Ten bridges on the road to recovering Canada’s endangered species

Canada has 80 000 known species and approximately 30 000 of those species have been assigned conservation status ranks by NatureServe (CESCC 2016). Due to its biogeography, Canada has fewer species than countries nearer the equator. This latitudinal gradient of species richness (Gaston 2000) also occurs within Canada, with more species occupying southern regions (Cameron and Hargreaves 2020). Most of Canada’s endangered species are found along the southern border (Coristine et al. 2018). These southern regions are also where most Canadians live and the natural systems have been heavily altered (Venter et al. 2016).

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) is part of Canada’s Biodiversity Strategy (Environment Canada 1995); the federal response after ratifying the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBA) in 1993. This international treaty made biodiversity a national interest. In Canada this federal interest in biodiversity protection is restricted by the constitutional division of powers (Campbell and Thomas 2002). The federal government has very limited jurisdiction in the provinces, and can only protect migratory birds, aquatic species, and species found on federal lands (e.g., national parks, national wildlife areas). All other species and geographies fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Federal responsibilities of SARA lie within three different departments. The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (ECCC) is responsible for the overall coordination of the federal species at risk strategy and the protection and recovery of migratory birds. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) is responsible for the protection and recovery of aquatic species at risk under federal jurisdiction. Parks Canada Agency is responsible for the development of recovery strategies for those species that occur in Canada primarily in national parks, national historic sites, and other federal protected heritage areas.

Canada’s Species at Risk Act maintains a separation between species assessments and listing. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species (including subspecies, varieties, or other designatable units) that are suspected of being at risk of extinction or extirpation. The government then decides if species assessed as at risk will be listed under SARA in a schedule. Once listed, the species receives legal protection afforded and mandatory recovery planning required under SARA.

There are 810 species that COSEWIC has assessed in risk categories and 688 species are listed under the Species at Risk Act. Canada currently has 41 species that have been assessed as extinct or extirpated (Government of Canada 2020). This does not include all species assessed as extinct on the IUCN Red List (e.g., Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus)) or extirpated by NatureServe (e.g., Pale Avens (Geum virginianum)) and the actual number is higher. Regardless of the number of species lost from Canada, species continue to disappear, such as the recent extinction of the Hadley Lake Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) pairs (Taylor and Piercey 2018).

Key threats to species at risk include habitat loss (agriculture and urban expansion), over-exploitation, invasive species, and interactions with native species (Venter et al. 2006; Prugh et al. 2010; Woo-Durand et al. 2020). Human disturbance and invasive species are the most frequently listed threats in species recovery strategies (McCune et al. 2013). The threat of climate change and pollution are increasingly identified as threats to species at risk (Woo-Durand et al. 2020).

Federal, provincial, and territorial ministers are responsible for implementing SARA and, with the exception of the province of Quebec, signed the non-binding Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in 1996. The federal government can enforce SARA through emergency orders and the “safety net” provision, but these are rarely invoked. As such, a patchwork of protection measures exist for most species through differing provincial and territorial interpretations and implementation of SARA (Olive 2015). For example, many species listed under SARA are not included in provincial or territorial legislation (e.g., BC, see Westwood et al. 2019), which can limit recovery efforts. The incongruency is most pronounced in the six jurisdictions (Nunavut, Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Prince Edward Island) that do not have specific provincial or territorial endangered species legislation and manage species at risk under existing provincial acts (primarily wildlife acts).

There are several aspects of endangered species listing and recovery that are unique to Canada. SARA was influenced by the experiences of endangered species legislation in the US, and focuses on stewardship rather than regulation (Illical and Harrison 2007). Unlike the US and Australia, most endangered species in Canada are range-edge species that are of national, but not necessarily global, conservation concern (Raymond et al. 2018). Canada also prioritizes and assesses species through taxa-based Species Specialist Subcommittees within COSEWIC and assesses more wildlife below the species level (i.e., ecologically and evolutionarily distinct sub-species or populations) as designatable units than Australia and the US. Currently 27% of the species assessed as at risk or extinct by COSEWIC are below the species level, including 25 designatable units of Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and 11 designatable units of Caribou (Rangifer tarandus).

Recovery planning in Canada is also unique. While in the US and Australia the scientific bodies that assess risk are involved in the approval of recovery plans, COSEWIC does not have this role in Canada (although individual COSEWIC members may provide input to recovery strategies).

In Canada, most species do not change risk status categories (Favaro et al. 2014). An almost equal percent have moved to a higher (17%; uplisting) or lower (18%; down-listing or delisting) category (ECCC 2020a) when reassessed (usually every 10 years). However, there are issues in this classification approach since most of the down-listings are the result of the discovery of new populations or changes in criteria and species classification, rather than genuine recovery that result from increased populations or threat mitigation.

Australia has been identified as a “mega-diverse country” (Mittermeier et al. 1997) with two global biodiversity hotspots along its eastern and southwestern coasts (Myers et al. 2000). Over 147 000 species have been documented, but the actual number is estimated to be over 566 000 (Chapman 2009). Because of Australia’s continental isolation, most species are nationally endemic. Invasive species, habitat loss and modification, altered fire regimes, and agricultural activities are impacting the greatest number of endangered species (Evans et al. 2011; Kearney et al. 2019). Unlike Canada and the continental US, the main contributing factor to extinction in Australia is predators introduced to islands (Woinarski et al. 2015).

In Australia, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) is the main federal legislation to protect endangered species and, like Canada, was developed in response to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Species are prioritized and assessed by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC). The TSSC reviews a nomination list annually and provides independent scientific advice to the Minister for the Environment on the proposed listing status and on the approval of recovery plans.

The EPBC Act has much broader scope than SARA and covers several matters of national environmental significance including threatened ecological communities (Government of Australia 2019). As with species, recovery plans are prepared for listed communities. In addition, key threatening processes can also be assessed and listed. Key threatening processes are those that are endangering, or could endanger, threatened species and communities. There are currently 21 key threatening processes that are listed, which include predation by feral cats, land clearance, and incidental catch of seabirds. However, the government has recently stopped listing threats under the EPBC Act (Cox 2020). Changes to endangered species legislation to reduce protection under the auspices of efficiency and removal of “red tape” is a common and reoccurring event that has also recently occurred in the US (Lambert 2019) and Ontario, Canada (Bergman et al. 2020).

In 2015, the federal government released the Threatened Species Strategy to accelerate the recovery of wild species (Government of Australia 2015). The strategy prioritized efforts and partnerships with local communities and state/ territory governments over a five-year period and set specific recovery targets.

Australia has experienced the largest documented decline in biodiversity of any continent over the past 200 years (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2020). It has one of the highest human-driven extinction rates of land mammals (Woinarski et al. 2015), with continued loss of potential critical habitat for threatened species and communities (Ward et al. 2019). Recovery plans do not have a significant effect on species conservation status (Bottrill et al. 2011). A recent study concluded that since Australia’s EPBC Act was enacted, four times as many vulnerable species have declined in their threat status than have improved (Simmonds et al. 2019). This is likely the result of both delayed ecological responses to conservation actions (Watts et al. 2020) and ineffective approaches.

The US has also been identified as a “mega-diverse country” (Mittermeier et al. 1997) with a high richness of endemic freshwater fishes and mussels, turtles, and salamanders (Stein et al. 2000). The California Floristic Province, Polynesia-Micronesia (including Hawaii), and the North American Coastal Plain have been identified as biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000; Noss et al. 2015), and most endangered species occur in these regions (Dobson et al. 1997). There are an estimated 200 000 species in the US and one-third of these are of conservation concern (Stein et al. 2000). Primary threats to endangered species are habitat loss, invasive species, and pollution (Wilcove et al. 1998; Evans et al. 2016). These threats, along with climate change, have generally been increasing over time (Leu et al. 2019).

The ESA (1973) is among the world’s first national endangered species legislation. The US Fish and Wildlife Service leads the process of species nomination, assessment, listing, and recovery planning. The most important factors for listing species under the ESA are the magnitude and immediacy of threats and taxonomic distinctiveness (USFWS 2016b). Although there is coordination between the federal and state governments through State Wildlife Action Plans, most states have not enacted complementary legislation and provide little funding to the management and recovery of endangered species (Camacho et al. 2017).

There are notable differences between the US and Canadian approaches to listing and recovery (Olive 2014a, 2014b, 2016; Pawluk et al. 2019). ESA assessment criteria focus on threats and the effectiveness of existing protections, but do not include intrinsic factors that increase extinction risk (e.g., small populations) (USFWS 2016b). In the US “distinct population segments” can only be applied to vertebrates such as Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) in the Lower 48 states (Rosen 2007), whereas in Canada designatable units have been also applied to vascular plants, lichens, mussels, and insects.

The ESA has a long history of negotiating and implementing conservation on private lands (Davis et al. 2005), including many legal challenges (Simberloff 1987; Plater 2004). In 1982, the ESA was amended to introduce Habitat Conservation Plans to provide private landowners with long-term assurances about land use restrictions in exchange for conservation measures. While these agreements can result in loss of habitat for the endangered species, there is general consensus that endangered species benefit (Langpap and Kerkvliet 2012). In addition to supporting regulatory compliance, these agreements foster cooperation between governments, landowners, and interest groups. Despite a focus on federal regulation, the US has overcome many stewardship challenges and other issues related to endangered species conservation on private lands.

The ESA has prevented the extinction of roughly 291 species, and more than 99% of species under its protection remain extant (Greenwald et al. 2019). It has been particularly effective for marine mammals and turtles that were threatened with over-exploitation (Valdivia et al. 2019). There is also evidence that recovery plans and critical habitat are effective because they spark conservation action (Taylor et al. 2005). However, 52% of listed species are continuing to decline and few species are down-listed or delisted (Evans et al. 2016). Since being enacted, four species listed under ESA have become extinct and 22 are possibly extinct (Greenwald et al. 2019). As with Canada and Australia, there are many other species that have not been listed by national endangered species legislation and have continued to decline.

Among the three case study jurisdictions, there is over 85 years of experience in implementing contemporary national endangered species legislation. While there is evidence that endangered species listing and recovery have slowed species declines and there have been notable recoveries, the results have been the same: none of the approaches have been fully effective in preventing the decline and loss of endangered species. In the next section we explore some of the barriers that are preventing more effective recovery.

Canada has not prioritized globally at-risk and nationally endemic species for conservation (Raymond et al. 2018). Of the 381 species and 188 infraspecies that are globally imperiled based on NatureServe conservation status ranks (Rainer et al. 2017, Appendix B) only 34% have been assessed by COSEWIC, and COSEWIC has assessed less than 20% of Canada’s 308 nationally endemic species and infraspecies (Enns et al. 2020). This is in sharp contrast to Australia and the US where most nationally listed species are also globally imperiled (Table 1). SARA does not prioritize, but COSEWIC has latitude to refocus on species of global conservation concern. Prioritization of candidate species already includes global status and Canadian responsibility, including endemism (COSEWIC 2019). COSEWIC could expand on existing taxon-based candidate lists to create a master list of Canadian species of global conservation concern based on NatureServe conservation status ranks and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species to prioritize future assessments that are based on endemism and global rank. Ensuring that all species of global conservation concern are priority candidates for assessment and subjected to the prioritization exercise will support both the purpose of SARA and Canada’s commitments to protect global biodiversity under the CBD.

Unless additional resources are provided to COSEWIC, expanded global prioritization may result in a conservation trade-off between assessing globally imperiled species and species at the northern edge of their range or designatable units. The reassessment of globally secure species that are listed under SARA could be deferred unless there is a high probability of a status change to create additional capacity to assess globally imperiled and endemic species. These trade-offs are not ideal. The purpose of SARA is to provide for the recovery of all wildlife that is at risk, and designatable units and species at the northern edge of their range can have important evolutionary significance (Glass et al. 2017). But trade-offs are already being made in current approaches in deciding which species to assess. Our future conservation prioritization should be deliberate and deliberated in consideration of global status, genetic distinctiveness, significance as leading-edge populations (Carvalho et al. 2019), and potential for future reintroduction.

How species are protected should depend on intrinsic extinction risks and threats. Very different approaches are needed to conserve “declining populations”, “small populations” (Caughley 1994), and “recovering populations” (Hutchings 2015). Species that have small ranges, low numbers, and narrow habitat specificity are the most vulnerable to changes in land use (Sykes et al. 2020), stochastic events (Smith and Almeida 2019), and ultimately to extinction (Staude et al. 2020). These species should be the focus of the most urgent conservation actions including habitat protection and translocations, particularly when they are endemic or of global conservation concern.

Many “small population” species can be directly conserved through place-based actions. A comprehensive national strategy to include these in Canada’s new protected areas would support their conservation. Over 60% of Canada’s species at risk occur in nine “crisis ecoregions” that cover just 5% of Canada’s lands and inland waters (Kraus and Hebb 2020) and many, “small population” endangered species co-occur in remnant habitats. New protected areas and habitat restoration in these areas can support the conservation of small population endangered species. The spatial extent of these areas need to be clearly identified and prioritized beyond the current number and spatial scale of “Priority Places” (ECCC 2018a). Many of the areas that support a high richness of species at risk are known and could be refined by combining existing data sets and through species distribution models (Rosner-Katz et al. 2020). Multiple species that are spatially restricted can often be effectively conserved through ecosystem approaches (see Bridge 4).

Although wildlife recovery in Canada was founded on the protection of common species that had become scarce (e.g., Plains Bison (Bison bison bison), Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana)), proactive protection of common but declining species to prevent future endangerment is relatively new to conservation. For the first 21 years of COSEWIC qualitative criteria that focused on species with small ranges and populations were applied to assess risk (Shank 1999). Adoption of the IUCN criteria (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2017), and in particular criterion A (declining populations), has resulted in the listing of species that are still common and widespread but rapidly declining such as Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) and Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentine). These species often occur in regions dominated by farms, cities, and forestry and have been the source of much of the conflict and criticism around SARA (e.g., Boan et al. 2018).

Conservation of these species will often require changes in socio-economic systems. Depending on the rate of decline there may be more time to formulate and implement recovery strategies for this group than for species with small populations or ranges. In the case of common but declining species, delayed listing could be beneficial if that time is used to constructively build alliances and support for recovery. Preemptive and cooperative conservation actions that could reduce future regulation can be used as an incentive to spark and implement threat mitigation strategies. Current initiatives of the federal government to engage priority sectors (forestry, agriculture, urban) in species at risk recovery and priority threat management approaches (Carwardine et al. 2019) may lead to new models of co-governance (see Bridge 5).

Categorizing species during the assessment process into clear “risk/recovery groups” based on their needs for place-based or threat-based recovery could help to accelerate and coordinate conservation actions by grouping species that can be conserved at common locations or by managing common threats. These categories could be based on existing assessment criteria (e.g., declining or small population) and other factors such as habitat, highest threats, and location). This approach would provide direction to recovery strategy authors, highlight existing species in the same risk/recovery group so that current actions can be incorporated into new recovery plans, facilitate the coordination of actions, and encourage actions prior to a final recovery strategy. A simple one-page addendum to existing COSEWIC assessments the provides the committee’s perspectives on general recovery needs would help to jump-start both recovery planning and actions.

Canadian recovery strategies lack consistency in applying measurable and timebound objectives and thresholds. These are precisely the types of conservation targets that are more likely to be achieved (Green et al. 2019). Quantitative metrics allow practitioners to focus on goals and report on the recovery of endangered species (Gerber and Hatch 2002). Quantifiable and ambitious goals are more prevalent under the ESA than SARA (Pawluk et al. 2019). Clearer recovery targets would also allow progress across taxa and jurisdictions to be better tracked, support the identification of best practices, and help practitioners focus on actions that have the highest probability of moving a species towards a defined threshold.

SARA requires the development of one or more action plans based on the recovery strategy for species listed as extirpated, endangered, or threatened. These action plans often contain more detail on timelines and quantifiable measures. There may be both planning efficiencies and opportunities to improve recovery effectiveness if the quantitative information in action plans was not delayed and completed during the recovery planning process.

Clear recovery goals are not consistently defined. Charismatic species have more specific recovery goals (Théberge and Nocera 2014) and fishes have a higher proportion of quantitative and ambitious goals compared to other taxa (Pawluk et al. 2019). For fishes, this may be the result of Recovery Potential Assessments (RPA) (DFO 2007) that are often prepared by Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientists following the COSEWIC assessment.

Many recovery strategies in Canada are also not ambitious. They not only lack clear targets but they do not aim to change species status For example, Drooping Trillium (Trillium flexipes) could potentially be reassessed from Endangered to Threatened if the number of locations was increased from two (the current number) to greater than five (the threshold for Endangered under assessment criteria B). This threshold to nudge the species to a lower status category and associated actions are not included in its recovery strategy (Environment Canada 2016). However, some recent recovery strategies, such as Sharp-tailed Snake (Contia tenuis) (ECCC 2020b), very clearly discuss the links between assessment categories and criteria to recovery potential and could serve as a model.

While change in status is not necessarily the same as full recovery (Akcakaya et al. 2018), clearer recovery targets that strive for status improvements would encourage actions that reduce extinction risk. A guide to identifying targets and thresholds would support recovery efforts and could be modeled on the primer to evaluate restoration success (Prach et al. 2019). Recovery strategies could incorporate long- and short-term objectives with indicators of success that are leading (inform preventative actions), coincident (measure current state), and lagging (change as a result of actions) (Stevenson et al. 2020). The current approaches used in RPAs for aquatic species (DFO 2007) could also be incorporated into recovery strategies for all taxa. The new global standard on the Green List of Species may also provide a tool for recovery strategy authors to identify strategies to both reduce extinction risk (i.e., change assessment category) but also to quantify species recovery and measure progress (Grace et al. 2021)

Traditional single-species approaches to recovery have been very successful for some wildlife, but as the list of species at risk grows many endangered species can no longer be effectively managed individually. Although multi-species recovery plans may be less effective for individual species (Greenwald et al. 2019), ecosystem-based approaches increase efficiency and provide protection to other species of conservation concern. These approaches can also reduce potential management conflicts. For example, on Pelee Island in Lake Erie prescribed fires maintain habitat for the Endangered Blue Racer (Coluber constrictor foxii), but they can also eliminate habitat for the Endangered Yellow-breasted Chat virens subspecies (Icteria virens virens) (ECCC 2019). Ecosystem approaches can help managers to identify these species interactions and conflicts and develop actions that coordinate and maximize conservation outcomes.

Multi-species and ecosystem-based planning in species-rich focal areas would have similarities to the Australian approach of listing threatened ecological communities and could prioritize actions to reduce threats in that specific area. Developing, implementing, and reporting on ecosystem-based plans that integrate terrestrial and aquatic species (which would require cooperative planning and recovery between ECCC and DFO) and include candidate and other species of conservation concern would support multi-species ecosystem planning and recovery.

Multi-species or ecosystem approaches are permissible under SARA (Section 41 (3)) but have not yet widely been implemented as policy. With only a few exceptions, COSEWIC assessments and recovery strategies and management plans are based on single-species approaches. Multi-species and ecosystem-based approaches are more prevalent in action plans, with 67 final action plans that address more than on species at risk. However, almost two-thirds of these are for aquatic species and multi-species plans for species at risk found in national parks.

Ecosystem approaches will require flexibility, and even experimentation on how SARA is implemented. Although the diversity of provincial and territorial approaches to implementing the federal Species at Risk Act may seem like a policy patchwork, the science of endangered species protection and recovery is still emerging. Organization and innovation at sub-national levels may be necessary to drive change, and to provide sustainability experimentation (Leach et al. 2012) that is needed to find practical solutions at larger scales. However, this must be supported by rigorous monitoring and sharing of innovation and best practices (see Bridge 10).

Building on the theory and experience of ecosystem-based management that calls for participatory, consultative approaches (Slocombe 1993), co-management or co-governance approaches are showing promise for wildlife conservation since they encourage learning among practitioners and adaptive decision-making (Decker et al. 2016). The recent Edinburgh Declaration on post-2020 global biodiversity framework also calls for the increase participation of local government and groups in implementation of the Aichi targets.

There have been some promising recent trends towards co-governance models for the management of endangered species in Canada. The Species at Risk Partnerships on Agricultural Lands program in western Canada is implemented by Rancher’s Stewardship Alliance and incorporates ranchers’ contributions into stewardship (Pittman 2019). One of the challenges of these incentive-based programs are that landowners that have previously adopted practices to protect wildlife habitat may not be rewarded. However, they have been shown to build trust and increase cooperation (Jones et al. 2019). These programs can also provide a buffer to changing government priorities if local groups that are implementing recovery action have access to multiple streams of funding.

Incorporating social and behavioral sciences into conservation results in better conservation outcomes (Cinner 2018). However, recovery strategies do not always identify objectives and actions that integrate participation by communities, community-based organizations, or local authorities. Building social-science capacity within governmental organizations that are responsible for wildlife recovery, providing policy-based training to recovery strategy authors on approaches that engage communities, and systematic sharing of successful examples that link co-governance with improved species outcomes would support their integration. The template for recovery strategies could also be updated to include sections on community participation, such as the core principles of community-centered conservation governance that involves building multi-level collaborative networks, empowering local institutions, and responding meaningfully to emerging political, economic, and justice claims (e.g., from Indigenous Peoples) that result from historical or future land enclosures in the name of conservation or wildlife management (Armitage et al. 2020). In particular Indigenous Peoples have rights over many areas that are critical for wildlife (Schuster et al. 2019) and need to be more fully engaged in endangered species recovery (Hill et al. 2019).

Species conservation is a complex social–ecological issue that will require many solutions. If done correctly, identifying, regulating, and protecting critical habitat can be complemented by biodiversity offsets and habitat banking (Dupont 2019). These must be supported by rigorous guidelines that follow the mitigation hierarchy and include avoidance (e.g., critical habitat) and limits to offsets (i.e., not all species or subpopulations can be offset) (BBOP 2012; Arlidge 2018).

Past biodiversity offset approaches of “no net loss” have generally resulted in habitat loss (Turner et al. 2001; Quigley and Harper 2006). Going forward, offsets must use targets that unequivocally result in a significant net gain for impacted endangered species with the state and trajectory of the population clearly improved (Bull et al. 2020). In some cases, offsetting the loss of lower quality habitat for endangered species can be used to support recovery efforts. In Ontario, overall benefit permits issued under the provincial Endangered Species Act for construction of the Herb Gray Parkway in the City of Windsor significantly increased the habitat and numbers of the Endangered Colicroot (Aletris farinosa) (COSEWIC 2015). Offsets and habitat banking may require managers of endangered species to develop population and habitat targets that go beyond existing sites, but these can incorporate the thresholds that are needed to improve conservation status. Offsetting also provides an opportunity to implement climate change adaptation strategies through restoration and translocation in future habitat areas (see Bridge 8) and can generate funding for research. It can also create new relationships as diverse stakeholders cooperatively engage to find solutions.

Wildlife recovery provides benefits beyond biodiversity. The current biodiversity crisis is interrelated and mutually enforcing of other crises including climate change (Gardner et al. 2020), the loss of ecosystem services (Díaz et al. 2019), and our current global pandemic (Kavousi et al. 2020). Evidence is mounting that human interaction with nature supports health and well-being (Maller et al. 2006) and provides critical benefits to our cultures and societies (Díaz et al. 2018).

The interest, urgency, and potential funding associated with maintaining and restoring ecological services (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2019; Seddon et al. 2020) is an opportunity to link wildlife recovery with the benefits that nature provides to people. Habitats that support ecological services and endangered species often overlap. The analysis of green infrastructure and biodiversity benefits from urban areas (Filazzola et al. 2019) could be applied to endangered species habitats allowing practitioners to target areas for ecological restoration that will also deliver a suite of wider social and economic benefits (Gilby et al. 2020). Ecosystems services and their valuation have been applied to protected areas in Canada, such as Rouge Urban National Park (Wilson 2012), but not to habitat protection and restoration for species at risk.

Recovery strategies could project the value of the ecological services that species protection and restoration could provide. In particular linkages between habitat conservation and “nature-based solutions” for climate change (Griscom et al. 2017) may broaden new partners and funding (Echols et al. 2019). For example, the restoration of riparian habitat is a recovery objective for the Endangered Lake Chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta) (Staton et al. 2010). Riparian habitats and forested headwaters provide habitat for the Lake Chubsucker but these same habitats also provide other important benefits such as water quality improvement and carbon sequestration (Hanna et al. 2019). The value of the services provided by forests in regions where the Lake Chubsucker lives in southern Ontario are over $19 000/year/ha (TD Bank Group and Nature Conservancy of Canada 2017). Protecting and restoring this habitat would also create jobs and support Canada’s transition to a “restoration economy” (BenDor et al. 2017) and a post-COVID “green recovery” (Mansuy 2020). Describing and quantifying the potential ecological services and annual economic benefits of restoring riparian habitats and forested headwaters in the critical habitat of the Lake Chubsucker would support the case for implementation that complements the needs of the species and links recovery to broader societal values.

This information could be incorporated into the existing section in COSEWIC assessments on “Special Significance of the Species” so it can be considered in the socioeconomic analysis of the listing process. Greater detail on the social and economic benefits could then be detailed in recovery strategies. This may require training for assessment and recovery strategy authors, or the engagement of other experts in developing this information.

By incorporating the ecological services that are associated with endangered species conservation, the economic and social values of conservation can be communicated with a message that may resonate with a broader suite of actors (see Bridge 9). The integration of social and ecological targets make the interdependences between biodiversity and ecological services more explicit (Reyers and Selig 2020). The need to use socio-ecological indicators in ecological restoration has been recently highlighted (see Evju et al. 2020) but they have not been included in wildlife recovery strategies (with the exception of the social benefits of game species). Identifying and demonstrating the benefits of endangered wildlife recovery and habitat restoration to the public and policy-makers may be essential to ensure that funding remains available (Kavousi et al. 2020).

Many of Canada’s most successful species recoveries have involved translocations such as Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2014) and Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) (Lumsden and Drever 2002). Future species recovery in Canada will require conservation translocations to augment populations, increase locations, or reintroduce species that have been extirpated.

While translocations are not a panacea for extinction, they have been essential for the recovery of many species around the world (Bolam et al. 2021) and are necessary to increase the number of locations and range for some species. Conservation translocations may also be required to maintain species diversity as climate change rapidly alters the environment (Lee-Yaw et al. 2019). In Australia, climate change is often identified as a threat, but rarely integrated into recovery strategies (Hoeppner and Hughes 2019). The inclusion of climate change as a threat in species assessments is increasing in Canada (Woo-Durand et al. 2020), but direct conservation actions in response to climate change also do not appear in many recovery strategies. Assisted migration to facilitate range shifts and increase locations of species that are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and other pervasive threats may be necessary for some species to persist. Some species may need to be relocated to novel ecosystems, including urban areas, to maintain populations. Species redistribution science (Bonebrake et al. 2018) is providing new approaches to assess which edge of range species may be critical to support climate change driven range shifts and which “leading edges” should be targeted for conservation (Gilbert et al. 2019). Maintaining ex situ populations of highly threatened species as a component of translocation projects would also provide insurance against loss (Farhadinia et al. 2020).

Despite notable successes, translocations for conservation purposes have not been common in Canada compared to Australia and the US (Dalrymple et al. 2012; Silcock et al. 2019), but are projected to increase (Swan et al. 2018). Low ambition in recovery strategies to implement translocations may also reflect a lack of institutional experience and resources from agencies, a traditional focus on research and monitoring (Buxton et al. 2020), and fear of conservation failure (Meek et al. 2015). In addition, regulators may lack enthusiasm for translocations because of a lack of supportive policies and the potential conflicts with private landowners.

Translocations have resulted in the delisting or down-listing of approximately eight birds, mammals and fishes in Canada. This low number may be a result of agencies first researching threats and habitat needs to inform future translocations, such as current efforts with fishes in the Great Lakes region (Lamothe and Drake 2019; Lamothe et al. 2019).

Most people have a natural attraction to wild species (Wilson 1984), but it is also a learned characteristic (Simaika and Samways 2010). In Canada, and around the world, an increasing number of people are living in urban areas and creating stories that connect people with endangered species conservation is critical. To date there has been a paucity of these stories. Media coverage on climate change are up to eight times higher compared to biodiversity issues (Legagneux et al. 2018).

Our understanding of effective conservation messaging is growing (Kidd et al. 2019) and this supports the emerging field of “translational ecology” (Schlesinger 2010) that seeks to better convey scientific knowledge to the public and policy-makers. Traditional conservation messages may not resonate with people, either because they do not reflect their moral foundation or the jargon muddles their understanding. Our new “biodiversity narratives” (Louder and Wyborn 2020) need to have a diverse and flexible message toolbox, and that message should change with the audience (Saul 2018). “Boundary objects” (Brand and Jax 2007), such as ecological services (see Bridge 7), can be used to connect with different groups and bridge moral foundations and interests. Our current storytelling about charismatic species does not need to be replaced but needs an infusion of new stories that reflect the full range and richness of biodiversity. Flagship and endemic species (Meuser et al. 2009; McGowan et al. 2020) can be leveraged to increase public awareness and support, and the “iconization” of poorly known species can also be used to increase public awareness and their willingness to pay for conservation (Rudd 2009).

Personal stories about conservation may be more effective with conservative audiences than scientific facts (Stein et al. 2020). Surveys in Canada and the US show that farmers and rural land owners respond to messages about moral responsibility, stewardship, and benefitting future generations (Bonnie 1999; Sherren et al. 2020). Wildlife conservation messages cannot just be based on scientific facts and must be expanded to include compassion, emotion, nostalgia, and ecocentric values (Lumber et al. 2017; Willson et al. 2019; Taylor et al. 2020).

Despite our current extinction crisis, Canada has a long history of recovering wildlife species. It is critical to build public awareness about extinction, but it is also important to build awareness about species recovery within the public, scientific, and conservation communities. An evidence repository of the factors of success (and failure) in recovery could inspire and inform practitioners and ensure we are building on our collective knowledge of best practices (Sutherland et al. 2020).

Today, recovery stories are most often shared as scattered case studies rather than a regular comprehensive review. Reporting on recovery is outside of the mandate of COSEWIC and will need to be coordinated by the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. The annual reporting previously done by the Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife program should be reinvigorated to fill this role and support periodic implementation reviews completed by agencies (e.g., ECCC 2018b). Reporting on the patterns and processes of wildlife recovery across taxa and jurisdictions would be a key source of information to inform new recovery strategies and identify factors of success. Systematic reviews and evidence reporting are widely used in the medical field and could help to reduce the science–practice divide in conservation (Walsh et al. 2019). Such a review has recently been prepared on the effectiveness of captive breeding for freshwater fishes and mussels (Lamothe and Drake 2019; Lamothe et al. 2019) and could serve as a model for approaching other technical barriers to recovery.

Although change in the status of a species is a measure of extinction risk and is not necessarily the equivalent of recovery (Akcakaya et al. 2018), it can be a useful measure towards the ultimate benchmark of delisting. In the US, 47 species have recovered sufficiently to be delisted (Langpap et al. 2018). In Canada, 59 species have been delisted by COSEWIC, although only 15 of these (primarily birds) are for genuine reasons (i.e., threat reduction or conservation measures have successfully improved the status of the species) (IUCN 2020b). Reporting and analyzing these recoveries could be a useful tool to help understand the anatomy of successful species recovery and barriers to progress. As in the US (Greenwald et al. 2019), Canada has many species that have been recovered because of endangered species laws and actions. These conservation bright spots (Bennett et al. 2016), individually and in aggregate, provide an opportunity to build on best practices, inspire action, and showcase the benefits of recovery actions. Our ability to recover species needs to be shared and celebrated. The loss of biodiversity is a significant issue that the public and politicians need to understand. But just as importantly, we need to demonstrate solutions.