The Islands Trust Policy Statement, and how it’s veering off-course

A lot can happen in seven years.

In July 2025, the Islands Trust Council gave the first reading of the draft Trust Policy Statement. This reading was part of a long-term process that began in 2019 to amend the Islands Trust Policy Statement, which has not been updated since 1994. The public was invited to provide feedback and comment on the changes put forward in the draft Trust Policy Statement.

Then and now

Here, we compare key changes that have been made to the Islands Trust Policy Statement. While several changes have been made, we are placing a specific lens on changes pertaining to the twin biodiversity and climate change crises.

In Table 1, we look at explicit policies and highlight the changes made in the most recent draft Trust Policy Statement pertaining to protected areas and sensitive ecosystems.

Table 1. Comparison of thematic protected areas and ecosystem protection policies between the 1994 Trust Policy Statement and the 2025 draft Trust Policy Statement

Theme

1994 (PDF)

2025 (Bylaw 183 PDF)

Protected area networks

3.1.4: Local Trust Committees & Island Municipalities shall address “planning, establishment, and maintenance of a network of protected areas that preserve representative ecosystems… and maintain ecological integrity.” 

3.3.1: “Identify, establish, and sustain a network of protected areas of sufficient size and distribution to preserve the environmental integrity of ecosystems…” 

Environmentally sensitive areas / significant natural features

3.1.3: shall address “identification and protection of environmentally sensitive areas and significant natural sites, features and landforms…” 

3.3.2: “Identify and prioritize preservation, protection, and restoration of sensitive ecosystems… (cliff; freshwater; herbaceous; old and mature forest; riparian; wetland; woodland).” 

Emissions/pollution control

3.1.5: shall address “regulation of land use and development to restrict emissions to land, air and water to levels not harmful to humans or other species.” 

Bylaw 183’s Ecosystem Integrity directives focus on ecosystem identification/protection/restoration (3.3.1–3.3.4). 

Unfragmented forest ecosystems

3.2.2: shall address “protection of unfragmented forest ecosystems… from adverse impacts of growth, development, and land use.” 

3.3.3: “Identify forest ecosystems and prioritize… unfragmented forests, with particular focus on the maintenance and restoration of their ecological integrity”.  

Freshwater / wetlands / riparian protection

3.3.2: shall address means “to prevent further loss or degradation of freshwater bodies… wetlands and riparian zones and to protect aquatic wildlife.” 

3.3.5: “Identify and prioritize preservation, protection, and restoration of watershed ecosystems, freshwater sources, and groundwater recharge areas.” 

Coastal sensitive areas

3.4.4: shall address “protection of sensitive coastal areas.” 

No corresponding policy.

Coastal development & natural processes

3.4.5: shall address “planning for and regulation of development in coastal regions to protect natural coastal processes.” 

Bylaw 183’s Ecosystem Integrity directives focus on ecosystem identification/protection/restoration (3.3.1–3.3.4).  

Growth management compatible with environment

5.2.4: shall address “growth rate and strategies for growth management” to ensure land use is compatible with “preservation and protection of the environment… resources and community character.” 

Bylaw 183 reorganizes policy around Objectives/Goals; ecosystem protection is elevated into Guiding Principle 2.1.2 (“prioritiz[e]… preserving, protecting and restoring the environment… in all decision making”) and then expressed in specific ecosystem directives under Goal 3: Preserve and Protect Healthy and Biodiverse Ecosystems.

In Table 2, we explore overarching policy topics that intersect with the twin biodiversity and climate change crises, and how the most recent draft Trust Policy Statement addresses these topics.

Table 2. Comparison of overarching policy topics between the 1994 Trust Policy Statement and the 2025 draft Trust Policy Statement

Topic

1994 (PDF)

2025 (Bylaw 183 PDF)

Indigenous Reconciliation

Contained no meaningful content about Indigenous Peoples, rights, or reconciliation.
This is explicitly stated in public commentary: the original policy “had nothing about First Nations, nothing about reconciliation.” 

Adds Indigenous Inherent Rights Acknowledgment.Adds Goal 1: Advance Reconciliation.Adds detailed lists of Coast Salish and other First Nations whose Territories the Trust Area occupies. Establishes Reconciliation Principles as a core Guiding Principle.

Climate Change

Absent.

Acknowledges Climate Change. Introduces climate‑related commitments: Promotion of nature‑based climate solutionsSupport for GHG reduction strategies Integration of climate considerations throughout ecosystem and land‑use objectives.

Ecosystem Protection

The Trust’s conservation mandate was present, but the Trust Policy Statement: Was less explicit about biodiversity protection. Lacked modern ecosystem concepts (resilience, cumulative impacts, integrated land‑sea planning).

Adds Goal 3: Preserve and Protect Healthy and Biodiverse Ecosystems. Updated language has a stronger marine ecosystem focus (eelgrass, nearshore habitats), and mentions more ecosystem types and health.

Land & Water Stewardship

General encouragement.

Adds Goal 5: Foster Sustainable Stewardship of Lands and Waters. This section supports: Sustainable land and water use;Restoration of degraded ecosystems; Long‑term ecological health as a policy priority; Updated language emphasizes sustainability and restoration.

Explicit climate change focus

The updated policy explicitly integrates climate considerations, something that is missing from the 1994 version. According to reporting on the update process, climate change is one of the “two big additions” in the new draft (along with Indigenous reconciliation).

The 2025 draft Trust Policy Statement includes objectives such as:

  • Encouraging nature‑based climate solutions (e.g., coastal restoration, forests, eelgrass meadows), and 
  • Supporting GHG emissions reductions through land‑use planning and transportation policy alignment. 

These indicate stronger environmental commitments than earlier versions of the Trust Policy Statement. However, encouraging and supporting is non-committal language, similar to language used in the 1994 version.

Mandatory vs. non‑mandatory commitments

Mandatory Directives in the 1994 Trust Policy Statement contained commitments, recommendations, and directives, but:

  • Directives were fewer and less detailed, giving Local Trust Committees more latitude; and
  • Environmental protections were often expressed as general commitments.

The 2025 draft Trust Policy Statement maintains the same policy categories (commitments, recommendations, and directives), but:

  • Modernized Directive Policies strengthen enforceability where applicable.

However, Directive Policies are the only mandatory elements that Local Trust Committees must follow.

Updated language in the 2025 draft Trust Policy Statement provokes a very important nuance: environmental commitments are often expressed as “commitments” or “recommendations,” but binding power comes from the “Directive Policies.”

Introduced Goals 3 and 5 demonstrate an intention by the Islands Trust to:

  • Preserve ecological integrity,
  • Protect biodiversity, and
  • Steward terrestrial and marine ecosystems.

However, these Goals are framed as objectives, and though they guide the creation of Directive Policies, some of which are mandatory, they are not directive policies in and of themselves. This means the strength of environmental protection hinges on how Directive Policies are drafted and enforced. Despite this, the new language does offer some strengths, such as:

  • Explicitly centering ecosystem protection, biodiversity, climate resilience, and stewardship;
  • Including multiple goals and objectives directly addressing ecological health;
  • Closing gaps (e.g., climate change) present in the 1994 version;

While the intent is seemingly conservation‑centric, there are limitations, such as:

  • Much of the language is high‑level and not legally binding, with no corresponding Directive Policies.
  • Local implementation will vary, depending on how local trust committees interpret and apply the directives.

While the TPS makes strong stated environmental commitments, especially compared to the past version, its operationality depends on the enforceability of Directive Policies and implementation by local trust committees.

What does this mean?

The Islands Trust Policy Statement will be used to guide the focus and work of the Trust Council into 2050. As the twin biodiversity and climate change crises are expected to continue to amplify and reinforce one another, land use policy bears more weight than ever before. Once approved, the Trust Policy Statement will guide Official Community Plans and be adopted into local bylaws, shaping the landscape and communities of the Trust Area into 2050.