Many private properties conserve wildlife habitat and other crucial ecological services. Our new report explores how to count those contributions — and encourage more.  

Today, up to a million species around the world teeter on extinction. To tackle that biodiversity crisis, 196 countries, including Canada, have committed to 30×30: conserving 30 per cent of their land and freshwater by 2030.   

At the end of 2024, Canada had conserved nearly 14 per cent, primarily through federal, provincial and territorial parks and Indigenous-protected areas. But those actions alone won’t be enough to achieve the goal.  

That’s why the 30×30 strategy also recognizes the importance of other effective conservation measures (OECMs): spaces that conserve biodiversity but don’t meet the formal definition of a protected area.  

Recognizing landowner efforts  

OECMs are especially important in conserving Canada’s southern landscapes, where most land is privately owned and where biodiversity loss is the highest. 

The good news is that many privately owned agricultural and forested properties across the country already meet the criteria for OECMs — or would meet them with some minor changes.   

Many privately owned properties already meet the criteria for OECMs — but those contributions aren’t being counted 

“Many landowners are stewards of important ecosystems that provide all kinds of benefits,” explains Bob McLean, Director of Policy for the Centre for Land Conservation (CLC). “Their grassland pastures support birds and pollinators. Their wetlands purify water, absorb carbon and mitigate flooding. And their woodlots offer crucial wildlife habitat.” 

But in most cases, those contributions aren’t being counted. The Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database includes more than 1,280,000 square kilometres of protected terrestrial areas, but only 92,753 square kilometres of OECMs.  

Canada’s progress towards its 30×30 conservation targets  

* Includes national, provincial and territorial parks, Indigenous protected areas, national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries  

** Areas that conserve biodiversity over the long term but don’t meet the formal definition of a protected area 

Source: Government of Canada 

So CLC set out to understand why many OECM-eligible agricultural and woodlot lands have yet to be counted as part of Canada’s official conservation network — and what could be done to encourage more landowners to step up their stewardship activities.  

We reviewed published information, interviewed policy experts and led focus groups with both landowners and groups that work closely with them. In October 2025, we published our findings in Valuing Nature Conservation on Private Land: A Landowner-Centred Strategy for Advancing Canada’s Conserved Areas Commitment.  

We found landowners aren’t stepping up to have their conservation efforts counted because the effort is  too great and the rewards too few. Our report pinpoints three key concerns. 

Landowners aren’t stepping up to have their conservation efforts counted because the effort is too great and the rewards too few  

Identifying key barriers 

Loss of autonomy and privacy 

Concerns about privacy and autonomy are among the main reasons why even the most conservation-minded landowners hesitate to pursue OECM recognition. Many fear that publicly disclosing their conservation activities could lead to unwanted attention, trespassing, government oversight or new restrictions on how they can use their own land.  

As one focus group participant put it, “Once your land is publicly recognized for conservation, people might think it’s like a park — they don’t understand that it’s still private. They will start showing up to visit or do recreational activities, and that’s not what we signed up for.” 

Changing the OECM model to keep landowner information private would go a long way in bringing more landowners on board.  

“Once your land is publicly recognized for conservation, people might think it’s like a park” 

A burdensome process  

Another barrier is that the work of navigating the process rests entirely on landowners. That’s where pivoting to an “opt-out” model could make a big difference. Instead of requiring landowners to initiate the process, owners of ecologically valuable lands could be notified that their property will be included in the OECM tally unless they actively decline.  

Designing participation around default enrollment — while maintaining autonomy and transparency — could unlock broader participation. 

Lack of incentives 

Finally, conservation often comes with costs. A farmer who opts to leave a section of their property forested has less land for crops — and less income as a consequence. Financial incentives help landowners offset that loss. 

That’s why it’s critical to offer incentive programs such as tax breaks, annual payments for ecosystem services and market-based programs like carbon and biodiversity credits.  

Leveraging trusted third parties 

A number of conservation and stewardship organizations are well placed to communicate and build trusted relationships with landowners. These include local land trusts, agricultural producer associations and woodlot management associations. They can help evaluate sites, provide technical assistance, deliver incentives and navigate the complex landscape of conservation tools and reporting processes.  

“Organizations like ours can play a big role in bringing more privately owned lands into Canada’s conservation network,” says Bryan Gilvesy, Chief Strategy Officer of ALUS, which helps farmers and ranchers create nature-based solutions on their property. “We work side by side with landowners to further conservation every day, so we understand their values, their motivations and their realities.” 

Conservation and stewardship organizations can play a big role in bringing more privately owned lands into Canada’s conservation network 

Nine win-win recommendations  

Based on those insights, our report offers policymakers nine recommendations to count more privately conserved agricultural and woodlot lands towards Canada’s 30×30 targets: 

1. Scale up and sustain conservation incentive programs.  

2. Share the cost of conservation on private working lands. 

3. Explore “safe harbour” or similar agreements that assure landowners their conservation actions won’t lead to future land-use restrictions.  

4. Strengthen the capacity of organizations that engage directly with landowners. 

5. Explore mechanisms that enable organizations to establish and maintain connections with landowners (e.g., building a digital platform that connects landowners with conservation organizations, technical experts, funding programs and peer networks). 

6. Enhance privacy by enabling self-determined levels of information disclosure and/or aggregated or batch reporting of lands as OECMs. 

7. Empower qualified third parties to accept OECMs into the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database. 

8. Interpret OECM guidance with a focus on outcomes from land management practices (e.g., allowing farm management plans as evidence of long-term commitments to conservation). 

9. Consider proactive engagement with landowners (e.g., moving to a voluntary opt-out model). 

The result is a win for landowners, addressing their legitimate concerns and providing more incentives to engage in environmental stewardship. It’s a win for Canada, moving the country closer to its 30×30 target. And it’s a win for biodiversity, especially in southern Canada where species face the greatest threats. 

“Canada needs to pull out all the stops to tackle the biodiversity crisis,” says CLC Executive Director Lara Ellis. “That includes recognizing and supporting landowners as key partners and empowering organizations to help them implement and enhance conservation practices.”

Read CLC’s in-depth research paper Valuing Nature Conservation on Private Land

As a national organization established in 2019, the Centre for Land Conservation (CLC) advances land conservation and stewardship through certification, policy and research