Evaluation of the Environment, Sustainability and Protection Program

The Environmental Protection and Sustainability program (6.6) conducts activities to establish sound and responsible strategic direction to the Defence Team regarding sustainable activities including environmental compliance to legislation and regulations, contaminated sites management, and activities that support the government’s environmental and low-carbon policy agenda.

Environmental Protection and Sustainability (6.6.3) is a component of the ESPP, which is delivered by the Director Environment and Sustainable Management (DESM) within ADM(IE). The primary objective is to ensure Defence activities are conducted in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner.

The program provides direction and guidance to the Defence Team regarding environmental sustainability and protection activities, and manages environmental policies, frameworks, strategies and plans for environmental compliance to legislation and regulations, and sustainability across Defence establishments and operations.

See Annex B for evaluation scope and Annex C for additional information regarding key program activities.

Key ESPP activities

• Management and promotion of sustainable wing, base and formation garrisons, including Ranges and Training Areas (RTA)
• Legislative and regulatory compliance
• Management of environmental policies, frameworks, strategies and plans for environmental compliance and sustainability across Defence establishments and operations

In 2016, ADM(IE)’s Real Property (RP) function was centralized; however, the environment function remained distributed across Level 1s (L1) with the functional authority being under ADM(IE). The personnel and resources remained with L1s. Since then, DESM has worked to reconsolidate the environmental function, focusing on the department’s RP portfolio.

The program has been working on developing an ADM(IE) Environmental Control Framework, also referred to as an Environmental Management System (EMS), in accordance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001. The EMS includes integrated procedures and processes for governance, policy, planning, training, monitoring and reporting on environmental performance. The goals of the EMS are to increase compliance with legislation and regulations and apply a systematic, planned approach to managing the program.

Need for Environmental Sustainability and Protection

All stakeholders interviewed agreed that there is a need for ESPP. Many described the program as key for addressing legal requirements and policy commitments from a departmental perspective.

“Having an overarching functional authority truly keeps us in our areas of expertise, aligned with our L1s, and makes sure we do things consistently.” – L1 interviewee

CAF Operational Readiness

ESPP supports CAF operational readiness by minimizing environmental and non-compliant impacts on operations. ECCC has the authority as enforcement officer to stop non-compliant activities and impact operations. Corresponding financial penalties, which are cumulative across the organization, divert resources away from operations. A $175,000 penalty levied on DND in 2020, for improper storage tank management in Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Cold Lake, represents the largest fine imposed on a federal department in at least the last 10 years. In addition to the monetary amount, DND was required to undertake a compliance audit, address the recommendations, and work to integrate environment into decision making at CFB Cold Lake.

Environmental issues are acknowledged as an emerging security challenge, globally as well as for Defence. Documentation highlights a number of security challenges that climate change is expected to bring, including increases in humanitarian crises and growing activity in the Arctic.

Environmental Sustainability

Document review and interviewees indicate that Defence has a significant environmental footprint, the largest in the Government of Canada (GC), therefore an important stewardship role to play. Defence is among the federal government’s largest employers and maintainers of equipment and RP in Canada. In Canada alone, Defence is entrusted with managing approximately 2.1 million hectares of land and 20,000 buildings.

The Department is also the largest user of energy and largest emitter of GHGs in the GC.

Alignment with federal government priorities

Environmental sustainability and protection is a key federal government priority. “Promoting a cleaner environment” is one of the four main priorities in the 2020 Speech from the Throne, and Budget 2021 acknowledges climate change as a key challenge to be addressed.

ESPP supports this by developing, implementing and monitoring the DEES, whose targets align with the federal government’s policy agenda. The program recently developed the DEES 2020-23 strategy. Though not being tracked systematically, program staff indicate a number of federal targets are incorporated due to resource constraints; as such only those that are deemed a priority and feasible are included.

Further information on alignment of the DEES 2020-2023 with the federal policy agenda can be found here: Alignment between DEES 2020-23 and federal policy agenda.

Alignment with departmental roles/priorities

Environment sustainability and protection is also a priority for Defence, as is reflected in Canada’s defence policy: Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) and the 2021 Minister’s Mandate letter.

DEES targets align with the following SSE initiatives:

The program supports the department’s responsibility to comply with federal legislation [e.g., Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), Impact Assessment Act (IAA), Species at Risk Act (SARA), Fisheries Act (FA), etc.] by issuing environmental directives/manuals and providing guidance and expertise.

ESPP clearly aligns with DND’s Core Responsibility of Sustainable Bases, Information Technology Systems and Infrastructure, which aims to “develop and manage modern, operational and sustainable bases and infrastructure,” including to “contribute to the achievement of federal environmental targets.”

Progress towards ensuring legal compliance

The program promotes compliance with statutory obligations via various directives (e.g., ED 4003-05, ED 4003-1/2003, ED 4003-3) and corresponding support (e.g., site- level compliance audits, facilitating L1 working groups). The program also tracks historical environmental enforcement data and discusses this with L1s in DEMC meetings.

82% of interviewees indicated ESPP has made progress in enabling the CAF to meet its environmental statutory obligations.

Interviewees described a culture shift towards environmental due diligence and understanding that compliance supports seamless operations.

Gaps in Records Management

Due diligence, the only legal defence for environmental law, is heavily reliant on good records management. Compliance issues persist, particularly in the area of CEPA, such as halocarbon and storage tank system management. Compliance data also demonstrated some issues with data entered incorrectly or not up-to-date. The Defence Resource Management Information System (DRMIS) was not being used consistently, and corresponding data is difficult to leverage for compliance monitoring purposes.

ECCC environmental enforcement actions taken against DND/CAF, 2010 to 2020

Current approach to compliance

Evaluation evidence indicates the program’s approach to compliance is primarily “reactive.” There is an incomplete formal, horizontal risk-based control framework (an EMS) in place to support a proactive approach to compliance. The program is not systematically receiving compliance performance information from L1s, nor has an overall measure or set of metrics related to compliance status been established. Some interviewees (5/17) noted that an absence of compliance verification system or compliance tracking has led to non-compliance.

Key challenges highlighted by interviewees included resources and challenges meeting all regulatory obligations due to the need to prioritize certain environmental considerations over others. Though not tracked systematically, ESPP notes that L1 resource constraints lead to compliance funding competing with other priorities. Resource challenges were identified at the ESPP level, wherein a limited number of program staff are available to support the organization in meeting 100+ statutory obligations. Compliance data/records management issues (discussed previously) also limit the program’s ability to make strategic decisions regarding where Defence should focus its efforts, as ESPP is currently unable to collect, analyze or report on compliance data/information. Evaluation evidence indicates that the department is receiving increased attention from ECCC on lack of follow-up from previous non-compliances.

Skills and training gaps were identified by L1 interviewees (8/17). Examples included the need for more formal environmental training and environmental responsibilities-specific training. Program staff also note that the environmental community needs further knowledge and experience with building systems and equipment, engineered works and related skill sets. Program management recognizes this, and has engaged Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources – Civilian) to develop a learning roadmap for the environmental community.

Environmental Sustainability

Environmental considerations are taken into account via ESPP communication, training, guidance documents/tools and promulgation of environmental directives and policy requirements (e.g., Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, Environmental Assessment manual).

Most interviewees described the use of environmental policies and directives when planning for activities. When asked how effective departmental environmental policies and directives have been in allowing environmentally sustainable training areas and operations at their location, most survey responses (67%) were positive or neutral, suggesting ESPP is having some impact.

Evaluation evidence indicates there may be room for improvement in considering environmental issues when planning and executing RP/infrastructure and military activities. Examples were identified where DND proposals are being stalled by TBS, which is requesting further information on how the department will achieve 2050 net zero GHG emissions. While most survey respondents (n = 49) indicated that environmental issues were being adequately considered, a notable percentage (20% to 29%) indicated that environmental issues were “rarely” or “occasionally” being considered.

Operational Sustainability

Evaluation evidence indicates that statutory and policy requirements are not considered limiting to military activities.

Most survey respondents indicate that policy requirements and statutory requirement are never or rarely considered limiting to military activities.

63% of survey respondents said military training and operations got cancelled or delayed never or once a year due to environmental consideration.

According to the 2020 Canadian Army Range and Training Area Sustainment Summary (RTASS) report, the environmental condition of most army RTAs did not pose a significant threat to the Army’s force generation activities.

Over half of interviewees (53%) indicated that environmental issues/considerations have impacted the functioning of DND/CAF activities to some degree; however, the majority were not considered to have significantly impacted operations. Examples included RTA closures, facility relocation expenses, transportation costs for recertification of military staff offsite and construction delays.

Required under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), an Environmental Impact Assessment is a process that systematically analyzes a project, activity, policy, plan or program to identify any potential effects to the environment that could reasonably be expected were the initiative to be implemented. The objective is to identify these effects early in the planning process so that measures can be incorporated into planning and implementation to avoid or minimize these effects. Various environmental aspects, such as impacts on climate change, biodiversity and vegetation/soils, are taken into consideration.

Governance and Accountability

Documents demonstrated evidence of program oversight, direction and guidance through ARA documents, Environmental Directives, Memorandums of Understanding, training/guidance documents (e.g., SEA Guide) and continued strategic and planning meetings (including DEMC meetings).

Although ESPP advises L1s to prioritize (and allocate adequate resources to) specific statutory obligations in its Functional Planning Guidance, L1 interviewees identified the need for further guidance on prioritization of environmental obligations/commitments, and there is no formal mechanism in place for monitoring L1 alignment/implementation.

ADM(IE) Environmental Management Framework (EMS)

The need for a more standardized EMS was highlighted by interviewees as well as documentation. The program has developed a draft but has not yet finalized it due to capacity and resource challenges.

Planning was noted as the largest gap in ADM(IE)’s EMS implementation in the 2021 environmental summary audit report, which highlighted the need for a horizontal risk assessment to identify which environment aspects require priority attention.

The program has developed various guidance in the interim to begin addressing audit recommendations and is building in EMS elements based on an EMS “Blueprint.”

41% of interviewees described the need for a more formalized environment delivery model/management practices.

Monitoring Legal Compliance

While policy performance information is routinely collected and reported as part of the DEES and sent to TBS, there is currently no mechanism in place for systematically monitoring the department’s performance as it relates to legal compliance.

With environment being a shared responsibility, ESPP’s success hinges on the compliance of other L1s. As such, the program needs to work with L1s to collect the required compliance performance information across the department. This systematic monitoring of departmental compliance would support evidence-based decision making and program improvements, and provide senior management visibility on the state of compliance within the department.

Key Informant Interviews

The evaluation team worked with ESPP to identify key interviewees and receive feedback on interview guides. A total of 17 interviews (18 interviewees) were conducted with the following stakeholder groups. Recognizing that RP accounts for the bulk of DND’s environment footprint (military equipment accounting for a smaller portion) and given their level of involvement in halocarbon and GHG emission reduction (both focal points of the evaluation), additional in-depth interviews were conducted with this group.

Online Survey

To gain further insight regarding the program’s impact at the tactical level, a bilingual web-based survey was created for Env Os. The survey was designed in consultation with ESPP staff and CAF Heads of Env Os. This online survey was distributed by email by the Heads of Env Os of each of the three CAF elements and was live for three weeks (from April 26^th to May 14^th, 2021). Subsequent to the initial launch email, two reminder emails were sent by CAF Heads of Env Os to ensure a satisfactory response rate. Overall, there was a strong estimated response rate of ~ 38% (49/130). Of note, there was a low estimated response rate (22%) for the air environment, which the evaluation team considering when analyzing the data.

Document Review

A preliminary review of foundational documents was conducted during the planning phase of the evaluation to ascertain a fulsome understanding of the program to inform the development of the scope, logic model and evaluation matrix. An official Request for Information was then submitted to ESPP to obtain all pertinent documentation that would assist in the program assessment. The evaluation team reviewed over 100 documents related to the program. A key document was ADM(IE)’s 2021 environmental summary audit, which is described in more detail in Annex B.

Data Analysis

A review of financial and HR data was conducted to assess the efficiency of the program. The evaluation team also reviewed performance-related data, including historical environmental compliance data and halocarbon-related data extracts from DRIMS.

Direct Observation

A member of the evaluation team attended the March 25, 2021 MS Teams DEMC Meeting to observe the interactions between the program and L1s, as well as to obtain additional information/evidence pertaining to the areas examined in the evaluation.