Environment committee  —as would be Ducks Unlimited's properties as well.

Environment committee  Yes. It was $225 million over six years.

Environment committee  It was used in durable or permanent conservation of 875,000 acres.

Environment committee  That's correct.

Environment committee  The IUCN categories were designed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The question of which is adopted as a definition for international agreements or treaties is somewhat different when it comes to the IUCN. Traditionally the definitions for IUCN categories have been used.

Environment committee  I will pass this question over to Michael.

Environment committee  The subject of climate change is not our area of expertise. Actually, we think about this the other way around. We think about having a habitat conservation program or plan and the benefits that result from that— carbon storage, carbon sequestration, water, etc. From our point of view it's a very productive way of thinking about how we address broader environmental problems and issues.

Environment committee  Thank you for the question. I like to characterize the whole no net loss conversation around the fact that when we talk about development we talk about the net economic benefit from a development. We talk about the net social benefit, the hospitals and schools that get built. But when it comes to the environment, for some reason we talk about no net loss rather than what the net benefit can be for conservation and the environment going forward.

Environment committee  Is that directed at conservation particularly? Tax incentives for donations is one way, but certainly, in our world, the removal of the capital gains tax on ecological gifts, the eco-gifts program, has been a huge incentive. But it doesn't replace actually being able to bring matched money to the table under a private-public partnership.

Environment committee  It would be using the Aichi target definition, yes—as we would interpret it.

Environment committee  Well, it depends, as I said,—

Environment committee  The old definitions were under the IUCN categories.

Environment committee  Well, in the IUCN category the target was 12% for each country, and Canada is at 10% using those. The new Aichi target, though, adds another type of category, which is effective area-based conservation measures. The way that is defined is by the laws that are put in place provincially or municipally to—

Environment committee  Under the IUCN rules, the new target is 17%.

Environment committee  We believe we could, yes, and that's using the new definition. I don't want to confuse apples and oranges here.