Canada has committed to protecting 25% of marine and coastal areas by 2025 (“25×25”) and 30% by 2030 (“30×30”). These targets are not symbolic. They reflect what science tells us is the minimum scale of protection needed to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem resilience—and they sit within Canada’s international commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. Yet without clear implementation, funding and accountability, even the best targets risk becoming empty promises. As 2030 draws closer, translating commitment into real protection has never been more urgent.
The Auditor General’s Findings: Canada is Behind on 25×25 and Unprepared for 30×30
In November 2025, Canada’s Office of the Auditor General (OAG) released an audit that examined Canada’s progress on establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures. The audit assessed whether, by March 2025, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Parks Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) were:
- “on track to establish protected and conserved areas covering 25% of marine and coastal ecosystems by December 2025” and
- “planning to protect and conserve areas covering 30% of marine and coastal ecosystems by 2030 that are ecologically representative and of significance to biodiversity and ecosystem functions” (p. 8).
The OAG concluded that DFO, Parks Canada, and ECCC were not on track to meet 25×25 and had not planned effectively to deliver 30×30. By March 2025, only 15.5% of Canada’s marine and coastal areas were protected—leaving a shortfall of roughly 9.5 percentage points. While the departments had completed important work, the audit found major gaps in coordination, implementation, and transparency.
The OAG identified several systemic weaknesses that threaten meaningful progress, including:
- Lack of collaboration: No updated framework exists to guide how DFO, Parks Canada, and ECCC work together to deliver 25×25 or plan for 30×30.
- Inconsistent standards: Although prohibited activities under the Federal MPA Protection Standard have been clarified, there remains no guidance on how to implement the standard, which is needed to ensure prohibitions are applied consistently across regions and sites.
- Limited transparency: Public reporting on marine conservation is insufficient, making it difficult for Canadians to track progress toward biodiversity targets, including those under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
The 30×30 Agreement: What Canada Committed To and Why it Matters
Canada’s 30×30 target became a formal commitment in 2022, when the country adopted the United Nations’ Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The framework sets 23 targets to “halt and reverse biodiversity loss”. Importantly, Canada also committed that implementation must uphold Indigenous rights and knowledge “through their full and effective participation in decision-making”. This is critical because marine protection is not just a technical exercise. It determines where protection happens, what it restricts, how it is governed, and who shares in benefits and responsibilities. These decisions must be guided by Indigenous leadership and genuine shared governance.
Canada’s 30×30 commitment therefore carries two inseparable obligations:
- To protect at least 30% of its ocean in ways that effectively halt biodiversity loss; and
- To do so while respecting and centring Indigenous rights, knowledge, and governance.
Why This Becomes More Serious Under Budget 2025: Funding Gaps and Capacity Cuts
The Auditor General’s warnings are amplified by Canada’s current funding landscape. In 2021, the federal government launched a five-year initiative titled Funding to Implement Canada’s New Marine Conservation Targets, committing $842.8 million to ocean protection. Of this:
- $509.1 million was allocated to DFO, Parks Canada, and ECCC
- The remainder was distributed among Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
However, that initiative ends in March 2026, and as of March 31, 2025, no additional funding had been secured. The message is stark: Canada has a global commitment—but faces a looming domestic funding cliff.
Budget 2025 deepens concerns by proposing a $544 million reduction to DFO’s budget over four years (by the end of the 2029–2030 fiscal year). To achieve these cuts, DFO stated that, it “will wind down research and monitoring activities that have either achieved their objectives or for which alternative data sources exist, scale back certain policy and program capabilities, reduce management layers, and right-size internal services”. For context, over the past three years, DFO’s spending has dramatically increased, growing from approximately $3.8 billion in 2022-23 to approximately $5.2 billion this year (2024-2025).
This budget decrease directly threatens 30×30’s implementation. Effective marine protection depends on robust research and monitoring to identify priority areas, gauge success, and adapt management over time.
Speaking at the Nuu-chah-nulth Council of Ha’wiih Forum on Fisheries in June 2025, DFO biologist Sean MacConnachie, cautioned that spending cuts could severely limit the department’s ability to monitor marine ecosystems in the year ahead.
Dispelling FOPO Rhetoric: 30×30 is Grounded in Science and is not “Closing Off 30% of Waters”
During an October 2025 meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO), Conservative MP Aaron Gunn repeatedly questioned the scientific basis of the 30×30 policy, claiming it “closes off” 30% of the ocean. On October 9, 2025, Gunn stated:
“DFO is implementing a 30 by 30 policy as it pertains to so-called marine protected areas, which means closing off 30% of Canada’s waters to various economic activities. What is the scientific rationale behind 30% specifically?”
When Deputy Minister Annette Gibbons began to respond—starting:
“The 30% is not a number derived in science. The selection of the areas that would be considered to be priorities for establishing conservation areas is determined—”
Gunn interrupted her:
“You answered my question. That was perfect.”
The exchange ended before the substance of her explanation could be provided.
At a subsequent FOPO meeting on November 25, 2025, Gunn repeated the claim, calling 30×30 an arbitrary United Nations (UN) decision, and insisting that that MPAs exist to “close” waters to economic activities:
“Commissioner, as you know, right now Canada is implementing the UN 30 by 30 policy, which means, as it pertains to oceans, closing off 30% of Canada’s waters to various economic activities and turning them into these marine protected areas or underwater parks. What is the basis for the 30% number? Is it scientific or political? I mean, the entire point is the marine protected areas are closed to economic activities. It might, the department doesn’t seem to know in some cases which activities, but that’s the entire point of the marine protected areas, I presume, or else there’d be no point in having them.”
His framing rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of how MPAs function as a conservation tool and that fulfilling 30×30 does not mean closing 30% of Canada’s waters to economic activity entirely.
As Commissioner Jerry DeMarco clarified: the purpose of MPAs is not to inherently “close off” Canada’s waters, some prohibit extractive use (“no-take” zones), while others allow sustainable activities consistent with conservation goals.
“I don’t agree with that assumption and that’s why we have our recommendation at the end. We would like them to be transparent about the portion that is a no-take zone, a closure in the sense that you’re talking about and the portion that is open to activities of various different sorts.”
Explaining how these determinations are made, Kathy Graham, DFO Director General of Marine Planning and Conservation, told FOPO that once an area is identified:
“All the human activities that are occurring within that geographical area are assessed to understand what activities would need to be managed and where measures would be required. In Canada, because we take a site-specific, tailored approach to each of our areas, there are many marine protected areas where fishing actually continues. The ones that have been limited are those where there is a relationship and risk associated with the conservation objectives.”
In short, Gunn uses “economic activity” as shorthand for commercial fishing, and that characterization is misleading. MPAs are not designed to shut down ocean economies; rather, they are tools to achieve measurable conservation outcomes. Many MPAs permit commercial fishing, tourism, recreation, Indigenous harvesting, and scientific research. Even where extractive activities may be limited, economic activity does not disappear: effective MPAs depend on ongoing monitoring, stewardship, enforcement, and compliance. This requires paid work and local capacity, creating jobs and investment tied directly to effective management.
This approach is fully consistent with the underlying international commitment Gunn is criticizing. Target 3 of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework calls for conserving 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas while allowing sustainable use where appropriate. The goal is not blanket closure but conservation at scale through responsible, transparent management.
Gunn’s citation of a California MPA study to claim “zero benefit” further distorts the evidence:
“A new scientific study on MPAs has just come out, which was recently conducted off the coast of California, that showed zero benefit to biodiversity, zero benefit to climate resilience and no evidence for increased regional availability of fishery abundance. What would your response be in the face of such evidence?
Is this plan to create a network of underwater parks or marine areas just an exercise in virtue signalling? What does it accomplish, other than risking the collapse of the entire fishing industry, if studies like this are indeed accurate? If they aren’t, what evidence do we have before carrying this out that the marine protected areas were actually based in science?”
The report Gunn was referring to is almost certainly California’s Marine Protected Area Network – Decadal Management Review. This review does not support a blanket “zero benefit” claim: it reports that some network-wide biodiversity comparisons can show no consistent difference inside vs. outside MPAs depending on metric, but it also documents clear benefits in many cases, including higher biomass of fished species inside MPAs and evidence consistent with spillover.
Gunn’s arguments raise three distinct questions:
- Is 30% grounded in science?
- Do MPAs close off areas to economic activity? and
- Do MPAs produce measurable ecological benefits?
Each has a different evidence base, and different answers. The idea that MPAs are uniform “closures” claim is simply wrong: regulations depend on conservation objectives, site design, and permitted activities. That is why DeMarco’s call for transparency about how much is “no-take” versus open to defined activities—is vital. Clarity prevents critics from equating protection with prohibition, and allows supporters to demonstrate that restrictions are targeted, justified, and effective at achieving specific outcomes.
Finally, the California Decadal Review underscores a key scientific principle lost in Gunn’s political rhetoric: evaluating MPAs requires the right indicators, appropriate time horizons, and careful interpretation of mixed results. The existence of metric-dependent or mixed network-wide signals is not evidence of failure; it is a reminder that impact analysis must be as rigorous as the protection effort itself.
30% Is the Minimum—and It’s Backed by Science
Let’s be clear: the 30% figure is grounded in decades of scientific research and is widely recognized as a minimum threshold for safeguarding biodiversity, ecosystem services, and resilience. Protecting a substantial proportion of the ocean increases the likelihood of maintaining healthy ecosystems and achieving multiple goals at once—biodiversity protection, food security, and climate stability—rather than trading one off against another.
Yet the science also shows that 30% may not be enough. Global analysis suggests that adequately protecting threatened species and marine biodiversity would require at least 40% ocean protection. In other words, 30% is a floor, not a ceiling.
Equally important, success depends on how protection is implemented. Simply “colouring in 30% of the map” is meaningless without strong, enforced protections. Research consistently finds that MPAs are most effective when they are well-managed, large enough to function ecologically, and long-term in duration, strongly protected from destructive activities, and connected as part of ecologically representative networks.
MPAs Work: Benefits for Nature, Climate, and People
Well-designed MPAs and MPA networks deliver measurable ecological, climate, and economic benefits. When MPAs meaningfully reduce damaging human pressure, they can boost biomass, increase the body size of marine animals, and enhance biodiversity. They protect habitats critical for spawning, juvenile rearing, and feeding; and support recovery of depleted or vulnerable species and ecosystems. They also function as a climate adaptation tool by protecting carbon-storing habitats, buffering coastlines, and by increasing ecosystem resilience through healthier, more biodiverse food webs.
Critics sometimes claim that MPAs “don’t work” or merely “displace fishing effort.” In reality, the evidence shows that: MPAs work best when they are well-designed and enforced—and that fisheries often benefit, including through spillover and stock recovery.
Examples of proven results:
- California: A 35% reduction in fishing area following MPA designation was more than compensated by a 225% increase in total spiny lobster catch after six years.
- Spain: An 8–17 year review after MPA designation found a mean annual net gain of 10% in lobster catch, by weight.
- Hawaiian archipelago: After establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, the world’s largest fully-protected MPA, yellowfin tuna catches rose 54% near the MPA border, with measurable increases for bigeye tuna and other species as well.
- Irish Sea: Closing five small areas to bottom trawling led to a five-fold increase in king scallop abundance, and a 1,200% rise in reproductive potential.
- Across nine large-scale no-take MPAs, catch rates within 100 km increased 13.8% than in more distant control zones.
- Globally, recreational trophy-size fish records near 1,536 fully protected MPAs were analysed and found that record catches accumulated faster close to MPA boundaries (within 0–100 km) than in a paired 100–200 km reference zone, showing consistent spillover benefits to adjacent recreational fisheries. These trophy-fish spillover signals often require >20 years after establishment to become clearly detectable, underscoring that benefits can be real but slow to emerge.
Evidence also suggests that large, fully protected MPAs do not cause the economic harm to commercial fisheries as often claimed:
- Favoretto et al. (2023) found no decrease in catches five years after establishment of Mexico’s Revillagigedo National Park and no causal link between fleet spatial variation and MPA implementation.
- Lynham et al. (2020) found that catch and catch-per-unit-effort increased for the Hawaii longline fleet following expansions of large protected areas, with little if any negative impact attributable to the MPAs.
This does not mean MPAs have no costs or that outcomes are automatic. MPAs are a proven tool when designed to fit ecology and governance realities—and when paired with monitoring and adaptive management.
The Great Bear Sea MPA Network: Indigenous-led Governance Aligned With 30×30
The Great Bear Sea MPA Network is a concrete example of how 30×30 delivery can be realized through shared governance, clear objectives, and a solid implementation framework. The Network is collaboratively governed by 17 First Nations, the Province of British Columbia, and the Government of Canada, and is guided by six goals:
- Protect and maintain biodiversity
- Conserve and protect fishery resources and habitats
- Support tourism and recreation
- Strengthen social, community and economic stability
- Conserve traditional use and cultural heritage
- Provide opportunities for scientific research, education and awareness
What makes this initiative distinct is that it embeds those goals within concrete governance, financing, and accountability mechanisms. Collaborative governance has been formalized through Nation-to-Nation and tri-partite agreements, ensuring that Indigenous rights and leadership are central at every stage.
The Network’s implementation is supported by the Great Bear Sea Project Finance for Permanence (PFP), a conservation finance model which secured $335 million in new investments. This includes $200 million from the Government of Canada, $60 million from the Province of British Columbia and $75 million from philanthropic partners. The fund supports long-term marine stewardship and Indigenous-led conservation across 102,000 km² of the Great Bear Sea, “one of the richest and most productive cold-water marine ecosystems on Earth.” Over the next 20 years, the PFP is expected to fund 32,000 days of skills training, and support the creation of more than 3,000 new jobs and 200 new businesses.
The Network’s explicit Action Plan also sets out how MPAs will function as an integrated system rather than isolated sites, addressing socioeconomic, ecological, and cultural priorities together. Its Monitoring Framework sets measurable indicators for both ecological and community objectives, allowing partners to track effectiveness and adapt management over time. By embedding accountability and transparency, it demonstrates how conservation can advance biodiversity protection and social well‑being in tandem.
Conclusion: Canada Cannot Meet a Global Commitment by Weakening Domestic Capacity
The Office of the Auditor General has already warned that Canada is not on track for 25×25 and lacks a credible plan for 30×30. With federal marine funding expiring in March 2026 —and the proposed Budget 2025 cuts to DFO’s monitoring and policy capacity— that warning has become more urgent.
The 30×30 target represents a scientific minimum— a precautionary measure, like a seatbelt. It will not prevent every impact, but without it, the risks of irreversible damage to biodiversity, fisheries, and coastal communities rise dramatically. If Canada is serious about halting biodiversity loss, it must match its commitments with durable funding, strong monitoring, transparent reporting, and Indigenous-led collaborative governance.
