Indigenous Peoples play a critical role in protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services globally ([15]; [45]; [48]; [90]; [94]). Indigenous Peoples’ effectiveness at conservation is clear from biodiversity statistics despite their relatively small populations and land management areas. Indigenous Peoples manage an estimated 28% of land where 80% or more of global biodiversity is concentrated ([34]), despite being only 6% of the global population ([32]; [34]; [69]; [94]).

The GBF in 2022 was the first biodiversity convention to recognize Indigenous rights ([15]; [38]). Prior to 2022, Indigenous Peoples’ rights were not recognized by the United Nations’ biodiversity conventions. For example, the CBD recognized only Indigenous Peoples’ role in biodiversity conservation and the need for equitable sharing of benefits, but not a governance role ([17]; [87]). Biodiversity efforts previously often displaced Indigenous Peoples and undermined Indigenous access to their traditional territories, with colonial laws trying to extinguish Indigenous rights to ancestral land ([38]; [16]).

The GBF is a major shift to recognize the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, knowledge, and roles. The GBF transforms area-based conservation from undermining to recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge, innovation, rights, and roles as the primary land stewards ([15]). Figure 1 shows the specific requirements for Indigenous Peoples’ rights to be in line with UNDRIP for seven GBF targets ([81]).

Figure 1. The seven targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework that consider Indigenous Peoples, which Canada’s Nature Strategy adopted verbatim (Illustration credit: Shirley Thompson & Parinaz Shariat Zadeh).

Historically, area-based conservation excluded and displaced Indigenous Peoples. Park regulations were colonial, often denying Indigenous rights to hunt, fish, and exercise other treaty rights ([6]; [49]). These parks often displaced Indigenous communities through land grabs ([21]; [92]). Historically, conservation area expansion was managed by colonial governments and corporate actors without acknowledging Indigenous Peoples’ territories and led to extensive human rights violations ([90]; [96]). A 30% target without Indigenous Peoples’ inclusion would represent a direct threat to biodiversity due to their important roles ([90]). However, Indigenous Peoples’ inclusion may turn this biodiversity crisis around ([90]).

Canada committed to the GBF in 2022. Canada has prioritized Indigenous Peoples’ rights and knowledge in its Nature Strategy ([26]). Canada’s first of its six pillars in its nature strategy is: “Recognizing, upholding, and implementing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and advancing reconciliation, as Indigenous Peoples are the original caretakers of the lands, waters, and ice” ([26]: p. 2). Further, pillar 5 identifies that equal weight will be given to Indigenous Knowledge and Western science: “Using the best available science and knowledge, incorporating new insights, sharing information, and giving equal weight to Western science and Indigenous Knowledge” ([26]: p. 2).

Canada’s 2030 Nature Strategy adopted the GBF targets verbatim, including upholding Indigenous rights. Thus, Canada is committed to GBF target 3 to increase area-based conservation to 30% by 2030, respecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights ([26]). At the end of December 2024, approximately 15,000 PCAs protected 13.8% of Canada’s 998 million hectares of terrestrial territory and 15.5% of Canada’s 575 million hectares of marine territory ([28]). To meet its 30 by 30 GBF target, Canada needs to protect an additional 16.2% (162 million hectares) of land and freshwater, and 14.5% (83 million hectares) of sea by 2030. Collaboration with Indigenous governments is critical for Canada to meet these targets ([26]).

Recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ rights as a pillar of the nature strategy ([26]) aligns with Canada’s commitment to implement UNDRIP through the UNDRIP Act and to advance reconciliation ([78]). The UNDRIP Act promised to align Canadian laws with UNDRIP including Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination (article 3), self-government (article 4), free and prior informed consent (articles 10, 19, and 32), rights to ancestral land use and occupancy (articles 24 - 32), and rights to ancestral land’s conservation and protection (article 29), along with many other inherent rights . In 2016, the Canadian government fully endorsed UNDRIP, after voting against it in 2007 and supporting it as an aspirational document in 2010 ([22]).

UNDRIP was elected as the framework for reconciliation in Canada, calling for all levels of government to adopt and implement UNDRIP to address the rights and needs of Indigenous Peoples ([78]). Implementing UNDRIP in Canada is the TRCC’s 43^rd Call to Action for reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. In 2021, the Canadian government enacted the United Nations[3] (the “Canada DRIPA”) for the legal implementation of the UNDRIP.

Canada has legal and policy barriers to UNDRIP, including the Indian Act, as displayed in Figure 2. In the coloured boxes is the legal wording of the different Indigenous land rights recognized in UNDRIP, linked to the Indian Act article that takes away this right. Thapa applied the current version of the Indian Act, 1985, C. I-5, to identify articles that contain land provisions ([1]) and compared them to UNDRIP. Of particular consideration for the GBF is UNDRIP, articles 26, 29, and 31. Article 26 (1) recognizes Indigenous land and resources: “Indigenous Peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. Article 29 (1) recognizes a right to conservation and protection of their Native land:

Figure 2. UNDRIP’s land-related articles contradict the Indian Act’s articles (Illustration credit, Thapa, K.).

Indigenous Peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance programmes for Indigenous Peoples for such conservation and protection, without discrimination.

Further, Article 32 (1) enshrines Indigenous Peoples’ right to decide the development of their Native lands: recognizes that Indigenous Peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources. Other barriers include the Constitution Act. For example, section 91 (24) of the Constitution Act of 1867 states that the federal government has the legal jurisdiction over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians” ([13]).

The crux of IPCAs is Indigenous Peoples-led conservation of Indigenous ancestral lands ([21]; [63]). As all of Canada is the ancestral land of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous rights need to be an integral aspect of area-based conservation, which needs to be formalized through Indigenous governance systems ([11]). The IPCAs are considered to be consistent with treaties according to Dr. Stewart Hill (personal communication, November 10, 2025).

Indigenous Peoples in Canada defined the requirements for IPCAs in Canada ([11]). In the Canadian context, IPCAs are: 1) “Indigenous-led”, 2) establish a “long-term commitment to conservation”, and 3) “elevate Indigenous rights and responsibilities” ([11]: p. 5). The IPCAs incorporate Indigenous land guardianship through land-based learning, spirituality, hunting, fishing, trapping, harvesting, and cultural ceremonies ([21]; [62]).

The move from colonial parks to IPCAs is viewed as a “turning point” in decolonizing land ([50]: p. 201). Indigenous governance through IPCAs protects land from colonial development and maintains the continuity of Indigenous land use and occupancy ([18]; [63]; [65]). IPCAs connect Indigenous Peoples with their ancestral lands ([11]) and provide access to their traditional foods, timber, medicines, and sacred sites ([62]; [86]), whereas colonial parks have a long history of creating barriers to Indigenous Peoples’ traditional land use.

Canada first mentioned IPCAs in its sixth national report to the CBD in 2018 ([11]). This report noted that IPCAs were considered too ambitious to achieve Canada’s 2020 biodiversity goals because of the extensive consultations and negotiations required with Indigenous governments for land claim agreements. Conversely, Indigenous Peoples are proposing IPCAs and taking leadership in conducting their own consultations ([18]), which streamlines the process. Indigenous governments provide a more efficient solution for accelerating IPCA negotiations by designating their own proposed area where no corporate barriers exist and by organizing biodiversity research, community consultation, and feasibility analysis ([11]).

Canada has the most extensive peatlands in the world ([80]; [88]). Canada’s vast peatlands support biodiversity and store five times more carbon than the Amazon rainforest ([42]; [67]). Additionally, peatlands play a vital role in regulating the Earth’s climate by storing significantly more carbon than all other vegetation types combined ([67]; [88]). Peatlands are Canada’s ecologically vital ecosystems for carbon storage, water cycle regulation, and biodiversity ([80]). Peatlands are essential for climate regulation and ecological resilience ([42]; [67]). Peatland conservation is key to climate goals and biodiversity ([42]; [67]; [80]; [88]).

Prioritizing peatland protection would improve the ecological function of the boreal forest, lower wildfire risk, and support Canada’s climate mitigation efforts and Indigenous stewardship ([56]; [88]). Additionally, conserving peatlands through existing and new IPCAs offers another opportunity for countries like Canada to advance the 30 by 30 GBF target ([80]; [88]). Boreal peatlands, wetlands, and forests are vital habitats for many species, including reptiles, birds, and mammals, and traditional land uses of Indigenous Peoples ([39]). These lands face threats from industrial activity, climate change, and habitat fragmentation ([39]; [88]).

Critical habitats for at-risk species are essential areas for their recovery and survival, as habitat loss remains a primary threat to these species in Canada ([7]). For example, Woodland Caribou (Rangifertaranduscaribou) is a wildlife species listed as threatened under the [2], c 29. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation have led to declines in woodland caribou populations throughout their distribution ([30]). The Woodland Caribou's distribution extends across the boreal forest from the northeast corner of the Yukon, east across two territories and seven provinces to Labrador, and south to Lake Superior in Ontario ([30]).

Woodland Caribou requires large areas composed of continuous tracts of undisturbed habitat, particularly boreal forests ([52]). Caribou are important for sustenance and identity to many Indigenous Peoples, having cultural, social and economic value ([40]). To measure intact forests that Woodland Caribou and other species require, remote sensing tools are used. For example, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) can monitor vegetation and landscape health ([51]; [70]). The NDVI provides a measure of vegetation greenness, productivity, and disturbance to assess ecological integrity over space and time ([4]; [60]; [70]).

Critical minerals are deemed the building blocks for the global energy transition to the green and digital economy and are vital to national security ([72]). Canada’s Critical Minerals Strategy was funded by nearly $4 billion in Budget 2022, setting an economic course for Canada to be a leader in critical minerals and clean digital technologies ([12]). Greenstone belts typically have high concentrations of critical minerals, such as gold, nickel, copper, and platinum-group elements, for mining ([9]). These areas are prioritized for mining and exploration; however, greenstone belts are vital wildlife habitats and culturally important sites for Indigenous Peoples ([57]; [70]; [73]; [71]). Greenstone belts’ importance to industry creates challenges for conservation, ecological integrity, and landscape connectivity ([72]). Land-use decisions around mining in greenstone belts significantly impact Canada’s efforts to meet the 30 by 30 GBF targets and uphold Indigenous rights ([11]).

Mining greenstone belts can impact a significantly larger area because mining requires energy, water, land, roads, and infrastructure development, including settlements. Greenstone belts, which are vast rock formations rich in gold and other critical minerals, cover a large part of northern Canada . Globally, half of the world heritage sites, including the Pimachiowin Aki located south of Island Lake in Manitoba, overlap with the 1 km boundary of at least one of the mining, oil, and gas extraction sites .

In the Canada Target 1 challenge, Indigenous governments and other applicants were asked to propose PCAs in areas without encumbrances and to get provincial/territorial approval for the areas chosen. Greenstone belts in their traditional territory became a barrier to acceptance of their PCAs as Manitoba’s Land Use Planning Act Regulation 81/2011 was passed without First Nation consultation, stating: “Only uses that are compatible with exploration, extraction and development of the resources should be accommodated on lands adjacent” to the mineral potential lands, including greenstone belts, ([47]). The position of the [47] is that “Mineral, … such as greenstone belts … must be identified and protected from conflicting surface land uses that could interfere with access to the resources”.

The review of 15,142 PCAs listed in Canada’s PCA database found that 96 PCAs, or 0.75% by number, have an Indigenous government’s governance or a co-governance role. Indigenous governments govern eight PCAs. These IPCAs are large, covering 3.8 million hectares and averaging almost 0.5 million hectares each. For the 300 million hectares required for the total 30% of Canada’s land and water, these four represent 1.27%.

Figure 3 shows these PCAs/IPCAs are located in unceded territories with modern treaties in the Yukon, NWT, and BC for the marine park. Indigenous-governed PCAs are, on average, larger than other PCAs, particularly when located in the north, where there is less forestry, agriculture, settlements, and road networks. The average size of Indigenous-governed and co-governed PCAs is 155,000 hectares (ha) (n = 96), compared to 14,000 ha (n = 15,046) for non-Indigenous-governed PCAs. Larger marine conservation areas tend to be in offshore areas or in northern Canada, where less destructive land uses occur with lower population density.

(a) (b)

Figure3. Protected and Conserved Areas (PCAs) categorized for (a) Governance and (b) ownership.

Co-governance has Indigenous governments co-managing with other non-Indigenous governments or institutions. The 88 PCAs co-governed cover 11.1 million hectares of Canada, mainly in unceded territories in the north and a few in northwestern Ontario under Ontario’s Far North Act. The 15,000 PCAs that are non-Indigenous-governed cover 224 million hectares.

Indigenous Peoples in Canada self-govern four PCAs as Indigenous governed and owned, legally holding land rights to 0.5 million hectares. These land rights constitute 0.05% of the country’s total area. The vast majority of PCAs have no Indigenous governance or ownership. The eight Indigenous-governed are either Indigenous-owned, mixed, or federally owned (Table 2). Co-governed areas are mainly federal. Although most of the large PCAs are owned by the federal government, including all the marine PCAs, the province owns more PCAs, but smaller PCAs. Clearly, the new requirement for respect for Indigenous rights in the GBF requires both changes in how PCAs are governed in the future and shifts in the historical PCAs.

Table 2. Indigenous-governed protected and conserved areas in Canada (source: [25]).

The Target 1 Challenge is Canada’s IPCA funding process, which includes most of the selected 62 PCA projects and incorporates Indigenous governance through the IPCA approach ([23]). Although Canada does not clearly state whether all the projects are IPCAs, the government notes: “These projects help to improve connectivity, advance Indigenous-led conservation and reconciliation, and have co-benefits for species at risk or carbon storage” ([23]). Thirty IPCA projects under the Target 1 Challenge include area coverage, with an average area of 1 million ha, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Area coverage of fifteen Indigenous protected and conserved area projects listed in the Target 1 Challenge (adapted from [23]).

About two-thirds are establishment projects expected to deliver a PCA in the near future, presumably before 2030, to meet the 30 by 30 GBF target. One-third are preliminary work projects to build PCAs in the longer term (5 to 10 years). For example, in Manitoba, three of the nine PCAs are in the establishment phase, and two of those are IPCAs in northern Manitoba, as shown in Table 4below.

Table 4. The three establishment projects, including two IPCA in Manitoba (adapted from [23]).

Figure 4 shows the area for these two proposed IPCAs—Seal River Watershed and Kitaskeenan, along with a third IPCA in the preliminary stage. These proposed IPCAs are planned for ecologically important peatlands in northern Manitoba’s Hudson Bay lowlands. Northeastern Manitoba also holds critical peatlands, which are covered by the primary stage proposed by Tataskweyak Cree Nation. However, Anisinew Okimawin proposed an IPCA in the Island Lake region for the Canadian Government’s Target 1 Challenge ([57]) to protect ecologically and culturally important areas (Figure 4). This proposal was declined despite its strategic focus on protecting peatland and Woodland Caribou country, presumably because it covered greenstone belts, even though it avoided all mining claims.

Figure 4. The proposed protected and conserved area covers extensive peatland and some dense vegetation in northern Manitoba, Canada, but overlaps minimally with critical habitats for species at risk.

These proposed IPCAs seem to fill some of the major gaps of PCAs in Manitoba. While existing PCAs in Manitoba largely miss the opportunity to conserve biodiversity-rich ecosystems, IPCAs focus on these areas. Maps in Figure 5 revealed that Manitoba has 51.9 million hectares of peatland (80% of the province), 25 million hectares of critical habitats for species at risk (39% of the province), and 2.5 million hectares of greenstone belts (3.85% of the province). Existing PCAs in Manitoba protect 7 million hectares (13.5%) of peatland, 2.5 million hectares (10%) of critical habitat, and 0.05 million hectares (2%) of greenstone belts. The vegetation health analysis revealed dense vegetation in northeastern Manitoba, including the Island Lake region and surrounding areas (high NDVI). This high NDVI indicates areas with largely intact tree cover, comparable to that in existing PCAs, such as Riding Mountain National Park in southwestern Manitoba.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 5. Manitoba’s protected and conserved areas juxtaposed with (a) peatlands (tope left); (b) the critical habitat areas of species at risk (top right); (c) intact tree cover/dense vegetation (bottom left); and (d) greenstone belts (bottom right).

Canada has most of the world’s high-density peat, which is mostly unprotected (Figure 6(a)). Peatlands analysis revealed Canada has 161 million hectares with ≥50% peat per unit land and 250 million hectares with ≥30% peat. However, only 13.5% peatlands (with ≥30% peat) are in PCAs. Figure 6(b) shows that peatlands (≥30% peat) more often overlap with greenstone belts (10 million hectares) in northern Manitoba and Ontario, which are at a higher risk of development than PCAs. The high-density peat is mainly in Ontario, Manitoba, the north and boreal regions, and also the Northwest Territories and, to a lesser degree, Alberta’s north. However, only a small fraction of 0.05% (100 hectares of Canada’s 0.2 million hectares) of 90% - 100% peat is protected.

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Concentrated peatlands juxtaposed with (a) protected and conserved areas; and (b) overlap with greenstone belts buffers, and protected and conserved areas.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the critical habitat for at-risk species in Canada is outside the current PCA network. The critical habitats dataset includes areas for terrestrial at-risk species, covering 522 million hectares. Existing PCAs protect 63.22 million hectares (12%) of critical habitats for at-risk species in Canada. Most of the habitat in the Northwest Territories and the northern areas of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec supports Wildland Caribou (Figure 7(a)). In Manitoba and Ontario, peatlands and critical habitats overlap across 81 million hectares, which accounts for 47% of both provinces; however, only 2.6 million hectares (3.2%) are within PCAs. Additionally, 3.2 million hectares (4%) of peatlands and critical habitats intersect with greenstone belts in both provinces. Among the overlaps of greenstone belts, peatlands, and critical habitats in these provinces, existing PCAs safeguard 0.1 million hectares (4%) (Figure 7(b)). The proposed IPCAs are inadequate to protect the areas of peatland and critical habitat overlap in Manitoba and Ontario (see the pink areas in Figure 7(b)).

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Protected and conserved areas: (a) in Canada, limited coverage of critical habitats; and (b) in Manitoba and northeastern Ontario, limited coverage of peatlands, critical habitats at risk, and greenstone belts.

More ICPAs and Indigenous governance are needed for PCAs in Canada. Only 1% or 96 PCAs of the current almost 15,000 PCAs have any Indigenous governance. However, Indigenous governance of PCAs is a key aspect of the GBF, recognizing the value of Indigenous knowledge and governance.

Mapping PCA governance, we found the IPCAs in Canada are under modern treaties. Modern treaty lands show a pathway to IPCAs, but not the only path. The CPCAD has categorized PCAs on modern treaty land under self-government agreements as Indigenous owned ([75]; [54]; [74]; [85]). Modern treaties result in Indigenous governed lands but are not a panacea for Indigenous self-determination in Canada because treaty negotiations can take a decade or more. The pros and cons need to be weighed carefully when facilitating IPCAs through the fast-tracking of modern treaties through UNDRIP implementation.

Indigenous co-governed PCAs are under the control of federal, provincial, or territorial governments, with Indigenous governments co-managing ([25]). For provincial or federal Crown land, a Crown trustee controls the native land unless agreements are made. These Indigenous-Crown agreements would have to consider that ICPA must be: 1) “Indigenous-led”, 2) establish a “long-term commitment to conservation”, and 3) “elevate Indigenous rights and responsibilities” ([11]: p. 5).

Protecting biodiversity, carbon sinks, and ecological services requires intact habitat. Protecting intact forests is important for ecological services. Boreal forests are home to diverse plants and animals, many of which are endangered. Boreal forest animals include caribou, bear, wolverine, lynx, wolves, fox, weasel, wood bison, moose, and more than three hundred species of birds ([5]). Boreal forest cycles are typically 70 to 100 years long, retaining large amounts of carbon, perhaps more than the world’s tropical and temperate forests combined ([5]).

The ecological services provided by the boreal forest far exceed its commercial value. For example, $50.9 billion of market value of services was estimated in 2002 for annual boreal forest extraction ([5]). This study estimated that much higher non-market values result from their ecological services, at $703 billion, nearly 14 times greater. Carbon storage by forests and wetlands has the highest value of all ecosystem services at $582 billion, followed by flood control and water filtering by peatlands at $77 billion and other wetlands at $33.7 billion ([5]). The value for cultural services and sustainable livelihoods for the many Indigenous Peoples living in Canada’s boreal forest is priceless, as is the biodiversity.

Protecting Canada’s peatland is crucial for enhancing carbon storage and preventing biodiversity loss ([42]; [67]; [88]). However, only one-tenth of peatlands are conserved under existing PCAs in Canada ([56]; [88]), compared to 19% globally ([80]). Peatlands in Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec, and Saskatchewan are vulnerable to the impacts of land-use changes due to development that is not prioritized for conservation ([42]; [67]; [88]). Peatland protection is a core component of GBF and climate change targets ([56]; [88]).

With one-third of land, water, and sea becoming PCAs, the majority is not, at two-thirds of land, water, and sea. Thus, the PCAs should not be seen as creating a situation that will compromise the green economy and national security. At 30% of land and sea protected, many greenbelts are available for mining if acceptable to the Indigenous communities, with benefit agreements in place. The proposed IPCAs largely exclude Canada’s critical mineral interests in greenstone belts. This approach largely avoids interfering with Canada’s Critical Mineral Strategy by avoiding most peatlands ([24]). We note that Anisininew Okimawin’s Expression of Interest was rejected due to overlap between their proposed IPCA area and greenstone belts under provincial legislation. This seems to be a failure of the process, not clearly stating that greenstone belts, without any licenses or encumbrances, as well as exploration licenses, mining claims, and owned lands, need to be avoided for government funding ([24]). Despite consultation and many meetings with ECCC, the idea that greenstone belts could not be included was never shared.

Mining is largely incompatible with PCAs and IPCAs. IPCA agreements require the removal of existing resource extraction claims, and key ecologically important areas could be protected from mining areas, even greenstone belts ([14]; [55]; [33]; [54]).

Northwestern Ontario, Ontario’s Ring of Fire, and Manitoba’s Island Lake region are being targeted for mining ([57]; [79]). These areas are home to many First Nations ([79]). The prioritization of mining may explain why Manitoba’s Island Lake IPCA proposal was rejected, and only two proposed IPCAs received funding in northwestern Ontario.

Land reconciliation through IPCAs continues to face resistance from settlers and governments due to Canada’s prioritization of resource extraction. To colonial governments, mining is often the first and most significant use of lands, where mining law prevails over Indigenous land claims and IPCA proposals, as seen at Island Lake in Manitoba. Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial governments have a critical role in facilitating IPCAs’ establishment as they hold jurisdiction over Indigenous territories and their resources, including biodiversity as Crown land ([37]). The jurisdictional overlap between the federal and provincial governments requires bottom-up solutions ([37]), where Indigenous governments can lead.

The limitation of this study is that it relies solely on spatial analysis and government databases. The methods do not assess the on-the-ground effectiveness of governance and ecological integrity of the PCAs. The application of Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous Peoples’ perspectives on land protection and conservation, and on biodiversity monitoring, is needed for a complete understanding of IPCAs in Canada ([36]).