-management underpin collaboration between Indigenous Peoples and federal, provincial, and territorial governments. These agreements ensure that benefits arising from the creation of protected and conserved areas are shared with Indigenous Peoples, that new opportunities are created, and that responsibility for management are distributed appropriately.

Agreements can take many forms. In Nunavut, Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements are required by law (see textbox below). In other jurisdictions, agreements stem from initiatives to support Indigenous rights, provide economic opportunities, and promote reconciliation. For instance, in Alberta, First Nation members near Writing-On-Stone Provincial Park derive economic benefits through internship programs and staff agreements with Alberta Parks. In British Columbia, a variety of agreements provide for economic opportunities for First Nations.

Terrestrial protected and conserved areas:

• 10 out of 15 jurisdictions (67%) indicated that these types of agreements were in place for some of their protected and conserved areas
• Out of these, one territory (Nunavut) reported that agreements were in place in all their areas. In addition, agreements were also in place in all federal areas located in settlement lands (Environment and Climate Change Canada and Parks Canada)
• Three out of 15 (20%) indicated that agreements were not in place in any of their protected and conserved areas

Marine protected and conserved areas:

• Three out of six jurisdictions (50%) reported that agreements were in place for some of their protected and conserved areas. Two out of six (33%) indicated that agreements were not in place for any of their protected and conserved areas
• Two federal departments responded that agreements were in place where impact and benefit agreements had been signed (Parks Canada for their National Marine Conservation Areas, and Environment and Climate Change Canada in Nunavut)

Case studies

Thaidene Nëné
In 2019, Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve became Canada’s newest National Park. The park protects boreal forest, tundra, and freshwater biospheres. Łutsël K’é Dene First Nation, Deninu Kųę First Nation, Yellowknives Dene First Nation, and the Northwest Territory Métis Nation work in partnership with the Federal and Territorial governments to monitor, steward, and protect the land. Additionally, the Ni Hat’ni Dene Guardians play an important role in stewarding Thaidene Nëné. Thaidene Nëné continues to safeguard biodiversity and cultural continuity for future generations.

Thaidene Nëné is composed of the NWT’s first Territorial Protected Area created under the new NWT Protected Areas Act, a Wildlife Conservation Area created under the NWT Wildlife Act and a national park reserve, protected through the Canada National Parks Act. Collectively, these areas constitute the Thaidene Nëné Indigenous Protected Area.  At 26,300 km², it is to date Canada’s largest protected area established in collaboration between national/subnational governments and Indigenous governments. The land is culturally significant to the Métis and First Nations of the area because of its many sacred sites and culturally significant species. Thaidene Nëné achieves key objectives for the conservation of biodiversity and will allow for cultural continuity and tourism investments that will directly benefit neighbouring communities. Monitoring and conservation work is done collaboratively among these four Nations and government partners, with decisions being made through consensus.

Edéhzhíe
In 2001, a committee of the Dehcho Dene, the Northwest Territories government, and the Canadian federal government was formed to create the Dehcho Land Use Plan. This plan would eventually lead to the creation of Edéhzhíe in 2018, established on the Horn Plateau on the west side of Great Slave Lake, southwest of Yellowknife.

Dehcho K’éhodi means “taking care of the Dehcho” in Dehcho Dene Zhatié. The Dehcho K’éhodi Stewardship Program is one of Edéhzhíe’s greatest strengths. It is an on-the-ground program developed by all partner Dehcho First Nation communities that provides regionally and culturally relevant activities. It is driven by three guiding principles: 1) the program should be guided by Dene values, 2) it should strengthen the Dene language, and 3) it should ensure youth-elder relationships. The Dehcho K’éhodi continues to grow, now set on braiding workshops and relationships developed through the stewardship program with the Dehcho Guardianship Program.

The Guardianship Program is an extension of elder-led teaching and learning. Guardians combine the Traditional Knowledge and methods of their ancestors with the western scientific practices of climate monitoring, water monitoring, and ecosystem protection. The Dehcho First Nations office hosts the Dehcho-AAROM (Aboriginal Aquatic Resources and Oceans Management) program. This is a regional program that facilitates community-based water monitoring in the Dehcho while supporting First Nations sovereignty.

Photo Credit:  Canadian Wildlife Service, Sam Hache

Chitek Lake Anishinaabe Provincial Park

This park is the only place in Manitoba where you can find all five species of hoofed wild mammals that occur in that province: deer, moose, elk, caribou, and bison. Two of them, the wood bison and the boreal woodland caribou, are threatened species. In 2016, the Manitoba Government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Skownan First Nation to reflect the value of protecting the areas under the Indigenous traditional use park classification. This was a gesture of recognition and respect for the rights of the Skownan First Nation to use the land for their livelihood and culture. Commercial and industrial activities were prohibited in over 99% of the park, but traditional activities were encouraged including the Chitek Lake fisheries, a source of income and food for the Skownan people. The park also hosted an annual cultural camp, where elders and youth share their knowledge and traditions.

Chapter 5: Stakeholder involvement and private land conservation

This chapter explores how local communities, non-governmental organizations, and private partners contribute to conservation. It delves into the consultation processes and engagement strategies used by all jurisdictions and the incentive programs that support private land conservation.

Non-government organizations and citizen groups

Local ‘friends-of’ organizations and NGOs manage on-site educational programs and lead citizen-science initiatives, often with support from government. They also advocate for conservation and measures to achieve it on specific sites. More than half of the jurisdictions surveyed (8 out of 15, or 53%) worked with NGOs or citizen groups. These partnerships sometimes result in the creation of privately protected areas and co-managed areas (53%).

Terrestrial protected and conserved areas:

For instance, Ontario is co-managing areas with the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Additionally, numerous ‘friends-of’ groups assist with projects in provincial parks, including construction of boardwalks, delivery of some of the natural heritage education programming, selling of park publications, etc.

Nova Scotia Provincial Parks has entered into five Park Management Agreements to give authority to Park and Trail Associations and municipalities to manage recreational trails within wilderness areas. Seven more agreements are currently in draft development.

In Manitoba, NGOs or citizen groups provide buffers and wildlife corridors between designated protected areas, which promotes ecological connectivity. Under The Conservation Agreement Act, private landowners can put a legally binding easement on their land to ensure that future owners maintain the natural features of the land.

Similarly, private landowners can have their land designated as natural areas in Prince Edward Island (Natural Areas Protection Act), Quebec (Natural Heritage Protection Act) and New Brunswick (Protected Natural Areas Act).

Marine protected and conserved areas:

Four out of ten organizations (40%) partnered with non-government bodies or citizen groups. Examples include the Government of Quebec, which is working with the non-profit organization Parc Nature de Pointe-aux-Outardes (French only) to develop a management plan for the Manicouagan aquatic reserve. Through the Coastal Communities Conservation Opportunities Initiative, DFO also developed programs to include community members in marine conservation.

Local community participation

Successful establishment and management of protected and conserved areas depends on the social context in which they are located. Consulting with a variety of stakeholders and including local communities can help address issues ranging from resolving conflict, to negotiating collaborative arrangements or partnerships.

Terrestrial protected and conserved areas:

• Fourteen out of 15 jurisdictions (93%) were mandated by law or policy to consult communities located near or adjacent to protected and conserved areas
• In twelve out of 15 jurisdictions (80%), most management plans included provisions for consultation with communities

Communities were consulted regarding management decisions:

• One out of 15 (6%) consulted communities on day-to-day management decisions (Nunavut)
• Ten out of 15 jurisdictions (67%) occasionally engaged local communities in management decisions
• Four out of 15 (27%) infrequently held consultations or only consulted with local communities for major management decisions
• At the federal level, ECCC consulted with local communities near National Wildlife Areas and as well as with the broader Canadian public. PC consulted during the preparation of management plans

Some jurisdictions, such as Manitoba, engage a wide range of stakeholders during establishment (Indigenous people, local communities, as well as mining, forestry, petroleum, and hydroelectric sectors). In that province, local communities and Indigenous communities make management decisions with Resource Co-Management Boards for sites falling within their Resource Management Areas, for instance by providing recommendations on proposed activities.

Marine protected and conserved areas:

• Six out of nine jurisdictions (67%) consulted local communities as a legal or policy requirement
• In five out of nine jurisdictions (56%), most management plans included provisions for the participation of local communities
• Five out of nine jurisdictions (55%) consulted communities occasionally, while the remaining held infrequent consultations
• DFO is legally required to consult local communities under section 31 of the Oceans Act. Community representatives participate on MPA Advisory Committees, especially coastal sites (as opposed to offshore sites)

Resource sector industries

Industries from resource sectors are consulted in the majority of terrestrial jurisdictions (14 out of 15) and marine jurisdictions (8 out of 9).

Terrestrial protected and conserved areas:

• Ten out of 15 organizations (67%) had a working relationship with relevant resource sectors
• Eight out of 15 (53%) engaged with resource industries on rights withdrawals for establishing protected and conserved areas
• Five main consultation mechanisms were used for engaging industries:
  • Traditional public consultations (86%)
  • Targeted consultations for resource sector participants (73%)
  • Land-use planning processes (73%)
  • Participation in advisory bodies (53%)
  • Industry participation in co-management boards (Kitaskino Nuwenëné Wildland in Alberta)

In British Columbia, resource industries were represented during land use planning tables in the 1990s and 2000s where protected and conserved area recommendations were developed. In some cases, resource industries have voluntarily relinquished rights to develop resources for protected and conserved areas to be established.

In Manitoba, Indigenous communities, local communities, industry, and Manitoba Hydro participate in protected area planning. Manitoba Hydro works to avoid or to minimize adverse environmental effects that may be associated with their development activity near protected and conserved areas.

In Alberta, industry is an important partner. Resource companies such as Alpac and TransCanada Pipelines were actively engaged with Alberta Parks on the mitigation of disturbance to biodiversity. In 2019, Kitaskino Nuwenëné Wildland Provincial Park was established thanks to a collaboration between industry partners and Indigenous communities.

Marine protected and conserved areas:

• Four out of ten jurisdictions had a working relationship with relevant resource sectors for conservation projects
• Six out of ten engaged in specific rights withdrawals to enable the establishment of marine protected and conserved areas
• Four mechanisms for consultations have been used:
  • Public consultation processes (80%)
  • Targeted or specific consultations with resource sectors (60%)
  • Sea-use planning processes (40%)
  • Advisory bodies (20%)

Protecting and conserving private lands

Although private lands formally account for less than 1% of the total area protected and conserved in Canada, these lands are likely underreported^{Footnote 70} . Privately protected areas tend to be located on lands that hold high species richness and Species at Risk richness, especially in southern Canada^{Footnote 71} .

Programs to support privately protected areas

The conservation of privately protected areas is fully or partially recognized by 10 of 15 jurisdictions (67%). Some jurisdictions created specific designations for privately protected or conserved areas: Réserve naturelle et le milieu naturel de conservation volontaire (Quebec), and Private Conservation Lands (Saskatchewan).

Fiscal and tax incentives encourage the creation of private conservation reserves, through fee-simple ownership, or through the establishment of conservation easements, covenants or servitudes on private land:

• In Alberta, the Land Trust Grant Program secures private lands with high conservation value through easements and partnerships with various land trust agencies. Between 2016 and 2020, the Land Trust Grant Program effectively secured 266 km² of land in Alberta
• Alberta’s Heritage Rangelands (native grasslands) allow for private leaseholders to graze the site and allow low-intensity recreational use where compatible with conservation objectives. The first grazing leases in Alberta were instituted as early as 1881. Albertans benefit by having leaseholders engage in stewardship, with those closest to the land as the day-to-day managers of 5.2 million acres of crown land^{Footnote 73}
• British Columbia created the Marine Parks Forever program for cost sharing and infrastructure donation (anchors, stern ties, buoys) to support the use of marine parks. BC Parks also administer many properties that are owned by NGOs or individuals and leased to the ministry to manage for 99 years
• Ontario has been actively working with external partners to match private contributions for land securement projects through the Greenlands Conservation Partnership Program. In 2020, an investment of $20 million over four years was made to help secure land of ecological importance and promote healthy, natural spaces. The funding supported the Nature Conservancy of Canada and members of the Ontario Land Trust Alliance, in their efforts to conserve, restore and manage natural areas of high conservation value through privately protected areas
• Federally, conservation projects on private lands are funded through many programs, including the Habitat Stewardship Program, the National Wetland Fund (which provided funding until 2019), and the Natural Areas Conservation Program
  • The Habitat Stewardship Program is administered by ECCC to support projects that conserve and protect species at risk and their habitats and help to preserve biodiversity as a whole. These funds promote the participation of local communities, non-government organizations, and other organizations
  • The Natural Heritage Conservation Program helps non-profit, non-government organizations secure ecologically sensitive lands to ensure the protection of diverse ecosystems, wildlife, and habitat. Funding is provided by ECCC, and the project is administered by the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Organizations provide matching funds at a 2:1 ratio for each federal dollar received to acquire ecologically sensitive lands or develop conservation agreements with private landowners. Priority is given to lands that protect habitat for species at risk and migratory birds or enhance connectivity among protected areas. In addition, lands may be secured that have national or provincial significance based on ecological criteria or to reduce significant land-use stressors adjacent to protected areas
  • The National Wetland Conservation Fund is a five-year program initiated in 2014–2015 and administered by ECCC. The program supports on-the-ground activities to restore and enhance wetlands in Canada, including wetlands on privately owned lands. Some of the activities funded have resulted in the creation of new privately held protected areas
• Other provinces such as Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Manitoba have directly supported private land conservation initiatives through direct or matching funding, or through the establishment of land acquisition trust funds. New Brunswick has legal mechanisms to formally recognize and designate privately protected areas. Quebec can also recognize privately protected areas through the Natural Heritage Conservation Act, when the landowner requests it

Financial incentives and instruments

Further incentive measures are in place to help secure private lands in 10 out of 15 jurisdictions (67%).

Provincial and territorial governments are working with NGOs and ECCC to improve the recognition of privately held conservation lands. The Ecological Gifts Program, for example, is administered by ECCC in cooperation with dozens of partners. It offers tax benefits to landowners who donate land or a partial interest in land to a qualified recipient to ensure that biodiversity and environmental heritage are conserved in perpetuity. The Ecological Gifts Program celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2020. Since the program’s inception in 1995, more than 1,500 ecological gifts valued at nearly one billion dollars have been donated by landowners across Canada, protecting over 200,000 hectares of wildlife habitat^{Footnote 74} .

• In Prince Edward Island, property tax relief is provided by the province under the Real Property Tax Act. Tax benefits for land donations to registered charitable organizations are also accessible (through the Ecological Gifts Program)
• In Manitoba, the Riparian Tax Credit was initiated by the Manitoba Department of Finance. It is designed to encourage farm operators to manage lakeshores, river and stream banks. Benefits are available to farmers and livestock producers who make a 5-year commitment to protect a strip along a waterway on agricultural land. Furthermore, Manitoba created the Conservation Trust in 2018 with a $102-million contribution to an endowment fund to generate revenues for conservation projects. Two additional trusts, the GROW Trust and the Wetlands GROW Trust, have also been created, bringing Manitoba’s total investment in these trusts to $204 million. The Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation manages the granting programs that administer revenue for the trusts. Activities funded by the Conservation Trust include conserving biodiversity, mitigating floods and droughts, supporting climate-change mitigation through carbon sequestration, improving soil health, preserving waterways and decreasing soil erosion. The Conservation and Climate Fund, created in 2020, provides funding for projects that support current priorities from the Made-In-Manitoba Climate and Green Plan. Eligible categories include nature and resilient landscapes, and water conservation
• Many provinces also offer tax relief (e.g., lower property taxes, income tax refunds, issuance of a provincial tax receipt, etc.) for land placed under a conservation easement (AB, BC, NB, NS, PEI)

Chapter 6: Provincial, territorial, and federal summaries

This chapter offers a snapshot of protected areas across sixteen government jurisdictions, including provinces, territories, and federal government departments. It describes the area covered by protected and conserved areas in each jurisdiction and provides a breakdown of these areas by governance type and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) management categories. The chapter also compares the growth of protected areas in each jurisdiction since 2015. This growth is represented by the percent increase from the 2015 area of protected and conserved areas.

The chapter also highlights some of the significant achievements each jurisdiction has made during the reporting period and outlines their reported priorities for protected areas planning and management for the following five years.

Appendix

Appendix 1. Data sources and methods

Data sources

Geospatial data are taken from the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database (CPCAD). Data from federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions, the authoritative data sources, are compiled by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Data description

CPCAD contains data consolidated from all jurisdictions with responsibilities for conserved areas in Canada. Data are current as of December 31, 2020.

The statistics calculated in this report are based on the subset of CPCAD that counts towards international reporting targets.

At least once each year, federal, provincial, and territorial departments and agencies submit geospatial and ancillary data for conserved areas under their administrative control. Data on areas controlled by Indigenous or non-governmental organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ducks Unlimited Canada, are included where a jurisdiction has recognized and reported those areas.

The data include the name of the area, its geospatial location, boundaries, official area, biome (terrestrial/marine), International Union for Conservation of Nature management category, managing jurisdiction, and protection date, among other information.

In cases where the same attribute information does not apply to the entire conserved area, the area is divided into zones for reporting. For example, a single protected area that crosses a provincial border is divided into zones corresponding to the different provinces. Similarly, a protected area that is later expanded is treated as several zones, each with its own protection date. Terrestrial and marine sections are treated as separate zones; freshwater is included in the terrestrial zone. Ancillary data are maintained independently for each zone. Conserved areas that are undivided are treated as a single zone.

Work is ongoing to capture and incorporate data on additional privately held protected areas and on areas being conserved through means other than formal protection.

Information on protected area coverage within Canada’s terrestrial and marine ecological regions (ecozones and ecoregions) is based on Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Terrestrial Ecological Framework and Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Federal Marine Bioregions, respectively. In 2014, the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, updated Canada’s spatial data at the broadest level of ecological classification, the Ecozone. This spatial framework replaced the 1995 ecological framework as well as the temporary Ecozone+ framework, which was referenced in the previous report.

Data sources on jurisdictional area

• For Canada and for all provinces and territories except Quebec: Natural Resources Canada (2005) Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Land and freshwater area, by province and territory.
• For Quebec: Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs.
• Canada's marine territory: Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2013) departmental analysis based on National Resources Canada (2009) Atlas of Canada 1:1,000,000 National Frameworks Data, Administrative Boundaries

Data sources on National boundaries

Natural Resources Canada (2019) CanVec Series 1:1,000,000 Geopolitical Region, Administrative Boundaries.

Data sources on Ecozones and ecoregions

Environment and Climate Change Canada (2019) Canadian Terrestrial Ecological Framework. Marine ecozones are based on Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2016) Federal Marine Bioregions (Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Science Advisory Report 2009/056).

Methods

The area conserved is estimated by means of a geographical analysis based on reported boundaries, accounting for overlaps. Separate estimates are made for protected areas and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs).

Calculating Canada's protected and conserved area

CPCAD contains information on the protection or conservation date for each zone. For some zones, it also contains a delisting date.

To estimate the terrestrial protected and conserved area trend over time:

1. All polygons representing terrestrial protected areas that were protected in 1990 or earlier were selected from the database
2. The selected polygons were dissolved into a single polygon (removing overlaps), and the resulting area calculated using Albers Equal Area Conic projection
3. The process was repeated for each subsequent year (delisted areas were removed from the analysis starting in the year they were delisted)
4. Estimates were divided by the total terrestrial area of Canada to determine the proportion protected

To estimate the marine protected area, a similar process was followed, selecting protected marine polygons at each step. The process was repeated for OECMs, for both terrestrial and marine. Total area protected and conserved was calculated by summing area protected and OECM area.

Within the database, 3.7% of sites have an unknown qualifying year. If a polygon with an unknown qualifying year was described as "interim," it was assigned a qualifying year based on the year it was first reported to the database (1.2% of total sites); otherwise, it was treated as having been protected prior to 1990.

Terrestrial protected or conserved areas, within each province and territory

The database contains information on the province or territory in which a protected or conserved area is located. Using methodology similar to that used for reporting trends in the national indicator, for each province and territory, terrestrial protected area polygons were combined into a single polygon and the area calculated. The analysis was repeated for terrestrial OECMs. Only overlaps within a province or territory are removed. Overlaps between provinces and territories can occur, due to unavoidable uncertainties in spatial data. In the event of an overlap between areas protected by both a Protected Area (PA) and an OECM, the PA takes precedence and the OECM overlap is ignored in the area calculation.
Terrestrial and marine protected and conserved areas, by reporting jurisdiction

The database also contains information on the jurisdiction responsible for each protected or conserved area. As with the national indicator, for each jurisdiction, protected areas polygons were combined into a single polygon and the total area was calculated. Additional analysis was conducted to estimate the area for OECMs. In the event of an overlap between areas protected by both a Protected Area (PA) and an OECM, the PA takes precedence and the OECM overlap is ignored in the area calculation.

Protected and Conserved areas, by ecological area

CPCAD does not contain information on ecological areas. To generate an estimate of conserved area within each ecozone and ecoregion, a geospatial analysis was conducted. National ecozone and ecoregion boundaries are more generalized than CPCAD, this has the potential to affect estimates in coastal areas. To address this risk of erroneous categorization, marine conserved areas that occurred outside a marine ecozone were assigned to the nearest marine ecozone. Similarly, terrestrial conserved areas that occurred outside a terrestrial ecozone were assigned to the nearest terrestrial ecozone. The steps followed were:

An analysis layer was created for marine ecozones to address the risk of categorization errors. This analysis layer extended inland to include adjacent terrestrial regions. Using a subset of the marine protected areas from within CPCAD and this new analysis layer these marine protected areas were divided by each ecozone boundary. The protected area polygons from this combined layer, and the overlap-corrected area was calculated for each ecozone, resulting in marine areas assigned to the correct ecozone.

This process was repeated for marine ecozones, terrestrial protected areas and terrestrial OECMs.

All area calculations were made with Albers Equal Area Conic projection. The Newfoundland-Labrador Shelves ecozone area was corrected for the territorial area of St Pierre and Miquelon. The total area conserved per ecozone was divided by the total area of the ecozone in order to generate a percentage.

For the terrestrial ecoregion analysis, the overlap-adjusted protected area and OECM area within each ecoregion was calculated. Terrestrial conserved areas falling outside the ecoregion boundaries were assigned to the nearest ecoregion.

Chapter 6 Governance type and IUCN Management Category breakdown by jurisdiction

CPCAD data for each jurisdiction was dissolved by IUCN Category and separately by Governance Type. For provinces and territories, the terrestrial totals are displayed both as an area and as a percentage of the terrestrial area of the province or territory. Marine zones were not included.

For national organizations the marine and terrestrial zones were used to calculate the area and as a percentage of the marine or terrestrial area of Canada.

Percent increase in area from 2016:

Prior to 2017 the CPCAD database was maintained with a different schema and was known as the Conservation Areas Reporting and Tracking System (CARTS). 2016 CARTS data used the same dissolve process as the 2020 CPCAD with total protected and conserved terrestrial area increase expressed as a percentage of the 2016 total. For 2016 only areas that counted towards the Aichi Targets were included (CARTS: AICHI_T11 = 'Yes' OR AICHI_T11 = 'Interim')

See Appendix 2 for data limitation related to IUCN and Government type.

Appendix 2. Data Limitations

More information

The area protected or conserved calculated using polygon boundaries may differ from the "official area" reported in the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database.

Responsibility for source data accuracy and completeness lies with the jurisdictions. Jurisdictional work is guided by the federal, provincial and territorial report One with Nature. Guidance material and decision support tools were adapted from, and in collaboration with, the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas. Nonetheless, some differences in the approach jurisdictions take in recognizing protected areas and OECMs can be expected.

Areas that are no longer recognized as protected or conserved ("decommissioned" or "delisted") are not captured comprehensively and may be missing from the database. Decommissioned or delisted areas are counted from their establishment date until their delisting date.

Complex boundaries, such as coastlines and ecological areas, must be generalized for mapping purposes. In nature, ecozones or ecoregions do not have sharp boundaries. Due to the uncertainty of such boundaries, results should be seen as estimates rather than precise measurements. The mismatch in scale between conserved areas, mapped with fine detail, and national-scale geographic frameworks, mapped at a broad scale, may lead to minor differences across the various summaries because of the measurement uncertainty inherent in this type of analysis. Differences in the delineation of coastlines may result in a small amount of overlap between marine and terrestrial conserved area polygon boundaries; these overlaps have not been addressed.

Ecozones and ecoregions are ecologically based frameworks and should not be considered an expression of sovereignty. The 2019 updates to the ecozone and ecoregion frameworks have been completed for the purpose of reporting on ecological representation for Pathway to Canada Target 1, and do not represent an official update of the 1995 National Ecological Framework. While the 2019 framework contains the most up-to-date information from jurisdictions, it should be noted that a different methodology was used by each data provider to determine the boundaries of the ecozones and ecoregions and that this national layer may differ from the provincial and territorial layers.

Protection is a designation, and the indicators do not provide information on the effectiveness of protection, the degree to which the ecological functioning of the area is intact, or the degree to which pressures outside a conserved area might affect the biodiversity within it.

In Chapter 6, total areas (in km²) in IUCN Management Categories and Governance type categories are overestimated because of overlaps between categories. In cases of overlap, one classification cannot be chosen over the other. If all governance types are added up, the total area protected will appear higher than the reported total.

Appendix 3. Area protected and conserved in terrestrial ecozones during the reporting period
(January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020)

Appendix 4. Area protected and conserved in marine ecozones during the reporting period
(January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020)