# Hopeful insights from wildlife recoveries in Canada

Laurenne Schiller, Mathilde L Tissier, Alexandra C D Davis, Clayton T Lamb, Stefanie Odette Mayer, Allyson K Menzies, René S Shahmohamadloo, Karen J Vanderwolf

► To cite this version:

Laurenne Schiller, Mathilde L Tissier, Alexandra C D Davis, Clayton T Lamb, Stefanie Odette Mayer, et al.. Hopeful insights from wildlife recoveries in Canada. Facets, 2025, 10, pp.1 - 17. 10.1139/facets-2024-0084. hal-05369742

HAL Id: hal-05369742

https://hal.science/hal-05369742v1

Submitted on 17 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Hopeful insights from wildlife recoveries in Canada

Laurenne Schiller<sup>a,b</sup>, Mathilde L. Tissier<sup>c,d</sup>, Alexandra C.D. Davis<sup>e</sup>, Clayton T. Lamb<sup>f</sup>, Stefanie Odette Mayer<sup>g,h</sup>, Allyson K. Menzies<sup>g</sup>, René S. Shahmohamadloo<sup>j</sup>, and Karen J. Vanderwolf<sup>k</sup>

<sup>a</sup>School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada; <sup>b</sup>Biology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada; <sup>c</sup>Département des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal H2X 1Y4, Canada; <sup>d</sup>Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, F-67000 Strasbourg, France; <sup>e</sup>Department of Biology, California State University Northridge, Northridge, CA 91330, USA; <sup>f</sup>Wildlife Science Center, Biodiversity Pathways, Jaffray, BC V0B 1T0, Canada; <sup>g</sup>Environmental Physics, Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics, ETH Zürich, Zürich 8092, Switzerland; <sup>h</sup>Ecosystem and Landscape Evolution, Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, ETH Zürich, Zürich 8092, Switzerland; <sup>i</sup>Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada; <sup>j</sup>School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Vancouver, WA 98686, USA; <sup>k</sup>Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada

Corresponding author: Laurenne Schiller (email: laurenne.schiller@dal.ca)

## Abstract

Facing the global biodiversity crisis, conservation practitioners and decision-makers seek to catalyze wildlife recoveries in their region. Here we examined social-ecological attributes related to threatened species recovery in Canada. First, we used a retrospective approach to compare the trajectories of the original species assessed by Canada's species-at-risk committee and found that only eight of 36 species now have decreased extinction risk relative to the past. There were no significant differences in human or financial capacity provided for recovery across species doing better, the same, or worse; the only significant difference was whether the primary cause of decline was alleviated or not. Second, when looking at species assessed at least twice between 2000 and 2019 we found that only eight of 422 (1.9%) experienced *both* increasing abundance and decreasing extinction risk. The defining characteristic of successful recoveries was first alleviating the original cause of decline, which was most often accomplished through strong regulatory intervention. Once declines were halted, practical interventions were highly species-specific. It is instructive to learn from conservation successes to scale resources appropriately and our results emphasize the importance of threat-specific intervention as a fundamental precursor to the successful restoration of biodiversity in Canada.

**Key words:** Canada, endangered species conservation, Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework, Species at Risk Act, wildlife recovery

## 1. Introduction

Humans are acutely aware of our myriad impacts on the biosphere and have more information on how our actions— or lack thereof—contribute to biodiversity loss than ever before. This knowledge combined with our species' singular responsibility to halt the overexploitation of wildlife and restore ecosystems has led to urgent calls for reform, especially from youth (Stockholm + 50 Youth Task Force 2022; YOUNG 2022) and historically marginalized groups (Schlosberg and Collins 2014; Temper et al. 2020), many of whom are disproportionately impacted by a changing planet. Still, progress in ameliorating our climate and biodiversity crises has been incremental at best, despite five decades of international environment-focused dialogues.

The most recent high-level commitments related to the conservation of Earth's biodiversity are outlined in the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the new strategic agreement for 2030 under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 2022). Adopted in

2022, the GBF replaces the Aichi Targets, which countries worked to implement during the United Nations (UN) Decade on Biodiversity (2011–2020). Although domestic approaches and results varied among countries, all 20 Aichi Targets were unmet at a global scale (CBD 2020) and the most recent Global Biodiversity Outlook explicitly highlighted a need for countries to learn from—and scale-up—successful efforts whenever feasible (CBD 2020). This perspective is in keeping with calls from the scientific community highlighting the scale and urgency of action needed to address today's interconnected environmental crises (Bradshaw et al. 2021) and calling for timely, inclusive, solutions-focused research to help address pervasive conservation challenges (Lubchenco 2016; Cooke et al. 2022). Equally, research documenting “bright spots” of species and ecosystem health (Cinner et al. 2016; Rossbach et al. 2023; Schiller et al. 2024) highlights the importance of looking at how aspects of human stewardship can contribute to better-than-expected outcomes for seemingly intractable conservation challenges. This turn toward identi-
fying and learning from successful conservation approaches is of immediate relevance, especially given the latest commitments made by countries to restore and protect wild species and spaces through the GBF agreement and its 23 Targets (Langhammer et al. 2024).

The Canadian federal government has repeatedly asserted that Canada is a nation committed to addressing biodiversity loss. In 1992, Canada was the first high-income country to ratify the CBD and, in 1995, the federal government published a National Biodiversity Strategy outlining how the objectives of this agreement would be met at a national scale (Ray et al. 2021). Recently, the federal government has committed to managing all fish and other marine resources sustainably by 2025 (DFO 2020), and achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 (ECCC 2022a). As part of its pledge at COP-15 in 2022, the Canadian government also committed $800 million to help support Indigenous-led conservation initiatives, including the implementation of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas. These efforts are in keeping with the broader international aspiration to conserve 30% of the planet's land and ocean area by 2030 (Office of the Prime Minister of Canada 2022) and Canada's vision of achieving "a full recovery for nature by 2050" (ECCC 2022b).

Here, we respond to the call to action of Buxton et al. (2021) who ask practitioners, knowledge holders, and scientists to improve our understanding of effective Canadian conservation policies and actions. We focus on species-level conservation in Canada since this was one of three areas where Aichi Target commitments were not met (ECCC 2019), and because the overarching objective of Canada's new Nature Strategy is to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 (ECCC 2024). Using both a historical perspective and a case study approach, we investigate attributes of successful wildlife recoveries and present an overview of known conservation successes. We provide insight into how these recoveries were achieved and review what sets them apart from threatened species that have not shown similar signs of recovery.

# 2. Materials and methods

## 2.1. Overview of study region

Canada is the world's second largest country by land area (9.98 million km²) and has the world's longest coastline (>243 000 km). Canada is also one of five countries that collectively contain over 70% of Earth's remaining intact ecosystems (ECCC 2024) and it has been labelled a "conservation superpower" for its high relative contribution to global ecosystem values (Coristine et al. 2019). Roughly one-quarter of the world's boreal forest, temperate forest, and wetland area, respectively, are found in Canada (Government of Canada 2022). Prior to colonization by European settlers, Indigenous communities relied on a diversity of wildlife to meet nutritional and medicinal needs and maintained strong spiritual and cultural connections with ecosystems for millenia (Kuhnlein and Turner 1991; Turner et al. 2000; Hummel and Ray 2008; Cannon and Yang 2017). Such connections to place

still exist for many communities, and 96% of Canadians believe that nature is important to their well-being (ECCC 2024). Many Canadians also rely heavily on natural resource sectors for sustenance, livelihoods, or broader national economic security.

In general, balancing economic dependence on natural resources with wildlife conservation has been a long-standing challenge in Canada (Van Wilgenburg et al. 2013; Hutchings et al. 2019; Kapoor et al. 2021; Sergeant et al. 2022). At the same time, inconsistent efforts to recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination has perpetuated social injustices in Canada (Hill et al. 2019; Muir 2022) while exacerbating conflict over valuable and vulnerable habitats and wildlife (e.g., Hebblewhite 2017; Moore 2022). Over 80% of remote northern Canadian wilderness remains unmodified by direct human activities; however, more southern regions are subject to high human pressure (>56%-70%), due to cumulative impacts associated with urban development and industry (Hirsch-Pearson et al. 2022). For example, the Canadian boreal plains are home to the world's fourth largest extractable fossil fuel reserve, and crude oil is the country's leading international export (Government of Alberta 2022). Canada is also the world's primary exporter of sawn timber (OEC 2022) and ranks among the top producers of metallic and non-metallic minerals, with mining operations in all 13 provinces and territories (NRC 2022). In general, species richness is also high-est along the country's southern border and, thus, coincides with the highest human population density (Coristine and Kerr 2011).

At least 80 000 species of wild flora and fauna (Fig. 1) are found in Canada, over 300 of which are endemic (Kraus et al. 2023). In 2020, 20% of wildlife in Canada was determined to be at some level of extinction risk, although this included many species not yet assessed (CESCC 2022). The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is the scientific body charged with assessing the status of species in Canada and providing recommendations for inclusion on the regulated federal list of at-risk species (COSEWIC 2021). From this process, COSEWIC publishes status reports, which systematically incorporate information on threats affecting a specific species, population, or subspecies and assigns a risk status of: (i) Extinct, (ii) Extirpated, (iii) Endangered, (iv) Threatened, (v) Special Concern, (vi) Not At Risk, or (vii) Data Deficient; designations that are revised (e.g., split into multiple units) become (viii) De-Activated. Currently, one-third of 1173 assessed wildlife species are categorized as "Endangered" (COSEWIC 2023).

The 2002 Species At Risk Act (SARA) is the federal government's primary legislative tool to protect wild species that have been classified as threatened with extinction by COSEWIC. However, in the two decades since SARA was implemented, little has changed in terms of the threats facing Canadian wildlife. In 2013, the primary threat facing SARA-listed species (which were mostly plants), was habitat destruction because of human disturbance, especially recreational activities (McCune et al. 2013). While species in Canada are subject to an average of five different threats (Currie and Marconi 2020), habitat loss remains the main threat to threatened Canadian wildlife, although 38% of species are now also
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Examples of Canadian biodiversity and key natural resources. Fifteen unique ecozones across Canada provide habitat for over 80 000 species of wildlife (e.g., a–c). At the same time, many of Canada's ecozones also provide some of the world's largest forestry and mineral exports (e.g., d–f). This dichotomy continuously presents challenges for Canada's federal and provincial governments when it comes to balancing resource extraction and conservation. (Photos: Laurenne Schiller (a and b); Mark/Adobe Stock (c); IanChrisGraham/iStock (d); BGSmith/Shutterstock (e); and Cavan Images/Alamy Stock Photo (f).)</figcaption></figure>

likely impacted by threats related to climate change (Woo-Durand et al. 2020).

## 2.2. Data sets and analyses

For the purpose of our paper, we use the SARA definition (ECCC 2014) and refer to all COSEWIC assessed units as “wildlife species” (hereafter: “species”). We used two previously unpublished databases of COSEWIC-assessed species with information covering different timeframes to investigate species recovery in Canada (Fig. 2). First, we used the database of McKee et al. (2022; Supplementary Data File 1) as part of a retrospective analysis to investigate trends in extinction risk for the first species in each taxonomic group ever assessed by COSEWIC. We termed this group, the *sentinel* species given their symbolism as indicators of long-term species’ fates in Canada. Based on changes in their COSEWIC extinction risk over time, we classified them into four trajectory groups: “doing better”, “the same”, “doing worse”, and “unknown”. We gathered funding and recovery team data for each species from existing RENEW Reports (1989–2006) as well as information on each species’ recovery history (Table S2). Using this information, we tested whether recovery team size and composition, total allocated funding, number of COSEWIC assessments published, and the time taken to publish the first recovery document, were significantly different across the “better”, “same”, and “worse” groups (see Supplementary Methods for details). We also compared these groups based on whether the cause of decline for each species had been mitigated. While we gathered information for all sentinel species, we did not include those

with “unknown” trajectories in these analyses. Information in the McKee et al. (2022) database was current up to 1 May 2022 and included 1174 species (with assessments spanning 1978–2022).

Next, we took a more detailed and contemporary look at successful species recovery in Canada using data from Mayer et al. (2021; Supplementary Data File 2). This was an unpublished content analysis database that scored criteria information from COSEWIC assessments using a standardized approach (see Supplementary File 4). It included 422 species that had at least two assessments conducted between 2000 and 2019 and were not classified as “Data Deficient”, “Extirpated”, or “Extinct”. Unlike both ECCC (2022c) and McKee et al. (2022), the information in this dataset was able to provide context related to the drivers of COSEWIC status change since it translates specific COSEWIC assessment content into numeric scores. This information enables analyses related to how different aspects of species-specific threats and trajectories have changed over time. Using this dataset, we first filtered for species that met a two-fold definition of recovery success: (i) increased population abundance and (ii) decreased extinction risk (see Supplementary Methods Section 2.2.1 for definition rationale and details). To obtain a comparison group, we then filtered for setback species with (i) decreased population abundance and (ii) increasing extinction risk. We paired each success with a setback species based on similar life history and geographic traits (Table S4) and conducted a case study review for all paired species to identify aspects related to their conservation.

First, we identified whether the setbacks and successes were listed on international agreements/treaties and domes-
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Methodological overview. Shown is the process for identifying “sentinel” species and recovery “success” and “setback” case studies. Please see Section 2 as well as Supplementary Methods for detailed information related to selection criteria, exclusions, and data collection. McKee et al. (2022) data are provided as Supplementary Data File 1 and Mayer et al. (2021) data are provided as Supplementary Data File 2.</figcaption></figure>
tic species-specific protective legislation. To do this, legisla-
tive protections were divided into five broad jurisdictions:
multi-national, American federal, Canadian federal, Cana-
dian provincial, and Indigenous land claim within Canada
(Table S5). Second, we identified what types of practical (i.e.,
on-the-ground) interventions had been used to promote their
recovery. Such interventions were divided into similarly large
categories: reintroduction to the wild, captive breeding pro-
gram to maintain genetic diversity, habitat protection, habi-
tat restoration, and disease/invasive species monitoring. For
both the legislative protections and on-the-ground interven-
tions, all were considered in terms of their relevance to indi-
viduals in the Canadian population and only those that had
been implemented up to the most recent assessment year
were included (see "Assessment window" in Table 2).

For each species, all legislative and on-the-ground interven-
tions were coded for presence ("1") and absence ("0") (Tables
S6 and S7) and cumulative results were compared between
setbacks and successes. In addition to comparing the number
of interventions, our case studies focused on reviewing the
unique circumstances associated with all success and setback
species, the main findings of which are presented as a qual-
itative summary of key observed commonalities and differ-
ences. Full details on methodology for all analyses are avail-
able in the Supplementary Materials.

3. Results

3.1. Attributes of sentinel species and their trajectories over time

Overall, eight of 36 sentinel species (22%) are now in a lower risk category relative to their first COSEWIC assessment (i.e., “doing better”), 14 are the same (39%), 11 are in a higher risk category (31%; i.e., “doing worse”), and three are unknown due to having only one assessment (8%; Table 1). Among the sentinel species, six were assessed as having no evidence for decline. The primary cause of decline for 14 of the remaining 30 sentinel species was related to the loss or degradation of habitat, followed by overexploitation and persecution by humans (nine species).

For the 28 sentinel species with known extinction risk tra-
jectories and where the original cause of decline could be
ascertained, we find the cause of decline has been mostly
or entirely alleviated for nine species (Table 1); seven of
these are now in a lower risk category and two are in the
same risk category (whooping crane and peregrine pealei).
Six of nine alleviated declines were originally due to overex-
ploitation (or direct persecution by humans) while declines
of three peregrine falcon subspecies (anatum, tundrius, and
pealei) were linked to impacts of the agricultural insecticide,
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). The cause of decline
was not sufficiently addressed for any species now in a higher
risk category (i.e., “doing worse”), and we found a statistically
significant difference between the three groups when com-
paring the proportion of species that had their original cause
of decline alleviated or not (p < 0.001; Fig. 3A).

There was no statistically significant difference between
species doing better, the same, or worse based on total

number of COSEWIC assessments conducted ($F_{[2,30]}$ = 0.898, $p$ = 0.42). When considering different institutional, social, and economic aspects of recovery interventions, we further found no statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of the time taken to publish their first recovery document ($F_{[2,25]}$ = 1.290, $p$ = 0.29; Fig. 3B), total allocated funding ($F_{[2,27]}$ = 0.117, $p$ = 0.89; Fig. 3C), recovery team size ($F_{[2,19]}$ = 0.707, $p$ = 0.51; Fig. 3D) or recovery team composition ($F_{[2,19]}$ = 0.929, $p$ = 0.41; Fig. 3E). Notably, a key objective stated in the inaugural 1989 RENEW report was to have all recovery documents for (existing) threatened species completed within 3 years. We found that the median time taken to produce the first recovery document exceeded 18 years across all three groups (Fig. 3B).

Overall, we found substantial variation in financial sup-
port allocated to different species over time (Fig. 3C) as well
as notable concentration of resources: the top four most
heavily funded species (wood bison, piping plover *circumcinc-
tus*, Vancouver Island marmot, and whooping crane) received
more financial aid (CAD 25 million) than all other species
combined (CAD 20 million), and one mollusc—the northern
abalone—received 79% of CAD 5.2 million allocated to all
eight non-vertebrate species (Table S3). The recovery team for
the monarch butterfly (doing worse) was the largest across
all species (n = 41 people). Among species doing better, the
peregrine falcon *tundrius* had the smallest recovery team (six
people) while the sea otter had the largest (39 people).

3.2. Comparing Canada’s “successes” and “setbacks”.

We found eight of 422 species (1.9%) met our two-fold defi-
nition of recovery success: increasing population abundance
and decreased extinction risk between 2000 and 2019. At the
same time, 55 species (13%) met our antithetical criteria for
setbacks. The group of successes included three marine mam-
mals, three terrestrial mammals, one vascular plant, and one
bird (Table 2). The eight setbacks we chose to pair with these
species also included three marine mammals, as well as two
terrestrial mammals, one vascular plant, and two birds (Table
S4). Interestingly, three successes and one setback identified
in this part of our analysis were also among the 36 sentinel
species (Table 1). Below, we report quantitative differences in
the number of interventions for successes and setbacks and
provide key findings from our qualitative synthesis (Table S9)
across all species studied here.

While many species were—and continue to be—subject
to multiple human-induced threats, historic overexploita-
tion and persecution by humans was the most common
cause of decline across successes and setbacks (six of 16
species), followed by habitat loss (three species; Table 2,
Table S9: *Causes of population decline*). On average, successes
had a total of 5.4 ± 1.5 recovery interventions compared
to 4.0 ± 0.53 for setbacks (Fig. 4), which revealed a signifi-
cant difference between the two groups ($t_7$ = 2.43, $p$ = 0.029).
All species have been afforded some legislative protection
in Canada and/or through international agreements, but we
find that no species was protected across all five jurisdic-
tions reviewed, and only three of 16 species (two successes
<table><caption>**Table 1.** COSEWIC status history for sentinel species.</caption><thead><tr><th>Trajectory</th><th>Taxon</th><th>Species</th><th colspan="6">COSEWIC status assessment history</th><th>Cause of population decline</th><th>Was cause of decline alleviated?</th><th>Primary current threat(s)?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Better (n = 8)</td><td rowspan="3">Birds</td><td>American white pelican</td><td>1978</td><td>1987</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Historic overexploitation, habitat loss and disturbance</td><td>Mostly</td><td>Breeding site disturbance</td></tr><tr><td>Trumpeter swan</td><td>1978</td><td>1996</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Historic overexploitation, habitat loss</td><td>Mostly</td><td>Lead poisoning, habitat alteration</td></tr><tr><td>Caspian tern</td><td>1978</td><td>1999</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No evidence for decline</td><td>N/A</td><td>Contaminants, breeding site disturbance</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Mammals (marine)</td><td>Peregrine falcon (anatum)</td><td>1978</td><td>1999</td><td>2000</td><td>2007</td><td>2017</td><td></td><td>Agricultural pesticides (especially DDT)</td><td>Yes</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Peregrine falcon (tundrius)</td><td>1978</td><td>1992</td><td>2007</td><td>2017</td><td></td><td></td><td>Agricultural pesticides (especially DDT)</td><td>Yes</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Mammals (terrestrial)</td><td>Sea otter</td><td>1978</td><td>1986</td><td>1996</td><td>2000</td><td>2007</td><td>2022</td><td>Historic overexploitation</td><td>Yes</td><td>Contamination from oil spills</td></tr><tr><td>Swift fox</td><td>1978</td><td>1988</td><td>2000</td><td>2009</td><td>2021</td><td></td><td>Persecution by humans (incidental mortality caused by predator control programs)</td><td>Mostly</td><td>Pollution (poisoning from legal or illegal rodenticides/ predacides)</td></tr><tr><td>Wood bison</td><td>1978</td><td>1988</td><td>2000</td><td>2013</td><td></td><td></td><td>Historic overexploitation</td><td>Mostly</td><td>Hunting and population control (controlled and unregulated)<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Same (n = 14)</td><td rowspan="2">Arthropods</td><td>Karner blue</td><td>1997</td><td>2000</td><td>2010</td><td>2019</td><td></td><td></td><td>Habitat loss (land conversion for residential development and agriculture)</td><td>No</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>Maritime ringlet</td><td>1997</td><td>2000</td><td>2009</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No decline documented (no baseline information available)</td><td>N/A</td><td>Habitat impacts (flooding and sea-level rise)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Birds</td><td>Whooping crane</td><td>1978</td><td>2000</td><td>2010</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Habitat loss; human disturbance</td><td>Mostly</td><td>Habitat loss and degradation (coastal development in wintering grounds)</td></tr><tr><td>Prairie falcon</td><td>1978</td><td>1982</td><td>1996</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No evidence for decline</td><td>N/A</td><td>Habitat loss and nest disturbance (conversion of grazing land to cropland)</td></tr><tr><td>Gyrfalcon</td><td>1978</td><td>1987</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No evidence for decline</td><td>N/A</td><td>Climate change (impacts on Arctic habitat and prey)</td></tr><tr><td>Eskimo curlew</td><td>1978</td><td>2000</td><td>2009</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Historic overexploitation</td><td>No</td><td>None listed</td></tr><tr><td>Peregrine falcon (pealei)</td><td>1978</td><td>1999</td><td>2001</td><td>2007</td><td>2017</td><td></td><td>Agricultural pesticides (especially DDT)</td><td>Yes</td><td>Pollution (oil spills, contaminants in seabird prey)</td></tr><tr><td>Giant threespine stickleback</td><td>1980</td><td>2013</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No evidence for decline</td><td>N/A</td><td>Introduction of invasive species (predatory fishes)</td></tr><tr><td>Fishes (freshwater)</td><td>Shortnose sturgeon</td><td>1980</td><td>2005</td><td>2015</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Habitat modification (dam construction)<sup>b</sup></td><td>No</td><td>None specified</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 1. (continued).</caption><thead><tr><th>Trajectory</th><th>Taxon</th><th>Species</th><th colspan="5">COSEWIC status assessment history</th><th>Cause of population decline</th><th>Was cause of decline alleviated?</th><th>Primary current threat(s)?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="11">Worse (n = 11)</td><td rowspan="2">Mammals (terrestrial)</td><td rowspan="2">Vancouver Island marmot</td><td>1978</td><td>1997</td><td>2000</td><td>2008</td><td>2019</td><td>Habitat alteration (leading to increased predation)</td><td>No</td><td>Habitat alteration (leading to predation), climate change (habitat contraction)</td></tr><tr><td>Black-footed ferret</td><td>1978</td><td>2000</td><td>2009</td><td>2021</td><td></td><td>Disease, persecution of primary prey (black-tailed prairie dog)</td><td>Partly</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reptiles (marine)</td><td rowspan="2">Leatherback sea turtle</td><td>1981</td><td>2001</td><td>2012</td><td></td><td></td><td>Overexploitation (fishery bycatch and poaching), marine pollution</td><td>No</td><td>Fishery bycatch and marine pollution (in Canada), poaching (nesting beaches outside of Canada)</td></tr><tr><td>Prairie skink</td><td>1989</td><td>2004</td><td>2017</td><td></td><td></td><td>Habitat loss and degradation (agriculture)</td><td>No</td><td>Invasive plants, habitat degradation</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Vascular plants</td><td rowspan="2">Furbish's lousewort</td><td>1980</td><td>1998</td><td>2000</td><td>2011</td><td></td><td>Habitat degradation (dam construction)</td><td>No</td><td>Habitat alteration (loss of shade due to road construction and agriculture), recreational activities</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Habitat loss and human disturbance</td><td>No</td><td>Habitat loss and degradation by invasive species</td></tr><tr><td>Amphibians</td><td>Fowler's toad</td><td>1986</td><td>1999</td><td>2000</td><td>2010</td><td></td><td>Habitat loss and degradation (wintering sites), declining food availability, climate change</td><td>No</td><td>Habitat loss (logging and wood harvesting), Pollution (use of agricultural herbicides on milkweed)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Birds</td><td>Greater prairie chicken</td><td>1978</td><td>1990</td><td>2000</td><td>2009</td><td>2021</td><td>Habitat loss (agriculture)</td><td>No</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>Piping plover (melodus)</td><td>1978</td><td>1985</td><td>2001</td><td>2013</td><td></td><td>Habitat loss and human disturbance (recreational beach use)</td><td>Partly</td><td>Predation (of eggs and chicks), human disturbance, habitat loss and degradation</td></tr><tr><td>Piping plover (circumcinctus)</td><td>1978</td><td>1985</td><td>2001</td><td>2013</td><td></td><td>Habitat loss and human disturbance (recreational beach use)</td><td>Partly</td><td>Predation (of eggs and chicks), human disturbance, habitat loss and degradation</td></tr><tr><td>Speckled dace</td><td>1980</td><td>2002</td><td>2006</td><td>2016</td><td></td><td>Habitat loss and degradation (forestry)</td><td>No</td><td>Habitat modifications (water withdrawal exacerbated by climate change)</td></tr><tr><td>Lichens</td><td>Cryptic paw</td><td>1995</td><td>2006</td><td>2019</td><td></td><td></td><td>Habitat loss (forestry)</td><td>No</td><td>Habitat loss (logging and wood harvesting)</td></tr><tr><td>Mammals (terrestrial)</td><td>Black-tailed prairie dog</td><td>1978</td><td>1988</td><td>1999</td><td>2000</td><td>2011</td><td>Unknown (in Canada)<sup>c</sup></td><td>No</td><td>Sylvatic plague, drought</td></tr><tr><td>Molluscs (marine)</td><td>Northern abalone</td><td>1999</td><td>2000</td><td>2009</td><td></td><td></td><td>Overexploitation (legal fishing and poaching)</td><td>Partly</td><td>Harvest (illegal), predation (sea otters)</td></tr><tr><td>Molluscs (terrestrial)</td><td>Banff Springs snail</td><td>1997</td><td>2000</td><td>2008</td><td>2018</td><td></td><td>Unknown (extreme fluctuations in number of individuals)</td><td>No</td><td>Climate change (decline in habitat quality due to thermal drying)</td></tr><tr><td>Mosses</td><td>Rigid apple moss</td><td>1997</td><td>2000</td><td>2009</td><td></td><td></td><td>No evidence for decline</td><td>N/A</td><td>Habitat destruction (urban development and recreational use), changes in grazing intensity (deer)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** (concluded).</caption><thead><tr><th>Trajectory</th><th>Taxon</th><th>Species</th><th>COSEWIC status assessment history</th><th>Cause of population decline</th><th>Was cause of decline alleviated?</th><th>Primary current threat(s)?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Unknown (n = 3)</td><td>Birds</td><td>Double-crested cormorant</td><td>1978</td><td>Persecution by humans, contamination by DDT</td><td>Yes</td><td>Conflict with humans (namely sport and commercial fishers)<sup>d</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Fishes (marine)</td><td>Blueback herring</td><td>1980</td><td>No evidence for decline</td><td>N/A</td><td>Overexploitation<sup>e</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Mammals (terrestrial)</td><td>Cougar (Eastern pop.)</td><td>1978 1998</td><td>Habitat fragmentation and loss</td><td>Unknown</td><td>N/A</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Taxonomic categories based on Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) classifications. Species list derived from McKee et al. dataset (Supplementary Data File 1; current to 1 May 2022). Note: the three species with "Unknown" trajectories were not included in the sentinel species analysis since we relied on a species having at least two COSEWIC assessments to determine a trajectory. All causes of decline and primary threats were obtained from the species' most recent COSEWIC assessment (i.e., last year listed in "COSEWIC status assessment history"; see Table S2 for sources). Colour codes: Dark red = Extirpated, Red = Endangered, Dark pink = Threatened, Light pink = Special Concern, Teal = Not At Risk, White = Data Deficient.

aAn imminent threat assessment determined that the recovery of two herds of wood bison (~200 individuals total) could be negatively affected by the localized prevalence of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis but no immediate conservation concerns were identified for disease-free herds (ECCC 2020).

bThis species is believed to spawn within a 10 km stretch below the Mactaquac Dam, which was fragmented the Saint John River when it was built in 1967. No quantitative abundance data for this population are available prior to 1973 so this information is based on local ecological knowledge. COSEWIC (2005) states: "Based on the personal observation of elders of the Oromocto First Nations, representatives from the Oromocto First Nation's fisheries technician team (Levi Sabattis, Harold Paul and Brian Paul) indicated that there is a general sense among the elders that there has been a decrease in numbers of shortnose sturgeon over the past thirty years. They linked the decrease to the presence of the Mactaquac Dam".

cThere has been no COSEWIC assessment for this species since 2011, but the 2021 recovery plan highlights that the species was subject to substantial range contraction (i.e., 98% reduction in historic distribution by the late 1990s) because of land conversion of prairie habitat, eradication programs, and sylvatic plague (Parks Canada Agency 2021).

dThe potential impact of this threat on cormorant abundance is not discussed, only that such conflicts are likely to continue (Government of Canada 2015).

eAlthough there is no updated COSEWIC assessment for this species, the most recent government stock assessment states that the population is showing clear signs of depletion from overfishing (DFO 2022).
**Fig. 3.** Comparing recovery attributes for sentinel species. Dating back to 1978, we find a significant difference in the number of sentinel species in a lower extinction risk category ("better") relative to those in the same category or with higher extinction risk ("worse") based on whether their initial cause of decline was alleviated (a). We find no significant differences between the three groups in terms of time taken to publish their first recovery document (b), allocated funding (c), recovery team size (d), or recovery team composition (e). Note: median ± 1.5 IQR depicted for figures b–e; see Table S2 for details.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

and one setback) were protected in at least four jurisdictions (Table S7).

Results from our Fisher's Exact Test showed a significant difference between successes and setbacks based on the proportion of species in each group that had their cause of decline alleviated as part of recovery interventions over time (p = 0.009). For successes originally threatened by overexploitation, the most common catalyst for alleviating declines was strong multilateral agreements and/or American legislation—much of which began over a century ago (Table S9: [Removal of] the silver bullet). Complementing species-specific laws and regulations, most species have also been aided by a combination of practical (on-the-ground) interventions (e.g., Fig. 5). The average number of practical efforts relative to total interventions was nearly identical for successes (0.36 ± 0.19) as for setbacks (i.e., 0.36 ± 0.17) and only one species (Fernald's braya) had a recovery portfolio composed of proportionately more practical efforts than legislative protections (Fig. 4).

After laws that led to the cessation of overexploitation, we found that increases in population abundance for three of eight successes were initiated by targeted reintroduction programs. However, as seen in the case of certain setbacks, this practical intervention was not systematically successful, especially when the original threat was not alleviated prior to reintroduction, if environmental conditions (e.g., suitable habitat and/or prey availability) were compromised (Table S9: First stop the decline, then focus on recovery). Critically, while 15 of 16 species had some form of designated habitat protection, habitat restoration efforts were documented for only one species, the Pitcher's thistle (Table S8). Indeed, while targeted habitat protection can provide valuable benefits, our case study results suggest that effectiveness is amplified when the most proximate cause of population decline is also being addressed and additional effort is made to improve habitat quality (Table S9: First stop the decline, then focus on recovery). Similarly, for sessile species, such as plants, potential conserva-

tion benefits provided by provincial-level protection appear to be contingent on whether designated parks or species-at-risk listings also lead to reduced local disturbance. Six of 16 species—four terrestrial mammals and two plants—were also subject to disease monitoring efforts and/or the control of competitive invasive species as part of their recovery effort portfolio (Table S8).

Lastly, across the case studies in our review, we observed that individual people and communities can play an important (but difficult to quantify) part of recovery efforts. Equally, when focusing first and foremost on ecological outcomes, rightsholders living where conservation interventions occur may be disproportionately affected by the intervention itself, or by its outcome (Table S9: *Don't underestimate the importance of people*).

## 4. Discussion

We set out to investigate the attributes of successful species recoveries in Canada. Our finding that 22% of the 36 sentinel species are now in a lower extinction risk category is consistent with what **ECCC (2023a)** reports for all 530 species that have been reassessed (i.e., 20%). Surprisingly, however, we also found that only eight of 422 species (1.9%) with multiple COSEWIC assessments met our initial criteria for “success”: increasing abundance and decreasing extinction risk over time. This finding corroborates the limitations noted by **ECCC (2023a)** and demonstrates that measuring change in extinction status only is an imprecise way to deduce whether population-level change in the wild is also happening concurrently.

We found that the targeted alleviation of their initial causes of decline was the common thread that tied recovering species together, even when considering the personnel and financial resources invested. While it is perhaps unsurprising that alleviating the source of decline supports recovery, the relative rarity of this outcome was apparent across our
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Successes and setbacks identified for case studies.</caption><thead><tr><th>Group</th><th>Taxonomic group</th><th>Species</th><th>Assessment window (years)</th><th>Change in abundance (%)</th><th>Cause of decline</th><th>Was cause of decline alleviated?</th><th>Area of occupancy (km²)</th><th>Endemic?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Successes</td><td>Birds</td><td>Hooded warbler</td><td>1994–2012</td><td>200</td><td>None documented (population thought to be expanding its range northward)</td><td>N/A</td><td>15 000</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Mammals (marine)</td><td>Bowhead whale (Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort)</td><td>1985–2005</td><td>3.4</td><td>Historic overexploitation</td><td>Yes</td><td>90 000</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Humpback whale (N. Pacific)</td><td>1985–2011</td><td>4.1</td><td>Historic overexploitation</td><td>Yes</td><td>476 284</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Sea otter</td><td>2000–2007</td><td>2900</td><td>Historic overexploitation</td><td>Yes</td><td>10 000</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Mammals (terrestrial)</td><td>Swift fox</td><td>1998–2009</td><td>130</td><td>Incidental mortality from predator control programs</td><td>Mostly</td><td>4411</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Wood bison</td><td>1988–2013</td><td>150</td><td>Historic overexploitation</td><td>Yes</td><td>121 480</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Peary caribou</td><td>2004–2015</td><td>142</td><td>Extreme weather events leading to limited forage</td><td>Yes</td><td>366 384</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Vascular Plants</td><td>Pitcher's thistle</td><td>1999–2010</td><td>200</td><td>None documented (populations susceptible to human disturbance and threatened by competition with invasive species)</td><td>N/A</td><td>136</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">Setbacks</td><td rowspan="2">Birds</td><td>Cerulean warbler</td><td>2003–2010</td><td>-16</td><td>Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation</td><td>No</td><td>1250</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Ferruginous hawk</td><td>1995–2008</td><td>-30</td><td>Habitat loss and degradation, human disturbance</td><td>No</td><td>2000</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Mammals (marine)</td><td>Beluga whale (St. Lawrence estuary)</td><td>2004–2014</td><td>-1</td><td>Poorly understood but likely a combination of habitat degradation, pollution and human disturbance following historic overexploitation</td><td>Partly</td><td>36 000</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Northern fur seal</td><td>1996–2006</td><td>-39</td><td>Unknown (population declining following recovery from historic overexploitation)</td><td>No</td><td>2000</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Grey whale (NE. Pacific)</td><td>1987–2004</td><td>-10</td><td>Extreme weather events leading to suboptimal feeding seasons (two mass mortality events)</td><td>Yes</td><td>150 000</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Mammals (terrestrial)</td><td>Black-tailed prairie dog</td><td>1978–2011</td><td>-28</td><td>Unknown</td><td>No</td><td>12</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Woodland caribou (Newfoundland)</td><td>1984–2014</td><td>-47</td><td>Limited forage and predation when the population was at high density, high harvest</td><td>Mostly</td><td>44 781</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Vascular Plants</td><td>Fernald's braya</td><td>1997–2012</td><td>-64</td><td>Habitat loss, human disturbance</td><td>No</td><td>120</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: All species categorized as “successes” showed increasing abundance and decreasing extinction risk over time and those categorized as “setbacks” showed the opposite (decreasing abundance and increased extinction risk). Information obtained from relevant COSEWIC assessment reports (see Table S6). Note: all species met our two-fold inclusion criteria based on a status change sometime between 2000 and 2019; “Assessment window” refers to the specific timeframe reviewed since this was different for each species and, in some cases, the first assessment pre-dated 2000 and/or multiple assessments determined the same at-risk status before a change occurred. Since noticeable changes in abundance can take time to observe, information related to the species' recovery trajectory was reviewed up to the end of their assessment window for case studies.
**Fig. 4.** Comparing recovery interventions for successes and setbacks (2000–2019). When comparing successes (teal) to setbacks (pink), we find a significant difference in the number of interventions between the two groups ($t_{7} = 2.43, p = 0.029$), with successes having an average of $5.4 \pm 1.5$ total interventions compared to $4.0 \pm 0.53$ for setbacks. We find additional significance ($p = 0.009$) in the proportion of species in each group that had their cause of decline alleviated (green/darker animal icon) or not (red/lighter animal icon); the Pitcher's thistle and hooded warbler (grey icon) had no documented declines and were not included in that part of the analysis. See Tables S7 and S8 for specifics of legislative and practical efforts and Table S9 for qualitative review of recovery interventions. (Note: specific populations reviewed for species marked with an asterisk [*]: Beluga whale = St. Lawrence estuary; Bowhead whale = Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort; Humpback whale = North Pacific; Grey whale = North East Pacific; Woodland caribou = Newfoundland.)

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

historical analysis of sentinel species (Table 1) and more recent case studies (Table 2). It is important to acknowledge that for many successes, the original cause of decline was tangible, and could often be addressed through a singular targeted measure. As a result, during the first half of the 20th century, the primary approach to species recovery and conservation was through regulatory intervention, often to reduce overexploitation. For certain species with distributions extending into the United States (e.g., grey and humpback whales, Peregrine falcon), the prevailing American socio-political climate of the 1960–70s enabled widespread support for many environmental laws (including the ESA), which were seen as both effective and desirable (Waples et al. 2013). Today, as wildlife populations are subject to cumulative anthropogenic pressures, action taken to address declines must also be considerate of this complexity, making both design and implementation exceedingly challenging relative to the past.

## 4.1. Identifying successful recovery pathways

The onset of recovery efforts for some successes dates back over a century. And, in all cases, the most important first step was to stop doing something harmful before starting recovery interventions. We found that when laws and regulations were focused on alleviating direct, identifiable human threats and pressures, their implementation helped ensure the conditions necessary for successful recovery were met. Our findings are consistent with the results of Ingeman et al. (2022), who show that the recovery of apex predators around the world is most significantly linked to the implementation of national legislation and international agreements that

directly limit mortality. We also find that regulatory intervention was only the first step in rebuilding abundance and strategic applied approaches were also needed, especially for severely depleted or extirpated species such as the sea otter and swift fox. This finding is in keeping with work documenting the recovery of large carnivores in Europe, which showed that coordinated legislation to alleviate mortality from human–wildlife conflict across species’ ranges paved the way for these species to benefit from subsequent habitat restoration efforts (Chapron et al. 2014).

Further, while reintroductions are not an option for all wildlife, we find they have helped increase abundance and decrease extinction risk for a diversity of birds and mammals in Canada following legislative protection and alleviation of their main cause of decline (e.g., Figs. 5a and 5b). Similarly, Bolam et al. (2021) found that legislation, reintroductions, and ex situ conservation (e.g., captive breeding) are the interventions most likely to have prevented extinction for mammal populations around the world (with invasive species control, ex situ conservation, and habitat protection being the top preventative actions for birds). In Canada, reintroduction and other translocations are considered relevant for 38% of SARA-listed species (mostly plants), including Fernald's braya (Swan et al. 2018). Our results suggest that ensuring translocated wildlife enter an environment dissimilar to their current one (i.e., places with significantly reduced human disturbance) is likely critical for long-term success.

To this end, although we found significant differences in the number of interventions between successes and setbacks, our case study review shows that it is also the quality as well
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Contrasting recovery trajectories and interventions. Shown are abundance trends for (a) the sea otter (success), (b) peregrine falcon *anatum* subspecies (sentinel) in northern and southern regions, and (c) Gulf of St. Lawrence beluga whale (setback). Species abundance trajectories over time paired with key international agreements/treaties (red), Canadian legislation (pink) and practical efforts (teal). Abundance data originally published in Nichol et al. (2020; sea otter), Holroyd and Bird, (2012; peregrine falcon), and DFO (2014; beluga). Note: recovery interventions listed are not comprehensive but represent notable actions taken over time; (1) De-listed in 1999 due to strong recovery; (2) Government of Quebec extended this ban to the entire province in 2022 (first jurisdiction in the world to ban oil and gas exploration); and (3) Transport Canada made measures mandatory in 2020.</figcaption></figure>

as the *quantity* of interventions that matters. This appears especially true for habitat protection. While most species had some degree of habitat protection, our case studies showed substantial variation in how much of a given species' range or habitat type this included, whether sensitive life history areas were covered (e.g., breeding sites), and if the spatial protection also effectively mitigated human disturbance. Further, we found evidence of dedicated habitat restoration for only one species, the Pitcher's thistle. Unlike protection, restoration requires perpetual maintenance and long-term monitoring of site characteristics to achieve outcomes related to habitat quality and the maintenance of associated ecological processes (Ruiz-Jaen and Aide 2005). Focusing on restoration efforts to bolster existing spatial protections appears especially important for sedentary species, such as the Fernald's braya, which suffers from degraded habitat quality from

recreational disturbances within (and adjacent to) areas designated to provide protection.

These observations are in keeping with past research showing that the primary threat for most species in Canada—habitat loss and degradation—has been insufficiently addressed for a large majority of threatened species (Coristine and Kerr 2011; Favaro et al. 2014; Ray et al. 2021). Indeed, the benefit and efficacy of area-based conservation can also only be realized at-scale if protection in one place is not negated by development or habitat degradation in another. For migratory species, habitat protection in breeding or over-wintering locations appears especially important but often these areas fall outside of Canadian jurisdiction. One of the setbacks, the Cerulean warbler, exemplifies both challenges. This bird has been significantly impacted by the loss of old growth forests in southern Ontario and by logging, agriculture, and land de-
velopment in the Andes—where it overwinters—with 60% of its habitat already lost by 2006 (COSEWIC 2010).

## 4.2. Where to from here, Canada?

Although many threats related to overexploitation were historically addressed by targeted legislation, more diffuse threats—and their cumulative impacts—are harder to remedy. In June 2024, the Canadian federal government released its 2030 Nature Strategy which aims to ensure ecosystem-level action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss through an integrated, inclusive, adaptable, holistic evidenced-biased approach whereby all levels of government and social sectors are involved (ECCC 2024). Based on our research we offer three main considerations as federal, provincial and territorial governments, businesses, and conservation leaders move toward achieving this vision.

First, to manage, restore, and conserve areas for enhancing species diversity and ecological processes (Targets 1, 2, and 3)—including the recovery of threatened species (Target 4)—we need an integrated approach that views the objectives of these Targets as synergistic and complementary rather than independent (WCS 2024). We agree with the message highlighted repeatedly in the 2030 Nature Strategy (ECCC 2024) that no single jurisdiction can protect threatened wildlife, and that restoration and conservation planning will need to embrace broader ecosystem restoration goals across all levels of government. In general, collaborations between municipal, provincial, and Indigenous governments continue to be well positioned—and have substantial power—when it comes to ensuring habitat restoration and protection since the Canadian federal government cannot achieve 30% protected area (Target 3) without assistance from other jurisdictions (ECCC 2024).

Inconsistencies in provincial species-at-risk legislation and how it gets implemented need to be alleviated across jurisdictions (Gordon et al. 2024). We also suggest that stronger bilateral action will be necessary to effectively protect trans-boundary species (i.e., species distributed across the Canada-US border), as well as other migratory species, and their associated ecosystems. This is especially important as many of these species are already endangered and suffer from the added impacts of climate change influencing their distribution (O'Brien et al. 2022). Results from our case studies showed that consistency in US and Canadian legislation (e.g., concurrently prohibiting DDT), as well as joint efforts from American and Canadian recovery teams benefited multiple successes. To-date, however, transboundary collaboration has been limited for at-risk species and should be strengthened to ensure maximum efficacy of habitat protection and recovery interventions (Olive 2014). At the other end of the spatial scale, thoughtful municipal spatial planning will also play a vital role in the coming years, especially since achieving both positive conservation and socio-economic outcomes from protected area establishment depends heavily on meaningful inclusion of local stakeholders (Oldekop et al. 2016). As municipal governments work to meet the needs of growing human populations, so too must they strive to freeze their spatial footprint to prevent further loss of natural habitat

while simultaneously restoring natural spaces adjacent to areas of high human density.

Second, for species that are endemic to Canada or lack the potential of a rescue effect, having strong domestic legislation combined with comprehensive on-the-ground interventions appears especially important. The original RENEW species recovery program was established to be “pan-Canadian” and cross-sectoral, to “establish a national programme for recovering wildlife at risk [that is] shared by all and not confined by territorial or provincial boundaries” (RENEW 1989). While RENEW no longer exists, the Pan-Canadian approach was reinvigorated in 2018 to provide a cross-jurisdictional framework for the planning and operationalizing of multi-species and ecosystem-based conservation (ECCC 2018). Notably, two successes in our study (Peary caribou and wood bison) were included in the first subset of six “priority species” identified for coordinated recovery through this initiative. The chosen priority species (four caribou, wood bison, and sage grouse) were selected largely for their cultural significance and most are distributed across higher latitudes in regions with low direct human impact (ECCC 2023b). Yet, the Arctic (>66.5°N) is also warming faster than anywhere on Earth (Rantanen et al. 2022) and industrial resource extraction is anticipated to increase throughout the region (Hanaček et al. 2022). Since our findings show the importance of addressing both the underlying threat and ensuring environmental conditions are conducive to recovery, we emphasize that for the Pan-Canadian initiative to be successful long-term, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions combined with spatial efforts to ensure population connectivity and survival are required (Mallory and Boyce 2019). Such measures could include, for example, prohibitions on all extractive activities in calving grounds and ice crossing corridors (Kitikmeot Regional Wildlife Board 2016).

In addition to planning for climate-related threats, we note that ongoing extractive activities, development, and human disturbance (including in protected and conserved areas) continue to limit wildlife recovery, including for certain provincially listed at-risk species in our study (i.e., piping plover *melodus* and Fernald's braya). Three decades ago, Canadian species recovery documents emphasized that, “although development projects produce short-term economic benefits, a truly sustainable economy requires a healthy environment” (RENEW 1994) and the private sector was viewed as an important stakeholder in helping achieve recovery targets (RENEW 1990). Today, GBF Target 15 specifically asks businesses for better assessment and disclosure of dependencies and risks to biodiversity and private sector actors are explicitly called on to combine their “net zero” approach in the face of climate change with a “nature positive” approach to reduce biodiversity loss (UNEP 2022). As such, there is a genuine opportunity for the private sector to invest in conservation and sustainable practices, especially for industries that rely on natural resources and are thus affected directly by biodiversity loss (ECCC 2024).

Lastly, in keeping with GBF Target 21, we encourage further review of successful pathways leading to species recovery within Canada and stronger accountability when it comes to the outcomes associated with aspirational federal goals. In-
tention is the first step for establishing recovery documents and designating interventions but, as we found, intent alone does not guarantee the quality of an intervention or that recovery will occur. Thus, we suggest that not only measuring progress toward the implementation of the 2030 Nature Strategy objectives but also explicitly defining metrics to assess the outcomes of these objectives is a critical aspect of accountability missing from Canada's recently proposed *Nature Accountability Act* (Bill C-73, first reading 13 June 2024). Basic indicators such as changes in absolute population abundance, which we used here, could be useful in this regard (Callaghan et al. 2024), but many other options to measure the effectiveness of conservation approaches have also been identified (Westwood et al. 2014; Geldmann et al. 2021).

Equally, while our study focused primarily on the outliers (i.e., best and worst cases), future work could attempt a more comprehensive analysis of ecological and socio-political attributes associated with all COSEWIC species. Such information could perhaps contribute to the new IUCN Green List (Akçakaya et al. 2018) or equivalent national framework that more comprehensively defines and collates successful recovery interventions. Although species recovery teams no longer exist in the same way as in the past (i.e., the years of our sentinel species analysis) we also encourage a continued focus on understanding who is represented in species conservation in Canada, how relationships between different stakeholders and rightsholders evolve, and where meaningful ecosystem-focused conservation efforts can be applied in keeping with the many commitments made under the GBF. For example, we found that zoos and environmental NGOs have been prominent in ex-situ conservation (reintroduction and maintenance of genetic diversity) and the involvement of these institutions is likely to increase in light of the GBF, with calls for multi-scale coordination to foster the implementation of the GBF Targets (Moss et al. 2023). Equally, many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit are already leading by example when it comes to species recovery in Canada (Menzies et al. 2021; Lamb et al. 2022; Rachini 2023). Indeed, the recovery of culturally important wildlife is of critical importance to Indigenous communities who have legal and cultural ties to these species (Lamb et al. 2023). Yet, as with many species and habitat protection efforts in North America over time (Kantor 2007), the social, cultural, and economic impacts of successful sea otter and wood bison reintroductions discussed in our case studies demonstrate the complexity inherent in balancing the benefits to wildlife with the rights of people (Targets 9 and 22). As such, meaningful co-facilitation with affected rightsholders must remain a fundamental aspect of ethical conservation initiatives going forward. Conservation of species and spaces in Canada must support Reconciliation with Indigenous communities and not infringe on their aspirations to self-govern (Zurba et al. 2019).

### 4.3. Recovery is a moving target: research limitations

While this work reviews some of the interventions and legal frameworks that have contributed to reversing species declines, we stress that our results highlight patterns and

commonalities rather than direct causalities. As such, our findings are not meant to suggest that the interventions we discussed are the only pathways whereby recovery efforts could or should occur, nor that efforts lacking these elements will ultimately fail. Rather, we hope this work provides food for thought as part of a much larger conservation conversation, and the importance of reviewing and learning from successes—which are often outliers—as a critical part of planning to achieve biodiversity protection goals.

We intentionally chose to investigate all Canadian wildlife. However, the taxonomic diversity in our analysis made comparing interventions and outcomes challenging given inherent differences in life histories, scale and location of threats, and applicability of different conservation interventions. The primary analytical challenges we faced were the availability consistency of information for the species we reviewed. While our approach to analysing the two COSEWIC datasets was systematic, we did have to decide which setback species to retain for detailed analysis, which introduced some subjectivity and meant that certain taxonomic groups (e.g., fishes) were not included.

Unfortunately, not all wildlife in Canada have been assessed by COSEWIC, much less received multiple assessments. As we observed for multiple caribou species (see Supplementary Methods), a species' risk status can change with new information, which can make comparisons between assessments challenging. Further, the classification of species into only three at-risk categories may also mask progress (or a lack thereof). For long-lived species with low fecundity and/or high age at maturity, noticeable population-level changes could take decades even under optimal environmental conditions and recovery efforts, while the high vulnerability of some species to catastrophic natural events may always preclude them from being listed as anything other than “Endangered” despite population increases (e.g., whooping crane, Banff Springs snail). The irregular release of COSEWIC assessments and recovery documents meant certain species were not included in the analysis and/or the trajectory of a species may have changed since its most recent assessment. For example, over half of sentinel species' last COSEWIC assessments were conducted before 2014, which means information we obtained related to their “causes of decline” or “key threats” (Table 1) is likely outdated in some cases. Equally, the RENEW funding data we used were available for only a subset of years and the substantial allocation of funds to some high-profile birds and mammals may be linked to the fact they were assessed decades before the first mosses and arthropods.

For the successes and setbacks, the asynchrony of COSEWIC assessments resulted in a relatively low sample size of species for investigation and, potentially, a mismatch between the information we used and what is currently happening in the wild for those we did investigate. We acknowledge that any attempt to quantify recovery will only ever capture a single snapshot in time and space and while COSEWIC assessments can provide important information on long-term trends, a de-listing should not be considered an endpoint for conservation interventions and monitoring. Rather, it is a single grade on a continuous report card.
# 5. Conclusion: looking back with the hope of moving forward

Conducting retrospective analyses such as these offers researchers a unique opportunity to travel back in time. For most of the authors, the first RENEW report we reviewed for the sentinel species analysis was published around the year we were born (1989), and the last around the time we graduated high school (2006). Twenty years on, as we reviewed these documents, we were repeatedly struck by the sincere optimism in text highlighting recovery goals as well as the mission of RENEW that "no new species be allowed to become threatened or move from threatened to endangered status" (RENEW 1989). It was equally humbling to read the efforts undertaken over 30 years ago for so many species that remain threatened today, especially when the underlying drivers of their declines have not changed and remain insufficiently addressed.

Despite these prevailing trends, our findings also show that species recovery in Canada is possible with targeted and sustained efforts. Most notably, our case studies demonstrated that the implementation and enforcement of effective action (be it regulatory or voluntary) is needed to first halt the underlying cause of population decline, otherwise auxiliary on-the-ground efforts to increase abundance will likely be unsuccessful long-term. Big challenges demand equally big responses from those in power and meaningful accountability of progress toward meeting aspirational targets. If we are to remain hopeful that the GBF Targets and outcomes envisioned in Canada's 2030 Nature Strategy are realized, we need an integrated approach for implementing and assessing objectives that is facilitated by urgency, increased coordination, and ambitious actions by all levels of Canadian government and our country's conservation leaders.

## Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge funding for this work provided by the Liber Ero Fellowship Program and are sincerely grateful to the program benefactors, directors, and staff for their support. The authors further wish to thank Sue McKee for her provision of the long-term COSEWIC dataset and associated guidance for its use, as well as Justina Ray, Sally Otto, and Boris Worm for their constructive feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript. The authors further wish to thank Richard Schuster and an anonymous reviewer for their time and thoughtful suggestions during the review process.

## Article information

### Editor

David Lesbarrères

### History dates

Received: 30 April 2024

Accepted: 6 November 2024

Version of record online: 29 January 2025

## Copyright

©2025 The Author(s). This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

## Data availability

All data used for the case studies and the sources used to gather this information are included in the Supplementary Materials. The two previously unpublished COSEWIC datasets, as well data obtained from the RENEW reports (recovery team funding and team personnel) are provided as Supplementary Data Files.

## Author information

### Author ORCIDs

Laurenne Schiller https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0329-9792

Mathilde L. Tissier https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2107-8064

Allyson K. Menzies https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2280-1880

René S. Shahmohamadloo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5373-9808

Karen J. Vanderwolf https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0963-3093

### Author notes

Allyson K. Menzies served as Subject Editor at the time of manuscript review and acceptance; peer review and editorial decisions regarding this manuscript were handled by Andrea Bryndum-Bucholz and a Senior Editor.

### Author contributions

Conceptualization: LS, MT, ACDD, CL, AM, RS, KV

Data curation: LS, SOM

Formal analysis: LS

Funding acquisition: LS, MT, ACDD, CL, AM, RS, KV

Investigation: LS, MT, ACDD, CL, AM, RS, KV

Methodology: LS, MT, ACDD, CL, SOM, AM, RS, KV

Visualization: LS

Writing – original draft: LS

Writing – review & editing: LS, MT, ACDD, CL, AM, RS, KV

### Competing interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

## Supplementary material

Supplementary data are available with the article at https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2024-0084.

## References

Akçakaya, H.R., Bennett, E.L., Brooks, T.M., Grace, M.K., Heath, A., Hedges, S., et al. 2018. Quantifying species recovery and conservation success to develop an IUCN Green List of species. Conservation Biology, 32: 1128–1138. doi:10.1111/cobi.13112. PMID: 29578251.

Bolam, F.C., Mair, L., Angelico, M., Brooks, T.M., Burgman, M., Hermes, C., et al. 2021. How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent con-
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

servation action prevented? Conservation Letters, **14**. doi:10.1111/conl.12762.

Bradshaw, C.J.A., Ehrlich, P.R., Beattie, A., Ceballos, G., Crist, E., Diamond, J., et al. 2021. Underestimating the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future. Frontiers in Conservation Science, **1**. doi:10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419.

Buxton, R.T., Bennett, J.R., Reid, A.J., Shulman, C., Cooke, S.J., Francis, C.M., et al. 2021. Key information needs to move from knowledge to action for biodiversity conservation in Canada. Biological Conservation, **256**: 108983. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108983.

Callaghan, C.T., Santini, L., Spake, R., and Bowler, D.E., 2024. Population abundance estimates in conservation and biodiversity research. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, **39**: 515–523. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2024.01.012.

Cannon, A., and Yang, D.Y., 2017. Early storage and sedentism on the Pacific Northwest Coast: ancient DNA analysis of salmon remains from Namu, British Columbia. American Antiquity, **71**: 123–140. doi:10.2307/40035324.

CBD. 2020. Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Quebec, Canada.

CBD. 2022. Nations adopt four goals, 23 targets for 2030 in landmark UN biodiversity agreement. Convention on Biological Diversity.

CESCC. 2022. Wild Species 2020: the general status of species in Canada. Ottawa.

Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J.D.C., Von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., et al. 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. Science, **346**(1979): 1517–1519. doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.839454.

Cinner, J.E., Huchery, C., MacNeil, M.A., Graham, N.A.J., McClanahan, T.R., Maina, J., et al. 2016. Bright spots among the world's coral reefs. Nature, **535**: 416–419. doi:10.1038/nature18607. PMID: 27309809.

Cooke, S.J., Michaels, S., Nyboer, E.A., Schiller, L., Littlechild, D.B.R., Hanna, D.E.L., et al. 2022. Reconceptualizing conservation. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation, **1**: e0000016. doi:10.1371/journal.pstr.0000016.

Coristine, L.E., and Kerr, J.T., 2011. Habitat loss, climate change, and emerging conservation challenges in Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology, **89**: 435–451. doi:10.1139/Z11-023.

Coristine, L.E., Colla, S., Bennett, N., Carlsson, A.M., Davy, C., Davies, K.T.A., et al. 2019. National contributions to global ecosystem values. Conservation Biology, **33**: 1219–1223. doi:10.1111/cobi.13284. PMID: 30672033.

COSEWIC. 2005. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the shortnose sturgeon *Acipenser brevirostrum* Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Cerulean Warbler, *Dendroica cerulea*, in Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

COSEWIC. 2021. COSEWIC assessment process, categories and guidelines.

COSEWIC. 2023. COSEWIC Annual Report.

Currie, J., and Marconi, V., 2020. An analysis of threats and factors that predict trends in Canadian vertebrates designated as at-risk. Facets, **5**: 49–66. doi:10.1139/FACETS-2019-0017.

DFO. 2014. Status of beluga (*Delphinapterus leucas*) in the St. Lawrence River estuary. Mont-Joli, Quebec.

DFO. 2020. Canada commits to growing the blue economy at home and around the globe [WWW Document]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-oceans/news/2020/12/canada-commitsto-growing-the-blue-economy-at-home-and-around-the-globe.html [accessed 22 August 2022].

DFO. 2022. Stock status of alewife and blueback herring (gaspereau) in the DFO Gulf Region. Moncton.

ECCC. 2014. Species at risk public registry: glossary of terms [WWW Document]. Available from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry/glossary-terms.html [accessed 19 August 2024].

ECCC. 2018. Pan-Canadian approach to transforming species at risk conservation in Canada. desLibris, Gatineau, QC.

ECCC. 2019. Summary of Canada's 6th national report to the convention on biological diversity. Gatineau.

ECCC. 2020. 2020 Imminent threat assessment for wood bison (*Bison bison athabascae*). Environment and Climate Change Canada. Environment et changement climatique Canada, Gatineau.

ECCC. 2022a. 2030 Emissions reduction plan: Canada's next steps to clean air and a strong economy. Gatineau.

ECCC. 2022b. The Government of Canada invests in projects to tackle the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change across Canada [WWW Document]. Available from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2022/11/t he-government-of-canada-invests-in-projects-to-tackle-the-twin-c rises-of-biodiversity-loss-and-climate-change-across-canada.html [accessed 11.6.23].

ECCC. 2022c. Canadian environmental sustainability indicators: changes in the status of wildlife species at risk. Ottawa.

ECCC. 2023a. Changes in the status of wildlife species at risk: Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators. Gatineau, QC.

ECCC. 2023b. The Pan-Canadian approach and priority species [WWW Document]. Available from https://environmental-maps.canada.ca/C WS_Storelines/index-ca-en.html#/en/priority-species_especies-prioritaires [accessed 14 August 2024].

ECCC. 2024. Canada's 2030 nature strategy: halting and reversing biodiversity loss in Canada. Gatineau.

Favaro, B., Claar, D.C., Fox, C.H., Freshwater, C., Holden, J.J., Roberts, A., et al. 2014. Trends in extinction risk for imperiled species in Canada. PLoS ONE, **9**: e113118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113118.

Geldmann, J., Deguignet, M., Balmford, A., Burgess, N.D., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., et al. 2021. Essential indicators for measuring site-based conservation effectiveness in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conservation Letters, **14**. doi:10.1111/conl.12792.

Gordon, S.C.C., Duchesne, A.G., Dusevic, M.R., Galán-Acedo, C., Had-daway, L., Meister, S., et al. 2024. Assessing species at risk legislation across Canadian provinces and territories. FACETS, **9**: 1–18. doi:10.1139/facets-2023-0229.

Government of Alberta. 2022. Oil sands facts and statistics [WWW Document]. Available from https://www.alberta.ca/oil-sands-facts-and-statistics.aspx [accessed 17 November 2022].

Government of Canada. 2015. Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus)[WWW Document].

Government of Canada. 2022. Biodiversity in Canada: commitments and trends.

Hanaček, K., Kröger, M., Scheidel, A., Rojas, F., and Martinez-Alier, J., 2022. On thin ice—the Arctic commodity extraction frontier and environmental conflicts. Ecological Economics, **191**: 107247. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107247.

Hebblewhite, M., 2017. Billion dollar boreal woodland caribou and the biodiversity impacts of the global oil and gas industry. Biological Conservation, **206**: 102–111. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.014.

Hill, C.J., Schuster, R., and Bennett, J.R., 2019. Indigenous involvement in the Canadian species at risk recovery process. Environmental Science & Policy, **94**: 220–226. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.01.017.

Hirsch-Pearson, K., Johnson, C.J., Schuster, R., Wheate, R.D., and Venter, O., 2022. Canada's human footprint reveals large intact areas juxtaposed against areas under immense anthropogenic pressure. FACETS, **7**: 498–419.

Holroyd, G.L., and Bird, D.M., 2012. Lessons learned during the recovery of the Peregrine Falcon in Canada. Canadian Wildlife Biology & Management, **1**.

Hummel, M., and Ray, J., 2008. Caribou and the North: a shared future. Dundurn Press, Toronto, Canada.

Hutchings, J.A., Baum, J.K., Fuller, S.D., Laughren, J., and VanderZwaag, D.L., 2019. Sustaining Canadian marine biodiversity: policy and statutory progress (2012-2019). Ottawa.

Ingeman, K.E., Zhao, L.Z., Wolf, C., Williams, D.R., Ritger, A.L., Ripple, W.J., et al. 2022. Glimmers of hope in large carnivore recoveries. Scientific Reports, **12**. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-13671-7.

Kantor, I. 2007. Ethnic Cleansing and America's Creation of National Parks. Public Land & Resources Law Review, **42**: 41–64.

Kapoor, A., Fraser, G.S., and Carter, A., 2021. Marine conservation versus offshore oil and gas extraction: reconciling an intensifying dilemma in Atlantic Canada. The Extractive Industries and Society, **8**: 100978. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2021.100978.

Kitikmeot Regional Wildlife Board. 2016. KRWB submission for Nunavut land use plan development. Kugaaruk, NU.

Kraus, D., Enns, A., Hebb, A., Murphy, S., Drake, D.A.R., and Bennett, B., 2023. Prioritizing nationally endemic species for conservation. Conservation Science and Practice, **5**. doi:10.1111/csp.2.12845.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Kuhnlein, H.V., and Turner, N.J., 1991. Traditional plant foods of Canadian Indigenous Peoples. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Philadelphia, USA.

Lamb, C.T., Willson, R., Menzies, A.K., Owens-Beek, N., Price, M., McNay, S., et al. 2023. Braiding indigenous rights and endangered species law. Science, **380**: 694–696. doi:10.1126/science.adg9830.

Lamb, C.T., Willson, R., Richter, C., Owens-Beek, N., Napoleon, J., Muir, B., et al. 2022. Indigenous-led conservation: pathways to recovery for the nearly extirpated Klinse-Za mountain caribou. Ecological Applications, **32**: doi:10.1002/eap.2581.

Langhammer, P.F., Bull, J.W., Bicknell, J.E., Oakley, J.L., Brown, M.H., Bruford, M.W., et al. 2024. The positive impact of conservation action. Science, **384**(1979): 453–458. doi:10.1126/science.adj6598.

Lubchenco, J., 2016. Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science, **279**(1979): 491–497.

Mallory, C.D., and Boyce, M.S., 2019. Prioritization of landscape connectivity for the conservation of Peary caribou. Ecology and Evolution, **9**: 2189–2205. doi:10.1002/ece3.4915.

Mayer, S., McKee, S., and Findlay, S.C., 2021. Evaluation of species at risk in Canada assessed by COSEWIC[unpublished data].

McCune, J.L., Harrower, W.L., Avery-Gomm, S., Brogan, J.M., Csergo, A.M., Davidson, L.N.K., et al. 2013. Threats to Canadian species at risk: an analysis of finalized recovery strategies. Biological Conservation, **166**: 254–265. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.006.

McKee, S., Mayer, S., and Findlay, S.C., 2022. Canadian species at risk database. [unpublished data].

Menzies, A.K., Bowles, E., Khan, J.S., McGregor, D., Ford, A., and Popp, J., 2021. Caring for the land: Indigenous practices, community values changes over time, and building values-based environmental initiatives.

Moore, A., 2022. Mi'kmaw treaty lobster fishery launches, fisheries officers seize lobster and gear [WWW Document]. APTN News. Available from https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/mikmaw-treaty-lobster-fishery-launches-fisheries-officers-seize-lobster-and-gear/ [accessed 20 November 2022].

Moss, A., Vukelic, M., Walker, S.L., Smith, C., and Spooner, S.L., 2023. The role of zoos and aquariums in contributing to the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens, **4**: 445–461. doi:10.3390/jzbg4020033.

Muir, B.R., 2022. Consequences and implications of British Columbia's failed cumulative effects assessment and management framework for indigenous peoples. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, **95**: 106764. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106764.

Nichol, L.M., Doniol-Valcroze, T., Watson, J.C., and Foster, E.U., 2020. Trends in growth of the sea otter (*Enhydra lutris*) population in British Columbia 1977 to 2017. Ottawa, Ontario.

NRC. 2022. Minerals and the economy. [WWW Document]. Available from https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/minerals-mining/minerals-metals-facts/minerals-and-the-economy/20529 [accessed 17 November 2022].

O'Brien, O., Pendleton, D.E., Ganley, L.C., McKenna, K.R., Kenney, R.D., Quintana-Rizzo, E., et al. 2022. Repatriation of a historical North Atlantic right whale habitat during an era of rapid climate change. Scientific Reports, **12**: doi:10.1038/s41598-022-16200-8.

OEC. 2022. Canada [WWW Document]. Available from https://oec.world/en/profile/country/can [accessed 17 November 2022].

Office of the Prime Minister of Canada. 2022. Protecting more nature in partnership with Indigenous Peoples [WWW Document]. Available from https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2022/12/07/protecting-more-nature-partnership-indigenous-peoples [accessed 24 January 2024].

Oldekop, J.A., Holmes, G., Harris, W.E., and Evans, K.L., 2016. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology, **30**: 133–141. doi:10.1111/cobi.12568.

Olive, A., 2014. The road to recovery: comparing Canada and US recovery strategies for shared endangered species. Canadian Geographies, **58**.

Parks Canada Agency. 2021. Recovery strategy and action plan for the black-tailed prairie dog (*Cynomys ludovicianus*) in Canada. Otawa, Canada.

Rachini, M., 2023. Indigenous-led bison repopulation projects are helping the animal thrive again in Alberta[WWW Document]. CBC The Current. Available from https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/bison-repopulation-alberta-1.6856433 [accessed 6 November 2023].

Rantanen, M., Karpechko, A.Y., Lipponen, A., Nordling, K., Hyvärinen, O., Ruosteenoja, K., et al., 2022. The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979. Communications Earth & Environment, **3**: doi:10.1038/s43247-022-00498-3.

Ray, J.C., Grimm, J., and Olive, A., 2021. The biodiversity crisis in Canada: failures and challenges of federal and sub-national strategic and legal frameworks. FACETS, doi:10.1139/facets.

RENEW. 1989. Annual Report: 1989. Ottawa.

RENEW. 1990. Annual Report: 1990. Ottawa.

RENEW. 1994. Annual Report No. 4: 1994. Ottawa.

Rossbach, S., Steckbauer, A., Klein, S.G., Arossa, S., Geraldi, N.R., Lim, K.K., et al. 2023. A tide of change: what we can learn from stories of marine conservation success. One Earth, **6**: 505–518. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2023.04.003.

Ruiz-Jaen, M.C., and Aide, T.M., 2005. Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restoration Ecology, **13**: 569–577. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00072.x.

Schiller, L., Britten, G.L., Auld, G., and Worm, B., 2024. Learning from positive devians in fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, **25**: 409–428. doi:10.1111/faf.12815.

Schlosberg, D., and Collins, L.B., 2014. From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. WIREs Climate Change, **5**: 359–374. doi:10.1002/wcc.275.

Sergeant, C.J., Sexton, E.K., Moore, J.W., Westwood, A.R., Nagorski, S.A., Ebersole, J.L., et al. 2022. Risks of mining to salmonid-bearing watersheds. Science Advances, **8**: 929.

Stockholm+50 Youth Task Force, 2022. Stockholm+50 Global Youth Policy Paper: Third Official Version, May 2022. Stockholm.

Swan, K.D., Lloyd, N.A., and Moehrenschlager, A., 2018. Projecting further increases in conservation translocations: a Canadian case study. Biological Conservation, **228**: 175–182. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.10.026.

Temper, L., Avila, S., Bene, D.D, Gobby, J., Kosoy, N., Billon, P.Le, et al. 2020. Movements shaping climate futures: a systematic mapping of protests against fossil fuel and low-carbon energy projects. Environmental Research Letters. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abc197.

Turner, N.J., Boelscher Ignace, M., and Ignace, R., 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia, Ecological Applications.

UNEP. 2022. State of Finance for Nature. Time to act: Doubling investment by 2025 and eliminating nature-negative finance flows. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Van Wilgenburg, S.L., Hobson, K.A., Bayne, E.M., and Koper, N., 2013. Estimated avian nest loss associated with oil and gas exploration and extraction in the western Canadian sedimentary Basin. Avian Conservation and Ecology, **8**: 9. doi:10.5751/ACE-00585-080209.

Waples, R.S., Nammack, M., Cochrane, J.F., and Hutchings, J.A., 2013. A tale of two acts: endangered species listing practices in Canada and the United States. Bioscience, **63**: 723–734. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.9.8.

WCS. 2024. Canada's 2030 Biodiversity Strategy—Milestone Document (Letter to Canada's Minister of Environment and Climate Change). Toronto.

Westwood, A., Reuchlin-Hugenholtz, E., and Keith, D.M., 2014. Redefining recovery: a generalized framework for assessing species recovery. Biological Conservation, **172**: 155–162. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.031.

Woo-Durand, C., Matte, J.M., Cuddihy, G., McGourdji, C.L., Venter, O., and Grant, J.W.A., 2020. Increasing importance of climate change and other threats to at-risk species in Canada. Environmental Reviews, **28**: 449–456. doi:10.1139/er-2020-0032.

YOUNG. 2022. COP 27 Global Youth Statement. Egypt.

Zurba, M., Beazley, K.F., English, E., and Buchmann-Duck, J., 2019. Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCs), Aichi target 11 and Canada's pathway to target 1: focusing conservation on reconciliation. Land, **8**: 10. doi:10.3390/land8010010.