Commission for Environmental Cooperation

North American Grasslands Alliance 

A Framework for Change
Acknowledgements 

North American Grasslands Alliance: A Framework for Change

is the outcome of three CEC Grasslands Experts and Partners 

Trinational Meetings in 2012-2013 (see pp. 24-25 for the full list 

of participants). The document was refined by Gerardo Bezanilla, 

Sue Michalsky and Duane Pool, with technical review by the North 

American Grasslands Working Group. It was prepared by Itzia 

Sandoval (program assistant), with support from Karen Richardson 

(program manager), Sarah Heiberg (project coordinator), Jeff Stoub 

(communications and publications manager), and Johanne David, 

Jacqueline Fortson and Douglas Kirk (editors). Graphic design by 

Ana Bercovich and Gray Fraser (cover).

IBSN: 978-2-89700-034-9 (print version)

IBSN: 978-2-89700-035-6 (electronic version) 

Disponible en español:

IBSN: 978-2-89700-036-3 (versión impresa) 

IBSN: 978-2-89700-037-0 (versión electrónica)

Disponible en français:

IBSN: 978-2-89700-038-7 (version imprimée) 

IBSN: 978-2-89700-039-4 (version électronique)

Legal Deposit – Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 2013

Legal Deposit – Library and Archives Canada, 2013

For more information:

Commission for Environmental Cooperation

393, rue St-Jacques Ouest, Bureau 200

Montréal (Québec) Canada H2Y 1N9

t (514) 350-4300 f (514) 350-4314

info@cec.org / www.cec.org

Publication Details

Publication type: Project Report

Publication date: August 2013

Original language: English

Review and quality assurance procedures: 

Final party review July-August 2013

QA12.02

Please cite this report as:

CEC. 2013. North American Grasslands Alliance: A Framework for Change. 

Montreal, Canada. Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 25 pp. 
Being a cattle producer, I am aware of the importance of improving and maintaining ecosystems... 

Knowing that an alliance to protect North American grasslands is already working on it, is another 

laudable effort worth collaborating with.

Mateo Giner Mendoza

Administrator, Rancho Epigmenia

Mexico

We probably don’t vote with our dollars the way that is best for nature.

Justin Pepper

Director of Prairie Bird Conservation, Audubon

USA

The most important piece for me is public awareness because then consumer preference and policy 

are driven in the right direction.

Sue Michalsky

Director, Ranchers Stewardship Alliance

Canada

1
Preface

The central grasslands of North America are 

the spine of the continent, supporting livestock 

production, sustainable ranching, and diverse 

plant and animal species. From 2011, the 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

supported a project entitled North American 

Grasslands: Management Initiatives and Partnerships to Enhance Ecosystem and Community 

Resilience. The goal of the project was to address 

several issues related to the loss of grasslands 

through the provision of comprehensive scientific information; data from pilot studies with 

land managers and ranchers; an extensive set 

of beneficial management practices aimed at 

accelerating sustainable actions to help slow 

and stop the disproportionate rates of grassland conversion; and the establishment of a 

continental partnership to advance grassland 

conservation and sustainable use through collaborative action.

As part of the project outputs, a web-based tool 

was developed to host and disseminate almost 

100 beneficial management practices (BMPs) 

from ranchers, conservation organizations, 

government and academic bodies in Canada, 

the United States and Mexico. In addition, data 

on the density and status of grassland birds 

in Northern Mexico, an important indicator 

of overall grassland biodiversity health, were 

collected and synthesized to produce analyses 

on trends in bird abundance and distribution. 

Several pilot projects with rancher groups, 

including a beef industry supply chain analysis, a private lands wildlife biologist extension 

program, and research into market-based 

incentives for sustainable rangeland management were carried out. Outreach material 

including a video to promote BMPs was also 

produced. Lastly, the project established the 

North American Grasslands Alliance (NAGA) 

– an Alliance of government agencies, rancher 

groups, non-government organizations and 

other interest groups. During the course of the 

project, three meetings with partners and experts 

were held to establish NAGA and develop the 

multi-faceted collective approach to support 

North American grasslands presented here. 

The approach is supported by a diagram illustrating how the framework components work 

together, supporting the vision to achieve a 

desired state for North America’s grasslands. 

This framework document lays a strong foundation to bring about the deep changes that are 

required for a continentally integrated planning and management approach to achieve 

lasting sustainability of this uniquely shared 

terrestrial ecosystem. 

2
Photo: Branimir Gjetvaj
7

6

5

4

3

2

1

5.3

5.2

1.2

7.3

2.2

6.2

7.2

7.1

1.3

6.1

5.1

4.2 4.1

3.3

3.2

3.1

2.1

1.1

Framework Summary

4
North American grasslands are environmentally healthy and productive 

ecosystems that sustain working landscapes, conserve biodiversity, 

and support vibrant rural communities.

The vision statement of the North American 

Grasslands Alliance reflects an overall objective 

or desired state of a sufficiently conserved grassland base that supports and sustains viable 

human communities and economic and cutural 

activities, as well as ecological goods and 

services1

 

such as biodiversity, groundwater 

recharge and carbon sequestration. Many varied 

issues and opportunities exist that could contribute to a North American strategy to achieve 

this vision. 

The vision recognizes that many national 

and regional differences exist that will impact 

strategies to support the vision. Strategies and 

actions will need to occur at the trinational, 

national, transboundary and regional level. 

1. Ecological goods and services, ecosystem goods and services, ecological services and ecosystem services are used interchangeably in this document and should be interpreted in the broadest sense of their definition.

Vision

Courtesy of Trevor Herriot
5.1

ching provides grassland 

system service benefits 

compared with other 

6.1

Portfolio of strategies 

leading to adoption of

conservation-friendly land 

management practices

7.1

create positive 

incentives for 

healthy grasslands

i

rem

inc

policy 

6.2

volve producers in

olicy and planning 

for conservation

5

ranching an

conservation re

many of the sa

tl it

6

An understandin

of local knowledg

experience and cul

is vital to sustaina

grasslands

4

natural 

valued ap

in policy

and land u

rassland 

benefits 

ther 

es 

5.2

ctivities that sustain 

nction, soil processes 

ant communities

5.3

Sustainable range 

management provides 

necessary disturbance 

regimes 

5

ranching a

conservation r

many of the s

natural cap

condition

is vital to sustain

grasslands

objectives

Vision To maintain and improve 

the environmental integrity 

and viability of North American 

grassland ecosystems to sustain 

working landscapes, conserve 

biodiversity, and promote 

vibrant rural communities

Vision To maintain and improve 

the environmental integrity 

and viability of North American 

grassland ecosystems to sustain 

working landscapes, conserve 

biodiversity, and promote 

vibrant rural communities

Principles

1.1

Sufficient grasslands to 

service societal demand 

for ecosystem services

2.1

Rural and conservation 

communities are mutually supportive 

in principle and with tools

3.1

Effective incentive programs tied 

to maintaining and enhancing 

grassland ecological services 

sustain grass-based agriculture

3.2

Sufficient conservation land 

to meet grassland management 

targets to ensure ecological service 

1.3

Target incentives to GPCAs and 

incorporate new areas into 

GPCAs and RPCAs 

7.2

entify and 

ove perverse 

ntives from 

and programs

2.2

BMP programs and outreach 

tailored to social, economic, cultural 

and environmental realities

7.3

Incentive programs 

should require 

outcome-based 

performance 

metrics

1.2

Water rights and storage, and land use 

practices promote improved water use efficiency 

and equity, and limit aquifer depletion

2

Humans are integral 

to sustainable 

grassland ecosystems 

3

Uncertainty is accounted 

for in all grassland 

management 

strategies 

4

Natural grasslands 

are a unique and 

declining capital 

asset to society 

 

uire 

me 

l 

 

, 

ure 

le 

7

Mutually supportive 

conservation and 

agricultural funding 

for sustainable 

grasslands 

North American grasslands 

are environmentally healthy 

and productive ecosystems that 

sustain working landscapes, 

conserve biodiversity, and 

support vibrant rural 

communities.

Vision

Ecological goods 

and services support 

diversity of nature, societal 

needs and cultural values 

1

Ecological goods 

and services support 

diversity of nature, societal 

needs and cultural values 

Principles and Objectives

The vision of the North American Grasslands Alliance is based on a set of foundational principles 

for a trinational conservation strategy. Each principle (in bold font below) is associated with several 

objectives (the sub-bullet points) that need to be met in order for that principle to be upheld. These 

principles and objectives help partners to assess the alignment of their operations and/or activities 

with regards to achieving the overall vision. 

1. Ecological goods and services provided by grasslands 

support the diversity of nature, societal needs and 

cultural values.

1.1 Continental and regional grasslands need to be of 

sufficient quantity and quality to service societal 

demand for ecosystem services. 

1.2 Water rights and storage, and land use practices must 

promote improved water use efficiency and equity, 

and limit aquifer depletion.

1.3 Target conservation and restoration incentives to 

grasslands priority conservation areas (PCAs) as a 

minimal basis for conservation planning. Additional 

core grasslands and areas in need of restoration need 

to be identified and incorporated into grassland PCAs 

and Restorable PCAs.

6
objectiVeS

ViSion to maintain and improve 

the environmental integrity 

and viability of north American 

grassland ecosystems to sustain 

working landscapes, conserve 

biodiversity, and promote 

vibrant rural communities

ViSion to maintain and improve 

the environmental integrity 

and viability of north American 

grassland ecosystems to sustain 

working landscapes, conserve 

biodiversity, and promote 

vibrant rural communities

PrinciPleS

Sufficient grasslands to

service societal demand 

for ecosystem services

2.1

rural and conservation 

communities are mutually supportive 

in principle and with tools

3.1

effective incentive programs tied 

ii id hi

1.3

target incentives to GPcAs and 

incorporate new areas into

GPcAs and rPcAs 

7.2

dentify and 

move perverse 

centives from 

y and programs

2.2

bMP programs and outreach 

tailored to social, economic, cultural

and environmental realities

outcome-based 

performance 

metrics

1.2

Water rights and storage, and land use 

practices promote improved water use efficiency 

and equity, and limit aquifer depletion

1

ecological goods 

and services support 

diversity of nature, societal

needs and cultural values 

2

Humans are integral 

to sustainable 

grassland ecosystems 

3

Uncertainty is accounted 

fori na ll grassland

nd 

quire 

ame 

t l

g 

ge,

ture

ble 

7

Mutually supportive 

conservation and 

agricultural funding 

for sustainable 

grasslands 

 north American grasslands 

are environmentally healthy 

and productive ecosystems that 

sustain working landscapes, 

conserve biodiversity, and 

support vibrant rural 

communities.

ViSion

objectiVeS

to maintain and improve 

the environmental integrity 

and viability of north American 

grassland ecosystems to sustain 

working landscapes, conserve 

biodiversity, and promote 

vibrant rural communities

to maintain and improve 

the environmental integrity 

and viability of north American 

grassland ecosystems to sustain 

working landscapes, conserve 

biodiversity, and promote 

vibrant rural communities

Pr ni c Pi leS

3.1

effective incentive programs tied 

to maintaining and enhancing 

grassland ecological services 

sustain grass-based agriculture

3.2

Sufficient conservation land 

to meet grassland management 

targets to ensure ecological service

continuity under constraining 

uncertainties (e.g. drought) 3.3

economic safety net policy 

for grass-based livestock

producers consistent with 

crop insurance and 

economic price supports

4.1

 capital is

ppropriately 

y, financial 

se decisions

4.2

Determine and 

account for 

the cost of not

stewarding

2.2

bMP programs and outreach 

tailored to social, economic, cultural

and environmental realities

Humans are integral 

to sustainable 

grassland ecosystems 

3

Uncertainty is accounted

for in all grassland 

management 

strategies 

4

natural grasslands 

are a unique and 

declining capital 

asset to society 

and 

require 

same 

pital 

ns

nable north American grasslands 

are environmentally healthy 

and productive ecosystems that 

sustain working landscapes, 

conserve biodiversity, and 

support vibrant rural 

communities.

2

3

2.2

3.2

3.3

3.1

2.1

Humans are integral 

to sustainable 

grassland ecosystems 

Uncertainty is 

accounted for in 

all grassland 

management 

strategies

2. Humans are and will continue to be an integral 

part of sustainable grassland ecosystems, resulting 

in increased demand for both natural capital2

 and 

secondary products. 

2.1 Rural and conservation communities must be mutually 

supportive both in principle and with tools.

2.2 Programs and outreach must be tailored to social, 

economic, cultural and environmental realities to facilitate 

the uptake of beneficial management practices (BMPs). 

3. Uncertainty is accounted for across all levels of 

grassland management strategies, ensuring the 

viability of grassland systems’ ecological and 

economic sustainability.

3.1 Effective incentive programs tied to maintaining and 

enhancing the ecological services provided by grasslands 

are required to sustain grass-based agriculture.

3.2 Sufficient minimum conservation land must be secured to 

meet grassland management targets, including population 

and habitat goals, to ensure continuity of ecological 

services under a range of constraining uncertainties, to 

offset additional capacity requirements during disasters 

such as drought. 

3.3 Policy that provides a set of economic safety nets for 

grass-based livestock producers consistent with crop 

insurance and economic price supports.

2. Natural capital is defined as the indispensable resources and benefits, essential for human survival and economic activity, provided by the ecosystem. Natural capital is commonly divided into 

(1) renewable resources (agricultural crops, vegetation, wildlife) and (2) non-renewable resources (fossil fuels and mineral deposits).

7
econo

for g

produ

cr

eco

4.1

natural capital is

valued appropriately 

in policy, financial 

and land use decisions

4.2

Determine and 

account for 

the cost of not 

stewarding

ng prov es grass an

stem service benefits 

mpared with other 

rivate land uses 

5.2

tools and activities that sustain 

hydrologic function, soil processes 

and plant communities

5.3

Sustainable range

management provides

necessary disturbance 

regimes 

Uncertainty i

for in all g

manage

strate

4

natural grasslands

are a unique and 

declining capital

asset to society 

ranching and

conservation require 

many of the same 

natural capital 

conditions

communities.

objectiVeS

ViSi to maintain a

the environme

and viability of n

grassland ecosys

working landsca

biodiversity, a

vibrant rural c

ViSi to maintain a

the environme

and viability of n

grassland ecosys

working landsca

biodiversity, a

vibrant rural c

Pr ni c

Pi leS

4.1

natural capital is

valued appropriately 

in policy, financial 

and land use decisions

4

Deter

acc

the c

stew

5.1

ranching provides grassland 

ecosystem service benefits

compared with other 

private land uses 

py pg

for conservation

5.2

tools and activities that sustain 

hydrologic function, soil processes 

and plant communities

5.3

Sustainable range

management provides 

necessary disturbance 

regimes 

4

natural grass

are a unique

declining ca

asset to soc

5

ranching and 

conservation require 

many of the same 

natural capital 

conditions

experience and culture

is vital to sustainable 

grasslands

 north America

are environme

and productive e

sustain working

conserve biod

support vib

commu

ViSi

4

5

OBJECTIVES

PRINCIPLES

Natural 

grasslands are a 

unique and declining 

capital asset to society 

Ranching and 

conservation require 

many of the same 

natural capital 

conditions

4. Natural grasslands are a unique and declining capital 

asset that provides irreplaceable services to society, 

landowners and land managers. 

4.1 Natural capital needs to be valued (monetarily 

or otherwise) appropriately in all policy, financial 

and land use decisions. 

4.2 The ecological costs of land use change from ranching to 

agricultural or other uses (i.e., the cost of not stewarding) 

must be determined and losses accounted for.

5. Ranching and conservation require many of the same 

natural capital conditions for sustainable economic, 

social and ecological goals.

5.1 Encourage ranching as an effective means to conserve 

grassland ecosystem services in terms of benefits to 

society compared with alternate private land uses. 

5.2 Promote the use of tools and activities that sustain 

hydrologic function, soil processes and plant 

communities.

5.3 Promote sustainable range management as an effective 

means of providing necessary disturbance regimes.

8

4.1 4.2

5.1

5.2

5.3
objectiVeS

to mai

the env

and viabil

grassland 

working l

biodive

vibrant

to mai

the env

and viabil

grassland 

working l

biodive

vibrant

PrinciPleS

5.1

ranching provides grassland 

6.1

Portfolio of strategies

leading to adoption of 

conservation-friendly land

management practices

7.1

create positive 

incentives for 

healthy grasslands

7.2

identify and 

remove perverse 

incentives from

policy and programs

6.2

involve producers in

policy and planning 

for conservation

ince

sh

ou

p

5

ranching and 

6

An understanding 

of local knowledge,

experience and culture

is vital to sustainable 

grasslands

7

Mutually supp

conservatio

agricultural f

for sustain

grasslan

north A

are envi

and produ

sustain w

conser

supp

c

V

6

7

6.1

6.2

7.1

7.2

7.3

An 

understanding 

of local knowledge, 

experience and 

culture is vital 

to sustainable 

grasslands

Mutually supportive 

conservation and 

agricultural funding 

for sustainable 

grasslands 

6. An understanding of local knowledge, experience 

and culture is vital to communicate the importance 

of grassland conservation and sustainable land 

management practices.

6.1 Develop a portfolio of strategies that lead to the 

adoption of conservation-friendly land management 

practices taking into account local knowledge, 

experience and culture.

6.2 Involve producers in policy and planning for 

conservation.

7. Conservation and agricultural funding should 

be mutually supportive of sustainable grasslands 

and range management practices.

7.1 Create positive incentives that promote sustainability, 

resilience and ecological health of grassland ecosystems.

7.2 Identify and remove perverse incentives from policy 

and programs.

7.3 Government incentive programs should require 

outcomes based performance metrics focused 

on addressing the source of issues which may be 

ecological, social or economic in nature.

9
1. Broad public support for grassland conservation.

2. Grassland conservation is a foundation 

of the ranching culture.

3. Sustainable uses of natural grasslands are an 

economically viable alternative to other land uses.

4. Incentives to implement sustainable, productive 

conservation programs are equal to or better 

than incentives for alternative land uses.

5. Continuity of policy for grassland conservation 

that bridges economic and political cycles.

6. North American grassland conservation 

networks that facilitate all levels of 

collaboration and information exchange.

Enabling Conditions

The enabling conditions provide a benchmark against which partners 

can evaluate their operating environment. Where these conditions are in 

place, they accelerate the implementation of actions conducive to meeting the above principles and objectives and achieving the vision. The 

conditions include:

Blue Grama

Courtesy of Courtney Couch

10
Strategic Priorities to Achieve the Vision

The changes required to stem the loss of the 

grasslands across North America can only 

occur through prioritizing goals and actions.

These five priorities are strategically important 

to achieving the vision of grasslands as environmentally healthy and productive ecosystems that 

sustain working landscapes, conserve biodiversity, and support vibrant rural communities.

Concrete goals are associated with each priority, supported by a number of actionable 

tasks to reach those goals. Things that could 

help or hinder progress toward each strategic 

priority, as well as examples of activities to 

complete the tasks are highlighted in the boxes 

on these pages.

Courtesy of Trevor Herriot
Access to society to garner long term 

grasslands support

Cross-sectoral teams focused on 

grasslands engagement

A continent-wide state of grasslands 

assessment

Accounting for and awareness of 

grasslands values

Matrix of beef supply chain beneficial 

practices

No coordinated efforts to reach society

Conflicting goals for government and 

agriculture industry

Lack of information on the values of 

grasslands

No valuation of the cost of (not) 

stewarding grasslands

No validation/certification mechanism 

for sustainable ranching

GOALS

Things that help Things that hinder

Priority # 1: Engage urban and rural society

1. Increase understanding and appreciation of the role of grasslands 

in the provision of ecological services and food production. 

2. Use messaging focused around the ecological and 

economic costs associated with the loss of grassland. 

3. Brand and certify environmentally and economically 

sustainable ranching as a grassland-friendly land use.

12
Establish a trinational coordination structure, that will allow 

effective cooperation in the grasslands building on existing 

initiatives, and supported by complementary partners

Develop a social marketing and communications campaign related 

to sustainable grasslands

Carry out education strategies focused on grassland resource 

sustainability and ecosystem services

Secure funding and institutional support for a trinational North 

American Grasslands Alliance Coordinator

Review existing socio-economics surveys to determine 

attitudes towards grasslands conservation and roles of ranchers. 

Synthesize the results and determine gaps

Develop and target ranch management curriculum for rural 

schools (e.g., module to determine appropriate stocking rates 

in math curriculum)

TASK 1:

TASK 2:

TASK 3:

Activity example

Activity example

Activity example

13
Capacity of governments and NGOs 

to deliver programs and support

Dedicated government funding 

to support rangelands conservation 

and BMPs

Updated rural education programs 

on values of, and techniques for, 

sustainable grasslands

Peer to peer outreach and training 

programs

Recognition of exemplary stewardship

Prohibitive cost as a barrier to 

government and ranch engagement

Lack of professionals providing 

technical assistance to ranchers

A disinterest or lack of capacity 

to provide and participate in 

education programs

Lack of agency stability and continuity 

Unawareness of the economic 

benefits of BMPs

GOALS

Things that help Things that hinder

Priority # 2: Engage current and future stewards of the land

1. Recognize that ranching and conservation are mutually beneficial. 

2. Involve ranchers in conservation planning and policy discussions. 

3. Highlight the links between conservation and ranching and 

the use of beneficial management practices (BMPs) in primary 

education, extension and outreach to rural communities.

14
Empower and encourage people to be stewards of their land and to 

seek out available resources and tools 

TASK 1:

Activity example

Develop a central clearinghouse and discussion forum for 

sharing technical and practical information (e.g., BMPs) from 

all three countries, with translations as appropriate

Buffalo Grass

Courtesy of Courtney Couch

15
New funding for conservation 

policies and incentive programs that 

fit ranching business model

Research linking production 

benefit to conservation benefit 

available to ranchers

Connecting producers to consumers 

through communication of standards, 

certification and branding

Economic diversification of ranchers 

(e.g. hunting leases, ecotourism, rock 

hounding, bird watching)

Lack of societal will to pay for the 

ecological services that sustain them 

Crop production research more 

available than grassland 

management/productivity research

Lack of market incentives/incentive 

programs

Things that help Things that hinder

Priority # 3: Improve the economic sustainability of ranches

1. Communicate that economically sustainable ranchers and 

ranching communities are the keystone to conservation success. 

2. Improve ranch profitability through the development 

and implementation of a wide variety of outcome-based 

beneficial management practices (BMPs); incentive tools 

that help achieve economic parity with alternate land uses; 

and improved competitiveness of conservation incentives, 

risk insurance and other programs for ranchers.

GOALS

16
Develop and support policies that make ranching more 

economically competitive

Use research effectively to advance conservation on the ground

Improve profitability through incentives, market development 

and diversification

TASK 1:

TASK 2:

TASK 3:

Activity example

Activity example

Activity example

Identify and evaluate existing programs and policies in each 

country that provide both positive and perverse incentives for 

grassland conservation

Create decision support tools for ranchers that incorporate the 

results of research findings and allow for evaluation of potential 

outcomes resulting from a change in management

Develop market-based incentives to attract consumer support of 

sustainable grass-based ranching

17
Trinational partnership including 

both agriculture and environment 

sectors

Public and decision-maker awareness 

of full-cost accounting including 

ecosystem services

Favourable neighboring country 

immigration policy that affects land 

use pressure

Conflicting societal goals impede 

actions on grasslands conservation

Inadequate consideration for 

grassland ecosystem services on bank 

balance sheets and for loans

Unfavourable neighboring country 

immigration policy that affects land 

use pressure

Things that help Things that hinder

Priority # 4: Harmonize agricultural and environmental policy

1. Eliminate policies and incentives that promote the loss 

of grasslands. 

2. Improve markets and economic returns for grass-based 

alternate land uses by improving communications and 

linkages between government agencies with differing 

mandates and between different levels of government. 

3. Increase involvement of agricultural and environmental 

government agencies in conservation initiatives.

GOALS

18
Improve communications, linkages and involvement between 

and among agencies and stakeholders to improve policy for 

grassland conservation

TASK 1:

Activity example

Expand the North American Grasslands Alliance and formalize 

membership

Big Bluestem

19

Courtesy of Courtney Couch
Well-funded applied research and 

monitoring 

A social science and multi-disciplinary 

focus of new programs

Willingness to consider new approach 

to conservation and research

Adaptive management loop is rarely 

completed or first funding to cut

Lack of databases with consistent 

protocols for analysis and public access

Lack of baseline data and planned 

analysis before starting a monitoring 

program, to understand changes 

and trends

Things that help Things that hinder

Priority # 5: Identify, increase and improve the applicability of 

research and monitoring

1. Deepen and broaden research and monitoring efforts to better 

inform conservation in working landscapes including: i) valuing 

ecological services; ii) targeting BMPs, protection and enhancement 

to prioritized habitats, species and threats; iii) incorporating economic 

and social components of research required to inform policy and 

promote conservation ethic; and iv) monitoring conservation 

programming and practices to inform and improve efficiency.

2. Increase funding for research and monitoring.

3. Engage institutions in grassland research and monitoring.

4. Communicate research findings and monitoring 

results to key audiences.

GOALS

20
Target and expand research and monitoring that focus on 

improving the sustainability of grasslands

Increase funding for research and monitoring, including social 

science, to better inform conservation in working landscapes

TASK 1:

TASK 2:

Activity example

Activity example

Continually improve the delineation and adaptation of 

Grassland Priority Conservation Areas based on new science, 

information and threats

Encourage universities and other research institutes to 

engage and expand research for conservation and sustainable 

management of grasslands

21
Courtesy of Trevor Herriot
Invitation

You are invited to take up and champion 

these foundational principles, objectives and 

priorities to sustain working landscapes, conserve biodiversity, and support vibrant rural 

communities across North America.

Please adopt this framework document, in 

whole or in part, to help maintain and conserve 

grasslands for present and future generations.

Together, our contributions will sustain 

North America’s grasslands as environmentally 

healthy and productive ecosystems, engage 

the public and institutional support needed to 

build momentum for grasslands conservation, 

and increase the awareness of the ecological 

and economic values of sustainable grasslands.

As part of a collective voice and strong 

alliance, our actions will ensure healthy grasslands forever.

23
A special thank you to all participants for their contribution to the 

North American Grasslands Alliance: A Framework for Change document

Humberto Berlanga García (Comisión Nacional para el 

Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad)

Gerardo Bezanilla Enríquez (Universidad Autónoma 

de Chihuahua)

Elco Salvador Blanco Madrid (Agro Cultura Empresarial)

Pedro Angel Calderon Dominguez (Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory)

Jim Chu (US Forest Service)

Roger Cogan (Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch of the 

National Audubon Society)

Lizardo Cruz Romo (Comisión Nacional de Áreas 

Naturales Protegidas)

Brenda Christine Dale (Environment Canada 

Canadian Wildlife Service)

Mauricio De la Maza Benignos (Pronatura Noreste)

Garry Donaldson (Canadian Wildlife Service)

Kevin Ellison (Wildlife Conservation Society)

Antonio Esquer Robles (The Nature Conservancy)

Larry Fisher (University of Arizona, School of Natural 

Resources and the Environment)

Guy Foulks (US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Kevin France (Alberta Environment and Sustainable 

Resource Development)

Sally Gall (Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge)

Mateo Giner Mendoza (Rancho Epigmenia)

Renny Grilz (Nature Conservancy of Canada) 

Kerry Grisley (Alberta Fish & Game Association)

Mary Gustafson (American Bird Conservancy)

Juan Carlos Guzmán Aranda (Alianza Regional para la 

Conservación de Pastizales del Desierto Chihuahuense)

Sarah Heiberg (Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation)

Jurgen Hoth (Alianza Regional para la Conservación 

de Pastizales del Desierto Chihuahuense)

Curtis Hullick (The Manitoba Habitat Heritage 

Corporation)

Fawn Jackson (Canadian Cattlemen’s Association)

Genevieve Johnson (Desert Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives)

Pedro Jurado Guerra (Instituto Nacional de 

Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias)

Linda Kennedy (Audubon Appleton-Whittell 

Research Ranch)

Duane Kriese (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Ken Kriese (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Tracy Kupchenko (ESRD-Rangeland Management Branch)

Ben Larson (National Wildlife Federation)

Gregory Levandoski (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory)

Tanya Luszcz (Partners in Flight BC)

24
Michael Margo (United States Department of 

Agriculture -NRCS)

Amy Markstein (Bureau of Land Management)

Brian Martin (The Nature Conservancy)

Willis Donald McLennan (Alberta Forage Industry 

Network)

Alicia Melgoza Castillo (Universidad Autónoma de 

Chihuahua)

Robert Mesta (Sonoran Joint Venture)

Susan Michalsky (Ranchers Stewardship Alliance)

Rod Mondt (Sky Island Alliance)

Carlos Raúl Morales Nieto (Instituto Nacional de 

Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias)

Tara Mulhern Davidson (Agriculture & Agri-Food 

Canada)

Larry L. Norris (Desert Southwest Cooperative 

Ecosystem Studies Unit)

Arvind Panjabi (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory)

Justin Pepper (National Audubon Society)

Duane Pool (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory)

Ronald (Ron) Pulliam (University of Georgia)

Adrián Quero Carrillo (Colegio de Postgraduados)

Óscar Ramírez Flores (Comisión Nacional de Áreas 

Naturales Protegidas)

Karen Richardson (Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation)

Aimee Roberson (Desert Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives)

Tahnee Robertson (Southwest Decision Resources)

Vicente Rodriguez Contreras (Comisión Nacional 

para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad)

Roberto Rodríguez Salazar (Universidad Autónoma 

de Chihuahua)

Homer Sanchez (United States Department of 

Agriculture -NRCS)

Martin Sanchez Vilchis (Comisión Nacional de Áreas 

Naturales Protegidas)

Itzia Sandoval (Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation)

Forrest Sherman (Southwestern Arid Grassland Ecology)

Karen Simms (Bureau of Land Management)

Dean Smith (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies)

Daniel Svingen (US Forest Service)

Jésus Terrazas Rico (Asociación Ganadera Local 

de Ascensión)

Tamara Thies (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association)

William Van Pelt (Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies)

Lilia Vela Valladares (Pronatura Noreste)

Jesús Villa Perches (Ejido Lajitas NCPE)

Allison Vogt (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) 

Donald Watson (Alberta Fish & Game Association)

Sarah Wren (Environment Canada, Canadian 

Wildlife Service)

Karen Yarza Sieber (World Wildlife Fund)

25
Commission for Environmental Cooperation

393, rue St-Jacques Ouest, bureau 200

Montréal (Québec) Canada H2Y 1N9

t 514.350.4300 f 514.350.4314

info@cec.org / www.cec.org