Canada’s New Nature Strategy Misses the Mark: A Lack of Meaningful and Worthwhile Actions in Canada’s New Nature Strategy

July 6, 2026

• •
• •
• •

• National Parks
• Protected Areas
• Wildlands
• Wildlife
• WLA Archive

Wildlands Advocate article by Ruiping Luo, AWA Conservation Specialist

Read the PDF version here.

 

On March 31, 2026, Canada released A Force of Nature: Canada’s Strategy to Protect Nature. It was announced as a “new nature strategy to protect Canada’s natural environment” and promises an investment towards protecting and restoring nature.

This strategy acknowledges a few promises from the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), an international agreement under the Convention on Biological Diversity signed by Canada and 195 other countries 2022. It also follows Canada’s 2030 Nature Strategy: Halting and Reversing Biodiversity Loss in Canada, a plan released in 2024 describing how Canada intended to meet our KMGBF goals.

Nature and biodiversity loss are ongoing crises. According to the United Nations (UN), 75 percent of land has been significantly altered by human actions, and one million species of plants and animals are at risk of extinction worldwide. In Canada, more than half of monitored species are declining, with the greatest declines in grasslands, according to the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) Living Planet Report Canada (LPRC) 2025: Wildlife at Home.

Still, Canada contains some of the best remaining natural ecosystems. As noted in A Force of Nature, “Canada is one of the most nature-rich countries on earth, with 20 percent of the world’s fresh water, 25 percent of global wetlands, nearly a quarter of the boreal forest, the world’s longest coastline, and habitat for approximately 80,000 species.” Canada has a clear responsibility to aid in protecting the world’s nature and biodiversity.

Further, nature is vital to our health and economy. Natural systems act as carbon stores, help filter and clean air and water, provide habitat for pollinators and other important invertebrates, and buffer systems against extreme weather events, such as flood and drought. This is acknowledged directly in the nature strategy, estimating “Canada’s wetlands provide ~$225 billion per year in ecosystem services… Canada’s boreal forests contribute ~$703 billion per year in ecosystem services,” and “annual value of these ecosystem services managed in National Parks is $372 billion.”

Unfortunately, there has been minimal progress when it comes to halting and reversing biodiversity loss. Each year, we continue to lose habitat as grasslands are converted, forests are cut down, wetlands are drained, and landscapes are fragmented. Fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals pollute our lands and waters. Restoration of lost and degraded habitat is slow, where it’s even possible.

Unlike its predecessor, the new nature strategy is relatively simple. It does not attempt to cover all the goals outlined in the KMGBF, instead structuring around three pillars: protecting nature in Canada, building Canada well, and valuing nature and mobilizing capital. It provides a plan to protect 30 percent of Canada’s terrestrial ecosystems and 28 percent of marine ecosystems by 2030, in near compliance with the KMGBF 30 by 30 goal, as well as promising to integrate the protection of nature into development decisions, and better accounting for the value of nature in decision making.

The continued acknowledgement of Indigenous-led stewardship and involvement is welcome, although there is no mention of the need for collaboration and diverse voices, as was included in the previous strategy. Also, while the strategy does promise to advance Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) and support Indigenous-led initiatives, it has not promised to incorporate their feedback into decisions that will affect nature outside stewarded areas. Therefore, there is nothing to compel government or private investors to consult Indigenous peoples or other diverse interests on projects affecting Canada’s lands and waters.

The strategy also fails to promise protection to representative, connected, or biologically important areas, instead only aiming to protect nearly 30 percent of lands and waters. Many of the areas proposed for protection are remote and have fewer land-use pressures. For instance, the Seal River Watershed and the Eastern James Bay, areas in northern Manitoba, and Ontario and Quebec respectively, proposed for protection, are relatively isolated and have smaller human populations. While protecting areas such as these is valuable, these ecosystems are already better protected than others. Meanwhile, ecosystems such as the Canadian prairies, already highly threatened and underrepresented in protected areas, continue to be lost, and with them, many of our prairie species.

There is no mention in the strategy of the need to phase out harmful incentives, such as ineffective oil and gas subsidies, or to reduce pollution from pesticides, fertilizers, plastics, and other chemicals. There is minimal discussion of restoration, which is needed in ecosystems that are already heavily lost or degraded, and where many species are rapidly declining.

With the new strategy, Canada has promised $3.8 billion to protect nature. Funding towards biodiversity and nature is always appreciated, as it shows a commitment to completing the actions mentioned in the strategy. However, this amount is not nearly enough, even with the suggestion of private funding, considering the continued loss of Canada’s ecosystems and species decline. In comparison, a report by Environmental Defence in 2024 found the oil and gas industry received $29.6 billion in subsidies and financing. Nature, as the basis of our economy, should be worth much more than a single industry. With the potential value of ecosystem services totalling hundreds of billions of dollars, why are we not investing more to ensure we don’t lose them?

The strategy also prioritizes industry and economic growth over nature protection in promising “Canada will integrate its nature and economic agendas to support timely development decisions while protecting nature,” and “will use regional assessments under the Impact Assessment Act to examine the effects of development within specific regions.” These statements indicate a lack of responsibility for the environment. They indicate support for “timely development,” which has often come at the expense of thorough environmental assessments, and shift responsibility to provincial governments, where consultation is known to be inconsistent and transparency to be lacking.

The management of important and sensitive areas is also a concern. Offsetting, indicated as an option in the strategy, is often ineffective at preventing net loss of habitat. Offsets frequently fail to provide habitat of equal value to that which was lost, and they are often used as justification for destroying sensitive and valuable ecosystems rather than considering more effective avoidance or mitigation measures. Identification of such sensitive areas is vital, and clear and enforceable limits should be enacted for these regions. To ensure accurate identification, the identification of these regions should not be left solely to artificial intelligence (AI), a process suggested in the strategy to accelerate permitting. Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) identification should not occur without extensive local consultation or a proper understanding of the communities involved. Expediency must not come at the expense of environmental protection.

Finally, although valuation of our natural ecosystem could help develop incentives, policies, and business practices, these calculations rarely capture their true value. Our natural ecosystems are often undervalued, restricted to the ecosystem services we are aware of and can set a price for.  Valuation focuses on economic and human well-being, frequently missing the larger benefits that exist for the landscape and for biodiversity. Our natural ecosystems should be valued for more than the profit they can generate.

While the new nature strategy provides feasible, concrete goals and actions, along with partial funding for these actions, it is not enough to protect and recover Canada’s declining biodiversity. It fails to protect the areas most at risk, does not support necessary Indigenous and diverse stakeholder consultation, and lacks ambition for more meaningful and difficult actions. It targets easy goals and does not prioritize nature in economic decisions. Although the promised actions are a start, we would like to see the strategy greatly expanded and include actions to protect highly endangered habitats and species as well as significantly reduce nature and biodiversity loss.