Incentivizing stewardship in a biodiversity hot spot: land managers in the grasslands

In 2019, the federal government and provinces agreed to a Pan-Canadian Approach to Transforming Species at Risk Conservation in Canada. The approach, based on collaboration among jurisdictions, is a move toward multiple species and ecosystem-based conservation (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2018). A key feature of the approach is the designation of priority places for conservation. These places of “high biodiversity value” are a “distinct place with a common ecological theme [determined] by the people who live and work there.” These priority places are to serve as areas to target conservation efforts. There are 11 priority places identified nationwide.

This paper focuses on one priority place in Canada—the “South of the Divide”—a grasslands ecosystem in southwestern Saskatchewan. These grasslands are among the most imperilled ecosystems on Earth (Henwood 2010; Sweikert and Gigliotti 2019). As of the year 2014, at least 23 of the listed species at risk were occurring on grasslands within the South of the Divide area, making the region one of the most important hot spots for species at risk conservation (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2016). We recognize that there exists legislation at federal and provincial levels to guide the implementation of this new approach. However, these existing legislations require policy instruments and incentives that can enhance the delivery of multi-species at risk conservation. Therefore, our objective in this paper is to offer a range of policy instruments for the delivery of multi-species at risk conservation on Crown agricultural lands in Saskatchewan. We use Crown agricultural lands in this paper to mean agricultural lands that are publicly owned by the province but leased to individuals, cooperatives, or corporations. We begin with a short literature review that explores all empirical research on land stewardship from the region. The review generally focuses on case studies of land managers in Saskatchewan in relation to property rights, wildlife, land management, and attitudes toward public land. While the focus of the research is the stewardship of Crown lands, we included papers that discussed land stewardship within the context of private lands in the review. This is because there are important similarities between public and private lands conservation, including the need for trust between land managers and the government (Henderson et al. 2014), the pursuit of local autonomy (Pittman 2019), and the payment of compensation for the delivery of ecosystem services (Engel et al. 2008; Olive 2015, 2016). Lessons learnt from the conservation of private lands will be useful to craft policy instruments and incentives for conservation on Crown lands. Based on the review, we provide a range of promising policy instruments and incentives for the delivery of multi-species at risk conservation on Crown agricultural lands in Saskatchewan.

The Pan-Canadian Approach to Transforming Species at Risk Conservation signifies a move towards multiple species and ecosystems-based conservation in selected priority areas. This move also necessitates the creation of new partnerships with all stakeholders and the renewal of existing ones to help maximize conservation efforts and outcomes. These partnerships are being developed and strengthened among the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, Indigenous Peoples, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), municipalities, landowners, and the public (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2018). As partners in species at risk conservation, they will help identify priority initiatives, design tools for implementing the framework, monitor results, and foster the integration of Indigenous knowledge and science for conservation decision-making. This focus on developing and renewing partnerships is in response to calls for more collaborative approaches to conservation, where the interests of different stakeholders, especially Indigenous Peoples and land managers whose lifestyles are connected to these priority lands, are well represented (Berkes et al. 2007; Olive and Rabe 2016). The current article focuses on incentivizing land managers, only one category of partners required to implement the Pan-Canadian Approach to species at risk conservation. However, it is crucial to note that if the policy instruments and incentives proposed in this article are to succeed in incentivizing land managers to undertake species at risk conservation, they must be supported by the other partners. For example, the incentive schemes (and conservation in general) have a cost that may be paid using public tax dollars (Olive 2015) or from industry groups. Therefore, such incentive schemes must appeal to the public and the private sector by, for example, demonstrating some form of additionality (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006; Börner et al. 2017). —“the benefits induced by the policy [incentive] that would not have occurred without the policy” (Pates and Hendricks 2020, p. 281).

There are very few empirical case studies of landowners in Saskatchewan in relation to property rights, wildlife, land management, and attitudes toward public land. We know from a wider, mainly American, literature that there can be serious tension between private landowners (e.g., agricultural producers) and the government over endangered species issues because of misinformation, fear of regulation, and intrusion on property rights (see Raymond and Olive 2008 and Brignon et al. 2019 for reviews). The extent to which this is true in Canada, where land ownership, access to public lands, and species at risk policy work very differently, seems likely, as the studies below illustrate. This short research synthesis examines existing empirical studies involving Saskatchewan landowners and conservation programs in the past decade (six studies in total).

Henderson et al. (2014) conducted interviews with 42 landowners in the Milk River watershed regarding their awareness and perceptions of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). The 42 landowners who completed the interview were predominately male, and 93% had at least one previous generation of their family involved in ranching. In total, 95% claimed to be aware of SARA, but most were unfamiliar with specific details. For example, 50% thought that the main provisions of SARA apply to all land in Canada, including private and provincial land. This is a common finding in wider literature about SARA and the US Endangered Species Act (see Olive 2014). Only 10% knew about the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and the listing process for species at risk. This is despite the fact that 40% had participated in a wildlife stewardship program in the past, and 33% had used a land management strategy to support a known species at risk (90% could correctly name at least two species at risk in Saskatchewan).

Perhaps more germane, 79% had positive attitudes toward species at risk and showed support for government involvement in species at risk recovery. That said, 67% felt that declining species should only be listed “at risk” if there are no changes to producers’ economic well-being or management approach. Overall, 12% of respondents had negative attitudes toward species at risk and did not support government involvement. They also felt that species were not truly at risk—either because they believed the species was not native or because they believed fluctuation in species number is normal.

Essentially, Henderson et al. (2014) developed four thematic groups of landowners in southwest Saskatchewan based on their perspectives: “producers as stewards,” “economic risk” producers, “lack of trust and communication” producers, and the “do not disturb” producers. Of the 42 participants, 86% believe that species at risk are still alive today because of the stewardship of ranchers, 60% identify money as the primary constraint to new management techniques, 55% expressed attitudes of fear, lack of trust, and poor communication with the government on species at risk issues, and 36% think landowners should be left alone.

Producers are willing to support species at risk recovery under the conditions that “producer privacy, independence, and the financial stability of their operation be maintained and wildlife species not be harmed by increased attention” (Henderson et al. 2014, p. 24). Older producers (aged 60–69 years and those who had ranched for more than 50 years) were less willing to support species at risk (Henderson et al. 2014). In addition, producers with formal education are more willing to support species at risk (Henderson et al. 2014). This suggests that younger and more educated producers are the most likely participants in species at risk programs.

Finally, Henderson et al. (2014) found that “[r]anching was portrayed as more than merely a business; rather, it was described as a way of life that includes a connection to the land” (p. 27). This culture of ranching, a common finding in the literature, suggests that the economics of conservation is not straightforward. Lifestyle attributes can rank above profit maximization as motives for ranching and land management decisions. Of note, Henderson et al. (2014) also pointed to the finding that producers had detailed knowledge of their land and were familiar with wildlife, including local population changes and the behaviours of species at risk on their lands. This is the type of “community knowledge” or “local embedded knowledge” that can complement western scientific knowledge and Indigenous knowledge in the development of conservation practices (Henderson et al. 2014; see also Knapp and Fernandez-Gimenez 2009).

A lot of what Henderson et al. (2014) found in their study was confirmed by Olive (2015), who conducted a mail survey with residents in Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, and Swift Current (369 respondents) and in-person interviews with 12 landowners (7 farmers and 5 ranchers) in southwest Saskatchewan as well as 15 government or NGO representatives. Olive (2015) compared the urban and rural respondents’ knowledge and attitudes toward species at risk and policy in the province. Regarding the agricultural producers, Olive (2015) found familiarity with the Wildlife Act but not SARA (keeping in mind these interviews happened prior to the Emergency Protection Order for the Sage Grouse). It was also clear from the interviews that landowners consider private property an “absolute right” that should not be infringed upon by the government. They also felt that it is unfair to expect landowners to bear costs associated with conservation and, instead, that compensation should be the policy norm.

Unlike their urban counterparts, rural landowners did not support the regulation of property or government involvement in species at risk conservation. However, “this is not to say that agricultural landowners are hostile to endangered species, conservation, or stewardship in general” (Olive 2015, p. 200). Instead, rural landowners see themselves as stewards with a duty to care for the land. Their concerns around government intervention are based upon the fear of regulation and indicate a breakdown in trust and communication between producers and government.

Olive (2015) suggested, in conclusion, that “since farmers and ranchers do not favour government on their land, NGOs might be able to assist landowners who are willing to steward a species in exchange for compensation or other rewards and incentives” (p. 201). Moreover, the study also noted that there is support from urban residents, in the four cities, for species at risk and government policy. This is good news because ultimately, conservation “comes with a price tag that must be supported by larger society through public tax dollars” (Olive 2015, p. 202).

This thread is picked up in Pittman (2019), who used interview data in a descriptive format and other forms of discourse (e.g., media, reports) in a case study of southwestern Saskatchewan to examine the governance of species at risk and critical habitat in the province. He argued that we can see a move away from top-down command-and-control governance regimes to a more locally rooted and locally acceptable governance approach, which includes innovative economic incentive programs for conservation. He suggests that this is a positive development in the province and that other actors and levels of government should support “innovative locally driven portfolios of conservation measures” in the future (Pittman 2019, p. 184).

Henderson et al. (2014), Olive (2015), and Pittman (2019) each acknowledged the importance of economic stability for landowners. The issue is really that landowners incur private costs while providing public benefits (like wildlife habitat and carbon sequestration). In a study of Manitoba, Lawly (2019) illustrated that the value of land with habitat features, such as wetlands, are devalued over time (less profitable on the market as compared to cropland). This creates an incentive to convert land to its highest market value: crops. Indeed, Yu and Belcher (2011) used as a starting point that a landowner will only take steps toward conservation outcomes “when the utility provided by adopting conservation is at least as great as the next best alternative land allocation” (p. 209). In 2011, they surveyed 212 respondents from farmers in the southwest region (specifically in Statistics Canada Census Agriculture Regions CAR 8B and 3AN). Interestingly, Yu and Belcher (2011) concluded that the magnitude of conservation payments is not the only factor that influences landowners’ willingness to participate in a conservation payment plan. Instead, programs that can enhance private benefits (mitigate soil erosion, forage provision, water availability) and (or) minimize private costs will have a greater probability of adoption by farmers.

However, the amount of funding that farmers and ranchers require for participation is a difficult question. Thus far, no published studies exist. However, in an unpublished thesis, Ingram (2018) addressed this question. He interviewed 30 ranchers in southern Saskatchewan (phone, email, and in-person) about their willingness to accept compensation for conservation on their land (in this study there was no statistical difference in attitudes between property owners and lessees of Crown land). It should be noted that the sample was well educated—50% had a university degree compared to the 7.2% of agricultural producers in Saskatchewan that have a university degree. In addition, the average herd of cattle was 380, and acres managed was 2282 on average—both numbers higher than the average ranch. Thus, selection bias is a problem.

When asked about conservation payment schemes, the findings are interesting. Ingram (2018) argued that ranchers want compensation, management flexibility, and short-term agreements. In terms of policy, “cost-share programs were the most preferred policy option (79%), followed by extension programs, and then conservation easements¹” (Ingram 2018). Speculation is that the contract length of conservation easements is the deterrent for that option. The average maximum agreeable contract length was 7.7 years.

Regarding the cost-share programs for increasing ecosystem services, landowners would require between 38.3% and 61.8% of the costs to be covered” (Ingram 2018, p. 43). In terms of which ecosystem services the ranchers prioritized, water quality was ranked first by 57%, then wildlife and habitat conservation (33%) and carbon sequestration (10%) were second and third, respectively. Examining attitudes toward landowner responsibility, respondents “indicated that they strongly believe landowners have a responsibility to manage their land in a sustainable manner that conserves or enhances ecosystem services” (p. 51). The most common reasons were sustainability, conservation, the environment, and the good of future generations (Ingram 2018).

These answers harken back to a much earlier survey study by Davis et al. (2005), with 148 landowners enrolled in the Native Prairie Stewardship Program. Mostly, landowners participate in conservation programs because they want to steward their land responsibly. Specifically, Davis et al. (2005) found that 36% participate because they want to preserve their prairie, 33% thought it sounded like a good idea, 9% value their native prairie, and 9% joined because it was something they were already doing. Related, landowners also said they “joined the program because it was nonthreatening”—as the voluntary agreements are not legally binding (Davis et al. 2005).

There are a number of key points to draw from the aforementioned literature. First, all empirical studies found evidence that ranchers see themselves as stewards. This is a common finding in the broader literature as well. Most landowners in Saskatchewan have positive attitudes toward species at risk and wildlife. There is a genuine sense of duty, perhaps morally motivated, to care for the land. In addition, this stewardship persona is at the basis of why local autonomy is preferable for landowners from a governance perspective (see Pittman 2019). However, the stewardship ethos must be balanced against the “utilitarian” approach to land management found among the Plains and Prairie Pothole Ecoregion landowners in the United States (Sweikert 2017; Gigliotti and Sweikert 2019). Some landowners see land and wildlife as theirs to use. The extent to which this attitude is prevalent in southern Saskatchewan is unknown, but some, probably a small minority, of landowners do feel this way and manage their land accordingly.

Moreover, stewardship, while a value, is not going to be voluntary at the level required for the conservation of grassland species. Economics always loom large for landowners. Indeed, a majority of landowners in the existing studies want compensation from the public for providing societal goods like wildlife habitat. Compensation can be direct or through other programs, but some evidence suggests that contracts should be less than 10 years and include flexible land use mechanisms.

Communication issues were another finding in the Saskatchewan studies. Indeed, we can surmise that landowners have low levels of knowledge regarding SARA and its application to nonfederal lands. There are reasons to suspect much confusion around policy details. This might be causing fear for landowners who hear stories about the US Endangered Species Act and make false assumptions about property regulations or restrictions (see Olive 2015 and Olive and McCune 2017). Saskatchewan landowners are probably more familiar with the Wildlife Act but would not be able to say with any authority how it affects critical habitat in the province.

Despite unfamiliarity with policy, landowners are familiar with wildlife. The studies, especially Henderson et al. (2014) and Pittman (2019), pointed to valuable local and community knowledge that landowners have and that should be shared with scientists and government officials. There is a good reason to suspect that ranchers in southern Saskatchewan have detailed knowledge of their land, including species at risk and wildlife patterns. They are also likely to leverage their positive attitude to conservation and social networks to share information with their neighbours about conservation-friendly land management practices.

Finally, the degree to which Saskatchewan landowners either do not trust the government or do not want the government involved with land management seems high (Henderson et al. 2014; Olive 2015). We know from Henderson et al. (2014) that ranchers value privacy and independence. Even on leased Crown land, producers prefer to be given local autonomy regarding land management decisions (Pittman 2019). Pittman (2019) provided evidence that landowners reject top-down command and control policy and mistrust the government, especially after the federal Emergency Protection Order for the Sage Grouse in 2014. Pittman (2019) suggested that landowners have been advocating for more local autonomy in the region and are working with NGOs to achieve conservation goals. Therefore, NGOs, particularly those that promote grassroots participation and local autonomy (e.g., the South of the Divide Conservation Action Program (SODCAP Inc.), Rancher’s Stewardship Alliance, Sustainable Canada), can support government agencies by serving as intermediaries between the government and land managers for conservation purposes.

This section outlines promising policy instruments for the delivery of multi-species at risk conservation on Crown agricultural lands in Saskatchewan. Because of the focus on Crown lands, we only review and describe policy instruments and incentives that are appropriate for leased Crown lands, which are not at immediate risk of being converted to cropland but that still require stewardship. Saskatchewan’s agricultural Crown lands are at minimal risk of conversion from grasslands to croplands, which means that to deliver on conservation, we are mostly trying to incentivize the “care, management and maintenance of ecosystems, habitats, wildlife species and populations” (IUCN 2003). In the context of species at risk, we are trying to “[maintain] and [recover] viable populations of species in their natural environments” (IUCN 2003). While there are some existing pieces of provincial legislation with relevance to the project (see Appendix 1) and the federal Species at Risk Act, the focus here is on developing new instruments and incentives that work in collaboration with existing legislation and policy.

We also focus on policy instruments and incentives within the jurisdiction or purview of the Government of Saskatchewan, specifically the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment. We limited the discussion to the Government of Saskatchewan because it is the closest institution to the issue of interest. Thus, the Government of Saskatchewan has the most legislated responsibility regarding leased Crown lands within Saskatchewan, more specifically, the biodiversity hot spot under consideration. We propose the following promising options for integrating multiple incentives to advance species at risk conservation on Crown lease lands. These options are described below and examined in detail in Tables 1 and 2.

Regardless of which option or combination of options the Government of Saskatchewan chooses to incentivize conservation, it must do so through “engagement, consultation, and outreach”—or participation—with land managers (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2018). Participation is crucial for creating awareness, building trust, and leveraging land managers’ local and community knowledge for species at risk conservation. These have been concerns expressed throughout the empirical studies in Saskatchewan (Henderson et al. 2014; Olive 2015; Pittman 2019). Without them, any policy instrument that the Government of Saskatchewan chooses to implement may not yield positive results.

There are no precise rules or procedures for engaging land managers. However, as suggested by Henderson et al. (2014), public agencies can foster engagement by ensuring the early and active participation of land managers in program planning. Also, increasing “face-to-face time” and encouraging informal interactions with land managers could help develop trust and enhance communication (Ansell and Gash 2008; Henderson et al. 2014; Lutter et al. 2018). We see enormous potential for NGOs that promote grassroots participation and local autonomy to play a crucial role in the process since some land managers do not favour the government (Olive 2015). Specifically, NGOs can assist in outreach activities and administer incentives to land managers. This calls for enhanced collaboration between the provincial and federal governments and the NGOs (Pittman 2019). Care must, however, be taken to avoid increasing government oversight and diminishing land managers’ local autonomy since that might negatively affect the legitimacy of species at risk conservation programs (Morrison 2017).

Furthermore, the issue of fostering collaboration among the partners for species at risk conservation has gained increased traction in the national policy discussions. For example, the Section 11 Conservation Agreements of SARA allow the federal government to “enter into a conservation agreement with any government in Canada, organization or person to benefit a species at risk or enhance its survival in the wild.” Also, the Pan-Canadian approach, the focus of this article, is based on collaboration among federal, provincial, and territorial governments for species at risk conservation. However, the Section 11 Agreement has hardly been used, prompting questions over the commitment of the federal government to collaborate for species at risk conservation (McFatridge and Young 2018). Also, tensions between federal government legislation and aspirations of land managers directly involved in species at risk conservation remain and could hinder the recovery and protection of species at risk and their habitats. This is especially true if the government is to successfully link conservation on Crown lands to conservation on private lands. For example, the application of the provision in SARA (section 80 and subsection 97(2)) that allows the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada to invoke an Emergency Protection Order if “he or she believes that the species faces imminent threats to its survival or recovery” has posed challenges to species at risk conservation involving private landowners. Pittman (2019) argues that the Greater Sage Grouse Emergency Protection Order had “serious ramifications” on landowners who felt “portrayed as criminals.”

Legislations with such top-down and command-and-control underpinnings risk creating disincentives for species at risk conservation (Innes and Frisvold 2009). As further indicated by Pittman (2019), the land managers in Saskatchewan rejected top-down approaches and began to work at the grassroots level, together with some environmental NGOs, to influence public discourse. Therefore, effective species at risk conservation requires that the Government of Saskatchewan work with the federal government to ensure that such tensions in the species at risk legislation are removed. One way of removing such tensions could be to leverage the Section 11 Agreements to improve collaboration and provide legal assurances that “good stewards” will not be subjected to future EPOs. This may require clarifying in the legislation what comprises good stewardship.

Finally, adopting incentive mechanisms, especially annual payments, to enhance species at risk conservation on agricultural land might potentially be perceived as an agricultural subsidy, which could have negative repercussions for international trade. This is particularly crucial since Saskatchewan’s agricultural sector is export-dependent (Government of Saskatchewan 2019). For example, the World Trade Organization’s agreement on agriculture restricts governments from providing agricultural subsidies that are trade-distorting in nature. To avoid breaching these trade agreements, it is important to structure incentive schemes such that they are not confused with or perceived as agricultural subsidies. In doing this, the Government of Saskatchewan could structure incentive schemes as Rewards for Ecosystem Services (van Noordwijk et al. 2007; Leimona et al. 2009), where payment is tied directly to specific environmental services and good stewardship behaviours.

This synthesis paper provides inputs towards the implementation of the Pan-Canadian Approach to Transforming Species at Risk Conservation. In particular, we propose a range of policy instruments and incentives for the delivery of multi-species at risk conservation on Crown agricultural lands in Saskatchewan. We outline four types of incentives that are relevant to conservation on Crown lands. These include annual payments, cost-sharing, fee or tax reduction, and legal protection. We believe that a portfolio of options would have the greatest social acceptability. In addition, we outline four policy instruments that can help deliver multi-species at risk conservation on Saskatchewan’s Crown lands, including results- or outcome-based approaches, tax shifting, conservation extension services, and adjustments to lease agreements. Finally, we recommend that the government of Saskatchewan should explore approaches to link conservation on private lands to conservation on Crown lands using grass banking.

Due to the varied nature of actors whose interests and actions affect species at risk conservation, an essential prerequisite for success is to foster collaboration among the partners. Such collaboration is critical for enhanced decision-making and institutional change that reflects the urgent call for creating awareness of species at risk policies, building trust, and leveraging the local knowledge of land managers for conservation.

While the focus of this synthesis is Saskatchewan, the lessons could be relevant for species at risk conservation on all Crown agricultural lands across Canada. Most Crown grasslands in Canada, like Saskatchewan’s, are at lower risk of conversion from grasslands to croplands compared to private grasslands (Nernberg and Ingstrup 2005). This means that species at risk conservation on Crown lands across Canada will focus on trying to “[maintain] and [recover] viable populations of species in their natural environments” (IUCN 2003). However, the preferences of land managers (Pittman 2020), as well as the socio-economic and environmental conditions, may differ across jurisdictions (Nernberg and Ingstrup 2005); therefore, care must be taken when applying the proposed policy instruments and incentives in other jurisdictions. Also, given the new focus on a nationwide approach to species at risk conservation, there is a utility for identifying the “things” that work for species at risk on Crown grasslands and other agricultural lands across all jurisdictions. Future studies should survey workable solutions for conservation on Crown agricultural lands across Canada.

The authors would like to thank their funders. JP and AO were funded by the Government of Saskatchewan through a grant from Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Species at Risk on Agricultural Partnerships program. JP was additionally funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (430-2018-00247). The authors would also like to thank the reviewers, who provided constructive and helpful comments.