Key concepts to guide solutions
Solutions should be guided by One Health concepts, taking account of the interconnections of ecosystem, species and human health (see Frameworks, General). An extensive review of global literature concludes that a policy mix is required, including market incentives (Piñeiro et al., 2020).
Barriers to address in the transition
There are significant barriers to overcome. Many farmers have their operations threatened by certain species, which can result in very antagonistic relationships between humans and wildlife. For many periods of Canadian agriculture, removing wildlife was seen as an appropriate private property response. We now understand this to be an incorrect approach because of the critical role many wildlife, including predators, play in ecosystems (for a global overview, cf. Ripple et al., 2014). The challenge is to minimize losses without unduly compromising wildlife and habitat. Attitudes, especially among older producers, can be difficult to shift. Many still view wildlife as pests to be controlled or eliminated rather than managed to optimize both environmental and economic performance. There is, however, significant support among certain farm demographics for wildlife protection and such farmers are typically interested in or already active in conservation efforts. There is also some debate about using financial incentives in voluntary programming with already committed farmers, whether it is at least unnecessary if not detrimental (cf. Tourangeau et al., 2020). Within current approaches to programming, the challenge is to develop more nuanced program designs that account for the motivations (or lack thereof), willingness to act, and psycho-social barriers to action of farmers (see also Goal 5, Sustainable Food, Barriers to adoption). However, mandatory and targeted programs may have a different intersection with motivations, not well explored in the Canadian context since there are few mandatory programs and decisions makers are reluctant to implement them.
Many threatened species of plants, insects, micro-organisms, and aquatic organisms are less visible, with an associated lower appreciation for their important roles in ecosystems. But their presence can enhance farming if the productive landscape is managed with ecological and biodiversity objectives in mind. The barriers to shifting production to ecological approaches can also be significant and are discussed under Goal 5, Sustainable Food.
Although projects show promise on a farm-by-farm basis, and a few multi-species action plans exist and have had some success, the challenges of producing change on a wider scale, including regional collaboration, are significant and the infrastructure to address them is not well developed at this point. Current responses can be summarized as a scattershot approach, with lots of organizations involved, activities, and funding, but much of the work is untargeted and voluntary, so it only attracts committed landowners. There is little landscape-level planning in agriculture (see Goal 2, Demand Supply Coordination). In fact, agriculture as a profession and practice does not have a design and planning culture. Even if there were such a culture, at this point, private property rights in agriculture so trump collective interests that putting in place mechanisms to encourage collaboration for biodiversity across farmed landscapes is difficult. As well, agricultural professionals generally do not examine how the working landscape can be altered to support biodiversity, focusing instead on the so-called non-productive margins. These margins are important, but the effectiveness of managing the margins can be significantly complemented or undermined by how cultivated land is managed. This receives little attention. Grazing lands can be an exception since the distinction between productive and non-productive spaces is less defined.
A significant policy barrier arises from the difficulty scientists are having developing biodiversity conservation performance measures. This is, admittedly, a complicated area, and given the importance (at least rhetorically) of data for much of agricultural policy-making in convincing recalcitrant decision-makers to act (see Instruments), data limitations are impeding targeted action. A key policy error was allowing farm-level data from Environmental Farm Plans to be held privately by delivery organizations, with only aggregated analysis provided. Many private firms also have very valuable data that they provide to their farm clients and for which governments are unwilling to pay nor legislatively require access. However, there are some successes with result-based agreements and the landscape level assessments that assist their development (see Efficiency and Substitution).
How much land for conservation?
A key question is how much land do we actually need for food and industrial products? This is part of the Demand-supply Co-ordination question (see Goal 2). There are no obvious answers at this point because studies taking account of the frameworks of this site are limited, and innumerable variables are at play. Land use inefficiency is a huge problem and this is addressed through many of the initiatives presented on this site, it creates the possibility of returning agricultural land, in certain regions of the country not subject to urbanization pressures, to naturalized landscapes. The shift to sustainability will also create more biodiversity on farms, but ideally, certain regions of the country, especially where landscape fragmentation has created more biodiversity problems, need to convert agricultural land to less managed landscapes.
From a range of studies, it appears that 20-30% of working landscapes, depending on the ecology of the region, should be in native habitat. Garibaldi et al. (2020) concluded that a minimum of 20% of working landscapes in native habitat is required. Environment Canada recommended a minimum of 30% forest cover for ecosystem service function (Environment Canada 2013). The UN Convention on Biological Diversity has a 30 by 30 target, with 30% of landscapes in protected areas by 2030. Specific to EU farmland, studies suggest a minimum of 10-14% of farms should not be in production and reserved as natural spaces (see studies cited in EEB and Birdlife International, 2022).
The US has extensive experience idling agricultural land, creating "conservation reserves" (cf. Hellerstein et al., 2015) and though not ideal, this experience can inform Canadian strategies to naturalize agricultural landscapes on a larger scale if the data so warrants. From this is created the possibility of more habitat for wild species.
Regardless of the target, ecozones in which agriculture is the dominant land use are typically far from these targets.
All these issues are addressed in the Efficiency, Substitution and Redesign sections.
