No, I'm not suggesting that only indigenous people will be allowed to protect lands in Canada henceforth. I understand that under the National Parks Act, Canada has pretty much reached its limit with Thaidene Nene and on all the national parks that are going to be created in Canada. Any kind of protected area that's been advanced by any public governments will have to deal with indigenous peoples. There is 110% of this country that has been claimed by indigenous people who own land and sea. There's significant overlap in interest, so you can't really develop any new protected areas without discussion with indigenous people.
Having said that, the IPAs, I believe are the quickest way that Canada can reach its 17% threshold and 10% marine. In fact, the United Nations gathering in Hawaii just recently, the World Conservation Congress, passed some resolutions asking participants who work in government and industry to protect indigenous protected areas from industrial development. I think that goes a long way in recognizing IPAs internationally.
I have some contacts in Australia with some indigenous people who run and manage their own IPAs. That's going a long way in reversing some of the negative impacts of colonization for the Australian government and the taxpayers of Australia. They're seeing a return on the social investment at a rate of 3:1. Instead of money being spent on social programs—health and welfare, judicial systems, correctional systems—they're seeing a big return on their investment in the aboriginal communities who are managing these IPAs.
We've done studies in the Northwest Territories, in Canada, which suggest if similar programs are developed through the introduction of IPAs and the guardians program, we could be looking at a greater return.