Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to review and submit comments on ERO 019-2636. I attended one of the information sessions about the proposed Species at Risk Conservation Trust Fund and have reviewed the proposal and supporting information (charge formulas and costing). I am a professional biologist with expertise in mitigation and offsetting; I have developed and implemented numerous mitigation and monitoring programs for species at risk and have completed literature reviews and summary reports about approaches to offsetting. I am in support of the concept of a Species at Risk Conservation Fund in theory, but I think there are several components of the proposed approach that need refinement and more detail. My two main concerns are outlined below.

1) Offset ratio is too low: the offset ratio in the charges calculation is 1:1.5, and during the information session, it was stated that the proposed ratio was reflective of what was typical in provincial permit applications or conditions. This ratio does not align with the global direction for the use of offsets, i.e., it is too low. Increasingly, new development projects are required to achieve no net loss (NNL) or net positive impact (NPI). Offsets (i.e., conservation offsets, compensatory mitigation, conservation allowance, etc.) are often used as an approach to achieve that NNL or NPI, following implementation of the mitigation hierarchy (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme [BBOP] 2012, 2018); offsets can be designed to either match the residual effects from a project to achieve NNL or exceed residual effects to provide an NPI scenario (CSBI 2015). Ecologically-appropriate ratios for fees-in-lieu offset mechanism, such as the proposed Species at Risk Conservation Fund, should be scientifically defensible and focus on “additionality” (i.e., the protection provided by the offset site should be beyond what would be provided under a business as usual scenario), the probability of success, and the time lag to conservation maturity (McKenney and Kiesecker 2010; Poulton 2014). Environment Canada’s framework for conservation allowances stated that the ratio for conservation allowances should be determined on a case-by-case basis, and should factor into account the “impact type, severity, duration, site characteristics, existing regional mitigation ratios, and uncertainties” (EC 2012, pg. 6). The SAR Conservation Trust proposal does not specify how the benefit ratio of 1:1.5 is determined, other than that it is essentially “status quo”, which is not a scientifically defensible explanation. A blanket ratio for all types of impacts, for all the Fund-eligible species, does not align with national and international standards for offset ratios. I would like to see Ontario be a leader with their proposed fees-in-lieu offset mechanism and increase the offset ratio in the charges formula to target a goal of NNL or NPI.

2) Board of Directors (BoD): the BoD is given an enormous amount of discretion related to what is “reasonable” for the use of funds, what is a “reasonable” amount of time for funds to be allocated, and what are activities that are “reasonably likely” to support recovery (without defining "reasonable"). The proposal states that the BoD are required to have applied knowledge, expertise and scientific knowledge in the recovery of SAR, but more details on qualifications of the BoD, the selection process of the BoD, and how (and to whom) the BoD will be accountable for the decisions they make would provide transparency to the Fund and demonstrate that the decisions will be based primarily on scientific expertise/evidence.

I hope you will consider my comments. Thank you.

References:
BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme). 2012. Standard on Biodiversity Offsets. 29 pp. Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/standard-on-biodiversity-off…. Accessed December 2020.

BBOP. 2018. Working for Biodiversity Net Gain: An Overview of the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) 2004- 2018. 29 pp. Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.forest-trends.org/bbop_pubs/overview2018/. Accessed December 2020.

CSBI (Cross Sector Biodiversity Initiative). 2015. A cross-sector guide for implementing the mitigation hierarchy. Prepared by the Biodiversity Consultancy on behalf of IPIECA, ICMM and the Equator Principles Association: Cambridge UK. Available at: http://www.csbi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CSBI-Mitigation-Hiera…. Accessed December 2020.

EC (Environment Canada). 2012. Operational Framework for Use of Conservation Allowances. 17 pp. Available at: http://publications.gc.ca/pub?id=9.696852&sl=0. Accessed December 2020.

McKenney, B. A., and J. M. Kiesecker. 2010. Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks. Environmental Management 45: 165 – 176.

Poulton, D. 2014. Biodiversity Offsets: A Primer for Canada. Background Paper - prepared for Sustainable Prosperity and the Institute of the Environment. February 2014. 60 pp. Available at: https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/sites/default/files/publications/f…. Accessed December 2020.