4. Findings

This section sets out the findings of this evaluation, broken down by evaluation issue (relevance and performance) and by related evaluation questions. For each evaluation question, a rating is provided based on an assessment of the evaluation findings. The rating statements and their significance are outlined below in Table 3. A summary of ratings for the evaluation questions is provided in Appendix B.

Table 3: Definitions of standard rating statements
Statement Definition
Acceptable
The Program has demonstrated that it has met the expectations with respect to the issue area.
Opportunity for improvement The Program has demonstrated that it has made adequate progress to meet the expectations with respect to the issue area, but continued improvement can still be made.
Attention required The Program has not demonstrated that it has made adequate progress to meet the expectations with respect to the issue area, and attention is needed on a priority basis.
Not applicable There is no expectation that the Program will address the evaluation issue
Unable to assess Insufficient evidence is available to support a rating.

4.1. Relevance

4.1.1. Continued need for the Program

Evaluation issue: relevance Rating
1. Is there a continuing need for the Program? Acceptable

Given the importance of freshwater as a resource, the known and emerging threats to water quality and their potential health impacts, as well as existing legislative obligations, there are clear societal, environmental and legislative needs to monitor, assess and report on Canada’s water quality.

4.1.2. Alignment with federal government priorities

Evaluation issue: relevance Rating
2. Is the Program aligned with federal government priorities? Acceptable

The work of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystems Health Program supports several priority government programs, and addresses commitments outlined in federal/provincial/international agreements related to water quality monitoring.

4.1.3    Alignment with federal duties and responsibilities

Evaluation issue: relevance Rating
3. Is the program consistent with federal roles and responsibilities? Acceptable

The federal government has responsibilities related to water management, and has jurisdiction over transboundary waters, although it shares responsibilities for freshwater quality management with the provinces. To ensure clarity, the Program administrators have implemented a series of agreements that define the Program’s roles in inter-jurisdictional water quality monitoring.

4.2. Performance – effectiveness

4. To what extent have intended outcomes been achieved as a result of the Program?

Immediate outcomes
Evaluation issue: performance – effectiveness Rating
i. Research capacity is maintained and aligned with priority areas Acceptable
ii. Science-based knowledge and data is available to address mandates and commitments Acceptable
iii. Risk-based mechanisms are in place to support water quality monitoring Opportunity for improvement
Intermediate outcomes
Evaluation issue: performance – effectiveness Rating
i. Timely science-based information and data is used to support decisions Opportunity for improvement
ii. Key risks are identified, assessed or managed Acceptable
Final outcome
Evaluation issue: performance – effectiveness Rating
Water resources policies and programs are informed by data and information. Acceptable

Immediate outcome 1: Research capacity is maintained in areas that align with ECCC and federal government priority areas – Acceptable

Research is being conducted in collaboration with others, and addresses priority areas including the oil sands, the Arctic, and the Chemicals Management Plan.

Immediate outcome 2: High quality science-based knowledge and data are made available to address Canada’s water quality and aquatic ecosystems health legislated mandates and commitments – Acceptable

Credible, science-based and relevant water quality and aquatic ecosystems health information is made available to stakeholders and the public through websites, data portals and peer-reviewed publications to support the Program’s mandate and commitments related to its component programs.

Immediate outcome 3: Risk-based mechanisms are in place to support water quality monitoring using cooperative and integrated approaches with others – Opportunity for Improvement

A considerable amount of work has been done to prioritize freshwater quality monitoring activities through the development of a risk-based approach (RBA). While there has been substantial progress, the approach has yet to be fully implemented. For marine water quality monitoring, the Program makes use of pollution surveys and surveillance to minimize risks.

Intermediate outcome 1: Water resource managers use timely and relevant science-based information and data to support decisions related to water quality – Opportunity for improvement

A range of internal and external stakeholders use reliable scientific water quality and biological indicator data from the Program to inform policies, direct actions, assess impacts, and understand status and trends. While Program staff are taking steps to address concerns, there are still challenges related to providing timely access to freshwater quality monitoring data and other scientific knowledge in order to inform decision-making.

Intermediate outcome 2: Key risks associated with water quality and aquatic ecosystems health are identified, assessed or managed – Acceptable

Key risks have been identified and assessed for the freshwater and marine water quality monitoring programs and are being used to manage activities.

Final outcome: Canada’s water resources policies and programs are informed by water quality and aquatic ecosystems health data and information from ongoing research and monitoring of waters under federal jurisdiction – Acceptable

Monitoring data and scientific research from the Program are used to inform water resource policies and programs across Canada.

4.3. Performance – efficiency and economy

4.3.1. Program delivery

Evaluation issue: performance – efficiency and economy Rating
5. Is the program implemented efficiently and economically? Acceptable

Program staff are implementing measures to ensure efficient operations, including the use of integrated watershed and risk-based approaches, measures to ensure that activities remain focused on key priorities, and a collaborative delivery model.

4.3.2. Program governance and management

Evaluation issue: performance – efficiency and economy Rating
6. To what extent is the governance structure clearly defined and appropriate for achieving expected results? Acceptable

Governance for the key components of the Program is clearly defined in formal agreements and/or through established committees.

4.3.3. Performance measurement

Evaluation issue: performance – efficiency and economy Rating
7. Are performance data being collected and reported? If so, is this information being used to inform senior management and decision-makers? Opportunity for improvement

Program staff track progress made under the Program and submit various legally required reports, generally at the activity/output level. However, there is no performance measurement strategy or formally approved logic model that clearly states intended Program outcomes in the immediate and longer term, and identifies how progress toward these outcomes will be measured.

Page details

Date modified: