Why Carney is aiming to protect 30% of Canada's land by 2030

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney may be surprised by the blowback he’s getting over a recent photo-op friendly announcement in Gatineau Park.

Carney was in the jewel of the National Capital Region in late March to announce a new $3.8-billion initiative to more than double the amount of Canada’s protected land over the next four years, bringing it to roughly 3 million square kilometres, or 30 per cent of the country’s landmass. He also said his government would protect up to 700,000 square kilometres of ocean over the same timeframe.

It didn’t take long for chatter of a government “land lockup” to start online. The province of Alberta voiced its own discomfort with the federal conservation push this week, saying it crossed into provincial jurisdiction.

Here’s what you need to know about the prime minister’s plan to protect Canada’s biodiversity, and why it’s getting a surprising amount of flack.

Why 30 per cent of land?

The goal puts Canada in line with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework , announced in late 2022 at the end of the United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Montreal. The third target of the framework is to: “Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas” are “effectively conserved and managed.” This target is often referred to as “30×30” in shorthand.

Canada is one of 196 countries that signed onto the framework in 2022. The Trump administration terminated the United States’ participation in early 2025.

What counts as “protected” land?

Protected lands may include geographically defined areas , such as national parks and wildlife preserves. A second category under the framework is “other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs). Examples of OECMs include designated greenspaces on military bases , protected watersheds around major metropolitan areas and Indigenous conservation zones.

Rachel Buxton, a biodiversity expert at Carleton University, says there’s still a lack of clarity over what qualifies as an OECM.

“The idea behind OECMs is that they’re mechanisms for land to be protected without having to be bought by the government and owned publicly,” said Buxton. “This can be effective but, in some global analyses, we’re seeing a lack of transparency around things like how we’re defining an OECM and whether they’re meeting certain thresholds of conservation.”

OECMs will account for about eight per cent , or 800,000 square kilometres, of the newly protected land.

Can protected land be privately owned and developed?

Yes, but private development may only take place on certain protected lands, with stringent restrictions in place to protect biodiversity. A small number of protected areas are so-called “working landscapes,” where farming, forestry and other resource-based work may take place. Some working landscapes are also OECMs.

A common type of working landscape is protected grassland where a limited number of cattle are permitted to graze. A more exotic example is British Columbia’s Salt Spring Island Natural Cemetery, Canada’s first 100 per cent eco-friendly burial cemetery open to the public. (A fully “green” burial ceremony can be yours for $4,800.)

What happens if Canada misses the 30×30 target?

Probably nothing. The last round of global biodiversity targets, set in 2010 in Aichi, Japan, didn’t meet a single goal by its 2020 deadline. Buxton estimates that most signatories met “not even one” of the 20 Aichi targets.

Why is 30×30 controversial?

Critics have raised concerns about the implications of 30×30 for both private property and Indigenous land rights. Survival International, a global NGO that campaigns for the rights of Indigenous peoples, has called the UN-led initiative the “the biggest land grab in history.”

Alberta has objected on jurisdictional grounds , expressing concerns that a doubling of federally protected land could threaten a “proven made-in-Alberta model” of land management. The province has also pointed out that land use is a clear area of provincial jurisdiction under Canada’s Constitution.

Buxton says that Canada’s nature strategy does a good job of addressing some of the concerns that have been raised with respect to Indigenous sovereignty.

“I think the thing that I like most about this nature strategy is the strong emphasis on Indigenous leadership,” said Buxton. “I think that has been a place where the Canadian contribution has been really strong.”

National Post
rmohamed@postmedia.com

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.