Where do they work?
Who works there?
What do they do?
What have they accomplished?
Financial data
How do they raise money?
Media and public discussion of the organization
Assessment by greendonor contributors

The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) works entirely within Canada. It has regional offices serving Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and The North, and British Columbia. It concentrates its efforts where "the human footprint is heaviest", largely within 200 miles of the Canada-US border.

There were 112 full-time employees and 25 part-time or part-year employees in the 2003-2004 financial year (according to NCC's Registered Charitable Information Return). The NCC website (April 2005) shows 129 people on staff, of which 39 are at the National Office and the remainder are at regional offices.

At the National Office, there are: 13 people listed (in NCC's website) under "philanthropy and marketing"; 12 under "finance and technology" (half finance/accounting; half IT); 5 under "conservation operations"; 5 under "conservation strategies and communications" (which includes a scientific component); 2 in human resources; a President/CEO (John Lounds); and an Executive Assistant/Board Secretary (Bob Alexander).

Staff at regional offices are mostly doing program-related work. Staff totals at regional offices are: Atlantic Canada (16), Quebec (12), Ontario (17), Manitoba (6), Saskatchewan (12), Alberta and The North (12), and British Columbia (15).

The 31-member Board of Directors includes mostly people from business, and: two scientists (botanist Paul Catling of Agriculture and Agri-food, and biology professor Bill Freedman of Dalhousie University), two writers, an accounting professional, a government and NGO administrator, a former university chancellor, a lawyer, a surgeon, a philanthropist, a museum consultant, and Alan Graham, a former Minister of Natural Resources in the Liberal government of New Brunswick.

NCC preserves significant natural areas by purchasing or receiving donations of land and by acquiring and holding easements (that permanently restrict land use to protect natural values) that it purchases or receives as a donation. Once property is secured, NCC "ensures sound, permanent stewardship of the land as a permanent nature preserve". In many cases, land is held and managed by NCC; in other cases NCC gives it to government to become part of a national or provincial park. [Q: proportions?]  NCC has an endowment fund of $13-million (as of June 30, 2004) for stewardship (including scientific aspects) of its conservation land holdings.

Its work complements that of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, which works toward increasing protection of natural areas through Canada's national park system, and that of environmental groups like the Sierra Club of Canada, which call attention to threats to nature and advocate appropriate government action. NCC strictly eschews advocacy and lobbying and stresses its "business-like" approach that is collaborative and non-confrontational.

Some of the properties conserved by NCC are ones it has identified; others are brought to its attention by landowners and others. [Q: proportions?]

Dealing with a country as vast as Canada, NCC has found it important to develop a systematic way of prioritizing its conservation efforts, and this has enabled it to conserve proactively rather than just responding as opportunities come to its notice. NCC works with a cross-country network of volunteer scientific advisors and its own scientific staff to identify conservation priorities within each ecoregion. In 2001, it began its Campaign for Conservation: Saving Canada's National Masterpieces, which had the goal of raising $200-million to be spent on its top 50 priority sites for conservation. The rationale is that, if conserved, these would "secure the long-term survival of viable native species and community types of each ecoregion".

Criteria used to assess potential conservation properties include: unique landforms; diversity of habitat and/or biotic communities; natural condition; and rare plants and animals.

NCC's regional offices have a high degree of autonomy and have their own volunteer boards of directors. NCC has an internal revolving (interest-bearing) loan fund, the Ted Boswell National Land Conservation Fund, which enables regional offices to act quickly if a high-priority conservation site becomes available. The fund has been used to secure 67 properties across the country, with loans ranging from $25,000 to over $1-million.

Since its beginning in 1962, NCC claims to have conserved more than 1.8-million acres of ecologically significant land across Canada (an area larger than Prince Edward Island). Its Campaign for Conservation had reached 90% of its target of $200-million by the time of writing of its 2004 Annual Report. NCC nonethless considers there is much important conservation work remaining.

The organization has been growing rapidly, with no sign yet of levelling off (see below). NCC has tapped the elite group of wealthy individual, foundation and corporate donors that WWF has so successfully cultivated, and has a broad and increasing support base. It seems to have struck a chord with Canadians. Coinciding with a special advertising and PR campaign, the number of individual supporters increased by more than 40% to 27,000 in its 2003-2004 financial year, and the number of individutal donating $1000 or more also grew by over 40%. In relation to population, its assets and budget is still smaller than those of the unrelated Nature Conservancy in the United States, but that gap could disappear.

---

NCC's growth in recent years. Figures are in millions of (Canadian) dollars. Assets Revenue Expenses		200    150    100    50
				2000					2001					2002					2003					2004

---

NCC is developing a catalogue on its website with photos and descriptions of its 1200+ properties across Canada. These are viewable by region or by habitat type (Carolinian, coastal, estuarine, forest, grassland, lakeshore, marsh, savannah, and wetland).

In the most recent financial year, 2003-2004, NCC secured 133 properties totalling 11,524 ha (28,783 acres). The regional breakdown was as follows:

Region	Number of properties	Total area	Total cost (rounded to 1000)
British Columbia	7	816 ha	$2,790,000
Alberta & The North	21	3,820 ha	$8,755,000
Saskatchewan	19	3628 ha	$653,000
Manitoba	12	1357 ha	$418,000
Ontario	13	614 ha	$17,189,000
Quebec	28	920 ha	$3,011,000
Atlantic Canada	33	369 ha	$1,134,000
TOTAL	133	11,524 ha	$33,950,000

These figures reflect the high cost of land in Southern Ontario, the relatively low cost in the Prairies and greater financial support in the populous and prosperous provinces of Ontario and Alberta.

A few of the protected property locations listed in recent annual reports include: the Southern Gulf Islands and Tatlayoko Lake Valley in B.C., the Cypress Hills Uplands and Cooking Lake Moraine in Alberta, Qu'Appelle River Valley, Cactus Hills, Quill Lakes and Redberry Lake in Saskatchewan, Tall Grass Pairie Preserve and Riding Mountain Parkland in Manitoba, Alfred Bog, Middle Island, Carden Alvar and Bickford Oak Woods in Ontario, Pointe St. Vallier and the Lachine Rapid Islands on the St. Lawrence River in Quebec, and Gaff Point (Nova Scotia) and Musquash Estuary (New Brunswick) in the Atlantic Region.

NCC prides itself in working constructively with private landowners, government agencies and companies. In British Columbia, NCC worked out an agreement with forest products company Tembec to protect an important wildlife corridor in the Elk Valley. The deal involved 400 square kilometers (99,366 acres) of wildlife habitat, of which NCC was to purchase 12 sq. km and hold conservation covenants on another 30 sq. km, while Tembec committed to a 10-year moratorium on development on 360 sq. km. NCC and Tembec had also cooperated on earlier conservation efforts.

Another of its corporate supporters, Shell Canada, has funded an Internship Program through which university students can help NCC and gain experience in the conservation field. It has also helped by funding research and a 3-year land conservation position at NCC.

In 2003-2004, the Nature Conservancy of Canada used the following methods (these are Canada Revenue Agency categories) for fundraising:

• advertisements/posters/flyers/radio or TV commercials
• fundraising dinners, galas, concerts
• mail campaigns
• planned-giving program
• targeted corporate donations/sponsorships
• targeted contacts
• project presentation

The breakdown of donations received by NCC (2004 Annual Report) was as follows: foundations and organizations 45%; government 23.5%, individuals 20%; corporations 3.5%; and other 8%. Proportions were similar in 2003 (45%, 26%, 21%, 4% and 4% respectively). These categories differ from those for all revenue that were given in Table 2, which derive from the CRA return for that year. Those figures include net proceeds from asset sales (13%) and "other revenue" (6%), yet it is hard to reconcile the two sets of figures for gifts from other charities (24% vs. 45%) and revenue from government (12% vs. 23.5%). (We'll ask NCC about that.)

Donors (other than individuals) of $1-million or more in 2003-2004 were: Environment Canada, Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec, The Nature Conservancy (U.S.), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Parks, the Paul G. Allen Forest Protection Foundation, Tula Foundation, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and The W. Garfield Weston Foundation. Gifts of $250,000-$999,999 were received from Donner Canadian Foundation, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Sweet Water Trust, Bell ExpressVu, BP Canda Energy Company, Land Information BC, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, and Shell Canada Limited. Many other companies and foundations gave gifts ranging from $1000-$249,999.

The Nature Conservancy of Canada has used incentive-based compensation for fundraising using contracted fundraisers, but this represents a tiny part of their revenue.

An Internet search failed to find any criticism of NCC.

One concern we have heard expressed is that NCC's transfer of property to government agencies leads to questionable long-term management. In particular, Parks Canada has been accused of assigning too much priority to providing recreational opportunities for park visitors and too little to protecting nature in National Parks. Does anyone have specific examples?

NCC states, however, that it "takes all steps possible to ensure the ongoing security of the land's natural values, with legally binding management agreements that outline the partnership arrangements and stipulate how the lands are to be managed". [Q: Does it do long-term followup of properties it has passed on to government agencies and other third parties?]

In 2003 NCC reintroduced 50 Plains Bison to its 13,000-acre Old Man on His Back Prairie Conservation and Heritage Area (OMB) in extreme southwestern Saskatchewan. OMB is valuable as a never-broken expanse of native mixed grass prairie. These lands have been lightly grazed by cattle, but Bison are better adapted and are a bona fide part of this ecosystem. There was much media hoopla surrounding the bison reintroduction, and as recounted in an article in the Jan.-Feb. 2005 Canadian Geographic, this caused some resentment among Saskatchewan's bison ranchers, who now have about 170,000 bison on 1,700 commercial ranches. Their point was that bison were already flourishing again on Saskatchewan prairie grasslands, thanks to their efforts. But as the Canadian Geographic article explains, the OMB herd comes from a single line of pure Plains Bison from Elk Island National Park, Alberta; whereas all other bison in Saskatchewan are the result of earlier cross-breeding of cattle and bison. The distinction is an important one, both biologically and in practical terms.

Finally, there is the standard question of whether corporate donors and "partners" are using NCC's reputation to assuage the own environmental record. Counter-argument: companies deserve favourable recognition for their conservation efforts, and yet this should have no bearing on the public's assessment of companies' management of the environmental impacts of their operations, which is a separate matter.

[This section awaits the accumulation of input from visitors to the greendonor site.]