The world’s leading sustainability consultancy

Policy Implementation in British Columbia, Canada

Leslie Bol (ERM)

IAIA Symposium November 14, 2017

The business of sustainability

Objectives of Research and Analysis

• Extent of provincial policy incorporation into environmental assessments

• Steps of the mitigation hierarchy prioritized for species at risk

• Avoidance type for species at risk

The business of sustainability

Mitigation Hierarchy Location

Means Timing

Avoid

Minimize

Restore On-Site

Offset

The business of sustainability

Species at Risk in Canada

• Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)

• Species added to Schedule 1 of Species at Risk Act (SARA)

• Critical habitat identified for Threatened and Endangered species

The business of sustainability

Best Case Scenario Mitigation Hierarchy

0 20 40 60 80 100

Offsetting

On-Site Restoration

Minimization

Avoidance

Percent

The business of sustainability

Best Case Scenario Avoidance

0 20 40 60 80 100

Timing

Means

Location

Percent

The business of sustainability

Methods – Policy Integration

• Reviewed publically available projects from BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO)

• Determined percentage of EAO documents with policy citation

• Reviewed proponent documents for species at risk

• Determined percentage of proponent documents with policy citation

The business of sustainability

Methods – Adherence to Mitigation Hierarchy

• Did not further consider species without project interaction or residual effect

• Categorized mitigation according to hierarchy for: • Species specific mitigation (e.g. olive-sided

flycatcher) • Group specific mitigation (e.g. migratory birds) • Generic mitigation (e.g. restoration on-site through

reclamation)

• Determined percentage of application of each mitigation step

The business of sustainability

Sample Sizes

• 60 EAO documents (28 projects)

• 54 proponent documents (17 projects)

• 24 threatened and endangered species (1 amphibian, 2 plants, 5 fish, 7 mammals, 9 birds)

The business of sustainability

Percent of Documents with Policy Citation

37 35

42

33 33

41

0

57

33

100

0102030405060708090

100

Total 2014 2015 2016 2017

Perc

ent

EAO Documents (n = 60) Proponent Documents (n = 17)

The business of sustainability

Percent of EAO Documents with Citations

44 43

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ApplicationInformation

Requirements (n=16)

Assessment Report(n=21)

Certificate Table ofConditions (n=23)

Perc

ent

EAO Document Type

The business of sustainability

Percent of Proponent Chapters with Citations

10

0

30

22

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Vegetation(n=10)

Fish (n=7) Wildlife(n=37)

TotalChapters

(n=54)

OverallApplication

(n=17)

Perc

ent

Species at Risk Group

The business of sustainability

Best Case Scenario Mitigation Hierarchy

0 20 40 60 80 100

Offsetting

On-Site Restoration

Minimization

Avoidance

Percent

The business of sustainability

Adherence to Mitigation Hierarchy

0 20 40 60 80 100

OFFSETTING

RESTORATION ON-SITE

MINIMIZATION

AVOIDANCE

Percent Application of Mitigation per Species at Risk

Generic Species/Group Specific

The business of sustainability

Best Case Scenario Avoidance

0 20 40 60 80 100

Timing

Means

Location

Percent

The business of sustainability

Prevalence of Avoidance Types

0 20 40 60 80 100

TIMING

MEANS

DESIGN

LOCATION

Percent Application of Avoidance Mitigation per Species at Risk

Generic Species/Group Specific

The business of sustainability

Mitigation Hierarchy According to Group

0 20 40 60 80 100

Offsetting

On-site Restoration

Minimization

Avoidance

Percent Application of Mitigation

Raptors (n=5) Migratory Birds (n=20) Mammals (n=18) Fish (n=3)

The business of sustainability

Avoidance According to Group

0 20 40 60 80 100

Timing

Means

Location

Percent Application of Avoidance

Raptors (n=5) Migratory Birds (n=20) Mammals (n=18) Fish (n=3)

The business of sustainability

Mitigation Hierarchy According to Status

0 20 40 60 80 100

Offsetting

On-site Restoration

Minimization

Avoidance

Percent Application of Mitigation

Endangered (Schedule 1) Threatened (Schedule 1) Endangered (COSEWIC)

The business of sustainability

Avoidance According to Status

0 20 40 60 80 100

Timing

Means

Location

Percent Application of Avoidance

Endangered (Schedule 1) Threatened (Schedule 1) Endangered (COSEWIC)

The business of sustainability

Conclusions

• Policy incorporation <50%

• Minimization prioritized over avoidance

• Avoidance is primarily timing and not spatial

• Increasing expectation of spatial avoidance as priority would benefit species at risk