It's a great question, absolutely, and I think it's really both the challenge and also the potential great achievement of this plan.
I'd like to—and maybe my colleague Karla can help me a little bit—draw the example of the North American waterfowl management plan, which involves Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and has been one of the most successful conservation plans or strategies potentially ever. It has been about—taking into consideration your question—how you bring together all of these different geographic areas and stakeholders that are present, the barriers, and the opportunities.
At the end of the day, it's really about establishing a goal and looking at what your different priorities are, whether there are priority issues, priority sectors, or priority regions for conservation, and then figuring out what is happening on that landscape and what the potential tools are.
When you establish your priorities and you establish a very large, comprehensive toolbox—we have discussed using the right tool in the right circumstance—it really allows you to make an assessment of what to do on a particular landscape.
For example, in urban areas, the challenge to habitat loss might be development. You need to look at how you engage the development community and how you engage local governments on these sorts of strategies. In other cases, it's going to be about engaging industry in the north—the mining industry, the forestry sector, the oil and gas sector. There are a whole bunch of different opportunities that you can work on there. Then, in settled Canada and on private landscapes, there are a whole bunch of other things.
It's about creating this comprehensive plan that has different targets.
Karla, do you have anything to add to that?