Introduction
One hundred and sixty-eight countries have signed and ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which enshrines national commitments to conservation of biodiversity. Of these signatories, Canada is the second-largest country and is in a strong position to create positive biodiversity outcomes. Following adoption of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets 2011–2020, Canada set 19 specific national targets related to biodiversity conservation in the 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada (
ECCC 2016a). Canada Target 1 is a restatement of quantitative aspects of Aichi Target 11, namely protection of 17% (1.70 million km
2) of terrestrial and freshwater areas by 2020. As of June 2017, 10.6% (1.05 million km
2) of Canada’s lands had received such protection (
GC 2017). From an ecological perspective, the proportion of protected area required to ensure the persistence of biodiversity is substantially greater, with estimates varying from 25%–75% (
Svancara et al. 2005;
Noss et al. 2012;
Locke 2015;
Dinerstein et al. 2017). Protected areas, in and of themselves, are not sufficient to reverse biodiversity declines but must be complemented by appropriate governance and careful management of lands (
Geldmann et al. 2015) in and out of protected areas. We acknowledge the importance of additional measures to reverse biodiversity decline but focus here on ecological criteria to select protected areas.
Specific, critical elements of Aichi Target 11 state that protected area conservation should include areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services that are ecologically representative and well connected and integrated into the broader landscape and seascape. These qualitative elements (for a discussion see
Rees et al. 2017) are vital to evidence-based efforts to reverse biodiversity decline and, although not included in written text for Canada Target 1, have been represented as part of Canada Target 1 (
McKenna 2017). As such, we hereafter refer interchangeably to Aichi Target 11 and Canada Target 1 to encompass Canada’s commitment to reduce biodiversity decline through establishment of protected areas.
Here, we use biophysical science to help identify priority areas for protection under Canada’s Target 1 and, ultimately, to reduce biodiversity loss. Our focus is solely on terrestrial protected areas. We do not consider freshwater protected areas, which require different management approaches and involve a different suite of biophysical processes (see
Chu et al. 2003;
Chessman 2013;
Chu et al. 2014;
Grantham et al. 2017). Marine protected areas are dealt with in a separate, parallel policy process and are similarly excluded. Many candidate sites for expanding Canada’s protected area network have already been identified through a variety of processes and plans (e.g., Parks Canada’s system plan, Key Biodiversity Areas, Indigenous and community-conserved areas, land-trust acquisition plans, regional land-use plans, provincial and territorial protected area strategies). Such sites have been put forth based on differing criteria, however, and could benefit from being placed in a common framework to reach national conservation goals. An operational policy for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is needed to move Canada forward along the Pathway to Target 1. Ideally, to increase consistency of conservation decision-making, such a policy would be based on a transparent and objective approach where biophysical science is considered explicitly and then integrated with socioeconomic and governance criteria. Below, we develop such a scientific framework, which can form a base for integration of community, socio-economic, and governance issues to achieve Target 1 (see section: A framework to guide Canada’s protected area planning).
The Canadian context for protected areas: threats to biodiversity in Canada
Canadians across political and demographic lines generally support effective environmental management: nearly all Canadians (97%) consider the protection of Canada’s endangered biodiversity important
1 (
McCune et al. 2017). Human pressures on the environment have had profound detrimental impacts on species across the globe (
Ceballos et al. 2015; see
Box S1). Even within Canada, a country with vast remaining wilderness and an international reputation for natural resources (
Watson et al. 2016a), human-dominated regions show extensive biodiversity loss (see
Fig. 1;
Fig. 2;
Coristine and Kerr 2011;
McCune et al. 2013). The populations of hundreds of wildlife species have declined rapidly in Canada over the past 150 years, placing them at risk of extinction (
canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/committee-status-endangered-wildlife.html). Although the precise causes are often species specific (
McCune et al. 2013), habitat loss and destruction explain most declines for endangered terrestrial species (
Venter et al. 2006). Areas of intensive agriculture and urbanization (
Kerr and Cihlar 2004;
Coristine and Kerr 2011), transportation networks (
Robillard et al. 2015), industrial operations such as mining and smelting (
Bayne et al. 2008;
Kelly et al. 2009;
Hebblewhite 2017), and development of wetlands (
van Asselen et al. 2013) put intense pressure on ecosystems. A warming climate further threatens organisms, species, communities, and ecosystems in a myriad of unanticipated ways (
Urban et al. 2016), particularly when populations must shift poleward through fragmented and degraded habitats to track suitable climates (
Robillard et al. 2015).
Key principles of biodiversity conservation
In this paper, we discuss five key biodiversity conservation principles that can be used to facilitate an evidence-based approach to the establishment of protected areas under Target 1. We identify gaps in protection in Canada and illustrate how these principles can be integrated to identify areas with greatest potential to improve biodiversity prospects.
Principle 1: protect species at risk
Protection of species at risk is essential to biodiversity conservation. Areas with the greatest loss of biodiversity tend to occur in highly developed southern portions of Canada and represent regions where the greatest strides can be made to reverse biodiversity decline.
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the status of wildlife species or other designatable units and has identified 735 species at risk of extinction. Three-quarters of these species are legally listed under the Species At Risk Act (SARA) (
ECCC 2017) and protected against intentional harming or killing. SARA does not automatically protect the habitat of these species (
Bird and Hodges 2017), which is only legally designated once a recovery strategy is finalized. Critical habitat protection generally only applies on federal land (∼5% of land within the provinces) unless the species is aquatic or a migratory bird or an emergency order is issued. Climatic requirements are not currently included in critical habitat designations, making it difficult to plan for future habitat needs.
Indeed, there is clear evidence that current protection for Canadian species at risk is not sufficient; even after being designated under COSEWIC, the status of many species at risk in Canada continues to decline. Where species have been reassessed by COSEWIC, declines outnumber improvements by more than two to one (
Favaro et al. 2014). Further, one-quarter of the observed improvements were driven by increased sampling effort, not intensified conservation efforts (
Favaro et al. 2014). Increasing protected areas within regions where species are currently threatened is central to reducing biodiversity loss (
Fig. 2). Ecological restoration will often be needed to ensure that these already impacted landscapes increase local biodiversity (
Benayas et al. 2009) and effectively connect populations (see Principle 4;
M’Gonigle et al. 2015;
Foster et al. 2017). Canada Target 1 has the potential to dramatically improve conservation for species at risk through well-situated protected areas (
Venter et al. 2014) that include critical habitat and restoration of degraded lands. To prevent further erosion of Canada’s biodiversity, this principle should be prioritized.
Principle 2: represent ecosystem diversity
Minimum protection targets for each Canadian ecoregion can ensure persistence of a variety of ecosystem services (e.g., flood control, carbon sequestration), as well as preserve diverse ecological communities.
Canada is home to a diversity of biological communities with unique interacting species in habitats ranging from the desert of southern British Columbia to the tundra of the Arctic territories. Preserving biodiversity across this array of habitats is only possible if functional ecosystems remain intact in each (see Principles 1 and 4). Aichi Target 11 recommends protecting a minimum of 10% in each “ecoregion” to ensure representativeness (
cbd.int/sp/targets/rationale/target-11). Thus, a second principle when prioritizing candidate protected areas for Target 1 is representativity.
Maintaining representative areas of Canada’s diverse ecosystems allows people to benefit from the various ecosystem services that these regions provide (
de Groot et al. 2002;
Carpenter et al. 2009). Ecosystem services are place specific, so preserving large, well-connected, representative areas for major ecosystems of Canada is similar to an insurance policy against losing these services.
The scale and criteria used to specify “ecoregions” can dramatically influence conservation decisions around representativeness. Ecoregions are defined as “large units of land containing a distinct assemblage of natural communities and species, with boundaries that approximate the original extent of natural communities prior to major land-use change” (
Olson et al. 2001, p. 933). We recommend Canada’s 194 terrestrial ecoregions, as developed by the National Ecological Framework for Canada (NEFC) (
ESWG 1995), as an appropriate scale for defining representativeness in Canada rather than the coarser ecozones currently considered by Environment Canada (e.g.,
ECCC 2016b; see
Fig. S1) or the parks planning regions considered by
Parks Canada (2014). For example, one of 18 terrestrial ecozones (
ccea.org/ecozones-introduction/), the Boreal Shield, is massive, extending from Alberta to Newfoundland (1.8 million km
2) and encompassing a wide variety of ecosystems (from the sand dunes of the Athabasca plains to the heathlands of the Maritime barrens). Using too coarse a scale for ecological representativeness could result in the loss of unique biological communities that are excluded from protected area conservation targets. This is especially true when there are limited data available regarding community structure and risk of extirpation of component species (see
Table 1).
The current extent of protection varies widely among Canadian ecoregions. Several ecoregions have no protection (e.g., Takijua Lake Upland, Mackenzie Delta), whereas others are almost entirely protected (e.g., Mount Logan, Nahanni Plateau). Only 67 of Canada’s 194 ecoregions meet the Aichi Target 11 minimum of 10% protection by ecoregion (
Fig. 3). Furthermore, for many ecoregions, protected areas are in small and isolated parcels; few ecoregions have large contiguous protected areas (
Fig. 3(b)).
Principle 3: conserve remaining wilderness
Intact wilderness areas are the least impacted by human activities; their protection preserves more natural ecological communities. Protected wilderness areas should be large to minimize human impacts from outside the protected area and retain natural processes such as fire regimes and long-distance migration.
The third principle protects large, intact land, which in Canada remains mainly in the north (
Fig. 1). Canada has the ability and, arguably, a global responsibility to preserve much of the world’s remaining wilderness. Protecting large undisturbed areas ensures that the complete suite of biological processes remain relatively unperturbed and retains future potential for ecological and evolutionary adaptation (
Turner et al. 2007;
Wilson et al. 2009;
Pereira et al. 2010; but for a dissenting view, see
Bush et al. 2017). For example, the Canadian boreal has a high density of carbon storage, and its protection would also reduce carbon release (
Bala et al. 2007;
Bonan 2008). Further, intact wilderness areas are less likely to be affected by human-introduced diseases (
Foley et al. 2005) or invasive species (
Didham et al. 2005) and provide improved biodiversity outcomes for species impacted by climate change (
Martin and Watson 2016; Principle 5). Protecting northern ecosystems is also important for maintaining and strengthening Indigenous governance in land stewardship (
Murray and King 2012), in a region that is disproportionately threatened by climate change (
Durkalec et al. 2015).
To ensure wilderness areas remain intact and to allow natural processes such as fire and long-distance migration to occur within them, areas protected under this principle should be large in size. Long-term persistence of species (Principle 1) is compromised when insufficient area is protected due to the risk of local extinction and the difficulty of recolonization when populations are unconnected (
Haddad et al. 2015;
Belote et al. 2016; Principle 4). Although the minimum area for an effective reserve depends on the ecosystem and organism assemblage, assessments of mammalian data from contiguous and fragmented areas found that reserves > 5 000 km
2 would likely conserve the historic assemblage of species (
Gurd et al. 2001). Within Canada, relatively few protected areas exceed this size (
Fig. 3(b)).
Principle 4: ensure connectivity and resilience
Ecological connectivity is important at local, regional, and national scales, promoting opportunities for species’ natural movements. Resilience of populations and species can be fostered through strategic protection of areas that increase connectivity.
The fourth principle, connectivity, promotes natural movements for wide-ranging species (see
Di Minin et al. 2016), prevents breeding populations from becoming isolated (
Haddad et al. 2015;
Belote et al. 2016), and facilitates south-to-north and elevational movement of individuals that are shifting geographically in response to changing climates (
Coristine and Kerr 2015;
Robillard et al. 2015). Long-term experiments have shown that fragmentation of landscapes reduces biodiversity by 13%–75%, lowering species’ abundance and persistence times (
Haddad et al. 2015, but see
Fahrig 2003). Additionally, connecting fragmented landscapes through corridors reduces species loss (Principle 1; see
Crooks et al. 2017;
Thompson and Gonzalez 2017), improves core ecosystem functions (Principle 2; see
Hauer et al. 2016), and can contribute to the provision of some ecosystem services (
Mitchell et al. 2013), such as pollination (
M’Gonigle et al. 2015).
Unfortunately, there is no current analysis on the connectivity needs of diverse species in Canada. Nevertheless, Canada Target 1 can be guided by existing initiatives that have highlighted priority areas for connectivity planning. For example, at a large landscape level, the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y) aims to protect and connect habitat over 1.3 million km
2 across the western United States and Canada to increase connectivity between core areas for wide-ranging species such as caribou (e.g.,
Rangifer tarandus (Linnaeus, 1758)), wolverines (e.g.,
Gulo gulo (Linnaeus, 1758)), wolves (e.g.,
Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758), and grizzly bears (e.g.,
Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758) (
Chester et al. 2012;
Fig. S4). Furthermore, migratory songbirds have been used to define corridors (e.g., Boreal Songbird Initiative). Although connectivity initiatives may focus on specific taxa, these often serve as “umbrella species” to protect connectivity for non-focal taxa (
Carroll et al. 2003;
Steenweg 2016). For example, the Boreal Songbird Initiative encompasses the range of the threatened boreal woodland caribou (e.g.,
Rangifer tarandus caribou (Gmelin, 1788)), so efforts to increase protection and connectivity for songbirds would also benefit caribou.
In addition to previously identified connectivity priorities, connectivity can be improved by protecting land around waterways (
Hilty and Merenlender 2004;
Hauer et al. 2016). Besides facilitating wildlife movement, setbacks around streams reduce threats to semiaquatic species (
Saunders et al. 2002), integrate freshwater and terrestrial communities (
Adams et al. 2014), and protect water quality (
Dosskey et al. 2010;
Hauer et al. 2016). Federal and provincial guidelines (e.g., minimum 30 m riparian strips on each side of a stream;
Chilibeck et al. 1992;
Environment Canada 2013) are a start, but they are not mandated for all land and are typically too small to gain the full benefits of riparian buffers. Indeed, research indicates that terrestrial species preferentially use vegetated riparian land up to 1500 m from freshwater streams (
Hilty and Merenlender 2004). Prioritizing the protection of larger riparian buffers would thus contribute to improved connectivity and biodiversity health across watersheds.
Principle 5: preserve climate refugia
Protecting areas with milder climate change reduces the risk to species from extreme climatic events (such as heat waves, hurricanes, and drought) and from insufficient tracking of preferred environmental conditions.
Climate change is expected to have ever increasing negative impacts for the majority of species as geographic distributions diverge from climatically suitable habitat and resource regions. In songbirds, asynchrony between food availability and migration arrival has led to population declines (
Mayor et al. 2017). Inadequate expansion of range limits in response to climate change has caused compression of species’ ranges (
Coristine and Kerr 2015). Extreme climatic events are linked to reproductive failure (
Bolger et al. 2005) and population loss (
Williams et al. 2013;
Oliver et al. 2015). Given Canada’s large area, position as a polar country, and the number of species whose ranges have already shifted, from birds (
Foden et al. 2013;
Coristine and Kerr 2015) to trees (
Aitken et al. 2008), Canada may well witness more biodiversity redistribution in the face of climate change than most other countries. Both protecting climate refugia (
Coristine et al. 2016) and ensuring habitat connectivity (see Principle 4) reduce the threat to biodiversity from climate change (
Saura et al. 2014;
Saura et al. 2017).
Putting the pieces together: establishing protected areas in Canada
Using a framework to evaluate the biodiversity value of areas for protection can help guard against protected areas with little value for either development (e.g., agriculture) or species protection (
Venter et al. 2017). For example, biases have historically led to protected areas being located on lands with higher elevations and steeper slopes (
Margules and Pressey 2000;
Joppa and Pfaff 2009). Conservation planning, based on a suite of complementary approaches that encompass both proactive and reactive management principles (
Brooks et al. 2006), is needed to avoid protection bias and to promote resilience into the future (
Margules and Pressey 2000;
Hannah et al. 2007;
Beier and Brost 2010). Prioritizing protected area planning across multiple conservation principles would provide the additional benefit of balancing Canada’s conservation portfolio to counter the loss of biodiversity where impacts are highest while also maximizing wilderness while the opportunity still remains (
Pouzols et al. 2014).
The urgency to identify and protect areas remains high across all regions of Canada, yet the rationale and the available mechanisms for protection will differ depending on the region. In the south, protected area conservation and ecological restoration are needed to protect species most at risk from human activities and to improve connectivity among isolated habitat patches. Although adding protected areas to locations with greatest numbers of species at risk should be a priority, additional measures are needed to incentivize protection on private lands, such as through conservation agreements, easements, or tax incentives. For example, a tax-shifting strategy rewards protection of biodiversity features on private lands by off-setting property taxes to lands without protection. Tax shifting could limit ongoing and future threats to species at risk in regions with limited non-private land (
Schuster et al. 2017).
By contrast, in the north, we have the greatest opportunities for protecting areas that have experienced lower development and human impact pressure (
Venter et al. 2016). The north includes the extensive Canadian boreal (
Brandt 2009), which experiences a dynamic fire (natural disturbance) cycle (
Davies et al. 2013). Protected areas must be large enough to encompass disturbance regimes while maintaining metapopulation dynamics. For instance, the necessary reserve area to encompass dynamic processes in northern Canada is estimated at ∼5000 km
2, but requirements may be much higher (for details see
Leroux et al. 2007), under the expectation that climate change will drive increased intensity and frequency of fires in northern Canada (
Kasischke and Turetsky 2006;
Davies et al. 2013;
de Groot et al. 2013).
Contributing to global efforts: identifying key biodiversity areas
Canada, in deciding which areas to protect, should also seek to contribute to international efforts to preserve biodiversity. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has established criteria to identify globally significant areas for biodiversity protection (
IUCN 2016; and see
Supplement S2). These locations have not yet been fully identified but play a key role for the persistence of a specific species or ecosystem (e.g., holding at least 20% of the global population of a species or being one of a limited number of areas (≤2) representing an ecoregion). These exceptional areas for biodiversity on a global scale are known as Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). The thresholds used to trigger a KBA listing, although more stringent in requiring global biodiversity importance, are consistent with the ecological principles listed above. A national approach could build upon global KBAs by expanding the standards to include species and ecosystems of significance in Canada.
By highlighting regions of outstanding biological significance, KBAs can focus attention on regions deserving of protection, instill public pride in protecting a globally important resource, and support the development of conservation economies (e.g., ecotourism). To align with global efforts for biodiversity protection, Canada should contribute to global KBA protection, setting aside KBAs that protect species that only Canada can save (e.g., musk ox, Vancouver Island marmot, among others; see Appendix C of
Cannings et al. 2005) and ecoregions that only Canada has (e.g., areas within the Northwest Territories Taiga, including the currently unprotected Mackenzie Delta).
Conclusion
Spatial analyses and maps provide an important set of tools to make and evaluate decisions about conservation and can enhance current protected area selection by highlighting key gaps (i.e., species at risk, governance; see
Fig. 2,
Table 2) and identifying priorities for action (
Fig. 5). Ultimately, decisions on site selection for protected areas should have an objective foundation in ecological criteria prior to balancing a suite of trade-offs and conflicting priorities arising from social, economic, political, cultural, and land-use legacies (
Fig. 4). To achieve the stated Aichi Target 11 goals of reducing biodiversity loss and preserving biodiversity into the future, environmental science principles should be used to identify areas with the greatest potential to make a difference.
Based on five key principles, we identified regions with potential to both reduce biodiversity loss and preserve biodiversity into the future (
Fig. 5). In particular, species within highly urbanized and developed portions of Canada are disproportionately threatened; we recommend that protected areas should be designed and prioritized relative to the land-use legacy within the region (
Fig. 5(b)). We also identified locations that are low priority (viz. with low species at risk, high representativity, degraded ecosystems, and low connectivity potential), which would not substantially contribute to reducing the rate of biodiversity loss; Canada should avoid protecting such areas without providing a scientifically grounded justification. Biodiversity priorities are based on a number of factors and all levels of government should be transparent and explicit about using biodiversity priorities in systematic conservation planning. This spatially explicit mapping of key principles for biodiversity conservation is a step toward identifying protected areas based on ecological principles and evidence as Canada strives to achieve Target 1.