ID: 1788
Presenting Author: Rosemary Collard
Session: 725 - After the Assessment – Where’s the Value and What Happened in the End?
Status: pending
Predictive audits can assess prediction accuracy in IA by comparing actuals against predictions. An example is given of predictive audits of BC and YT mine IA economic forecasts.
In many jurisdictions around the world, impact assessments (IA) serve as the basis for decision-makers to weigh predicted costs of major projects against predicted benefits. More often than not, through the IA, predicted benefits – typically jobs, tax revenue and economic activity – are deemed to outweigh predicted costs, whether ecological or otherwise. But as many have observed for decades, follow-up is rarely conducted to confirm the degree to which benefits or costs materialize. As a result, prediction accuracy is largely unknown, preventing ongoing learning in IA and impairing evidence-based decision-making. The comparison of actuals against predictions is thus what Glasson and colleagues call the “Achilles heel” of IA. Predictive audits can be a useful “follow-up” method for addressing this gap, exploring whether predictions made in IAs are comparable to actual impacts. This paper presentation provides an example of predictive audits of British Columbia and Yukon mine IA’s economic forecasts. Audit results indicate predictions of mines’ production, employment and tax revenue provided in their IAs tend to be inaccurate: both overstated and misleadingly steady as opposed to the reality of mines temporarily closing in response to volatile commodity cycles. Collecting such information and making it transparent would enable regulators, Indigenous nations, local communities and the public to better evaluate proposed mines. Tracking “what happened in the end” with projects is essential to ensure sound IA and evidence-based decision-making.
Rosemary Collard is an Associate Professor in the Department of Geography at Simon Fraser University
Coauthor 1: Jessica Dempsey