Annex D: Data considerations and notes

We have archived this page and will not be updating it.

You can use it for research or reference.

We have archived this page and will not be updating it.

You can use it for research or reference.

Indicator: National greenhouse gas emissions

Data Considerations and Notes

• The GHGs included in estimates are carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃).
• Carbon dioxide equivalent is a measure used to compare the emissions from various GHGs based upon their global warming potential.
• The data used for this indicator are from Canada’s National Inventory Report. The inventory uses internationally agreed methodologies and reporting format.

Indicator: Progress toward Canada’s GHG emissions reduction target

Data Considerations and Notes

• The indicator is based on the 2015 National Inventory Report on Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada (NIR), 1990–2013. The 2015 NIR includes revisions to historical emissions based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines, which incorporate updated global warming potentials (GWP). For example, the 100-year GWP for methane is now 25, compared with 21 in previous years. This results in an increase in historic emissions compared with last year’s NIR.
• The future level of GHG emissions in Canada depends on a number of factors. Changes in the current or future context for any of these parameters would change the currently projected GHG levels.

Indicator: Number of Canadian communities with Heat Alert and Response Systems

Indicator: Number of community-based research projects funded to address climate change and health adaptation in First Nations and Inuit communities in northern Canada

Indicator: Number of new knowledge products indicator

Indicator: Number of communities implementing adaptation plans and measures

Indicator: Number of new and revised codes and standards and guidelines for infrastructure in the North being adopted

Data Considerations and Notes

• This target is new to the 2013–2016 FSDS.

Indicator: Air quality indicators

Data Considerations and Notes

• The methodologies, limitations and assumptions associated with these indicators can be found in the CESI Data Sources and Methods for the Air Quality Indicators.
• Monitoring stations are selected with the help of time-series criteria for the calculation of the air quality indicators. As a result, the number of stations selected may vary from one release date to another.

Indicator: National air pollutant emissions

Indicator: Air health indicator—Ozone and fine particulate matter

Data Considerations and Notes

• The methodologies, limitations and assumptions associated with these indicators can be found in the CESI Data Sources and Methods for the Air Pollutant Emmissions Indicators.
• The methodologies for estimating and compiling air pollutant emissions summaries and analyzing trends are improved yearly. Improvements to data completeness are also made periodically as new emission estimation methodologies are adopted and additional information is made available. Nevertheless, it was not possible to update some area sources emissions for 2013 due to activity level statistics not being available at the time of the compilation.
• The Air Health Indicator (AHI) is an indicator in development. It focuses on the mortality risk from cardiopulmonary diseases as a whole for ozone (O₃) and fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) in communities with the best available data. The AHI work does not include assessments of the potential reasons behind changes in mortality attributable to air pollutant exposure.
• Due to the complexity of mortality data collection, the AHI data lags other data sets. Currently AHI modeling is completed for 1990 to 2007. Indicators values reported for 2008 to 2010 are approximated using the averages of annual national risk estimates from the previous periods (1990 to 2007 for O₃ and 2001 to 2007 for PM_2.5) and should be considered as preliminary.
• This target was reported as Target 6.2 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Actions to manage indoor air quality that incorporate health-based guidance

Data Considerations and Notes

• Health Canada has also conducted field research to investigate sources of residential indoor air quality and impacts of intervention studies.

Indicator: Drinking water advisories in Canada

Indicator: Freshwater quality in Canadian rivers

Indicator: Water quantity in Canadian rivers

Data Considerations and Notes

• The water quantity and quality indicators only assess surface waters. Groundwater is not considered in the indicators.
• Most water quantity and quality monitoring stations in Canada are located in populated areas and do not represent the country’s entire geographic extent or all its watersheds.
• To dampen temporal variability in the water quality results caused by annual fluctuations in weather and hydrology, three years of data are combined to produce the results.
• The freshwater quality indicator does not directly measure biological integrity; it measures whether physical and chemical characteristics of freshwaters are acceptable for aquatic life.
• Normal water quantity does not mean there are not areas within the drainage region with too much or not enough water for some period of the year.
• The Drinking Water Advisories in Canada indicator presents an overall view of the trends emerging in the system and does not foucs on the specific data for any particular province, territory or agency It is important to note that percentages reported in this report may differ from previous and future reports as historic data are added to the system and as adoption of the Drinking Water Advisories application expands to new agencies.

Indicator: First Nations water and wastewater system risk

Data Considerations and Notes

• Only INAC-funded First Nations water and wastewater systems on reserves across Canada are included.
• The overall number of systems actually inspected varies slightly from year to year due to eligibility criteria or conditions that determine if, or to what extent, a system is subject to an inspection. For example, brand-new systems or freshly renovated systems may not be subject to an inspection.
• This target was reported as Target 3.10 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Water quality guidelines/guidance documents

Data Considerations and Notes

• This target was reported as Target 3.11 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Restoring the Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC)

Data Considerations and Notes

• Each AOC is assessed separately. Most initial assessments were published between 1989 and 1993.
• The reporting process is unique for each AOC and reflects the specific needs and activities in each area. As a result, data availability varies across AOCs.
• The beneficial use status findings are gathered from the Remedial Action Plans and update reports published by the groups working to delist the AOCs. For this reason, a status can only change when new reports are published. While useful in many respects, this reporting process does not reflect the continuous nature of the rehabilitation process and results in staggered status changes.
• This target was reported as Target 3.1 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Phosphorus levels in the Great Lakes

Data Considerations and Notes

• This indicator reflects the overall state of phosphorus levels in the offshore of the Great Lakes and does not indicate near-shore phosphorus levels. Offshore data from the U.S. is not included in this indicator.
• Water quality for each Great Lake is determined by comparing average spring offshore total phosphorus concentrations with the lake’s water quality objective.
• Interim objectives for phosphorus concentration in the Great Lakes have been set in the amended 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA).
• The 2012 Canada–U.S. GLWQA stipulates that the State of the Lakes reports is to be published every three years. The last report published in 2014 presented data up to 2011; the next report will be published in 2017.
• This target was reported as Target 3.2 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Phosphorus and nitrogen levels in the St. Lawrence River

Data Considerations and Notes

• The nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations do not capture the effect of spills or other transient events, unless these are frequent or long-lasting.
• Comparing this indicator with similar indicators for lakes requires a degree of caution. In rivers, total phosphorus concentrations are influenced by suspended particles in the water that increase during high-flow events.
• This target was reported as Target 3.3 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Reducing phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe and South-eastern Georgian Bay

Data Considerations and Notes

• Estimates/predictions assume that each management project is 100% effective and that reductions in phosphorus flows to surface waters achieved are permanent. The indicator does not directly measure the amount of phosphorus actually diverted from the lake.
• The Lake Simcoe and South-eastern Georgian Bay Clean-up Fund program relies on the most appropriate, current and accepted equations to predict phosphorus loading reductions resulting from the implementation of beneficial management practices.
• This target was reported as Target 3.4 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Phosphorus and nitrogen levels in Lake Winnipeg

Indicator: Reducing phosphorus loads to Lake Winnipeg

Data Considerations and Notes

• The Phosphorus and Nitrogen Levels in Lake Winnipeg indicator does not show the effect of spills or other transient events unless these are frequent or long-lasting.
• The calculation of the indicators for the major tributaries and the lake are slightly different. This difference exists because total phosphorus concentrations in rivers are influenced by suspended particles in the water, which may increase during high-flow events.
• Estimates/predictions assume that each management project is 100% effective and that reductions in phosphorus flows to surface waters achieved are permanent. The indicator does not directly measure the amount of phosphorus actually diverted from the lake.
• The program relies on the most appropriate, current and accepted equations to predict phosphorus loading reductions resulting from the implementation of beneficial management practices.
• This target was reported in the 2010–2013 FSDS as Target 3.5. This target was achieved, and subsequently the current (new) target was developed.

Indicator: Number of marine pollution spills from identified vessels

Data Considerations and Notes

• The difference between total spills and spills by identified vessels represents spills that were detected but for which the source is unknown.
• Between 2009–2010 and 2013–2014, the National Aerial Surveillance Program increased the number of patrol hours from 2274 to 3877 hours, contributing to the increase in the number of vessels over-flown and the spills detected from identified vessels.
• This target was introduced for the first time in the 2013–2016 FSDS.

Indicator: Managing disposal at sea

Data Considerations and Notes

• Disposal sites are monitored on a representative basis. Not all disposal sites used each year are monitored. Between 2005 and 2014, the number of monitored sites per year fluctuated between 6 and 20 sites.
• This target was reported in combination with Target 3.8 (the combined target was Target 3.9 Marine Water Quality) in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Soil and water quality indicators for agriculture

Data Considerations and Notes

• The two national indices for this target are calculated using indicator models developed at a local level. The local results are scaled to the national scale, which can mean that information to help determine actual physical causes of problems in specific locations is lost or inaccurate.
• The indicator for soil contamination by trace elements was only calculated for the years 1981 and 2006. For years in between, an interpolated value was included in the index calculation.
• This target was introduced for the first time in the 2013–2016 FSDS.

Indicator: Managing metal mining effluent quality in Canada

Indicator: Managing pulp and paper effluent quality in Canada

Data Considerations and Notes

• The indicators consider whether self-reported effluent samples are meeting regulations. They do not measure impact of the effluent on the environment.
• Groundwater is not considered in these indicators.
• Data collection for the wastewater indicator will begin in February 2016, and for this reason, progress on wastewater treatment cannot yet be reported.
• This target was reported as Target 3.7 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Data Considerations and Notes

• This target was reported as Target 4.1 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: General Status of Species in Canada

Indicator: Level of exposure to substances of concern

Data Considerations and Notes

• Species are often present in multiple provinces or territories, and there are separate rankings by region for the same species.
• The ranking for a given species is first done at the regional level. The ranks can be quite different depending on the range and condition of the population across regions. The process of establishing the rank for Canada usually involves selecting the highest regional rank with exceptions related to breeding areas and the proportion of a species’ range within a region. The average of the ranks by region is not an appropriate measure of the overall status of a species in the context of the whole country.
• The indicator for general status of species only represents biodiversity at the species level and does not report on genetic and ecosystem diversity.
• The General Status of Species in Canada indicator is generated and released every five years; the next update is anticipated for fall 2016.
• The indicator for level of exposure to substances of concern is currently under development.

Indicator: Species at risk population trends

Data Considerations and Notes

• While the indicator coverage is national, significant variations in information availability exist. Species knowledge is greatest in southern Canada, in part because the area is more accessible, and in part because more species at risk inhabit southern Canada.
• Species require time to recover, and long-lived species may require many decades. As such, the results should not be interpreted as a measure of recovery success until sufficient time has passed to allow species to recover and to collect sufficient information to assess that recovery.
• Determining population trends in rare species can present some challenges. For many of these species, individuals are difficult to find and identify.
• A pilot version of this indicator was reported as Target 5.1 in the 2012 FSDS Progress Report.

Indicator: Population status of Canada’s migratory birds

Data Considerations and Notes

• Population goals take into account human uses of birds, such as hunting or bird watching, as well as the role of birds in our ecosystems. As societal needs change and science progresses, it is to be expected that these goals will be refined over time.
• The indicator is restricted to species considered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and those that regularly reside in Canada. Groups of species such as raptors and corvids are not included.
• Species that are within the acceptable range may still be of conservation concern. Examples might include cases where trends are negative or where a species remains at the lower end of the range for a number of years. Similarly, if a group of related species are near the boundaries of the acceptable range, it may signal the need for management intervention.

Indicator: Canada’s protected areas—terrestrial area

Indicator: Habitat secured for waterfowl

Indicator: Habitat secured for species at risk

Indicator: Total land area identified that is key to migratory birds and species at risk

Data Considerations and Notes

• The indicator for the Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk presents a measure of the quantity of habitat secured, not a measure of the success of species conservation or recovery, or of the quality of habitat secured.
• Areas addressed by the three conservation indicators may overlap.
• Information is not available on the total land identified that is key to migratory birds and species at risk.
• This target was reported as Target 6.1 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Ecological integrity of national parks

Data Considerations and Notes

• Parks Canada regularly publishes reports on the state of national parks. The next State of Canada’s Natural and Historic Places report is expected in 2016, and will be published every 5 years after that.
• Parks are not isolated from the surrounding environment. Local context, such as the land use surrounding the park, and global-level changes like climate change, also affect the state of park ecosystems.
• This target was reported as Target 6.2 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Canada’s protected areas—marine area

Data Considerations and Notes

• Coastlines are mapped differently at the national scale than at the scale of individual protected areas. Due to the uncertainty of boundaries, results should be seen as general estimates rather than precise measurements.
• Reporting towards Target 6.3 under the 2010–2013 FSDS included “contributory sites” as elements of Canada’s Marine Protected Areas network. This approach is in the process of being revised, in keeping with wording of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) target, which calls for the conservation of 10% of marine and coastal areas by 2020. The CBD target includes protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.

Indicator: Newly established invasive alien species in Canada, 2012–2013

Data Considerations and Notes

• Alien species may be present without becoming invasive, and it may take some time to recognize whether a species is invasive.
• Species native to a region in Canada that are invading elsewhere in Canada are not included.
• New invasive alien species subject to eradication efforts are not reported under this indicator.
• This target was reported as Target 6.4 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Environmental emergencies–regulated facilities

Data Considerations and Notes

• A related target was reported as Target 6.2 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Releases of harmful substances to the environment

Indicator: Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in fish and water

Indicator: Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) in fish and sediment

Indicator: Levels of human exposure to harmful substances

Data Considerations and Notes

• The Levels of Human Exposure to Harmful Substances indicator is based on the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) which did not target specific exposure scenarios, and consequently did not select or exclude participants on the basis of their potential for low or high exposures to environmental chemicals. The following groups were not included in the CHMS: people living on reserves or in other Indigenous settlements in the provinces; residents of institutions; full-time members of the Canadian Armed Forces; people living in certain remote areas; and people living in areas with a low population density.
• Monitoring and surveillance of harmful substances in the environment under the Chemical Management Plan began in 2007. As monitoring is not necessarily performed at the same location each year, year-to-year comparisons at the national level are not yet possible. To address this limitation, the PBDEs in Fish and Sediment indicators, and the PFOS in fish and water indicators are estimated by grouping the samples for all recent available years by drainage area.
• The releases to water indicators only reflect the releases reported by facilities to the National Pollutant Release Inventory. They do not estimate or include potential releases from other sources in Canada, or releases noted during enforcement activities.
• This target was reported as Target 2.3 and Target 3.12 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Sustainability of timber harvest

Indicator: Status of major fish stocks

Data Considerations and Notes

• Forest data are collected from many jurisdictions and rolled-up to national level. Methods for estimating wood supply and harvest vary among jurisdictions.
• The term "timber" refers to the supply of industrial roundwood. Supply and harvest of other products (e.g., fuelwood) are not included.
• The sharp decline in the total annual harvest since 2006 is mostly due to the global economic downturn and the decline in use of newspaper due to the increase in the use of electronic media.
• Recovery of fish stocks requires time and good environmental conditions. Information is difficult to collect in the large volume of ocean waters.
• This goal was reported as Goal 7 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Sustainable fish harvest

Data Considerations and Notes

• The Fishery Checklist is completed with the best available information. Given the challenges and expense of monitoring mobile fish in a large volume, comprehensive information is not always readily available.
• The Fishery Checklist summarizes information across a wide variety of species, management regimes, and types of fisheries, geographic regions and socio-economic contexts. Results should be interpreted with this in mind.
• Harvest rates are only one element of sustainable fish management.
• This target was reported as Target 7.1 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.

Indicator: Management of Canadian aquaculture

Data Considerations and Notes

• Shared jurisdiction with provinces and territories, as well as the large number of stakeholders and wide variety of aquaculture species and infrastructure, make industry-wide measures difficult to design and assess.

Indicator: Representation of the Canadian Forest Service on advisory boards or committees involving governments, industry and non-governmental organizations in order to provide scientific knowledge on forest ecosystems

Data Considerations and Notes

• This target was reported as Target 7.3 in the 2010–2013 FSDS.
• The indicator for this target has been revised.

Indicator: Wildlife habitat capacity on farmland

Indicator: Environmental farm planning on agricultural land

Data Considerations and Notes

• The wildlife habitat capacity on farmland indicator depends on modelling how wildlife species use farmland. This involves a simplification of species’ behaviour and an integration of results over a wide range of species. General observations that wildlife capacity has increased or decreased should not be applied to individual species.
• The improved methodology uses a land-cover map at 30 metres resolution. Many important landscape features, such as hedgerows, wind breaks and small watercourses, are not captured at this resolution.
• This target was introduced for the first time in the 2013–2016 FSDS.

Indicator: Departmental GHG emissions reductions from buildings and fleets relative to fiscal year 2005–2006, expressed as a percentage

Data Considerations and Notes

• Consistent with the Theme IV target, reported emissions are from energy consumption of federally operated buildings and fleet located in Canada, and consist of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) only.
• Departments are excluded from reporting against operations where national safety and security is overwhelmingly the primary function, or where efforts required to obtain complete and accurate energy data are prohibitively onerous.
• Improvements to the GHG emission intensity of electricity generation in Canada (greening of the grid) are not included in the federal GHG target calculations, though these improvements have significant implications for organizations (including the federal government) that purchase this electricity. The aggregate emissions reduction from responsible departments and agencies for 2013–2014 increases to 14% below 2005–2006 levels when “greening of the grid” is taken into account. Without the inclusion of the “greening of the grid”, the emissions reduction is 2.5%. Departmental emissions reported for measuring progress against the federal GHG target exclude the “greening of the grid” to demonstrate and maintain visibility of internal efforts.
• This target is a continuation of the 2010–2013 FSDS Target 8.5.

Indicator: Number of real property projects and existing buildings achieving a high level of environmental performance

Indicator: Number and percentage of FSDS departments that have established three SMART green procurement targets from the identified commodity categories

Indicator: Number and percentage of FSDS departments that have developed an approach to maintain and improve the sustainability of workplace policies and practices

Data Considerations and Notes

• SMART is defined as Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound. These targets focus on goods and services that are common to government purchasers (e.g., high spend and/or high volume), that have important environmental impacts, and for which tools and resources are available to facilitate the integration of environmental considerations in departmental procurement.
• Progress summarized in the following section is largely based on the achievements of departments and agencies meeting the previously established targets under FSDS 2010–2013 (Target 8.1–8.4: Improving the environmental performance of buildings, 8.6: Managing electronic waste, 8.7: Reducing printing units, 8.8: Reducing paper consumptions, 8.9: Green meetings, and 8.10–11: Green Procurement), which have been incorporated into the FSDS 2013–2016 targets, identified above.

Indicator: Total number of existing Crown-owned buildings (over 1000 m²) and new lease or lease renewal projects (over 1000 m²), where the Crown is the major lessee, assessed for environmental performance using an industry-recognized assessment tool, and associated floor space (m²)

Indicator: Total number of existing Crown-owned buildings, new construction, build-to-lease projects, major renovation projects, achieving an industry-recognized level of high environmental performance, and associated floor space (m²)

Indicator: Number of fit-up and refit projects achieving an industry-recognized level of high environmental performance

Data Considerations and Notes

• Specific scoping considerations and approaches to environmental performance are established by individual departments and are identified in their departmental Real Property Sustainability Frameworks. Information on applicable buildings, the assessment tools used, and performance level sought or achieved are noted in each departments Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy supplementary tables.
• Six additional buildings reported in 2012–13 Departmental Performance Reports (four Canada Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] Gold and two LEED Silver) are not included in the “new construction, build-to-lease projects, and major renovations projects” indicator because they achieved certification prior to the implementation of the 2010–2013 FSDS.
• Floor space (m²) was not a required reporting element under the 2010–2013 FSDS, and therefore is not currently available for the performance indicators under this target.
• To consolidate government-wide greening actions related to real property, four 2010–2013 FSDS targets (8.1–8.4) were combined to form Target 7.1 in the 2013–2016 FSDS.

Indicator: Number and percentage of specialists in procurement and/or material management who have completed the Canada School of Public Service Green Procurement course or equivalent, in the given fiscal year

Indicator: Number and percentage of managers and functional heads of procurement and material management whose performance evaluation includes support and contribution towards green procurement, in the given fiscal year

Data Considerations and Notes

• Departmental reporting on the number of relevant employees that have included support and contribution towards green procurement in their performance evaluations was not required under the 2010–2013 FSDS.
• Additional detailed progress can be found in the departmental performance reports of departments and agencies bound by the Policy on Green Procurement.
• To consolidate government-wide actions related to green procurement, 2010–2013 FSDS Targets 8.10 and 8.11 were combined to form Target 7.2 in the 2013–2016 FSDS.

Indicator: The existence of a departmental approach to maintain or improve the sustainability of workplace policies and practices

Data Considerations and Notes

• Reports on types and quantities of surplus electronic equipment are available for some disposal options only. In addition to equipment donated to Computers for Schools, departments divert surplus federal electronic and electrical equipment for resale through GCSurplus, or send unusable equipment to provincial recycling programs recognized by organizations such as the Electronics Products Recycling Association. Where provincial recycling programs are not available, or for equipment that is not accepted in any of the available streams, the federal government set up a national master standing offer with a qualified Canadian e-waste recycling organization to ensure that departments and agencies have access to secure, reliable and environmentally sound disposal.
• To consolidate government-wide actions related to sustainable workplace operations, four FSDS 2010–2013 targets (8.6–8.9) were combined to form Target 7.3 in the 2013–2016 FSDS.
• A fourth optional target, Target 7.4 (Greening Services to Clients), was introduced in 2013–2016, which focuses on measures by departments to reduce the environmental impact of the services provided to their clients.

Indicator: Three FSDS departments have established targets to reduce the environmental impact of their services to clients.

Data Considerations and Notes

• Reporting on progress toward departmental greening services targets will be available in Departmental Performance Reports and summarized as appropriate in subsequent FSDS Progress Reports.
• This Greening Services target is a new, optional target meant to recognize and showcase departmental greening initiatives that are not covered by other FSDS targets. It was developed on the basis of feedback from departments during consultations on the development of the 2013–2016 FSDS.

Indicator: Number of applicable FSDS departments and agencies that have established an approach to improving water management in their real property operations

Indicator: Amount and percentage of floor space of new Crown-owned construction and major renovation projects that includes water metering, in the given fiscal year

Data Considerations and Notes

• While some specific federal buildings or facilities have established procedures in place to track and manage water consumption, additional time and effort will lead to more widespread water tracking and management across federal departments.
• As departments and agencies continue to improve the water metering of their buildings and the monitoring of potable water consumption, it is expected that over time, the government will be able to benchmark its water performance and report on improvements.
• Reporting on progress toward departmental water management targets will be available in future Departmental Performance Reports. This information will be summarized as appropriate in subsequent FSDS Progress Reports.