Ontario Nature Blog
Receive email alerts about breaking conservation
and environmental news.
Due to the ongoing strike, mail delivery, including the distribution of donation receipts, will be temporarily paused. However, when you donate online, you will receive an electronic receipt instantly.
To ensure your support reaches us without delay, we encourage you to donate online or by phone at 1-800-440-2366.
Thank you for your generosity and understanding!
Thank you, John for your comments and for sharing the important information about the evidence in the scientific literature supporting the need for even more meaningful area-based protection.
A study published in the journal Science last year concluded that we need to conserve 44% of the planet’s land surface if biodiversity loss is to be halted. Personally, I think we should be aiming for an even higher protection target than that. (I believe that I heard or read somewhere in the past year that some scientists think the ideal goal should be 70%.) And yet here we are in Canada struggling to get to 30%. (Have we even reached 20% yet?) I know, I know, it all takes time. But that’s of no comfort to any species on the brink of extinction or to any Indigenous peoples at risk of losing their way of life because the natural world is being destroyed around them.
Thank you, Corina, for the last three paragraphs of your article. I agree that potential OECM lands and waters must be examined closely to ensure that they are not inappropriately used by governments or industry to pad their conservation figures and also to ensure that if they are approved for inclusion, they are managed in such a way that biodiversity is indeed preserved for the long term.