What Canada’s New Land Trust Certification Means for Conservation Globally
As of last month, Canadian land trusts have a new way to demonstrate their integrity: the Conservation Excellence Certification Trustmark. The certification proves that a land trust has undergone a thorough, third-party review of its policies and procedures by the Canadian Centre for Land Conservation (CLC) and that they operate in line with industry best practices known as the Canadian Land Trusts Standards and Practices. Sector leaders hope the tool will increase public, investor, and government trust in land trusts and improve conservation outcomes as it has in the United States.
“Environmental needs and challenges have never been greater,” said CLC board member Tim Sopuck. “Land trusts are at a point where their work has never been more important, and they will probably be facing more headwinds on the funding front.”
While the launch of this certification is sparking excitement in Canada, it is equally important to the global private and civic conservation community. It illustrates how cross-border learning and exchange catalyzes technology transfer, puts perspective on the value of trust, and aligns the sector’s growth with that of other industries.
The Conservation Excellence Certification indicates which organizations the CLC has vetted for responsible practices
The CLC’s Conservation Excellence Certification is designed to ensure that land trusts have in place the pillars necessary to execute their promise to protect land effectively and ethically in perpetuity. It is based on the policy document “Canadian Land Trusts Standards & Practices,” which compiles guidance on land trust best practices adopted over the past two decades.
The Land Trust Alliance shared key resources with Canadian partners
The Land Trust Standards and Practices were first developed by the US-based Land Trust Alliance (the Alliance) and shared with partner organizations in Canada to be adapted for use there. The Canadian and US versions share language and principles wherever possible to ensure agreement in how the neighboring nations conduct and understand land conservation.
“We respect each other’s unique copyright and contexts and [are] trying to stay on the same page about goals,” said Renee Kivikko, vice president of education at the Alliance.
The certification process is a deep dive into how organizations conduct themselves
When a land trust applies for certification, it undergoes a nuanced assessment of its operations, including its finances, organization, and stewardship. If these align with the Canadian Land Trust Standards and Practices, the land trust is awarded certification and may use the CLC’s “Trustmark,” a branding instrument indicating certification. After four years, the land trust will need to go through a renewal process to maintain its status.
In many ways, this process replicates that which has been used in the Unites States for years. The Alliance and CLC worked closely to enable land trusts in Canada to leverage and adapt the US Land Trust Standards and Practices and its separate accreditation program. Though Canadian certification and US accreditation germinated from the same seed, they emerged in contrasting environments.
The first land trust accreditation program responded to a crisis of trust in the United States
The Land Trust Accreditation Commission (LTAC) accredited its first land trusts in 2008, following a weakening of the sector’s reputation around the turn of the 21st century.
In the early 2000s, new land trusts were blossoming across the United States. Each year, a growing number of these organizations protected more acres and took on greater responsibility on behalf of nature. But as they increased in number and visibility, public and government scrutiny grew. A few bad actors caught the attention of the media, putting the reputation of land trusts more broadly at risk. Congress began to look more closely at the legitimacy and feasibility of land trusts’ promises, especially their mission to protect land in perpetuity.
The issue reached its peak in 2005 when the federal Joint Committee on Taxation proposed changes to tax incentives associated with conservation donations.
Land trusts needed to find a way to restore confidence
Conservationists saw two potential outcomes. In one, they stepped back and let Congress decide the fate of private land conservation in the United States. It would likely result in greater government oversight and the potentially devastating reduction of resources. In another, the community stepped up to regulate its own members, creating mechanisms to hold organizations to the highest standards in order to secure the public trust, reputation, and focus on permanence that are integral to effective conservation.
Models for industry oversight were increasingly common across the country
This kind of industry-specific, third-party verification had roots in the United States already. Medical institutions had been seeking accreditation from The Joint Commission for over 50 years. Colleges and universities were overseen by accrediting agencies to help eliminate diploma mills and determine where students could use government financial aid. And, B Corp certification, aimed at helping consumers confidently identify socially and environmentally responsible businesses, emerged around the same time the Alliance was preparing its accreditation program.
In response to calls from land trusts across the country, the Alliance leveraged the Land Trust Standards and Practices to develop a tool to determine which land trusts were implementing them effectively. In 2006, it established the Land Trust Accreditation Commission, an independent body, to review and award accreditation to land trusts meeting the highest national standards for excellence and conservation permanence.
Today, accredited land trusts protect about 84 percent of all land and easements held by land trusts in the United States.
In Canada, where trust is strong, certification may solidify conservation’s already positive reputation and secure new funding
While the value and goal of accreditation in the United States was clear from the outset, it has a different origin for Canadian land trusts. Leaders in Canada say that the sector is generally well regarded and that there is ample demand for the services land trusts provide.
“Generally, the public has a pretty high opinion of land trusts in Canada,” said Sopuck. Launching a certification program now is a way to stay ahead of the curve. “We’re not really doing this in response to any significant negative situations that have happened, but we are mindful that the land trust movement will be stronger with an effective accreditation program in place.”
Martin Straathof, executive director of the Ontario Farmland Trust, agreed. When he joined OFT in 2022, the organization scrupulously upheld Canada’s Land Trust Standards and Practices. “It was certainly a level of excellence that I wanted to maintain at the organization moving forward,” said Straathof. So, when Lara Ellis, Executive Director of CLC approached them at a gathering with the opportunity to participate in a pilot round of the Centre’s new land trust certification program, Straathof jumped on the opportunity.
Pilot program participants hope for recognition and resilience across sector
When CLC’s pilot certification program began, the OFT was already conducting regular self-assessments, but Straathof thought a formal process could strengthen existing efforts. “To have a third party be able to do that assessment brings a certain level of assurance to our landowners, our funders, our community members,” he said.
Certification requires a big push from staff but leaders say it’s worth it
The process was time intensive, but OFT’s team of four was able to divide and conquer to get it done. Though they had gone through something similar on their own, the CLC prompted them for greater evidence and challenged them to identify potential blind spots where they may have previously overlooked areas for improvement.
Identifying and sewing up those holes in land trust’s adherence to standards and practices is an important role of certification.
“One of the biggest struggles that we face as a land trust … is that there is a lot of work to do and not enough resources,” said Straathof. That means every dollar in funding is critical to success. Eliminating any doubts potential donors or funders might have in the integrity of an operation is an important element in the growth and continued effectiveness of land conservation. “What we are hoping for with this certification is to add that level of strength behind the organization to go out and demonstrate to our supporters and funders … that we are demonstrating this level of excellence,” said Straathof.
In addition, they hope the Trustmark will generate broader recognition from the community that land trusts are held to high expectations.
Certification may help future-proof land trusts
Though it is not something OFT has yet faced, Straathof said certification may improve the organization’s capacity for risk management. He has heard of examples in Canada, and more in the United States, where land trusts have had their assets challenged. Thus, he said that it is important that the, “practices that we have in place will enable us to defend our conservation interests on properties across the province should the instance arise that they be challenged.”
The program is about lasting change
Showing off its new Trustmark is only the beginning of this journey for the OFT, though. “Getting that certification has essentially set the bar for us,” said Straathof. “It has set expectations with our supporters that these are standards that we are going to maintain.” Now, he said, the focus is on continuing to meet the level of excellence OFT has achieved so that, when their stamp of approval comes up for renewal in four years, there will be no doubts about the land trust’s continued eligibility.
Accreditation has had a measurable impact in the United States
Straathof and Sopuck’s expectations for the impact certification may have are not unfounded. Results from the United States show, and polling in Canada predicts, that certification will have a measurable effect on land trust’s conservation outcomes.
In the United States, anecdotal signs of success revealed themselves relatively quickly after the LTAC launched. Accredited land trusts saw new partnerships materialize, watched their budgets flourish, and attracted more volunteers than before. Critically, Congress also left tax incentives for easement donations intact. But was accreditation truly the hero, or had time simply ironed out the wrinkles?
An independent report published by the LTAC in 2018 shows that accreditation drove real and measurable impact for land trusts.
The third-party review links accreditation in its first 10 years to improved foundation, public agency, and landholder confidence in land trusts. Accredited land trusts were also better equipped to permanently conserve land than unaccredited peers, as they had significantly more financial supporters, doubled their budgets, and attracted three times as many volunteers as those without accreditation. Most importantly, they also protected five times more land.
A Canadian Survey showed room for improvement in land trusts’ appeal to philanthropists
To help predict what impact certification might have in Canada, the CLC commissioned a survey. It polled Canadian adults who have made charitable donations in the past two years. The results showed that, while the group largely trusted charities, they wished for greater transparency. 48 percent said they are “a lot more confident” in an organization with third-party accreditation than one without. The number was greater among those who made larger donations. The majority of respondents also said they would be more likely to support a charity that was accredited than one that was not.
Founding the Centre for Land Conservation was integral to launching a certification program
With such tangible results coming from their partners in the United States, Canada could have been expected to follow suit sooner. But, for a while, the conditions were not right. “Until a few years ago, we really didn’t have an organization in Canada capable of taking on the accreditation of land trusts,” said Sopuck.
Early on, most Canadian organizations that were equipped to manage a certification program had some kind of regional tie. Land trusts outside of those regions worried that the program would not be designed to accommodate differences in the needs, contexts, and goals of organizations working in diverse landscapes and social and political climates.
As interest in a certification program grew, it became clear a new organization would have to be formed specifically for this purpose. To do that, the Canadian Land Trust Alliance—which was the former Canadian partner of the Alliance in developing the Canadian and Trusts Standards and Practices—reorganized to become the CLC, a nationally-focused land conservation policy and research think tank. The CLC continues to house the Land Trust Standards and Practices but now focuses on researching and developing tools and resources to strengthen land trusts across the country.
Sopuck emphasized that because the CLC is not a member-driven organization, it is able to offer the impartiality necessary for an accrediting body.
Certification comes as the land trust movement gains momentum in Canada
The timing of the launch made sense for other reasons as well. Land trusts have been slower to emerge in Canada than in the United States, as conserving land was long considered a government responsibility. But that is beginning to change. Data on land trusts in Canada is spotty, so it is not certain how many new organizations have emerged in recent years, though the Canadian Revenue Agency puts it somewhere between 150 and 160. Additionally, data from the Agency shows that Canadian land trusts holding over $1 million (CAD) in assets grew those assets by over 40 percent from 2018 to 2023.
Interest in Conservation Excellence Certification is growing
In the early days of the certification program, the response from land trusts has been mixed. Sopuck said many were eager to jump on the opportunity to be the first certified, while others preferred to sit round one out. Having a cohort complete has turned the tide. The six pilot land trusts, which were all successful in earning certification, represent diverse locations, focus areas, and resource capacity, showing that the program is open to everyone.
Now, the question becomes one of being able to accommodate demand. The CLC hopes to enroll up to 40 organizations during the first three years of certification. 28 already have their applications underway.
Straathof noted that continued funding will be critical. Much of the funding for the first round of certification came from the support of Environment and Climate Change Canada. Without that backing, some land trusts might never get their chance to participate. “It’s really important that we think about how we can make this accessible to all land trusts,” said Straathof. “[It’s] something that should continue to be invested in until all land trusts have had the opportunity to participate.”
As it matures, the land conservation movement needs public trust, connection, and standards
The growing relevance of accreditation in the United States, and its spread into Canada, has several important implications for the private land conservation movement that are relevant far beyond North America.
International connections are critical to efficient land conservation innovation
The CLC and the Alliance highlight the value their collaboration has offered both parties. Their existing working relationship meant that, when a key innovation arose, the synapses were already in place for the tool to be shared and adapted. Though the Alliance was generous with its resources and thought leadership, it is also learning from the CLC, and Kivikko acknowledged that the CLC is ahead of the Alliance in some areas.
The land conservation movement is keeping up with and learning from other sectors
Neither the Alliances accreditation program nor the CLC’s certification is unique in a broader context. Across industries, there is a need for external sources of accountability, both to minimize false claims of responsibility and to help good-faith actors improve and maintain high standards. The land conservation movement’s adoption of such tools is a response to its maturation as it joins the ranks of established sectors where the number of actors present warrants impartial and focused oversight.
Trust is an invaluable currency
The results of accreditation in the United States, and eagerness of Canadian land trusts to follow suit, show the measurable value of trust. The hours of staff time necessary to earn accreditation were transformed into more dollars in the bank, increased availability of helping hands, and most importantly, many more acres conserved.
These factors and learnings come together in Canada at a critical moment. “Given the current economic and political climate, we expect that it’s going to be a lot harder for land trusts everywhere to secure funds for the important work that gets done,” said Sopuck. “Groups that demonstrate that they have effective policies and procedures and operate their organizations consistent with standards will have a leg up.”