The Chinese translation is being made; the original is shown for now.
Vancouver, B.C. – December 1, 2025 – The British Columbia government has committed to protecting 30 per cent of the land and water by 2030 to address climate change and protect biodiversity. Known as the ’30×30’ initiative, it is reiterated in 2025 mandate letters for the Ministers of Mining and Critical Minerals and Water, Land and Resource Stewardship (WLRS). Currently, the B.C. government definition of an area that is included in this 30 per cent is that it has a boundary and conserves biodiversity.
Right now, the Province considers 15.3 per cent of BC to be covered by parks, and some additional conservation measures take the total to 19.9 per cent. This means that we are about 10 per cent away from reaching that 30×30 goal.
Or does it?
B.C. has an array of internationally recognized conservation measures called Other Effective Conservation Measures, or OECMs, that are used to capture the broad-based conservation measures. Most of these measures limit economic activity and effectively prevent mineral exploration and mining. Counting these to give an accurate measure of how much land is protected has been on hold since 2021, but new OECM measures continue to be proposed.
Using public data for conservation categories that could be included under International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines*, the Association for Mineral for Mineral Exploration (AME) has calculated that OECMs protect up to 36.3 per cent of land in B.C. (Fig. 1). Once overlap between parks, protected areas and OECMs is accounted for, the total area protected is up to 46.99 per cent. Even without including every OECM, existing conservation measures protect more than 30 per cent of land in B.C. Therefore, adding new conservation areas will disrupt economic opportunity in the province during a time where we need to be focused on economic opportunity for every British Columbian.
Fig. 1 Overview of OECM Areas.
The dissolved area total shown in the summary column is not calculated by adding the individual areas listed above. Instead, this value was generated using mapping software, where the two designations – parks and OECM – were merged and overlapping areas removed, resulting in a total of 46.99 per cent.
Fig. 2 BC’s Current Conservation Landscape.
Fig. 3 OECM definitions differ between Canada and the internationally recognized International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) but provide a framework for how existing measures could be counted or updated to fit under 30×30 without closing more land.
B.C. paused work on this process in 2021 but has continued to announce new conservation measures. This includes the Northwest Land Use Plans, which are expected to add new significant new conservation areas to the province. A substantial problem is that these areas contain mineral exploration and existing tenures. Conserving these areas will cause direct harm to mineral explorers if they are not excluded.
It is important that government align definitions in a way that is fair and transparent and, where possible, focus on making existing OECMs align with the Canadian and IUCN guidelines before shutting down new economic areas of the province. For example, if an area has a conservation measure that restricts economic activity and is set for 10 years and is not considered permanent, it may make sense to designate this as permanent, therefore aligning with the Canadian and IUCN standard and counting towards 30×30.
Fig. 4 A significant part of the province is covered with conservation measures.
The B.C. Government must strike a balance, and this can only be done by bringing clarity and transparency to the data that is being used to drive decisions. Every time new land is restricted under 30×30 measures, natural resource opportunities – which bring well-paid jobs that support families and communities – are lost.
Any percentage added is also a percentage of economic opportunity lost. This impacts the high productivity, family supporting and community based jobs in the natural resource sector in a significant way. In a time when Canada’s economy is faltering and B.C.’s budget deficit is at $11.2 billion with no path to returning to balance, we need real economic activity in our province to fund the services British Columbians deserve.
Access to land especially matters to mineral explorers, whose livelihoods rely on the ability to explore land, test theories about geology, stake and hold mineral claims. It can take years, or even lifetimes, to locate and understand a mineral deposit. Dedicated mineral explorers sometimes put their life savings into this work to understand and develop mineral claims.
The majority of mineral exploration activities have minimal environmental impact, yet conservation measures restrict activities such as hand-trenching, soil sampling, and travel by ATV or truck. They mean that AME members cannot explore for and find mineral deposits that the world needs.
At AME, we work to engage our membership in these changes, often being the first source of information that a proposed change is coming. These changes are often serious enough that they could result in having the right to explore on a mineral tenure taken away. For people who have invested everything in their work, this is devastating.
The provincial government has stated a “vision for building prosperity centered on the pillars of economic growth, reconciliation and conservation”, something which requires careful balance. Explorers are navigating frequent new land-use measures, from proposed protections for flammulated owls to planning processes aimed at establishing new conservation areas, and these shifts are being felt most acutely by individuals and small firms. A more coordinated approach would help ensure that conservation advances while exploration activity remains viable and predictable.
Policy Recommendation: The province has an opportunity to advance conservation and resource development in a way that supports both environmental and economic objectives. A clear and consistent framework for defining conservation measures, aligned with IUCN OECM standards and federal approaches, would provide a solid foundation for future decisions. WLRS should update and expand its count of OECM areas to focus on existing areas rather than finding new areas to restrict. Conservation initiatives should also integrate mineral exploration activity, existing tenures and mineral potential, including support for public geoscience, so that conservation progress does not unintentionally limit responsible exploration or long-term economic opportunities.
Voice your concerns: Concerns about access to land can be directed to AME at info@amebc.ca, or the WLRS ministry directly at: WLRS.Minister@gov.bc.ca.