Governance Review Oil Sands Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

Transcription

1 Governance Review Oil Sands Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Final Report DATE OF SUBMISSION: September 28, 2015 SUBMITTED TO: Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency AEMERA 10 th Floor, South Petroleum Plaza Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2G8 PREPARED BY: Stratos Inc. Suite 505, th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3E8 Tel:

2 Our Vision A healthy planet. An equitable world. A sustainable future. Our Mission We work together to empower organizations to take real steps towards sustainability. Stratos runs its business in an environmentally and socially sustainable way, one that contributes to the well-being of our stakeholders clients, employees and the communities in which we operate. Reflecting this commitment, we have an active Corporate Social Responsibility program. For more information about our commitments and initiatives, please visit our Web page: We encourage you to print on recycled paper. Stratos uses 100% post-consumer content recycled paper.

3 Executive Summary The Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA) was created in 2014 with the stated purpose to obtain credible and relevant scientific data and other information regarding the condition of the environment in Alberta to ensure the data and other information are available and reported to the public in an open and transparent manner. Since the expiration of the Joint Canada-Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM) in April 2015, AEMERA has been accountable for ambient environment (baseline and effects) monitoring, evaluation, and reporting in the oil sands region. Stratos Inc. 1 was engaged by AEMERA to conduct a governance review of the oil sands monitoring, evaluation and reporting (OS MER) program, which operated as JOSM from The review was conducted from April-July 2015 with the purpose of assessing the past and current governance arrangements for oil sands monitoring and proposing a path forward based on lessons learned. A literature review, phone and in-person interviews with interested parties, and an online survey were conducted to inform the assessment of the current state of governance. An Expert Panel, created to inform this review, provided feedback throughout the project. Draft recommendations were tested at a multi-interest workshop, and in a working session with AEMERA senior management. The final recommendations are summarized below and presented in the report. Interested parties to OS MER include the general public, Aboriginal and local communities, industry, environmental nongovernmental organizations (ENGOs), academia, government departments, regulators and environmental monitoring organizations. Summary of Current State Oil sands monitoring, evaluation and reporting largely occurs under the governance structures established by JOSM, although AEMERA has now assumed responsibility for the OS MER program. JOSM operated as a co-governance structure, with accountability and decision-making authority shared between Environment Canada (EC) and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Development (ESRD) 2 co-leads. The Board of AEMERA was appointed in April Since then, there have been two interim CEOs. AEMERA is establishing a number of advisory panels to provide it with input, advice and/or recommendations. These include: the Science Advisory Panel; the Traditional Ecological Knowledge Advisory Panel; and, the Aboriginal Planning and Advisory Committee. Mechanisms for interested-party input to OS MER include a large bi-annual forum to inform annual monitoring plans, and four environmental media-based Component Advisory Committees (CACs). The CACs are responsible for developing an annual monitoring plan, informed by a review of the previous year s monitoring activities. The monitoring plan is submitted to AEMERA senior management and then recommended to the Board for final approval. In the oil sands region, various parties including government departments and regulators, local and Aboriginal communities impacted by oil sands development, and regional environmental monitoring organizations possess monitoring and evaluation capacity and expect to be involved in OS MER. 1 The project team comprised Stratos Inc. and Silvacom Ltd., which conducted the review of data governance. 2 Alberta Environment and Sustainable Development was re-formed as Alberta Environment and Parks in spring STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. i

4 Limited evaluation of monitoring results and reporting has occurred to date, given the focus of the JOSM program on transitioning oil sands monitoring to addressing cumulative effects which need time to identify changes and trends in the environment. However, interested parties and the public have had strong expectations for the reporting of monitoring results. Key Findings and Issues The historical and current context for OS MER needs to be considered when evaluating the current state of governance, in particular: the purpose of the original phases of oil sands monitoring that formed the basis for what became JOSM; the speed with which JOSM was established; the range of players involved in JOSM; the challenges of a co-governance arrangement; the continual evolution of governance throughout JOSM and of OS MER to date; senior-leader turnover; and the limited amount of time since the expiry of the JOSM agreement in spring Key findings from document review, interviews and a survey of interested parties are: The OS MER governance model currently presents limited opportunities for interested parties to meaningfully participate in shaping a strategic approach to monitoring, planning priorities and decision on the program. Accountability and decision-making authority rests with AEMERA. The scope of OS MER is in unclear, in the context of ambient monitoring needs for Alberta s Lower Athabasca Regional Land Use Plan. The relationship between funding sources (industry and government) and their allocation to monitoring activities (i.e. oil sands impact vs. broader regional ambient monitoring) is unclear. Budget decision-making lacks transparency. The OS MER program has not been guided by an overall strategic approach that includes key monitoring questions, in order to drive the annual planning process. The annual monitoring planning process lacks integration across CACs, and displays limited influence of monitoring results on monitoring planning. There has been a lack of integration of TEK and community-based monitoring into OS MER program planning and delivery. Relationships with OS MER interested parties are strained due to the lack of a meaningful and transparent approach for considering and addressing their interests, and uncertainty over their ongoing roles within the governance and operation of OS MER. Governance Themes 28 recommendations are outlined in the report, addressing the issues identified during the governance review. A summary of the key themes is presented below. These themes reflect the expectations across a broad range OS MER interested parties government and regulatory agencies, industry, Aboriginal communities, environmental monitoring organizations and environmental non-government organizations as well as the evolving direction being taken by AEMERA. Strategic approach: The OS MER program needs a strategic approach to ensure consistent direction and to produce credible monitoring results that answer key science questions around cumulative effects, as well as meet the information needs of interested parties and the general public. Collaborative relationships: Meaningful relationships and active participation by interested parties is essential for OS MER and for AEMERA to be relevant, credible, accessible, transparent and adaptive. Collaborative and transparent decision making: Interested parties with an emphasis on those who are directly affected and that have formal mandates, expertise and knowledge for environmental monitoring in the region, need to be involved in shaping the OS MER program STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. ii

5 strategy and monitoring priorities. Decision-making, particularly for shaping strategy, annual monitoring plans and budgets, needs to be transparent. Clear accountability and leadership: AEMERA needs to demonstrate leadership in directing OS MER and maintain overall accountability for the OS MER program. Measured independence: AEMERA must strike a balance between ensuring independence in line with its arms-length mandate, and meeting the needs of partners and interested parties. Proposed Governance Structure for OS MER Based on these themes and the recommendations contained in the body of this report, a proposed governance structure for OS MER has been developed (see diagram below). A summary of the authorities for the governance bodies is provided in the following table on governance roles. In further elaborating and transitioning to this new structure, AEMERA needs to collaborate with all interested parties, consider the pace and nature of the change, and put in place transition plans where necessary. Proposed OS MER Governance Structure STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. iii

6 Summary of Proposed Roles for OS MER Governance Bodies The following table outlines governance decisions (in green), accountabilities and responsibilities for key functions. Governance Bodies Strategy Annual Monitoring Plan and Budget Board Approve Approve President + CEO MIPC Senior Management Expert Working Groups Crosscutting committees: Integration Data Evaluation Monitoring Delivery Evaluation Reporting Endorse Recommend Accountable Accountable Accountable Develop and Recommend Develop annual priorities, monitoring plan, and budget envelopes Accountable for enabling and coordinating development Advise on integration across strategy elements Design monitoring activities and detailed budgets Advise on integration across monitoring activities Inform Inform Responsible Responsible Responsible Inform Advise on data integrity and evaluation Advise on reporting Delivery Agents Delegated responsibility Delegated responsibility STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. i

7 Table of Contents Executive Summary... i Table of Contents... 1 ACRONYMS Preamble INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT BACKGROUND CONTEXT SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS Designing and Implementing an Effective Environmental Monitoring Organization GUIDING PRINCIPLES GOVERNANCE PHILOSOPHY Diagnosis and Recommendations GOVERNANCE PHILOSOPHY AND LEADERSHIP MANDATE, SCOPE AND FUNDING OS MER BUDGET SUFFICIENCY AND ALLOCATION STRATEGIC APPROACH TO OS MER MONITORING ANNUAL PLANNING AND DELIVERY EVALUATION REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS AND COORDINATION DATA GOVERNANCE OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed Governance Structure and Roles PROPOSED OS MER GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PROPOSED GOVERNANCE ROLES Proposed Next Steps Bibliography Appendix A Summary of Current State Appendix B Summary of Interested Party Expectations FIRST NATIONS AND MÉTIS ORGANIZATIONS OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY ALBERTA S INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (IRMS) NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ORGANIZATIONS / DELIVERY AGENTS STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 1

8 List of Figures Figure 1: Governance Philosophy Models Figure 2: Results of CAC Survey Figure 3: Proposed Governance Structure List of Tables Table 1: JOSM Timeline... 6 Table 2: Guiding Principles for the Design and Implementation of a Cumulative Effects Environmental Monitoring System... 9 Table 3: Summary of Recommendations Table 4: Relationship between Recommendations and Guiding Principles Table 5: Summary of Proposed Governance Roles Table 6: Proposed Composition and Responsibilities of Key Governance Bodies Table 7: Proposed Governance Structure Details STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 2

9 ACRONYMS Oil sands monitoring, evaluation and reporting (OS MER) Aboriginal Planning and Advisory Committee (APAC) Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) formerly Alberta Environment and Sustainable Development (ESRD) Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA) Alberta Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Information System (AEMERIS) Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) Community-based monitoring (CBM) Component Advisory Committees (CACs) Deputy Minister (DM) Director General (DG) Environment Canada (EC) Environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGO) First Nation(s) (FN) Government of Alberta (GoA) Integrated Resource Management System (IRMS) Joint Canada-Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM) Lakeland Industry and Community Association (LICA) Lower Athabasca Regional Land Use Plan (LARP) Non-governmental organization (NGO) Northern River Basin Study (NRBS) Peace-Athabasca Delta Ecological Monitoring Program (PADEMP) Quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) Science Advisory Panel (SAP) Traditional Ecological Knowledge Advisory Panel (TEKP) Vice President (VP) Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA) Terms of Reference (ToR) STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 3

10 1 Preamble 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA) is a new organization with the stated purpose to obtain credible and relevant scientific data and other information regarding the condition of the environment in Alberta to ensure the data and other information are available and reported to the public in an open and transparent manner 3. Since the expiration of the Joint Canada-Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM) in April 2015, AEMERA has been accountable for ambient environment (baseline and effects) monitoring, evaluation, and reporting in the oil sands region 4. Stratos Inc. and its project partner Silvacom (hereafter referred to as Stratos) were engaged by AEMERA to conduct a governance review of the oil sands monitoring, evaluation and reporting (OS MER) program. The purpose of the review was to assess the past and current governance arrangements and results, with the view to providing a path forward based on lessons learned. Recommendations from this review will be used along with the results of a Scientific Integrity Review of JOSM to advise AEMERA on the future direction and delivery of oil sands monitoring, evaluation and reporting. The methodology of the governance review included the following: 1. Establishing project rationale, scope and analytical framework 2. Assessing the current state of governance 5, through document review, interviews and surveys 3. Conducting analysis of problems or issues to be addressed in OS MER governance 4. Obtaining comments and advice on findings and recommendations from an Expert Panel convened to support the review (see box, right) 5. Developing recommendations to address the problems and their root causes 6. Engaging interested parties and AEMERA senior management to test whether recommendations reflected their issues and concerns, and addressed underlying issues 6. Expert Panel Members George Dixon, Vice- President, University Research and Professor of Biology at the University of Waterloo Arthur Hanson, Distinguished Fellow with the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Michael Paterson, Chief Research Scientist, IISD- Experimental Lakes Area 1.2 ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT This document provides a summary of the governance review findings, and puts forward recommendations to AEMERA. Specifically, it outlines governance themes and areas for action (e.g. 3 Protecting Alberta's Environment Act 4 The original geographic scope of JOSM the oil sands region was the area with the potential to experience cumulative environmental impacts from mineable oil sands or in situ developments (Source: Joint Canada Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring), with the focus originally more so on mineable oil sands. 5 Although framed as the current state, it is important to recognize that AEMERA only assumed full accountability for OS MER as of April 2015; since the governance structure and functions of JOSM did not significantly change upon AEMERA assuming AEP s role in , it is difficult to distinguish JOSM from OS MER for the purposes of the current state assessment. 6 A multi-interest workshop was held on June 24, 2015 as a key element of this engagement. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 4

11 leadership, mandate, strategic approach), and for each area summarizes the current state, identifies issues and provides recommendations to address these issues. Appendices A and B include tables that summarize the current state of OS MER program governance, and summarize observations and expectations gathered from interviews and surveys with interested parties (see box, right). 1.3 BACKGROUND AEMERA is the arm s length provincial monitoring agency responsible for measuring, assessing and informing the public on the condition of Alberta s environment. Established with the proclamation of the Protecting Alberta s Environment Act on April 28, 2014, AEMERA became fully operational as an agency effective April 1, Interested Parties The generic term interested parties is used throughout the document to refer to groups and interests relevant to OS MER, including: General public Aboriginal and local communities Industry Environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) Academic researchers Government and regulators (i.e. policy-makers, planners and scientists) Environmental monitoring organizations The term partner is also used in several places throughout the document: a partner is a party with which AEMERA has, or has potential for, a legislated or contractual relationship. As part of its legislated mandate, following the expiration of the three-year JOSM, AEMERA assumed full accountability for ambient environmental monitoring, evaluation and reporting in Alberta s oil sands region, referred to as the OS MER program. Environment Canada (EC) continues to provide scientific expertise and conduct environmental monitoring in the region as part of the OS MER program is seen as a transition year, with AEMERA assuming overall authority for the OS MER program. A number of governance structures and functions established to implement JOSM are still in place for A range of environmental monitoring organizations 7 and programs (see box, right) has supported the design and delivery of ambient (baseline and effects) monitoring. They have also supported compliance-monitoring programs in the Lower Athabasca Region, prior to and during JOSM and, in some cases, continue to do so. Table 1 presents an overview of the timeline for the creation of JOSM. Environmental Monitoring Organizations and Programs Federal and provincial government monitoring programs Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) Wood Buffalo Environmental Monitoring Association (WBEA) Cumulative Effects Management Association (CEMA) Lakeland Industry and Community Association (LICA) Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI) 7 The term environmental monitoring organization is used throughout this document to refer to NGOs that plan for and conduct environmental monitoring, among other purposes. Within OS MER, this includes and in this report largely refers to WBEA, LICA and the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI). These organizations are mostly guided by multi-interest Boards and operate by consensus decision-making. Where environmental monitoring organizations are referred to in the context of delivering monitoring activities under contract for AEMERA (as opposed to conducting multi-interest engagement or planning) they are referred to as delivery agents. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 5

12 Table 1: JOSM Timeline 2010 David Schindler co-authors a study on toxic metals in the Athabasca River system. 8 Royal Society of Canada releases report Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada s Oil Sands Industry. Independent Oil Sands Advisory Panel presents its report, A Foundation for the Future: Building an Environmental Monitoring System for the Oil Sands, to the Federal Minister of the Environment Alberta Environmental Monitoring Panel report A World Class Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting System for Alberta released. EC and ESRD co-initiate the development of an environmental monitoring plan for the oil sands. The Integrated Monitoring Plan for the Oil Sands: Water - Phase 1 lays out new water quality monitoring for the region closest to oil sands development. EC and ESRD initiates the Integrated Monitoring Plan for the Oil Sands: Water - Phase 2 which expands the water component to cover a larger geographic area, acid sensitive lakes, and fish and invertebrate monitoring. EC releases Integrated Monitoring Plan for the Oil Sands air quality and biodiversity components Ministers of Environment Canada and Environment and Parks (formerly Alberta Environment and Water) announce JOSM, a three-year agreement on enhanced regional/ambient monitoring of air, land, water and biodiversity in the oil sands. Alberta Environmental Monitoring Working Group release report Implementing a World Class Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting System for Alberta JOSM Co-Chairs present a governance structure, including the establishment of Component Advisory Committees (CACs), to involve interested parties in the development of annual monitoring activity plans. Fort McKay First Nation, Mikisew Cree First Nation and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation submit Terms of References for their participation in JOSM. Fort MacKay First Nation formally withdraws from participating in JOSM. The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) Amendment is proclaimed. This bill amended EPEA, allowing the Minister to create regulations that identify environmental monitoring programs and assess fees to support them. EPEA Oil Sands Environmental Monitoring Program Regulation comes into force, enabling the collection of monitoring fees from oil sands operators Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation, Mikisew Cree First Nation and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation formally withdraw from participating in JOSM. AEMERA is established with the proclamation of the Protecting Alberta s Environment Act. Terms of Reference for CACs are adapted towards a technical approach to monitoring planning. Auditor General of Alberta releases a report and recommendations on JOSM, and the first year annual report ( ) Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Parks includes a chapter on environmental monitoring of oil sands Effective April 1, 2015, AEMERA assumes full administrative control and accountability of the oil sands monitoring program. Work continues with Environment Canada to complete commitments from the three-year agreement, including annual reporting on the year of the program, and an international Science Integrity Review. 8 Kelly, EN et al. (2010). Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries. PNAS 107 (37), STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 6

13 1.4 CONTEXT It is important that the findings of this governance review be situated in the broader context in which JOSM and AEMERA were established, and in which oil sands monitoring, evaluation and reporting continue to evolve. Complicated historical system of environmental monitoring Monitoring in the Lower Athabasca Region has historically been planned and carried out by government and regulatory bodies including AEP (and its predecessor, ESRD), EC, academia, industry, and environmental monitoring organizations. Concern from interested parties about the absence of cumulative impacts monitoring in the oil sands region helped drive the creation of environmental monitoring organizations such as WBEA and LICA. In most cases, these environmental monitoring organizations operate based on consensus, and their governing bodies include various interests such as industry, Aboriginal and local communities, and ENGOs. Funding for the environmental monitoring organizations is largely provided by industry. In the second year of JOSM ( ), industry funding was routed through ESRD to the environmental monitoring organizations, altering the dynamics of planning and decision-making. Political urgency driving JOSM Political urgency during the creation of JOSM contributed to a relatively hasty design and development phase. This urgency, among other factors, limited JOSM from effectively implementing complex elements of its stated approach, including appropriate integration with existing monitoring activities and work[ing] on an ongoing basis with stakeholders on implementation and adaptation of the Plan 9. There was a lack of adequate interested party engagement in JOSM design and implementation, and the range of expectations from interested parties about their role and participation in JOSM was not adequately reconciled. JOSM co-governance structure The JOSM governance structure presented some complications. The functioning of the federalprovincial co-governance structure limited effective direction-setting and decision-making. There was difficulty accommodating existing monitoring agendas and programs within a regional approach to environmental management that was still under development. Also, there were differences in approach and scientific expertise between federal and provincial departments leading JOSM. Evolving governance structure and priorities The evolving nature of governance during JOSM made it challenging to focus on implementation and results. JOSM was developed without formal governance structures in place for meaningful input from interested parties. Media-based Component Advisory Committees (CACs) were created in to act in an advisory capacity and to develop monitoring plans. Challenges related to the consistent operation of these committees and a lack of integration across CACs (see Section 3.6 for detail), led to a revision of their Terms of Reference in The shift from the then ESRD in Alberta s leadership to the newly created AEMERA in , as well as the impending shift away from the Canada-Alberta co-governance arrangements in , also contributed to uncertainty in the program. Limited evaluation of monitoring results and reporting has occurred to date. Further, given the focus of the JOSM program on transitioning oil sands monitoring to addressing cumulative effects which need time to identify changes and trends in the environment, and limited capacity for interpretation and evaluation of results, only limited reporting was conducted. This did not align with the expectations of interested parties and the public for the reporting of monitoring results. 9 Joint Canada Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring (2012) STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 7

14 Given this history of designing while implementing, it is important to look at the findings of this governance review not as an indictment of the past, but as an opportunity for AEMERA and interested parties to collaborate around a shared vision of and for the future. 1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS The scope of this governance review includes the three years ( ) of monitoring, evaluation and reporting conducted under JOSM. The review was conducted from April-July 2015, with interviews and a survey conducted in May. For the purpose of this review, governance is defined as the accountabilities, decision-making authorities and processes, and related relationships within the OS MER program under the purview of AEMERA. This includes a set of governance bodies that compose an overall governance structure (e.g. Board of Directors), the governance of a set of functions the OS MER program must deliver (e.g. evaluation), and a set of principles the OS MER program is meant to uphold (e.g. credibility). While the scope of this review is on OS MER program governance, the review also addresses related management and operational matters because they impact the effectiveness of OS MER governance and the success of the program. The review scope did not cover other regions within the mandate of AEMERA nor analysis of cost and other considerations for implementation of recommendations. It is important to note that a separate Scientific Integrity Review of JOSM is underway. As such, the governance review does not address monitoring program design or monitoring and evaluation methodologies. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 8

15 2 Designing and Implementing an Effective Environmental Monitoring Organization 2.1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES A range of principles for the design and implementation of a cumulative effects environmental monitoring system were defined by Federal and Provincial panels and working groups tasked with informing the establishment of JOSM and of AEMERA 10. From these original principles, and through conversations with the AEMERA Board, senior management and interested parties, Stratos has developed and defined a number of guiding principles described in Table 2, below. These are used in the review to assess the current state of OS MER governance and inform the governance recommendations. Table 2: Guiding Principles for the Design and Implementation of a Cumulative Effects Environmental Monitoring System Principle Independent Credible Relevant Accessible Transparent Adaptive Collaborative Definition The environmental monitoring, evaluation and reporting system must be arm s length and seen as independent of government, industry and special interests. A clear separation of environmental monitoring from the policy development and regulatory functions of government is essential. Science (including consistent methodology, robust indicators, peer review and standardized reporting) and traditional ecological and community knowledge must drive the design, execution, evaluation and reporting of monitoring programs. Information provided by the environmental monitoring, evaluation and reporting system must meet the needs of interested parties and decision makers. Monitoring information must be available in different forms (ranging from raw data to analyses) and in a timely manner that will enable interested parties and decision makers to conduct their own analyses and draw their own conclusions. A system must be in place where the basis for decisions taken on monitoring, evaluation and reporting are explicit, and activities are conducted in an open and transparent manner. The monitoring, evaluation and reporting approaches must be evaluated and revised as new knowledge and needs arise, and as circumstances change. The approach must be respectful of interested party values, and engage interested parties in the design and execution of the program. 10 Alberta Environmental Monitoring Panel A World Class Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting System for Alberta (June 2011); Oil Sands Advisory Panel A Foundation for the Future: Building an Environmental Monitoring System for the Oil Sands (2010); Working Group on Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Implementing A World Class Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting System for Alberta (June 2012) STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 9

16 2.2 GOVERNANCE PHILOSOPHY In any organization, the overall governance philosophy (whether implicit or explicit) shapes the governance structure and governance processes. As part of a governance review it is important to engage leadership in a discussion and determination of the desired philosophy to inform the nature of recommendations and their implementation. Three different monitoring organization philosophies / models are outlined in Figure 1, based on where decision-making authorities and accountabilities rest, and on the nature of participation of and engagement with other parties 11. These models enable discussion about the type of organization AEMERA would like to be, and how such vision can be applied. The overall choice of governance model has significant implications for how AEMERA delivers on its organizational mandate, establishes and maintains productive relationships, and allocates and leverages human and financial resources. This philosophy will be reflected in its organizational culture. Figure 1: Governance Philosophy Models A) Consultative Organization B) Collaborative Organization C) Partnering Organization Responsibilities for monitoring, evaluation and reporting rest with AEMERA Some responsibilities are shared for monitoring, evaluation and reporting Responsibility is shared for monitoring, evaluation and reporting All decision-making occurs within AEMERA Decision-making is participatory: some decisions are shaped with partners Decision-making is shared with partners Accountability rests with AEMERA Accountability rests with AEMERA Accountability is shared with partners The purpose of engagement is to inform or consult with key interests The purpose of engagement is to consult or collaborate with key interests The purpose of engagement is to collaborate with or empower key interests 11 Governance models have been developed for AEMERA based on Stratos experience in the development and review of environmental governance systems and review of relevant organizations and programs. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 10

17 Applying a Governance Philosophy to OS MER The nature of cumulative impacts, as well as the context within which AEMERA operates, need to be considered when choosing and applying a governance philosophy. Cumulative impacts, by definition, do not exist within industry sector or environmental media boundaries. Within the oil sands region, various parties including government departments and regulators with related mandates, local and Aboriginal communities that are impacted by oil sands development, and regionally active environmental monitoring organizations expect to be involved in the environmental monitoring program where they have clear interests at stake. The governance philosophy applied during JOSM implementation was consultative, with limited opportunities for interested parties to influence or shape strategy and planning decisions. This has also been the case with the first year of the transition to OS MER, where decision-making authority and accountability remained with AEMERA. A consistent theme in the federal and provincial reports that informed the development of JOSM and AEMERA, was the need for the involvement of and collaboration with a range of interested parties (including First Nations and Métis communities, policy makers, industry, regulators, planners, civil society and researchers) in the design, governance and implementation of OS MER. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 11

18 3 Diagnosis and Recommendations The following section outlines the core findings of the governance review, based on document review, as well as interviews and survey results with interested parties. For each area identified (e.g. governance model philosophy, mandate, strategic approach), there is a summary of the current state, a description of specific issues and associated root causes, and one or more recommendations. Appendices A and B provide summaries of the current state of OS MER governance, as well as observations and expectations of OS MER governance as expressed by interested parties. They provide necessary context and evidence that support the diagnosis and recommendations presented below. As outlined in Section 1.4, it is important to place the report findings within the broader context of the history of OS MER, in particular the: Purpose of the original phases of oil sands monitoring that were designed to form the basis of what became JOSM Speed with which JOSM was established Complexity of the players subsequently involved Challenges of a co-governance arrangement The Expert Panel that was created to inform this governance review, underscored that similar challenges to those identified in this report have been observed in other regional environmental monitoring programs during their start-up phases particularly programs with a mandate to involve various interested parties. Both representatives of interested parties and AEMERA management informed the issues identified in this report, and recognize the importance of moving forward with a clear approach to governance. In validating the draft findings and recommendations, Stratos found broad agreement across AEMERA and interested parties that a strategic, collaborative and transparent approach is needed to address key governance issues. Summary of Quantitative Feedback on Principles Stratos conducted a survey of CAC members in May 2015 as part of the assessment of the current state of governance. Figure 2 presents the results of survey participants feedback on whether each of the listed guiding principles is evident in the governance of OS MER. The survey results demonstrate significant gaps in adherence to environmental monitoring principles. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 12

19 Figure 2: Results of CAC Survey 12 Themes of the Governance Review The governance review of the OS MER program has identified a number of themes that resonated throughout the current state assessment, the diagnosis of issues to be addressed, and the formulation and validation of recommendations. These themes reflect the expectations of essentially every group of interested parties government and regulatory agencies, industry, Aboriginal communities, environmental monitoring organizations and ENGOs. They align with the necessary direction for the OS MER program as seen by AEMERA management. These themes are reflected in the recommendations presented in detail below. Themes of the Governance Review Strategic approach: The OS MER program needs a strategic approach to ensure consistent direction and to produce credible monitoring results that meet the needs of interested parties, including the general public. Collaborative relationships: Meaningful relationships and active participation by interested parties are essential for OS MER and AEMERA, in order to be relevant, credible, accessible, transparent and adaptive. Collaborative and transparent decision making: Interested parties, with an emphasis on those who are directly affected and those that have expertise with environmental monitoring in the region, must be involved in shaping the OS MER program strategy and priorities. Decisionmaking, particularly for strategy, and monitoring plans and budgets, needs to be transparent. Clear accountability and leadership: AEMERA needs to demonstrate leadership in directing OS MER and to maintain overall accountability for the OS MER program. Measured independence: AEMERA must strike a balance between ensuring independence in line with its arms-length mandate, and meeting the needs of interested parties. 12 The figures in brackets are the number of participants who responded to each question. Percentages may not add up to 100, as responses shown do not include those who selected Not Applicable or Neither Agree nor Disagree. The principle Collaborative was added to the list of guiding principles post-survey, following the analysis of interview results, as it was a strong theme. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 13

20 3.1 GOVERNANCE PHILOSOPHY AND LEADERSHIP Current State A co-governance structure was established for the leadership of JOSM, with shared accountability and decision-making authority resting with the co-leads of the program the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of Science and Technology, EC, and the ADM of Science and Monitoring, ESRD (now AEP). Monitoring planning committees (i.e. Component Advisory Committee CAC) were co-led by senior managers from EC and ESRD. The Board of AEMERA was appointed in April 2014, upon the creation of AEMERA. Since then, AEMERA has had two interim CEOs. The search and selection process for a permanent CEO has been ongoing since late 2014, with a decision expected in the summer of Several key AEMERA senior management positions, including all Vice President positions, were filled in the first five months of A number of panels and committees representing a variety of interests are in the process of being established to provide input, advice and/or recommendations to AEMERA. These bodies include: the Science Advisory Panel; the Traditional Ecological Knowledge Advisory Panel; and the Aboriginal Planning and Advisory Committee 13. These bodies are advisory and do not have decision-making roles. Analysis AEMERA s Board and senior management have begun to address outstanding issues in several areas identified in this review, and engage with interested parties to discuss their involvement in the OS MER program. However, such work has proceeded in several areas, including negotiating agreements with potential OS MER partners, without an overall strategic approach to governance in place. AEMERA has recently indicated that it will begin operating in a more collaborative manner 14, which may require a shift in mindset for some former government employees. AEMERA operates in a context where collaboration with interested parties is critical. Many Aboriginal communities state that the impacts of oil sands development are not being adequately considered and addressed by Alberta s Integrated Resource Management System (IRMS) 15, and that their proposals for participation in JOSM were not seriously considered or acted-upon. These factors contributed to their decision to not actively participate in OS MER governance. Within the oil sands region there are established environmental monitoring organizations with multi-interest governance structures, often consensus-based, which need to be aligned or integrated with the OS MER governance structure. Other government and regulatory bodies (e.g. AEP, AER, and EC) have mandates that include environmental monitoring authorities and responsibilities in the oil sands region. The oil sands industry is a source of environmental impacts and provides the funding for OS MER. All four of these groups of interested parties Aboriginal communities, environmental monitoring organizations, government and regulatory bodies, and industry have monitoring capacity 13 See Appendix A for a summary of terms of reference for these panels and committees. 14 See Update on Communications, Engagement & Participation (June 2015), found at 15 Alberta s Integrated Resource Management System will help Alberta achieve the environmental, economic and social outcomes Albertans and the world expect from responsible resource development. This approach is based on cumulative effects management of energy, mineral, forest, agriculture, land, air, water, and biodiversity resources. (Integrated Resource Management Fact Sheet, January 2015). IRMS partners include Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), Alberta Energy, AEMERA, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, and Alberta Aboriginal Relations). STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 14

21 and expertise, are active in the oil sands region, and require ongoing, meaningful coordination with OS MER. Other interested parties that require a voice and engagement with OS MER include the general public, ENGOs and academic researchers. Aboriginal representatives have stated that JOSM and the management of oil sands development impacts in general has not reflected their experience of development impacts on their communities, treaty rights and traditional uses of the land. Many directly impacted Aboriginal communities, including four of the five ATC First Nations, withdrew from or did not participate in JOSM. One of the strongest messages heard from all interested parties in this governance review is that there has been a failure of meaningful involvement of Aboriginal communities in JOSM. Although there is no mention of Aboriginal people in AEMERA s enabling legislation, in the Mandate Document between the Minister and AEMERA it is noted that where appropriate, AEMERA will also incorporate both community knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge from Alberta s aboriginal communities. Aboriginal involvement needs to occur through the incorporation or braiding of TEK into the OS MER strategy, monitoring plans and their implementation, and support for Aboriginal-led community-based monitoring programs, among other actions. There have been significant recent efforts by AEMERA to re-initiate engagement with Aboriginal communities to clarify how they may play a more meaningful role in OS MER functions, but the current governance structure limits the extent to which Aboriginal communities can influence and participate in the OS MER program. Significant issues resulted from the co-governance of JOSM due to differing federal and provincial agency mandates and priorities, differences in levels and types of scientific expertise, limited management capacity allocated to the program, and changing leadership particularly in Alberta. The absence of clear accountability and strong leadership contributed to several issues identified in this report, including the lack of transparency on decision-making processes, the lack of a strategic approach to both monitoring planning and relationships, and limited evaluation and reporting. Looking forward, in the short to medium-term AEMERA will require strong leadership as it responds to the recommendations of this governance review and the Science Integrity Review of JOSM. Problem Statement The existing governance model does not allow AEMERA to be meaningfully collaborative in the development of the OS MER strategy and annual monitoring planning. The evolving nature of AEMERA and OS MER governance has limited its Board and senior management in its ability to consider and apply a strategic approach to governance. In order to meet the governance principles of credibility, relevancy, adaptability, transparency and collaboration, and to respond to the themes for OS MER governance that have arisen from this review, AEMERA needs to reconsider and clarify its overall governance philosophy, and how it will be applied. Recommendation 1. AEMERA needs to confirm and adopt a collaborative model of governance with participatory decision-making for some functions and overall accountability resting with AEMERA (see Figure 1, page 10). To be effective, participatory decision-making should involve balanced representation and participation, and should strive for consensus. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 15

22 AEMERA then needs to communicate to interested parties how this approach will be applied across OS MER program monitoring, evaluation, reporting functions. a) Where there are significant changes to the governance of monitoring, evaluation and reporting, AEMERA needs to discuss and, where appropriate, negotiate with interested parties to put in place transition plans. b) Where decision-making is participatory, AEMERA needs to engage with interested parties to shape the decision-making process. 3.2 MANDATE, SCOPE AND FUNDING AEMERA Mandate Current State AEMERA s mandate originates in enabling legislation, the Protecting Alberta s Environment Act, which was passed in 2013 and came into force in April It states AEMERA s purpose to obtain credible and relevant scientific data and other information regarding the condition of the environment in Alberta to ensure the data and other information are available and reported to the public in an open and transparent manner. AEMERA s mandate is further elaborated in the Mandate Document between the Minister [of AEP] and AEMERA, and in the IRMS Policy Shift Sheet Roles and Responsibilities of AEMERA within the IRMS 16. These documents outline that AEMERA has responsibility for ambient environmental monitoring, including establishing the status and identifying trends and changes in the environment (i.e. baseline conditions and environmental effects). Government and regulatory bodies including EC, AEP and AER also have legislated mandates for related and in some cases overlapping aspects of environmental monitoring, for example: the EC mandate under the Species at Risk Act includes environmental monitoring; AER conducts environmental monitoring in respect of energy sector regulatory activities 17 ; and, AEP conducts environmental monitoring in respect of non-energy sector regulatory activities. Analysis There is a lack of clarity regarding what constitutes compliance, ambient and cumulative effects monitoring, and related responsibilities across Alberta government departments and agencies. Further, agreement does not exist within the OS MER program and across the Alberta IRMS on fundamental concepts that are necessary to guide effective environmental monitoring, such as the definition of cumulative effects. Overlapping and unclear mandates have implications for monitoring governance and programs, including OS MER, and the management and sharing of monitoring data. Within the IRMS, the data and information provided by AEMERA informs IRMS policy, regulatory and management decisions. AEMERA itself has no responsibility for or influence on those decisions. As an agency, it also has no mandate for conducting Aboriginal consultation on behalf of the Crown. However, since AEMERA is a government agency reporting to the Minister of Environment and Parks, and with a critical and active role within IRMS, interested parties see AEMERA as broadly 16 AEMERA is responsible for ensuring integration and alignment in monitoring activities within each Land Use planning region and that AEMERA will function as the single authoritative source of information relative to establishing ambient environmental conditions, historic trends...and reporting on environmental effects" 17 AER has jurisdiction over the environment with regards to energy resource (e.g. oil sands industry) activity under regulatory approvals, which results in a broad scope for environmental ( compliance ) monitoring, including site-specific, local ambient and regional monitoring. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 16

23 being part of government, and often raise expectations for AEMERA related to managing resource impacts, which is outside its mandate. Problem Statement There is uncertainty regarding AEMERA s mandate for environmental monitoring in relation to other government departments and agencies monitoring and resource management responsibilities. There is also a lack of understanding of the role AEMERA plays within Alberta s IRMS. Clarifying its mandate and role for monitoring, evaluation and reporting will enable AEMERA to better meet the principles of transparency and independence. OS MER Program Scope Current State The original scope of JOSM the oil sands region was the area impacted by mineable oil sands and in situ development 18. Under its mandate within IRMS 19, however, AEMERA has broader responsibility to report on environmental indicators established by Alberta s land use planning management frameworks, including those in the Lower Athabasca Region Land Use Plan (LARP). Analysis Although oil sands development has the potential to impact much of, if not all, of the Lower Athabasca Region, other land use planning regions are impacted as well. The nature of monitoring required for land use management frameworks often differs from what is required to determine the impacts of oil sands development, in terms of scope and monitoring design. As well, land use plans have been developed to more explicitly consider and address impacts from a range of sources (e.g. forestry industry, climate change). Problem Statement There is ongoing tension between the scope and nature of monitoring required for oil sands industry impacts, and for the management frameworks of LARP and other land use plans. Confirming the scope of the program will help direct program planning and establish the relevance of OS MER results. AEMERA and OS MER Funding Current State Currently, AEMERA s overall annual operating budget has two sources: 1) $50 million from the oil sands industry 20. This is based on a funding formula collaboratively developed by the Alberta government and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and set forth in the Oil Sands Environmental Monitoring Program Regulation 2) $28 million for non-oil sands monitoring and other functions, were allocated in 2015 at the discretion of the Minister of AEP Under JOSM and in the transition year the $50 million funding from industry is allocated for OS MER program monitoring activities and supporting functions (e.g. coordinating the OS MER planning process, evaluation, reporting, etc.). Analysis 18 Joint Canada Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring (2012) 19 IRMS Policy Shift Sheet Roles and Responsibilities of AEMERA within the IRMS (September 2014) 20 Specifically, oil sands operators who hold Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) approvals in respect of an oil sands mine, an oil sands processing plant or an enhanced recovery in situ oil sands or heavy oil processing plant. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 17

24 The Oil Sands Environmental Monitoring Program Regulation does not prescribe how oil sands industry funds must be used in carrying out monitoring in the oil sands region. There is an expectation from the oil sands industry that its funding is used exclusively to monitor oil sands development impacts. Due to the uncertainty over the scope of the OS MER program, there is a lack of clarity over how funding from the oil sands industry and from AEP is being used to monitor and report on industry impacts versus land use planning requirements. There is also a lack of clarity on whether industry only funds monitoring activities, or also other supporting functions for the OS MER program, such as engagement, planning processes, evaluation and reporting. Finally, there is a need to identify and ensure funding for the monitoring of non-oil sands development impacts, and for undertaking oil sands monitoring in other regions in Alberta. The Alberta Working Group on Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting outlined that AEMERA s funding should be predictable, stable, and sustainable, and that the funding model should be fair and equitable. Potential funding options identified by the Working Group included levies and taxes on large point-source emitters and the general public. 21 Problem Statement There is uncertainty over the relationship between sources of funding for the OS MER program and their application across various functions and regions. In order to be relevant to both oil sands impacts and regional ambient monitoring needs, and to demonstrate transparency, AEMERA needs to define the scope of OS MER and sources of funding for the two main monitoring purposes understanding oil sands impact and regional cumulative effects. Recommendations 2. Clarify and communicate AEMERA s mandate and responsibilities with regard to respective legislated environmental monitoring mandates (e.g. AER, AEP, and EC). 3. Clarify and communicate AEMERA s role in the IRMS system Define the regional scope of the OS MER program, and how funding, planning, monitoring, evaluation and reporting will align with the needs for oil sand impact monitoring, and LARP cumulative effects monitoring. Recognize the interaction between the two main elements of OS MER scope: a) Allocate oil sands industry funding to oil sands impact monitoring, including OS MER strategy development and annual monitoring planning processes. b) Allocate Government of Alberta funding to broader regional ambient monitoring activities, and to the functions of data evaluation and reporting, and engagement. 21 Working Group on Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Implementing A World Class Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting System for Alberta (June 2012) 22 See Section 3.10 for further analysis and recommendation regarding IRMS coordination. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 18

25 3.3 OS MER BUDGET SUFFICIENCY AND ALLOCATION Current State The $50 million OS MER budget provided by the oil sands industry supports the OS MER program (previously JOSM), recognizing the issues around scope identified in Section 3.2. Budget envelopes were established for the four media initially in JOSM (Wildlife Health, Biodiversity, Water, and Air) by the Alberta ESRD and Environment Canada co-leads, and were inherited by AEMERA. Budget envelopes have not changed significantly year-to-year. CACs develop technical monitoring work plans and corresponding budgets within those envelopes, and submit to AEMERA senior management for monitoring plan approval and the Board for budget approval. Analysis Although the current funding for OS MER is based on an established formula defined in a Regulation, there is a lack of clarity on how the original target of $50 million for oil sands monitoring was established, and whether non-monitoring activities (e.g. coordinating the planning process, reporting, etc.) should be included within the $50 million budget or funded by another source. During JOSM, the general perception from interested parties was that annual budgeting was bottomup, driven by existing programs and the interests of participants in the planning bodies and processes, rather than top-down through a strategic approach. This influenced both the budget envelopes and budgeting for specific monitoring activities. The lack of a strategic approach to planning and budgeting, combined with limited coordination between CACs to integrate monitoring plans and consolidate monitoring activities and results, makes it difficult to determine the sufficiency of the current budget for answering key questions. In , the proposed overall OS MER budget, which included the individual CAC budgets and the budgets for supporting functions, exceeded the $50 million limit established for oil sands monitoring under JOSM. The AEMERA Board directed the CEO to work with the CAC leads to revise the work plans through a priority-setting process under guidance provided by the Board. The extent to which CACs were then consulted in budget revisions is uncertain; the general perception of interested parties is that the Board itself cut monitoring activities from the budget in order to satisfy the $50 million limit. Problem Statement There is uncertainty regarding the overall sufficiency of the OS MER budget to answer key questions related to oil sands impacts and broader regional cumulative impacts. There is also a lack of clarity regarding the process and criteria for establishing budget envelopes and for making related budget decisions. Clarifying how the budget is established, allocated and decided-upon will improve the transparency of the OS MER program. Recommendations 5. Undertake an analysis of the sufficiency of the OS MER program budget to effectively implement the OS MER program strategy, including key monitoring questions (see Section 3.4) and to implement supporting OS MER functions (monitoring planning, evaluation, reporting and engagement). a) If the budget is deemed insufficient, determine alternate funding sources or make strategic, risk-based choices about how to adjust activities to align with budget. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 19

26 6. Clarify the processes and criteria for developing and making decisions on the OS MER budget, including for budget allocation across functions (monitoring, evaluation, reporting and engagement), and for conflict resolution. 3.4 STRATEGIC APPROACH TO OS MER 23 Current State The JOSM Implementation Plan included some components of an OS MER program strategy: environmental monitoring issues regarding the cumulative impacts of oil sands development, although these were not posed as explicit questions or priorities within the Implementation Plan 24 ; objectives; funding; accountable administration and review; adaptive management; and transparent and accessible results. The Implementation Plan included a commitment to engage with interested parties on appropriate mechanisms for incorporating their advice, although interested parties were not originally engaged on the development of the environmental monitoring questions (i.e. key questions) included in the Implementation Plan. Analysis Stratos assessment of the current state of governance found that in practice, most of these elements were not executed or were not seen to be by interested parties in a manner fully relevant to their expectations and needs. In particular, there was a lack of transparency, credibility (due to the limited inclusion of TEK) and inclusivity and collaboration. Interested parties feel strongly that the OS MER program has not been guided by an overall strategic approach 25 and that the planning process is ineffective. In a survey of CAC members conducted to support this governance review, only 15% of participants agreed that Clear objectives and questions have been articulated for the CAC to address. Key questions were addressed inconsistently and not in an integrated fashion by the CACs. The lack of a strategic approach is likely due to several factors, including: inadequate formulation and poor communication within JOSM of the key questions to direct monitoring activities; CAC members pushing for the approval of existing monitoring projects and activities that may not have aligned with key questions; the difficulties in making the Alberta-Canada co-governance structure work effectively; and limited management capacity in AEMERA s (and its predecessor ESRD s) support for JOSM, which inhibited strong leadership during the planning process. Limited engagement of interested parties in the shaping of key questions has also contributed to the perceived absence of an OS MER program strategy, and resulted in monitoring program plans that do not sufficiently reflect the values and interests of relevant parties (including First Nations and Metis, and the general public). The lack of emphasis of cumulative oil sands development impacts on human health is often cited as an example of an insufficient strategy. There were efforts during JOSM to incorporate interested parties to some degree, evident in the development of CACs in the second year of the program, and in the annual multi-stakeholder forms, but these mechanisms proved inadequate to inform any long-term OS MER strategy and to gain wide support for OS MER annual monitoring plans. 23 In April 2015, AEMERA developed an overall strategic plan to guide the organization. The plan is not focused on the structure and functioning of regional monitoring programs including OS MER. 24 E.g. determining the fate of air contaminants from the point of emission to the point of deposition in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. 25 A strategic approach would include overall purpose, key monitoring questions, program objectives, funding, review, adaptive management, evaluation, reporting and engagement and communication. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 20

27 Problem Statement There is no overall, coherent documented strategy that reflects the scientific needs and values of interested parties to guide the development and implementation of OS MER. This prevents AEMERA from achieving an OS MER program that is credible, relevant, transparent, adaptive, and collaborative. Recommendations 7. Establish a Multi-Interest Planning Committee (MIPC) 26 with balanced interested party representation to develop a 5-year OS MER program strategy to be recommended to the AEMERA CEO for Board approval. a) The strategy will include overall program purpose, specific objectives and key environmental monitoring questions, and outline how these will be addressed by the monitoring, evaluation, reporting and engagement functions undertaken in OS MER. b) Develop an adaptive process for updating the strategy based on knowledge gained from the Program implementation and changing circumstances. 8. Set accountability for OS MER program strategy development, implementation, review and renewal at the VP level, and ensure sufficient expert knowledge and strategic capacity is in place to adequately support these processes. 3.5 MONITORING ANNUAL PLANNING AND DELIVERY Annual Monitoring Planning Current State The development of annual monitoring work plans (referred to in collective as the monitoring plan) occurs within the multi-interest CACs, with participation from interested parties including government and regulatory bodies, industry, ENGOs, and environmental monitoring organizations. Interested party participants bring a range of technical expertise to the CACs, which were introduced in to replace the planning processes of the existing regional environmental monitoring organizations. AEMERA senior managers have served as the CAC leads as of ; CACs were previously coled by senior managers from EC and ESRD. The terms of reference were revised in 2014 to focus more on developing technical monitoring design, as opposed to discussing and shaping key questions. When developing monitoring plans, CACs evaluate the results of the previous year s monitoring activities and recommend corrective actions in alignment with key questions. Monitoring plans are divided into three types: core; effects/cause (focus study); and emerging priorities. CACs work by consensus to develop monitoring plans and budgets, which are reviewed by AEMERA senior management. The Board reviews and approves the proposed monitoring plans and budgets. Analysis CACs are not seen by OS MER interested parties as a successful mechanism: only 20% of respondents to the survey conducted for the governance review agreed that the operation of the CAC aligns with their terms of reference, and only 10% agree that the process for designing the technical 26 Proposed composition of MIPC (see Section 4.1 for further detail): First Nations (2), Métis (2), EC, Monitoring organizations (3 WBEA, ABMI, LICA), Industry (3 CAPP, COSIA, forestry), IRMS (3 AEP, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, AER), NGO (2 1 regional, 1 provincial); AEMERA non-voting (3 VPs Science, Operations, Strategy). STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 21

28 work plan is effective 27. This is due to a variety of reasons that differ by committee but include: unclear roles for CACs; recent changes to CAC terms of reference; misalignment between CAC s purpose of technical planning and CAC composition; limited time to develop monitoring plans; poor management of CAC meetings and their overall work; and, limited collaboration with other AEMERA bodies. Without an overall relevant program strategy to guide annual work plan development, and with membership that varies in technical expertise, discussion at the CACs addresses too wide a range of issues from the relevance of key questions, to the application of technical planning methodologies. Inputs to planning are weak given that there has been limited evaluation of monitoring data to date, and there is no established mechanism or process for coordinating monitoring plans across the CACs. An additional concern about the CACs is the potential inequity created by consistent industry participation backed by sufficient resourcing that is not available to other participants. There has been a lack of integration of TEK and community-based monitoring into JOSM and OS MER monitoring program planning and delivery. While the need was identified in JOSM, no effective and consistent mechanisms were established to include TEK in monitoring program design, and involve community members in monitoring activities. There are ongoing difficulties in incorporating TEK into monitoring planning and delivery, partly due to limited understanding and experience within the scientific community and within AEMERA on how to functionally integrate TEK into the OS MER program. AEMERA has taken steps towards braiding TEK into monitoring planning and delivery, including commissioning an external evaluation of its engagement approach, engaging widely with Aboriginal communities in the oil sands region, outlining a plan for the role of TEK in AEMERA, and is now in the process of establishing an AEMERA TEK Advisory Panel. Establishing an OS MER strategy that includes key questions will address several of the issues constraining effective annual monitoring planning. However, there is currently a gap in the monitoring planning process for integrating the previous year s monitoring results across all media, evaluating the results in relation to the key questions, and then establishing planning priorities to be passed on to technical working groups in order to develop monitoring plans. There is a further need to separate out the interest-based element of annual monitoring program development (including priority setting) from the expert-based technical design of specific elements of the annual monitoring activities. These elements were all combined in the CACs. Problem Statement The process for establishing annual monitoring work plans is not considered to be strategic, systematic or effective, and does not adequately include TEK. Addressing these issues will result in monitoring plans that are more credible, relevant, transparent, adaptive, and collaborative. 27 See Appendix A for a summary of the current state of governance in the four CACs Air, Water, Wildlife Health and Biodiversity. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 22

29 Recommendations 9. Utilize the Multi-Interest Planning Committee (MIPC) identified in Recommendation 7 to set annual monitoring priorities and corresponding budget envelopes, and to finalize a monitoring plan based on Expert Working Group designs of monitoring activities (see Section 4 for details). 10. Establish media-specific Expert Working Groups in place of CACs, accountable to the MIPC and AEMERA senior management, to design monitoring activities based on priorities and budget envelopes established by the MIPC. a) Ensure Aboriginal representation in the Expert Working Groups, where necessary funded under the OS MER program. 11. Establish coordination and integration mechanisms within the monitoring planning process. a) Set senior management accountability for providing coordination of the Expert Working Groups, support to the MIPC, and ensuring integration across the elements of the annual monitoring plan. b) Establish committees or task forces, as necessary, to facilitate coordination and integration and other cross-cutting functions (e.g. a standing Coordination and Integration Committee; an Evaluation and Reporting Committee; a Data Advisory Task Force). 12. Set senior management accountability within AEMERA for ensuring the credible and effective incorporation of science and traditional ecological and community knowledge into all aspects of the OS MER strategy and annual monitoring plans. Monitoring Program Delivery Current State In , the environmental monitoring organizations (WBEA, LICA, ABMI developed monitoring activities through their own planning processes. Their efforts were intended to align these activities with the JOSM plan. These organizations continued to operate under their existing governance structure and processes, and received funding through existing agreements with oil sands operators. In , monitoring organizations participated in the Component Advisory Committees, and were responsible for implementing JOSM monitoring project plans established through the CAC process. These organizations continued to receive funding through existing agreements with oil sands operators directly through the existing funding formula. In addition, a three-year funding agreement was put in place between the Government of Canada and Alberta where Environment Canada agreed to provide monitoring services through an annual work plan for their specific activities under the JOSM plan. In , the environmental monitoring organizations participated in the Component Advisory Committees, and were responsible for implementing monitoring project plans established through the CAC process. AEMERA issued contracts to the monitoring organizations for delivery of JOSM monitoring activities. AEMERA managers (serving as CAC co-leads) administered the contracts. Analysis Issues related to monitoring program delivery are linked to the expectations of these environmental monitoring organizations to be involved in OS MER decision-making as they currently do or have in the past on program elements (e.g. WBEA, ABMI, and LICA) or the overall program (Environment Canada). STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 23

30 Problem Statement There are concerns that delivery agents are not being held accountable for the terms of their contracts and there have been issues regarding data ownership and with receiving monitoring data in a timely fashion. Recommendation 13. Assign accountability for the contracts of delivery agents to one senior manager within AEMERA that can resolve issues and ensure implementation of contracts in a consistent manner across delivery agents. a) Ensure that the negotiation of terms for such contracts are developed in the context of other roles the environmental monitoring organizations can play in OS MER (see Recommendations 7 and 9). 3.6 EVALUATION Current State Evaluation, a key function of AEMERA, involves assessing the monitoring data to determine what is happening to the environment and why. There are three types or levels of evaluation: interpretation of monitoring data and results from specific monitoring activities; evaluation of a set of results (e.g. within a certain geographic scope, medium and/or period of time) to determine whether there are changes and trends in the environment; and, regional-level assessments that combine the results of relevant monitoring activities across media. Interpretation, and to some degree evaluation, of monitoring results was included in the contracts or mandates of delivery agents. CACs were tasked with evaluating the previous year s monitoring activities, and recommending corrective actions and adapting monitoring plans accordingly. An evaluation and reporting team comprised of AEMERA staff is currently responsible for administering this function. Analysis Limited evaluation of monitoring results and reporting has occurred to date, given the time frames necessary to identify changes and trends in the environment related to cumulative effects. AEMERA is accountable for providing direction on evaluation to environmental monitoring organizations, but does not have capacity for interpretation and evaluation of results. In some cases, data from longer-term monitoring activities is just becoming available. Contributing factors include a lower priority placed on evaluation, a lack of active leadership and coordination between EC, AEP (formerly ESRD), and AEMERA, and other potential evaluation partners including environmental monitoring organizations, and insufficient resources within AEMERA. Interested parties are concerned that AEMERA lacks the expertise and capacity to undertake effective evaluation on its own. AEMERA has recently put in place a VP/Chief Scientist and VP/Chief Monitoring Officer and has begun to expand its capacity, but will need to build capacity quickly in order to begin meeting its mandate for reporting on the status, changes and trends in the environment. It is unclear what role delivery agents, academics, traditional knowledge holders and other government and regulatory bodies will play in interpreting, evaluating and assessing monitoring results. These parties often have the technical expertise and capacity to assist with both interpretation and evaluation. The involvement of academics and the peer review process, in particular, was STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 24

31 highlighted in other environmental monitoring programs and by interested parties as critical for establishing the credibility and independence of monitoring results. Sufficient capacity is required to ensure timely evaluation, both for reporting purposes and to enable an adaptive annual monitoring planning process. This may require leveraging the capacity of other parties. The need for AEMERA independence in carrying out its evaluation function, however, requires consideration of how the involvement of various parties in evaluation could be interpreted, and enforces the need for sufficient capacity within AEMERA to guide and participate in the evaluation function. Problem Statement There has been limited evaluation of monitoring results for OS MER. This has not aligned with the expectations of interested parties and the public for the reporting of monitoring results. A clear approach to evaluation of monitoring results is not in place. The management of the evaluation function will have an impact on OS MER program independence, credibility, accessibility and adaptability. Recommendation 14. Develop a robust and clear AEMERA management structure for the evaluation of environmental monitoring results. a) Assign a Vice President to be accountable for evaluation of OS MER monitoring results. b) Develop clear roles and responsibilities, and ensure necessary capacities of AEMERA staff, to carry out evaluation credibly. c) Develop mechanisms for coordination with other bodies (e.g. environmental monitoring organizations including community-based monitoring groups, AEP, EC, academics) to contribute to the evaluation function. 3.7 REPORTING Current State Reporting is the dissemination and publication of monitoring data and evaluation results to a variety of audiences. AEMERA is mandated to report to the public on the condition of Alberta s environment, at a frequency determined in consultation with the Minister of AEP, as required by the Protecting Alberta s Environment Act. Annual reports on the progress of implementing JOSM were released for and , and a report on the monitoring results of JOSM was released by EC and AEMERA in December Environment Canada hosts the Canada-Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Monitoring Information Portal, including maps of the monitoring region, details of the monitoring sites, data collected by scientists in the field, and scientific analysis and interpretation of the data and results. AEMERIS (Alberta Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Information System) was launched by AEMERA in November 2014, and has begun to report ambient data monitoring results. AEMERA is working on continuously enhancing the AEMERIS portal. AEMERA convened a two-day Oil Sands Monitoring Symposium in February 2015, which featured technical presentations on monitoring activities and the results collected during JOSM. Analysis The Monitoring Symposium was seen by interested parties as useful but too technical to address their expectations for meaningful results reporting on OS MER. Beyond the annual reporting and symposium, few other reporting mechanisms are currently used to share results of environmental monitoring and evaluation. Based on the reporting activities that have taken place for OS MER, key STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 25

32 interests would like to see improvements in the timeliness of reported information, the accessibility of the information and the range of mechanisms used to share results. When groups are directly affected by the results (such as Aboriginal groups in a particular region), those groups would like to be aware of results before they are communicated publicly. Problem Statement Reporting of OS MER monitoring data and evaluation results is not occurring in a predictable, meaningful and accessible way. This impacts the relevance, accessibility and transparency of the OS MER program. Recommendations 15. Review, evaluate and prioritize JOSM monitoring data to report on what has been learned regarding both trends and progress in understanding the impacts of oil sands, since the monitoring began. 16. Confirm and communicate a predictable schedule of reporting and stick to the timelines outlined in the schedule. 17. Develop materials in plain language and ensure monitoring and evaluation results are accessible to all target audiences. 3.8 RELATIONSHIPS AND COORDINATION Current State In general, AEMERA s relationships with OS MER interested parties have been strained. Prior to JOSM, organizations planned and implemented monitoring under their individual governance and funding arrangements. When the JOSM agreement was put in place, environmental monitoring organizations had to align their planning with the JOSM work plan. In , direct funding from industry to monitoring organizations was terminated and replaced with funding decided upon through the JOSM process and distributed by AEMERA. Interested parties were dissatisfied with the speed at which JOSM was established, and the limited incorporation of Aboriginal input into shaping the program. In some cases, interested parties are not satisfied with the roles or authorities currently defined for them under the OS MER program; in other cases, roles and responsibilities are unclear. Some actions during the transition year by AEMERA (e.g. lack of transparency in decisionmaking) frustrated interested parties and made them feel like their input is not valued. Analysis The lack of a strategic, consistent approach has led to uncertainty over how interested parties are to be involved in the OS MER program and on how to implement their roles effectively. Overall, these factors are eroding trust between AEMERA and interested parties. There is a need for AEMERA to implement a collaborative model of governance and engagement: to shift its approach to building relationships with interested parties based on meaningful participation that values their expertise, knowledge, values and world views. Problem Statement Relationships with OS MER interested parties are strained, and the lack of a meaningful and transparent approach to consider and address their interests has eroded trust. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 26

33 Aboriginal Communities Current State Within the OS MER program, Aboriginal input and feedback occurs during the annual multistakeholder forum, and was designed to be incorporated into each CAC. However, this has not happened. Currently, a new Aboriginal Planning and Advisory Committee (APAC) is a proposed mechanism for seeking advice and recommendations from representatives of First Nations and Métis organizations on shaping regional monitoring programs. Key aspects of the APAC (e.g. name, role, purpose) are evolving. Although there will likely be representation from the oil sands region on the AEMERA TEK Panel, it will function at a province-wide level. Analysis There has been limited involvement of Aboriginal communities in JOSM and OS MER due to a number of factors, including the lack of a clear mandate or mechanisms for Aboriginal involvement, a failed engagement initiative at the start of JOSM with several ATC First Nations, and limited appetite and understanding within JOSM for achieving meaningful collaboration and involvement. More broadly, a lack of trust has characterized relationships between some Aboriginal communities and the Government of Alberta, and there is a history of not effectively incorporating Aboriginal interests into government activities and decisions broadly and into monitoring programs, in particular. While there is a growing interest from some parties to participate in the APAC, several communities believe the original conception for the committee was insufficient, and would like to see approaches that allow more direct involvement in the development of key questions, planning and decision-making in the OS MER program. Problem Statement Aboriginal groups are not meaningfully involved in OS MER program functions (strategy, monitoring planning, monitoring delivery, evaluation and reporting). In order for the OS MER program to be credible, relevant, and collaborative, Aboriginal communities will need to play an active and ongoing role in the program. Recommendation 18. Jointly develop a process with First Nations and Métis in the oil sands / Lower Athabasca Region for meaningful participation in the OS MER program, which respects their interests, rights and traditional areas, and includes their capacities to contribute to OS MER. Alberta Integrated Resource Management System (IRMS) Partners Current State AEMERA is one of six Government of Alberta partners (Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), Alberta Energy, AEMERA, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, and Alberta Aboriginal Relations) with responsibilities for implementing the Integrated Resource Management System (IRMS) the means by which the province will achieve responsible resource stewardship through government policy, land use planning, energy regulation, non-energy regulation and independent environmental monitoring. IRMS partners rely on data and information produced by AEMERA to inform policy, regional planning and regulatory decision-making. Analysis While the IRMS partners believe that AEMERA s monitoring, evaluation and reporting efforts should be independent, they are also concerned that AEMERA s interpretation of independence is preventing the Agency from effectively coordinating with IRMS partners. AEMERA is expected to STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 27

34 ensure efficient and effective coordination with IRMS partners while maintaining its independence, particularly when it comes to the evaluation and reporting functions. If the public or interested parties perceive government or regulatory influence on the reporting of environmental conditions, the credibility of AEMERA will be seriously undermined. The various mandates and responsibilities of IRMS partners for environmental monitoring need to be clarified, and AEMERA should confirm how it will align the OS MER program with regional land use plans. Additionally, better coordination needs to be established between IRMS partners to ensure that AEMERA has access to the required monitoring data to assess cumulative effects (e.g. compliance monitoring data), and that IRMS partners have access to timely data and evaluation from AEMERA to inform their decision-making. Problem Statement There is a lack of clarity on how integration and coordination will occur between AEMERA and other government and regulatory bodies with respect to sharing of compliance, ambient and cumulative effects monitoring information. Clearly stated roles among agencies and to the public and strengthened coordination will lead to an OS MER program that is more relevant, accessible, adaptive, and collaborative. Recommendation 19. Building from Recommendation 2, clarify the respective authorities, roles and interactions of the IRMS departments and agencies across the types of environmental monitoring. 20. Create an interagency committee on monitoring, chaired by AEMERA, to ensure coordination and sharing of data and monitoring results (across compliance, ambient and cumulative effects monitoring). Environmental Monitoring Organizations and Environment Canada Current State Environmental monitoring organizations such as WBEA and LICA are regionally-focused, multiinterest bodies with consensus-based decision-making processes. Under JOSM these organizations worked with various interests including industry and Aboriginal communities to develop specific media-based monitoring plans. During the first year of JOSM, industry provided funding directly to the environmental monitoring organizations to implement the plans. In the second year of JOSM, funding began flowing through ESRD (predecessor of AEP) to the environmental monitoring organizations. This shift in decision-making about funding coincided with the shift in the monitoring planning function from the independent organizations to the JOSM CACs. Analysis There was significant tension resulting from the uncertainty of how existing planning and budgeting processes would be subsumed or respected within JOSM and tensions remain. Organizations that are respected by many interested parties for their capacity and expertise, see themselves as potential OS MER program partners but feel marginalized and excluded from important functions (e.g. strategy, planning, and evaluation). EC, which played a co-governance role in JOSM and is seen by many interested parties as providing strong scientific expertise and monitoring capabilities and adding credibility to oil sands monitoring, is also uncertain as to its ongoing role in the OS MER program. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 28

35 An outstanding issue identified by some interested parties is the perception of conflict of interest in the monitoring planning process. Environmental monitoring organizations that stand to benefit as delivery agents are participants in monitoring planning at the CACs. However, in further discussion both in interviews and in a multi-interest workshop it became clear that the value these organizations can bring outweighs the risk of conflict of interest. Potential conflict of interest can be addressed if there is a transparent process in place around recognizing and declaring potential conflict of interest. Governance structures and planning processes that were developed and function in coordination with interested parties (e.g. WBEA) have not been integrated or aligned with the structure and processes of AEMERA. Although the planning and engagement functions of environmental monitoring organizations may be functioning, established and respected, if they remain in place they would duplicate the planning and engagement functions of AEMERA. As AEMERA establishes more inclusive and effective strategy and engagement functions, there will be less of a need for the environmental monitoring organizations to also maintain these functions, and it will be possible to transition away from them. However, this needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Problem Statement The roles that environmental monitoring organizations currently play in some OS MER program functions are unclear. By leveraging the capacity and expertise of environmental monitoring organizations and EC, AEMERA can strengthen its credibility, and become more collaborative. Recommendations 21. Clarify and formalize through agreements, the roles for environmental monitoring organizations and Environment Canada based on OS MER needs and partners capacity and expertise. 22. Utilize the MIPC and Expert Working Groups as the exclusive planning bodies, with environmental monitoring organizations represented on the MIPC, and contributing expert members to the Expert Working Groups. 23. Engage with each of the environmental monitoring organizations and with Environment Canada to develop transition plans to address their changing roles in OS MER. 3.9 DATA GOVERNANCE Current State Current OS MER data ground rules were established through the Joint Canada-Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring Data and Results Sharing and Release Principles and Protocols, approved by JOSM co-chairs in February A planned update to this document in February 2015 did not occur. IRMS released its Data Management Framework, Version 1.0, in March 2014, as a guide for IRMS partners to migrate to an interoperable, collaborative and open government environment. The framework established principles, policies, guidelines and standards, and functions and processes for the standardization of data across IRMS partners. There are shared principles with the JOSM Principles and Protocols document (e.g. publically accessible data; consistent, uniform data, etc.), while others differ (e.g. the establishment of data custodians and stewards to increase responsibility and accountability of data management). The framework was STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 29

36 approved by the IRMS Steering Committee in April 2014, but many of the supporting governance structures have yet to be implemented. Analysis Delivery agents 28 were not involved in the development of data ground rules, and consequently data ground rules are rarely followed or uniformly enforced. Delivery agents currently follow guidelines established by their own organizations, which impacts the accessibility and standardization of data being collected. There are tensions between delivery agents and AEMERA regarding the policy on data ownership, which states that AEMERA owns the monitoring data collected through the OS MER program. Several delivery agents argue that data should be owned by the creator (i.e. delivery agent) while others argue that the funder (i.e. AEMERA) should retain ownership, as the current policy states. There are also often restrictions on sharing data and information, depending on the provider (e.g. researchers unable to share data prior to publishing), likely caused by the current ownership policy. There is no consolidated source to access data: data is currently stored in a number of delivery agents portals, under different formats, which also affects the accessibility of data by a broader audience. User needs for data (and data formats) vary significantly depending on the interested party; it is unclear whether AEMERA has identified these needs, or determined the formats required to meet these needs. Problem Statement The management of data is not governed by a clear set of rules and does not address different needs of data users. Tough issues, like data ownership have not been resolved. Addressing these issues in a collaborative way with delivery agents will result in data management achieving greater independence, transparency and adaptability. Recommendations 24. Create a data task force involving delivery agents to establish data ground rules and ensure data integrity. a) Establish senior management accountability for establishing and facilitating the work of the data task force. b) Develop an agreement on data ownership. 25. Enforce data grounds rules through an annual data audit 29. a) Establish protocols with delivery agents to address a failed audit. 26. Establish two data platforms for data distribution in order to respond to the different needs of data users, including an informal dynamic platform for storing and accessing data internally within AEMERA (i.e. a scientific platform) and a formal static platform for sharing vetted data, post advisory review and approvals (i.e. a production platform). Options for data platforms are: b) Use a public-private partnership, either purpose-built or existing (e.g. Alberta Data Partnerships) to establish and manage the two platforms. 28 Where environmental monitoring organizations are referred to in the context of delivering monitoring activities under contract for AEMERA (as opposed to conducting multi-interest engagement or planning) they are referred to as delivery agents. 29 To ensure the efficacy of an audit, it is recommended it is undertaken by a third party (e.g. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization) STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 30

37 c) Build capacity within AEMERA to establish and manage the two platforms. d) Use an existing platform or new PPP to establish and manage one platform (e.g. the production platform) and AEMERA establish and manage the other OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES Current State and Analysis There are a limited number of key documents in place to guide OS MER management and operations: these include the terms of reference for various committees, a data and results-sharing protocol, and contracts with delivery agents. Clarity does not exist for key procedures, processes, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for monitoring, evaluation and reporting in the OS MER program, such as the process and responsibility for establishing and approving the OS MER program strategy or the monitoring budget. There are concerns that existing processes and decision-making are not transparent. Finally, there are key program-wide policies not yet in place for issues typically encountered by independent organizations with multiple partners, including conflict of interest and dispute resolution between parties. Problem Statement There are gaps in the policies and procedures required for the successful implementation of the OS MER program. Developing and consistently implementing effective policies and procedures will help the OS MER program to ensure its independence and transparency. Recommendations 27. Develop an operations and procedures manual for the OS MER program to clarify functions, processes, activities, accountabilities, and roles & responsibilities. 28. Develop and monitor implementation of a policy to address potential conflicts of interest among interested parties participating in OS MER. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 31

38 3.11 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Table 3: Summary of Recommendations Area GOVERNANCE PHILOSOPHY AND LEADERSHIP Recommendations 1. AEMERA needs to confirm and adopt a collaborative model of governance with participatory decision-making for some functions and overall accountability resting with AEMERA (see Figure 1, page 10). To be effective, participatory decision-making should involve balanced representation and participation, and should strive for consensus. AEMERA then needs to communicate to interested parties how this approach will be applied across OS MER program monitoring, evaluation, reporting functions. a) Where there are significant changes to the governance of monitoring, evaluation and reporting, AEMERA needs to discuss and, where appropriate, negotiate with interested parties to put in place transition plans. b) Where decision-making is participatory, AEMERA needs to engage with interested parties to shape the decision-making process. MANDATE, SCOPE AND FUNDING OF THE OS MER PROGRAM 2. Clarify and communicate AEMERA s mandate and responsibilities with regard to respective legislated environmental monitoring mandates (e.g. AER, AEP, and EC). 3. Clarify and communicate AEMERA s role in the IRMS system Define the regional scope of the OS MER program, and how funding, planning, monitoring, evaluation and reporting will align with the needs for oil sand impact monitoring, and LARP cumulative effects monitoring. Recognizing the interaction between the two main elements of OS MER scope: a) Allocate oil sands industry funding to oil sands impact monitoring, including OS MER strategy development and annual monitoring planning processes. b) Allocate Government of Alberta funding to broader regional ambient monitoring activities, and to the functions of data evaluation and reporting, and engagement. 30 See Section 3.10 for further analysis and recommendation regarding IRMS coordination. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 32

39 Area OS MER BUDGET SUFFICIENCY AND ALLOCATION Recommendations 5. Undertake an analysis of the sufficiency of the OS MER program budget to effectively implement the OS MER program strategy including key monitoring questions (see Section 3.4) and to implement supporting OS MER functions (monitoring planning, evaluation, reporting and engagement). a) If the budget is deemed insufficient, determine alternate funding sources or make strategic, risk-based choices about how to adjust activities to align with budget. 6. Clarify the processes and criteria for developing and making decisions on the OS MER budget, including for budget allocation across functions (monitoring, evaluation, reporting and engagement), and for conflict resolution. STRATEGIC APPROACH TO OS MER 7. Establish a Multi-Interest Planning Committee (MIPC) 31 with balanced interested party representation to develop a 5-year OS MER program strategy to be recommended to the AEMERA CEO for Board approval. a) The strategy will include overall program purpose, specific objectives and key environmental monitoring questions, and outline how these will be addressed by the monitoring, evaluation, reporting and engagement functions undertaken in OS MER. b) Develop an adaptive process for updating the strategy based on knowledge gained from the Program and changing circumstances. 8. Set accountability for OS MER program strategy development, implementation, review and renewal at the VP level, and ensure sufficient expert knowledge and strategic capacity is in place to adequately support these processes. MONITORING ANNUAL PLANNING AND DELIVERY 9. Utilize the Multi-Interest Planning Committee (MIPC) identified in Recommendation 7 to set annual monitoring priorities and corresponding budget envelopes, and to finalize a monitoring plan based on Expert Working Group designs of monitoring activities (see Section 4 for details). 10. Establish media-specific Expert Working Groups in place of CACs, accountable to the MIPC and AEMERA senior management, to design monitoring activities based on priorities and budget envelopes established by the MIPC. a) Ensure Aboriginal representation in the Expert Working Groups, where necessary funded under the OS MER program. 11. Establish coordination and integration mechanisms within the monitoring planning process. a) Set senior management accountability for providing coordination of the Expert Working Groups, support to the MIPC, and ensuring integration across the elements of the annual monitoring plan. 31 Proposed composition of MIPC (see Section 4.1 for further detail): First Nations (2), Métis (2 Métis Settlements, Métis Nation), EC, Monitoring organizations (3 WBEA, ABMI, LICA), Industry (3 CAPP, COSIA, forestry), IRMS (3 AEP, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, AER), NGO (2 1 regional, 1 provincial); AEMERA non-voting (3 VPs Science, Operations, Strategy). STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 33

40 Area Recommendations b) Establish committees or task forces, as necessary, to facilitate coordination and integration and other cross-cutting functions (e.g. a standing Coordination and Integration Committee; an Evaluation and Reporting Committee; a Data Advisory Task Force). 12. Set senior management accountability within AEMERA for ensuring the credible and effective incorporation of science and traditional ecological and community knowledge into all aspects of the OS MER strategy and annual monitoring plans. 13. Assign accountability for the contracts of delivery agents to one senior manager within AEMERA that can resolve issues and ensure implementation of contracts in a consistent manner across delivery agents. a) Ensure that the negotiation of terms for such contracts are developed in the context of other roles the environmental monitoring organizations can play in OS MER (see Recommendations 7 and 9). EVALUATION 14. Develop a robust and clear AEMERA management structure for the evaluation of environmental monitoring results. a) Assign a Vice President to be accountable for evaluation of OS MER monitoring results. b) Develop clear roles and responsibilities, and ensure necessary capacities of AEMERA staff, to carry out evaluation credibly. c) Develop mechanisms for coordination with other bodies (e.g. environmental monitoring organizations including community-based monitoring groups, AEP, EC, academics) to contribute to the evaluation function. REPORTING 15. Review, evaluate and prioritize JOSM monitoring data to report on what has been learned regarding both trends and progress in understanding the impacts of oil sands, since the monitoring began. 16. Confirm and communicate a predictable schedule of reporting and stick to the timelines outlined in the schedule. 17. Develop materials in plain language and ensure monitoring and evaluation results are accessible to all target audiences. RELATIONSHIPS AND COORDINATION 18. Jointly develop a process with First Nations and Métis in the oil sands / Lower Athabasca Region for meaningful participation in the OS MER program, which respects their interests, rights and traditional areas, and includes their capacities to contribute to OS MER. 19. Building from Recommendation 2, clarify the respective authorities, roles and interactions of the IRMS departments and agencies across the types of environmental monitoring. 20. Create an interagency committee on monitoring, chaired by AEMERA, to ensure coordination and sharing of data and monitoring results (across compliance, ambient and cumulative effects monitoring). 21. Clarify and formalize through agreements, the roles for environmental monitoring organizations and Environment Canada, based on OS MER needs and partners capacity and expertise. STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 34

41 Area Recommendations 22. Utilize the MIPC and Expert Working Groups as the exclusive planning bodies, with environmental monitoring organizations represented on the MIPC, and contributing expert members to the Expert Working Groups. 23. Engage with each of the environmental monitoring organizations and with Environment Canada to develop transition plans to address their changing roles in OS MER. DATA GOVERNANCE 24. Create a data task force involving AEMERA management and delivery agents to establish data ground rules and ensure data integrity. a) Establish senior management accountability for establishing and facilitating the work of the data task force. b) Develop an agreement on data ownership. 25. Enforce data grounds rules through an annual data audit 32. a) Establish protocols with delivery agents to address a failed audit. 26. Establish two data platforms for data distribution to respond to the different needs of data users, including an informal dynamic platform for storing and accessing data internally within AEMERA (i.e. a scientific platform) and a formal static platform for sharing vetted data, post advisory review and approvals (i.e. a production platform). Options for data platforms are: a) Use a public-private partnership, either purpose-built or existing (e.g. Alberta Data Partnerships) to establish and manage the two platforms. b) Build capacity within AEMERA to establish and manage the two platforms. c) Use an existing platform or new PPP to establish and manage one platform (e.g. the production platform) and AEMERA establish and manage the other. OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 27. Develop an operations and procedures manual for the OS MER program to clarify functions, processes, activities, accountabilities, and roles & responsibilities. 28. Develop and monitor implementation of a policy to address potential conflicts of interest among interested parties participating in OS MER. 32 To ensure the efficacy of an audit, it is recommended it is undertaken by a third party (e.g. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization) STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 35

42 4 Proposed Governance Structure and Roles Influence of Recommendations on Guiding Principles Throughout Section 3, each sub-section included a summary of how the recommendations will meet the intent of the guiding principles established for designing and implementing a cumulative effects environmental monitoring program (see Section 2.1 for the list and definitions of principles). Table 4 presents a visual summary of how recommendations will either strengthen or put at risk AEMERA s ability to meet the intent of the principles. Although most recommendations should have a positive impact on meeting the intent of the principles, some recommendations could have negative effects if not managed properly. In particular, the greater the potential impact of interested parties on an OS MER function, the greater the potential risk to independence as shown for Strategic Approach, Monitoring Planning, and Monitoring Delivery. For these three functions, the benefits provided through alignment with other principles are considered to outweigh the risks posed to independence. The impact of various recommendations on the principles influenced the priorities for next steps, are outlined in Section 5. Table 4: Relationship between Recommendations and Guiding Principles Guiding Principles Area of Recommendation Governance Philosophy Mandate, Scope and Funding Budget Strategic Approach Monitoring Planning Monitoring Delivery Evaluation Reporting Relationships Data Governance Operational Procedures Independent Credible (science / TEK) Relevant (interested party needs) Accessible (data / information) Transparent Adaptive Collaborative Legend Strengthen Put at Risk STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 36

43 4.1 PROPOSED OS MER GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE A proposed overall governance structure for OS MER has been developed, based on the set of recommendations put forward in Section 3. A summary of the governance bodies is presented in Figure 3. A breakdown of the composition of governance bodies, accountability, responsibility and decision-making authority is detailed in Table 5 (see following page) and presented in Section 4.2. Figure 3: Proposed Governance Structure STRATOS INC. OS MER Governance Review Final Report September 2015 p. 37