Canada can develop infrastructure and protect biodiversity

Nearly 200 countries recently came together in Armenia for the 2026 United Nations Biodiversity Conference to review progress toward halting and reversing biodiversity loss. Many of these governments will soon convene again in Turkey to discuss efforts to tackle climate change at COP31.

In 2022, parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework aimed at reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 and put nature on a path to recovery by 2050. An early review of the first 36 national plans found that none had created a plan that fully met two targets: to restore 30 per cent of degraded ecosystems, and to conserve 30 per cent of lands and waters, by 2030.

By the end of 2025, Canada had conserved only 14 per cent of its land and fresh water and 15 per cent of its oceans. In 2025, the federal environment commissioner found that the government was not on track to meet its interim target of 25 per cent by 2025, a target it went on to miss. A companion audit reached the same conclusion for oceans.

As a party to the biodiversity convention, Canada has a responsibility to conserve its wilderness, irrecoverable carbon, intact forests and lakes.

However, the Canadian government is also pursuing infrastructure and resource development, with plans to fast-track approvals for major projects and build “at speeds not seen in generations.” It has also made significant cuts to public science and faced criticism over cuts to public engagement and consultation, as well as access to information.

We recently published a study on how environmental research informs policy and practice through knowledge co-production. We interviewed 84 senior environmental professionals working at the science–policy interface across Canada, including federal, provincial and territorial governments and environmental non-profit organizations. We asked how environment-related evidence informs decisions and what enables or hinders knowledge co-production with a wide range of partners.

Read more:
Budget cuts at Environment and Climate Change Canada threaten Arctic science

What makes evidence count in policy

Canada faces a critical moment to show that rapid infrastructure growth does not have to come at the expense of nature and biodiversity goals. Doing so will require the deliberate use of the best available evidence to inform decisions.

It will also require inclusive, collaborative governance rooted in trust, early relationship-building and sustained co-operation among governments, academia, non-governmental organizations and Indigenous and local communities.

The biodiversity framework commits countries to integrate biodiversity into decision-making at all levels, ensure that access to the best available data and knowledge guide action and guarantee inclusive, equitable participation and representation in governance.

The interviews we conducted predate the current push to fast-track major projects, but the barriers people described are the very ones that efforts to accelerate project approvals and development could make worse. This research, recently published, is especially relevant given Canada’s efforts to accelerate infrastructure development while meeting its environmental commitments.

Interviewees told us that making information count in effective environmental policy depends on more than bringing people together. They pointed to building trust, jointly defining research questions, involving decision-makers and Knowledge Holders (including practitioners and Indigenous Peoples) early, and being transparent about how evidence is produced and interpreted.

As one interviewee explained, when people are involved from the beginning, “even if the results are unexpected, they can say: ‘What you did made sense.’” Another interviewee similarly noted that knowledge co-production “shortens the path to use” by involving those who need or can benefit from the knowledge in its production from the outset.

Trust, respect and recognition were the most frequently mentioned themes associated with successful knowledge co-production and evidence-based conservation in our study, followed by funding and resources.

A new global review of research on evidence use in conservation found a similar pattern, where relationships developed among scientists and decision-makers, the relevance of evidence, and the capacity and resources of organizations were the most frequently reported to influence evidence use.

These findings highlight the importance of early relationship-building, shared goals, clear communication and sustained cross-sector collaboration — all of which require time and institutional support. The barriers that the people we interviewed raised most often were the opposite, including tight budgets and limited staff time.

Yet these are precisely the conditions that can be undermined when governments fast-track projects while reducing scientific capacity, public engagement and consultation.

In a companion paper based on the same suite of interviews, we outlined how evidence syntheses — research that critically reviews, collates and summarizes available knowledge — can increase confidence in the evidence and resulting decisions.

We also found that understandings of what counts as evidence are shifting. Decision-makers are increasingly looking to draw on diverse forms of evidence, but considerable uncertainty remains about how best to bring them together in a respectful and meaningful way.

What knowledge co-production brings

Yet there is growing recognition that diverse evidence does not always translate into its use. Most environmental professionals we interviewed still viewed peer-reviewed natural science as the gold standard. Indigenous, local and community knowledge, and social science, were frequently discussed but tended to be neglected.

Indigenous knowledge was the form of evidence interviewees most often said they were not using. Many wanted to draw on it but lacked the know-how, capacity or time to do so. Others noted that mandates to include Indigenous knowledge often came without practical guidance.

This matters when decisions are fast-tracked. Interviewees told us that short timelines already keep harder-to-access forms of evidence out of decisions.

Under even tighter timelines, environmental evidence may be overlooked entirely, or decision-makers may rely on what is most readily available: in-house science and familiar experts. This can favour perspectives already represented while sidelining other relevant evidence and knowledge held by those most affected, including Indigenous rights-holders and local communities.

Knowledge co-production offers one way to address this imbalance. Knowledge co-production means developing knowledge alongside those who will use it. Rather than working in isolation and sharing findings at the end, researchers collaborate with governments, Indigenous organizations, communities, industry and other partners from the outset to shape research questions, interpret evidence and apply findings to real-world challenges.

By involving partners from the outset, decision-makers and knowledge holders can jointly identify the questions that matter, determine which forms of evidence are needed, and discuss how different knowledge systems can inform decisions. Rather than retrofitting Indigenous and/or local knowledge to support predetermined decisions, knowledge co-production creates space to consider them meaningfully from the beginning.

Canada can pursue ambitious social and economic goals while meeting its environmental commitments. Success will require evidence-informed decisions that respect Indigenous rights, are legally sound and work in practice.

Our research shows that trust, early relationship-building and sustained collaboration help deliver durable decisions without unnecessary barriers to development. Efforts to accelerate decision-making should not come at the expense of these foundations.