At a Glance – Evaluation of the Protected Areas Program

List of Tables

• Table 1: Time between approval to pursue establishment and regulatory designation
• Table 2: Protected Areas Program expenditures
• Table 3: Progress against performance targets
• Table 4: Violations recorded on ECCC protected areas
• Table 5: Regulatory permitting delivery and results
• Table 6: Progress toward completion of management plans for ECCC’s protected areas
• Table 7: Improvement in protected area management effectiveness
• Table 8: METT results related to climate change adaptation
• Table 9: METT results related to the involvement of Indigenous peoples in protected areas management

List of Acronyms

CWA

Canada Wildlife Act

ECCC

Environment and Climate Change Canada

ECOMaP

Ecological and Conservation Monitoring Program

HCP

Habitat Conservation and Protection

IIBA

Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement

MBS

Migratory Bird Sanctuary

METT

Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

MP

management plan

NWA

National Wildlife Area

PA

Protected Areas

PAME

protected area management effectiveness

1. Introduction

The Government of Canada has made several commitments towards protecting biodiversity through policies, funding initiatives, and legislation. These efforts are aimed at safeguarding Canada’s natural environment and the ecosystem services it provides, protecting wildlife habitats and connectivity corridors for species, and creating certainty for natural resource development.

The Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Habitat Conservation and Protection (HCP) Program aims to secure, protect, connect, improve, and restore ecologically sensitive habitat, including wetlands, to contribute to the conservation and protection of migratory birds, species at risk and other wildlife. It aligns with ECCC’s core responsibility to conserve nature.

1.1 Background

The HCP Program is nationally led and regionally delivered. It provides mechanisms to engage with organizations and individuals. The program’s partners include provincial and territorial governments; landowners; environmental nongovernmental organizations; national Indigenous organizations and Indigenous peoples, governments, and communities; and other stakeholders. This program contributes to fulfilling ECCC’s obligations under the Species at Risk Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Actand the Canada Wildlife Act (CWA), as well as to delivering on the ministerial mandate. The program also contributes to departmental results indicators related to nature conservation: Canada’s wildlife and habitats are conserved and protected; Canada’s species at risk are recovered; and Indigenous peoples are engaged in conservation.

The HCP Program comprises the following 11 components:

• The Protected Areas Program
• The Ecological Gifts Program
• The Canada Nature Fund - Natural Heritage Conservation Program
• The Canada Nature Fund - Target 1 Challenge
• The Canada Nature Fund - Indigenous led Area Based Conservation Program
• The Canada Nature Fund - Indigenous Guardians Program
• The Nature Smart Climate Solutions Fund - Indigenous Partnership stream
• The Marine Conservation Targets Horizontal Initiative
• ECCC’s participation in the Pathway initiative
• ECCC’s participation in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the North American Wetlands Conservation Council Canada
• ECCC’s participation in the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention)

This evaluation examined the Protected Areas Program component.

1.2 Overview of the Protected Areas Program

ECCC’s Protected Areas (PA) Program’s mandate is to identify, designate, and manage terrestrial and marine protected areas for the benefit of wildlife conservation. Under the authority provided by the CWA and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the program manages and monitors ECCC’s network of protected areas, restores ecosystems, facilitates research and community partnerships, and maintains the infrastructure necessary for public visitation.

Program administrators collaborate with a wide variety of organizations, in addition to advancing the integration of Indigenous knowledge, cultural uses, and values related to protected areas. Public participation in the conservation of wildlife is encouraged through science and monitoring activities and by connecting to nature through activities such as wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, hunting, and fishing – where these activities do not compromise conservation objectives.

As of March 31, 2024, ECCC’s network of protected areas included 57 National Wildlife Areas (NWAs) and 92 Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (MBSs), located in several ecozones across Canada. In 2022, the PA Program managed 11,996,105 hectares of protected and conserved areas, which amounts to 1.2 percent of Canada's land and freshwater area. This represents the fourth largest network of protected and conserved areas in Canada, after Parks Canada (3.6 percent), the Government of Quebec (2.5 percent) and the Government of British Columbia (1.4 percent).

As stated in the PA Program strategic plan and vision to 2030, operations are guided by three strategic objectives:

• Protect, manage, and monitor existing protected areas to achieve site conservation outcomes
• Expand the protected areas network to support the conservation of habitat for migratory birds, species at risk, and other areas of importance to wildlife in Canada
• Encourage Canadians to experience and understand the values and benefits of the protected areas network

Additional information on activities related to the Protected Areas Program is available on the Protected areas website.

1.3 About this evaluation

The evaluation of the HCP Program is part of ECCC’s Audit and Evaluation Plan 2022 to 2027. It carries out an assessment of the relevance, the effectiveness, and the efficiency of the Protected Areas Program from 2018-2019 to 2023-2024. The examination focused on program design, performance, efficiency, and delivery alternatives, as well as performance measurement and contribution to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada.

The evaluation was conducted using the following methodology:

• File review including work plans, internal reports, internal communications, research papers, news releases, backgrounders, and literature reviews (more than 150)
• Analysis of administrative and survey data (more than 30,000 data points)
• Interviews with program administrators and officials (13)
• Four case studies focusing respectively on habitat conservation in the South of Canada; the establishment and management of conserved and protected areas in the North of Canada; the biodiversity conservation value of habitat restoration; and the impact of climate change on ecosystems, conservation values and protected area management
• Site visits of the Cap Tourmente (Quebec) and Alaksen (British Columbia) NWAs, and of the George C. Reifel MBS (British Columbia)

2. Authorities and resources

This section presents evaluation findings related to authorities and funding available to the program to achieve its goals and to deliver on the departmental mandate.

2.1. Authorities

ECCC delivers the Protected Areas Program under authorities provided by Acts of Parliament and orders of the Governor in Council, as well as by adhering to Government of Canada policies and directives and to departmental processes.

2.1.1. Authorities for land acquisition

Establishing protected areas is a complex process and takes time, and the establishment of NWAs is no exception. During the evaluated period, three new NWAs were established, of which two were the culmination of decades-long efforts and one was the NWA designation of an existing MBS.

A key challenge for PA Program administrators is that the CWA does not provide authority for land acquisition directly to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The Minister must request authority from the Governor in Council to enter into agreements regarding interest in land or to initiate land transactions. Despite mitigation strategies adopted by the Protected Areas Program administrators (such as bundling of requests and blanket authority for acquisition of areas located in proximity to existing NWAs), it took an average of 333 days (or 11 months) to obtain Governor in Council approval for land transactions supporting NWA expansion, after PA Program senior management recommended to pursue acquisition.

While recent changes to the land acquisition process and authorities were viewed as improvements, current authorities remain restrictive and do not enable efficient mandate delivery. Furthermore, it is important to note that no request for authorization to acquire lands or interests in lands for the purpose of conservation under the CWA was denied by the Governor in Council over the evaluated period, nor since at least 2011. As such, the Governor in Council and central agency support for ECCC proposals confirms the soundness of the PA Program decision-making in these areas.

Program administrators have developed legislative and regulatory proposals to increase land acquisition authorities. The evaluation found that providing additional flexibility to administrators could strengthen program efficiency, while maintaining sound management of public resources by delegating decision-making and accountability at appropriate levels.

2.1.2. Due diligence review and expenditure limits for land acquisition

Once authorities are provided, a comprehensive process is initiated to acquire land of conservation value. This process includes more than 30 steps that are undertaken by PA Program administrators, in collaboration with departmental enablers responsible for financial planning, real estate services, due diligence review, negotiation, signature, land acquisition and registration. As such, the mandatory due diligence process takes several months to complete. While most land buyers engage in some due diligence, their diligence is typically less extensive and protracted than ECCC’s process.

ECCC’s ability to negotiate on behalf of PA Program administrators is constrained by the Directive on the Management of Real Property, which imposes an upper limit on allowable expenditure to acquire real property. Based on the principles of sound management of public resources and fairness, Government of Canada program administrators have little to no flexibility to pay more than fair market value to acquire real property. While all land buyers have a limited ability to pay, this ability is not as constrained as it is for ECCC.

Over the evaluated period, at least 14 NWA expansion projects totaling 472 hectares were terminated due to an inability to acquire the properties. Out of these, eight projects, accounting for 416 hectares, were not finalized because landowners rejected the program’s offer, accepted a competing offer, or sold their property before the program could make an offer. According to PA Program administrators, negotiation in competitive markets is becoming harder.

The due diligence reviews in place and the limits on expenditures for real property acquisition support transactions that ensure best value to the Crown. However, they can translate into an inability to submit competitive offers on open real estate markets and missed land acquisition opportunities.

2.1.3. Timelines for land acquisition

Over the evaluated period, 42 NWA expansion projects have not completed property acquisitions since program administrators have decided to go forward with these potential site acquisition options. These projects have been ongoing for 489 days on average, with the longest acquisition project being active for 1,634 days as of March 31, 2024. It is important to note that not all delays can be attributed to the acquisition process. Delays can occur due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, issues with legal land title requiring input from other jurisdictions.

2.1.4. Timelines for regulatory designation

Land of conservation value acquired by the PA Program is protected from uses that would be detrimental to biodiversity under the Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act, but it only benefits from limited regulatory protections until it is designated either as an NWA or an MBS. NWA designation occurs through a regulatory process, whereby the Wildlife Area Regulations are amended to include new areas, boundaries specification, and updating of activities that may be authorized in certain areas despite general prohibitions to that effect^{Footnote 1} .

Between acquisition and designation, limited protection measures are afforded to lands acquired, which enables program administrators to manage the land as a conservation area under Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act authorities. As a result, habitat is not threatened by conversion and irreversible loss of natural habitat is averted, and conservation areas count towards the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database.

The regulatory designation and expansion of NWAs is a protracted, sequential process which generally takes approximatively 18 months. Consultations with stakeholders and the development of land boundary descriptions appropriate for use in regulations have impacted this timeline. Table 1 displays the time it took to complete the regulatory process after receiving senior management approval for three recently designated NWAs.

Note. Data provided by PA Program administrators.

2.1.5. Challenges for capital funding management

While network planning is guided by a strategy, land acquisition under the PA Program is based on monitoring and seizing opportunities on the real estate market, within the framework of a “willing seller, willing buyer” approach. Program administrators identify land acquisition opportunities as they arise and must meet buyers’ expectations and needs related to price and closing timelines to finalize a transaction. As a result, it is not possible to plan capital funding expenditures accurately, with some acquisition projects being unsuccessful and other projects taking longer than anticipated to complete, impacting disbursement timelines.

Between 2019-2020 and 2021-2022, capital funding expenditure for land acquisition accounted for, on average, 58 percent of planned expenditure. In 2021-2022, $9 M was reprofiled to future fiscal years, and this funding is expected to be reprofiled again if major land acquisitions are not completed on time.

The 2017 report on federal protected areas by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development reported that obtaining and using funding for strategic property purchases in a timely fashion is an ongoing challenge for the PA Program. The Committee further recommended that the Government of Canada consider innovative funding and other mechanisms to support and expand conserved and protected areas, including by establishing a dedicated acquisition fund for federal protected areas.

A well-designed, purpose-built financial management instrument could provide additional flexibility for capital funding management and address the misalignment between operational timelines, regulatory processes, and the financial management requirements which currently apply to ECCC’s PA Program. The Parks Canada Agency benefits from the “New Parks and Historic Sites Account,” a consolidated specified purpose account which provides agency administrators with financial management authorities tailored to land acquisition and ongoing maintenance of natural heritage areas.

2.2. Resources

Allocation of incremental temporary funding from Budgets 2018 and 2021 directly contributed to the PA Program results achieved over the evaluated period. These resources enabled program administrators to start addressing long-standing program integrity issues, such as an absence of management plans (MPs) for most protected areas, the lack of monitoring information on ecological integrity, and low overall management effectiveness across sites.

Despite recent increases in funding, the current funding model and funding levels may not be commensurate with PA Program responsibilities and targets as well as with Government of Canada commitments for nature conservation. The following subsections describe how funding levels currently allocated to the PA Program impact its ability to meet commitments, targets, expectations, and to address liabilities.

2.2.1. Program expenditures

Prior to Budget 2018, annual PA Program resources were set at approximately $12 M per year. New temporary funding provided under the Nature Legacy Initiative (Budget 2018) and the Enhanced Nature Legacy Initiative (Budget 2021) equipped the PA Program with increased resources to deliver on the ministerial mandate and departmental priorities. Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of actual program expenditures over the evaluated period.

Note 1. Data provided by PA Program administrators.

Note 2. Due to rounding, totals may not add up.

2.2.2. Temporary funding for permanent responsibilities

Over the evaluated period, close to 75 percent of the funding allocated to administer the PA Program was provided by Budgets 2018 and 2021 as temporary funding. In principle, temporary funding is allocated to achieve time-bound results in the short term. Although not without drawbacks, these funding decisions can strengthen program administration accountability and improve the cost-effectiveness of delivery.

As early as 2008, a status report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development noted that ECCC’s capacity for managing protected areas had been in decline since 1977, and that the human and financial resources allocated to its Protected Areas Program were not sufficient for the Department to meet all its legislative and operational requirements. In 2014, an internal program evaluation observed that resources allocated to the management of ECCC’s protected areas ($1.24 per hectare) were four to 13 times lower on average than those of other comparable organizations in Canada and the United States, whose ongoing management costs ranged from $5 to $16 per hectare.

ECCC PA Program administrators’ management responsibilities are not time-bound. Land protected under CWA and the Wildlife Area Regulations is protected from threats and conserved in perpetuity, which means that program administrators are responsible and accountable for the monitoring and management of all areas in the protected area network, in perpetuity. In 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development recommended that the Government of Canada provide “consistent, predictable, ongoing funding to all protected area programs under its jurisdiction,” and that program integrity assessments ought to be conducted regularly to “assess whether the funding is sufficient to achieve Canada’s conservation objectives.” Budgets 2018 and 2021 provided additional funding to the PA Program, but this funding is temporary and was not provided to address known issues related to program integrity.

2.2.3. Impact on implementation of conservation measures

Managing protected areas and supporting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples requires an appropriate level of resources. With the current funding model, the PA Program has struggled to develop, approve, and implement MPs for all sites since the CWA came into force in 1973. Despite repeated criticisms from internal and external oversight and accountability bodies and ECCC commitments to improve, this issue remains unresolved.

Based on an internal survey (see section 3.3.3.) conducted by the program in 2023-2024, only 40 percent of protected areas sites are adequately managed, even with the additional resources provided by Budgets 2018 and 2021. Conversely, 60 percent of protected areas sites continue to be assessed either as benefitting only from basic management while presenting major deficiencies (51 percent) or as being inadequately managed (9 percent). Further, protected areas managers’ responses show that:

• 89 sites (out of 114 surveyed sites for which this question applied) do not have enough information on the critical habitats of species at risk, species, ecological processes, and cultural values to support all areas of planning and decision making
• 99 sites (out of 113 surveyed sites for which this question applied) are not allocated sufficient funding to meet the full management needs
• 109 sites (out of 114 surveyed sites for which this question applied) do not have a regular work plan which is implemented at 75 percent or more

With the current delivery model, the program is facing various challenges to manage all sites effectively. Factors such as regional priority setting, internal capacity, and expertise impacted program delivery. Over the evaluated period, conservation partners with technical and subject-matter expertise were enlisted to assist PA Program administrators with ongoing site management, either through contribution agreements or service contracts. Reliance on external expertise, equipment, and capacity poses a risk to continued program delivery and to management effectiveness.

Systematic ecological and conservation monitoring information to be produced by a fully operational Ecological and Conservation Monitoring Program (ECOMaP) is not yet available, and this limits PA Program administrators’ ability to assess management needs across the entire network. In the next few years, additional NWA and MBS MPs are expected to be finalized and approved. As a result, the PA Program’s assessed management responsibilities will cover a much larger area, exacerbating the gap between current capacity and ongoing responsibilities.

3. Delivery and results

This section presents evaluation findings related to program delivery and achievement of intended results.

3.1 Planning, acquisition, and designation

Only 5 percent of Canada’s landmass is federal Crown land. By comparison, federal land accounts for 28 percent of landmass in the United States. Therefore, the Government of Canada has limited opportunities for direct intervention in area-based conservation, and land acquisition or agreements are often a necessary first step to protect habitats.

The 2018 Nature Legacy and the 2021 Enhanced Nature Legacy initiatives provided policy direction and funding to the PA Program for a renewed focus on land acquisition. Prior to the promulgation of the CWA in 1973, the only legal tool available for habitat protection by the federal government was the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Today, the CWA is the primary legal tool for the establishment and management of protected areas for the Canadian Wildlife Service, and this act will continue to guide its work.

3.1.1 Network planning

ECCC’s protected areas network evolved under different processes and priorities over the decades. Starting when the first protected area in Canada was established in 1887 up until the signature of the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in 1996, migratory birds and waterfowl were the primary focus as a result of a longstanding connection between bird hunting and nature conservation. During that time, the network was expanded through the protection and designation of wetlands. After 1996, the focus underpinning network planning shifted to supporting the protection and recovery of species at risk, through the protection and designation of critical habitats. The focus of the program also shifted over time from land acquisition to protecting and designating areas on federal lands, resulting in the creation of the Canadian Forces Base Suffield NWA, one of the most important protected areas created in that era.

Over the evaluated period, network planning was guided by two new strategic objectives. First, lands that might be added to existing protected areas due to their proximity are prioritized. Second, sites designated as Key Biodiversity Areas are prioritized due to their demonstrated high conservation value. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has established science-based criteria to identify globally significant areas for biodiversity protection, which are known as Key Biodiversity Areas. The national standard for Key Biodiversity Areas in Canada, published in 2021, supports the identification of sites critical to the conservation of biodiversity at the national scale. Efforts are currently underway to document Canada’s Key Biodiversity Areas, with 167 sites identified and 724 candidate sites as of April 2024.

3.1.2. National Wildlife Areas

Three new NWAs have been established over the evaluated period, namely the Scott Islands marine NWA in British Columbia (2018), the Edéhzhíe NWA and Dehcho Protected Area in the Northwest Territories (2022), and the Big Glace Bay Lake NWA in Nova Scotia (2022)^{Footnote 2} . Collectively, the new protected areas increased the total NWA area by 261 percent, from a baseline of 987,363 hectares to 3,566,684 hectares. Prior to the establishment of the three new NWAs, none had been established since 2010, and none had been established in southern Canada^{Footnote 3} for close to 20 years.

In addition to the establishment of new NWAs, the expansion of existing NWA sites also contributes to increasing the total area of ECCC’s protected areas. Over the evaluated period, 20 expansion projects were completed in 14 NWAs, which resulted in a total expansion of 1,447 hectares.

3.1.3. Migratory Bird Sanctuaries

While the PA Program is prioritizing the expansion of ECCC’s protected areas network through the designation of new NWAs and the expansion of existing NWAs, some existing MBSs are also being expanded. Over the evaluated period, nine expansion projects have been initiated to expand the areas of three MBSs located in Nova Scotia, including Kentville MBS, Port Hebert MBS, and Sable River MBS. When completed, these expansion projects are expected to increase the area protected by 189 hectares, expanding the original area of the three MBSs by 23 percent. The long-term plan is to designate these sites as NWAs.

3.1.4. Establishment and expansion projects underway

Work toward the establishment of 10 additional NWAs located in the South of Canada is underway. These sites are expected to protect at least 83,030 hectares, which would increase the total area of the NWA network by 8 percent against the 2017-2018 baseline.

The Prairie Pastures Conservation Area located in southwestern Saskatchewan was secured in 2020, and it adds 80,093 hectares to the NWA network, an area which is almost as large as the combined areas of all 47 NWAs located in southern Canada. However, this area was not designated as a protected area over the timeframe of this evaluation. The Prairie Pastures Conservation Area is located in a Priority Place, as defined by the Pan-Canadian approach to transforming species at risk conservation.

Program administrators are also working towards the establishment of three additional marine NWAs. Upon completion, these projects are expected to increase ECCC’s protected marine areas by 13,780 square kilometers. In addition, 41 NWA expansion projects are underway, which, upon completion, are expected to bring the number of expanded NWA sites to 18 and increase ECCC’s protected areas by 2,261 hectares.

3.1.5. Performance against targets

Targets for the PA Program were established under the Nature Legacy Initiative and the Enhanced Nature Legacy Initiative, and they reflect expectations of outcomes to be achieved through the provision and allocation of incremental resources.

ECCC targets for habitat protection represent 1.4 percent of Canadian land and freshwater area (136,848 out of 9,984,670 square kilometers) and 0.5 percent of Canadian marine and coastal area (31,187 out of 5,749,120 square kilometers).

Table3 summarizes progress against terrestrial and marine area targets for habitat protected as ECCC NWAs, MBSs, and Conservation Areas, as well as NWA expansion targets. Further context on Canada’s national area-based conservation targets and ECCC’s PA Program contribution is provided by the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators.

Note. Data provided by the PA Program administrators.

Work to meet December 2025 targets is underway. As reported in sections below, PA Program administrators have limited control over land acquisition and regulatory designations processes, which can delay progress and in turn jeopardize the program’s ability to meet deadlines.

3.2. Regulatory administration

Once protected areas are established, PA Program administrators and departmental enablers are responsible for their ongoing regulatory administration, as per the provisions of the CWA, the Wildlife Area Regulations, the Scott Islands Protected Marine Area Regulations, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations, the Migratory Birds Regulations, and the Species at Risk Act.

To support the achievement of intended conservation outcomes, prohibitions must be respected by the Canadian population. Compliance promotion and enforcement strategies and programs ensure that Canadians are aware of their legal obligations and that enforcement measures are taken against offenders, supporting the effectiveness of protected areas regulations.

3.2.1. Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities

In 2020, ECCC's Enforcement Branch adopted a risk-based, evidence-informed framework to support finite resource allocation and mandate delivery. Following a threat-risk assessment conducted in 2021, 14 protected areas sites were identified as high risk and recommended for potential enforcement projects and inspection planning. Over the evaluated period, three times more inspections, on average, were conducted at high-risk protected areas sites compared to other sites, which resulted in 35 percent more violations being documented on high-risk sites. Table 4 summarizes violations recorded on ECCC protected areas that were monitored over the evaluated period.

Note. Data provided by the Wildlife Enforcement Division.

According to an internal survey of PA Program administrators conducted in 2023-2024 (see section 3.3.3.), 11 protected areas (out of 114 sites included in the survey) are impacted by major deficiencies in capacity to enforce relevant legislation and regulations. This is an improvement from responses to a 2019-2020 survey, when program administrators reported 4 sites had no capacity at all, and 36 sites had major deficiencies in capacity (out of 106 sites included in the survey).

3.2.2. Regulatory permitting

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has authority to issue or refuse to issue a permit authorizing any person, corporation, or government body to carry out one or more activities which are otherwise prohibited or not authorized within NWAs or MBSs, pursuant to applicable acts and regulations. In practice, ministerial authority is delegated to departmental officials who review applications and issue permits, following internal guidance which was revised in October 2022. Regulatory permitting decisions are informed by an assessment of whether the effects that the proposed activity is likely to have on wildlife and habitat are adverse. Table 5 summarizes regulatory permitting delivery and results.

Note. Data provided by the PA Program administrators.

3.2.3. Delisting and disposition

Despite efforts to conserve habitats and species, protected areas can lose their biodiversity value over time. When this happens, it is not appropriate to maintain regulatory prohibitions. Delisting is the process through which regulations are amended to withdraw the NWA or MBS designation held by certain areas.

No NWA has been delisted and disposed in full during the evaluated period, nor since the establishment of the first NWA in 1967. Three NWA have been delisted in part and three additional NWAs are in the process of being partially delisted. While several MBSs have been delisted and disposed of since the establishment of the first MBS in 1919, no MBS was delisted, in part or in full, over the evaluated period.

Overall, delisting has had and is expected to continue to have a negligible impact on the network extent while in some cases improving conservation value, demonstrating sound program management and responsible use of public resources.

3.3. Management and monitoring

In addition to their regulatory administration, protected areas must be monitored and actively managed to achieve conservation outcomes. To that end, the PA Program develops a management plan (MP) for each protected area, in line with internal program policy and international best practices. MPs are designed to support management decisions that are responsive to changing circumstances and emerging priorities.

Previous assessments of the PA Program mentioned earlier in Section 2 have highlighted shortcomings with respect to the management of ECCC’s network of protected areas. Overall, these assessments recommended that MPs should be updated on a regular basis to effectively address emerging threats to ecological integrity and that sufficient budgetary resources should be allocated to implement MPs. PA Program administrators were aware of these shortcomings and noted in their official responses to these assessments that expectations for conservation were not balanced with resources.

3.3.1. Progress towards completion of management plans

Program administration guidelines mandate the development and approval of a MP within the first five years after the establishment of the protected area, then a first review within the next five years, and regular reviews every 10 years thereafter.

Table 6 summarizes progress toward completion of MPs for ECCC’s protected areas. Published MPs are available in both official languages, that is, English (NWA MPs; MBS MPs) and French (NWA MPs; MBS MPs), and MPs developed with Inuit co-management partners are also available in Inuktitut (four MPs) and in Inuinnaqtun (one MP).

Program administrators have made progress in a relatively short time to address historical shortcomings related to the development and approval of MPs. Contingent on continued allocation of resources and capacity, all outstanding MPs are expected to be completed by the end of December 2026, and MP reviews and updates are expected to resume thereafter.

Note 1. Data provided by PA Program administrators.

Note 2. For NWAs, the “Other situations” category refers to 6 sites in the process of being partly delisted; for this reason, MP development is put on hold. For MBSs, the “Other situations” category refers to the fact that 10 sites are co-located with NWAs, and that a single MP will be developed for the protected area, under the NWA designation.

3.3.2. Implementation of management plans

MPs are implemented over a ten-year period. Annual work plans are developed in accordance with priorities and budgets, and the details of MP implementation are developed through the annual departmental planning process. Work plans are implemented as human and financial resources allow. Before the allocation of Enhanced Nature Legacy funding, only 5 percent of management activities (or 46 out of 936) had been undertaken in 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. The influx of incremental, temporary funding enabled a 12-fold relative increase, from 5 to 62 percent of planned management activities (or 1,749 out of 2,833) undertaken between 2021-2022 and 2023-2024.

3.3.3. Regular assessment of protected area management effectiveness

Protected area management effectiveness (PAME) is a well-established concept in the field of biodiversity conservation. It stems from the recognition that protected area management can be more or less effective at achieving conservation goals and preserving the ecological integrity of sites. As a result, all parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity are called on to undertake PAME assessments, as currently reflected by the Global Biodiversity Framework Target 3, which highlights that protected areas should be “effectively conserved and managed.” Regular assessment of PAME equips program administrators and executives with information on performance and program integrity, which supports accountability and organizational learning.

In 2016, PA Program administrators committed to assessing PAME regularly and adopted the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) to do so. The METT methodology was developed in the early 2000s and has since become the most widely used PAME tool globally. It consists of the following two components:

• datasheets with key information on the protected area, such as basic facts about the area, who completed the assessment, and a threat assessment
• an assessment form containing a questionnaire with 30 questions, each with four alternative responses ranging from inadequate to adequate, with an associated score, and fields for notes, justification of answers, and potential responses to improve management effectiveness

The METT questionnaire targets six key areas of PAME, namely: context, planning, inputs, process, outputs, and outcomes. The questionnaire is mainly focused on the four first areas and is not designed to correlate with overall biodiversity outcomes. The ECOMaP is expected to supplement METT findings with observational evidence related to outputs and outcomes. The tool is designed for assessing changes in site-specific PAME over time rather than comparing sites.

PA Program administrators have used the METT three times, in 2015-2016, 2019-2020 and 2023-2024. Internal guidance for questionnaire respondents was developed, and in-person workshops were held in the lead-up to the 2023-2024 survey. As a result of incremental resources and focused interventions, internal reports show continued improvement in PAME across ECCC’s protected area network and for all regions. Scores and findings are summarized in Table 7. Results are expected to be reported on the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness.

Note 1. To enable comparison and statistical analysis, METT scores are expressed as a percentage of maximum score for a specific site, which accounts for the fact that some scored questions do not apply to all sites.

Note 2. Sites are categorized as having adequate management (METT score between 68 and 100 percent of maximum score for a specific area), basic management with major deficiencies (METT score between 34 and 67 percent), or inadequate management (METT score between 0 and 33 percent).

3.3.4. Establishment of a national monitoring program

Over the evaluated period, PA Program administrators have established ECOMaP, which implements a systematic and standardized approach to monitoring the ecological and conservation status of ECCC’s protected areas network. While preliminary work started in 2018, ECOMaP was officially established in January 2021, after receiving senior management approval of a 10-year strategic plan for the monitoring program.

The establishment of dedicated monitoring capacity and processes is a significant improvement in the PA Program design. It addresses a longstanding and important gap, namely the absence of systematic baseline and monitoring data. Moving forward, ECOMaP is expected to provide program administrators with the information they need to track changes to protected areas over time, assess the effectiveness of management actions, identify new and emerging threats, and adapt management measures in a timely manner. ECOMaP is also expected to meet several science and knowledge needs in support of Canada’s implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework identified by an expert panel, including by supporting the area of researchrelated to evaluating the effectiveness of current biodiversity management actions.

3.3.5. Pesticide use is allowed on NWA properties

Many of the NWAs in the ECCC protected areas network are areas of high agricultural use that support important migratory bird populations. Despite a general prohibition to carry out any agricultural activity in a wildlife area, site managers continue to use agricultural crops to diversify the available habitat within the NWA to provide foraging and nesting habitats, which support wildlife including migratory birds. As a result, program administrators have issued permits to that effect at four NWA properties, namely Alaksen (British Columbia), Baie de l’Isle Verte (Quebec), Cap Tourmente (Quebec), and Last Mountain (Saskatchewan).

In 2023-2024, a total of 36 agricultural permits or licenses were active across all four ECCC properties. Permits and licenses signed with local farmers specify authorized uses (such as grazing, haying, and cropping) and their general conditions. Conditions include the permission to use pesticides if permit and license holders comply with several requirements, including the systematic recording of applications.

Program administrators recognize that minimizing the use of pesticides is desirable within the NWAs, as identified in the MP goals and objectives. However, because administrators rely on farmers to manage agricultural habitats on NWAs, it has proven difficult to reduce pesticide applications or to forego their use altogether: under conventional agriculture regime, these products are needed to ensure the economic viability of agricultural operations.

From 2019 to 2024, 230 out of 277 recorded applications of farm inputs on Alaksen lands were pesticides^{Footnote 4} . Of all 230 pesticide applications, 90 (or 39 percent) were fungicides, 84 (or 37 percent) were herbicides, and 56 (24 percent) were insecticides. In addition, 27 out of 230 (or 10 percent) of pesticide applications were labelled as preventative. Pesticide use was stable over time during the evaluated period. Data was not available for the other three NWA properties.

While program administrators intend to phase out cropping or to support transition to organic agriculture in the long-term, there are no short-term targets to reduce or phase out pesticides. The continued use of pesticides, even if minimized, is in contradiction with the primary purpose of ECCC’s protected areas, which is to conserve wildlife and biodiversity.

3.4. Connecting Canadians to Nature

The Connecting Canadians to Nature initiative was established in 2014 under the National Conservation Plan. It continues to be a federal priority under the Enhanced Nature Legacy and is delivered by ECCC. The initiative underlines one of the three core objectives of the PA Program, which consists of encouraging Canadians to experience and understand the values and benefits of the protected areas network. To that end, the protected areas are expanded, and network management is being carried out on a regular basis.

3.4.1. Public visitation and infrastructure

The PA Program has 10 NWA sites open to public visitation, located close to urban or suburban centers. Under the Connecting Canadians to Nature initiative, program administrators actively began to encourage public visitation and built and improved infrastructure to support visitation.

Between 2018-2019 and 2022-2023^{Footnote 5} , 854,847 people have visited NWAs open to the public^{Footnote 6} , which represents an average of 170,969 visitors per year. While these sites were among the very first to reopen to the public during COVID-19, the pandemic and measures taken to curb excessive visitation at the Alaksen NWA and the co-located George C. Reifel MBS nevertheless resulted in a lower number of visitors in 2020-2021. Despite small increases in visitation over the following years, the target of a 25 percent increase in visitation from the 2015 baseline was not met by March 31, 2023. A count of 207,858 visitors was achieved in 2022-2023, 6 percent below baseline and 24 percent under the target set at 275,063 visitors. Available monitoring data does not document whether public visitation has an impact on site-specific conservation outcomes.

Over the evaluated period, infrastructure has been improved at several sites open to the public. Improved infrastructure includes wildlife viewing towers, bird-blinds, migration monitoring stations, trails, boardwalks, visitor buildings, electric vehicle charging stations, and signage. Work is also underway to make amenities more accessible to the public. Accessibility assessments were conducted at four sites over the evaluation period. Findings from these assessments are expected to guide future accessibility improvements.

3.4.2. Supporting conservation partners

The PA Program supports several organizations that contribute to the Connecting Canadians to Nature initiative. Over the evaluated period, 26 contributions agreements of a total value of $5.2 M were signed to support conservation organizations. Of this number, four contribution agreements were signed with Indigenous recipients to develop Indigenous content for interpretation programming at Shepody, Cape Jourimain, and Last Mountain Lake NWAs.

For example, ECCC has supported Nature Canada’s NatureHood program on its 10 Connecting Canadians to Nature initiative NWAs and several MBSs close to urban centres since 2015. NatureHood seeks to connect people of all ages, particularly children and youth, to nature right where they live, through celebratory events, educational activities, and wildlife observation set in urban or near-urban green spaces. In 2020-2021, Nature Canada adapted to the COVID restrictions by investing efforts online, including by engaging communities to identify and remove barriers that prevent racialized Canadians from connecting with nature. The PA Program has invested $1.9 M over 4 years to implement NatureHood on 17 sites.

4. Relevance and alignment

This section reports evaluation findings related to program alignment with best available evidence on the state of nature conservation in Canada, the departmental mandate, and Government of Canada priorities.

4.1. Nature conservation

Historically, conservation decisions have led to the establishment of protected areas on lands with higher elevations and steeper slopes, located far from population centers and in northern regions. In the North of Canada, most new protected areas are established in collaboration with Indigenous peoples, often on Crown land over which territorial governments have authority as a result of devolution. In these circumstances, protecting habitats requires extensive consultations and negotiations, which unfold over many years and sometimes decades. Moreover, the introduction of new collaborative conservation instruments, such as Nature Agreements and Project Finance for Permanence initiatives, supports and provides incentives for Indigenous, provincial, and territorial leadership to establish additional conserved and protected areas in the North of Canada, which may or may not be designated as NWAs.

4.1.1. Canada’s conservation deficits

While the urgency to identify and protect areas remains high across all regions, including the North, southern ecoregions are the most productive and biodiverse areas of Canada, and many of them are less represented in ECCC’s protected areas network and in the broader Canadian network of conserved and protected areas. Only 15 percent of all terrestrial vertebrates, plants, and butterflies in Canada, representing only 6.6 percent of species at risk, are adequately represented in existing protected areas across the country.

A comprehensive conservation assessment of southern ecoregions considering threats, an extensive range of biodiversity values, and conservation responses was completed in 2020. The study shows that nine of Canada’s 77 southern ecoregions have especially high biodiversity and threat level values. While these nine ecoregions collectively represent only 4.6 percent of Canadian lands and inland waters, they are home to over 60 percent of Canada’s species at risk. Despite having high biodiversity values, five of these nine ecoregions have less than 5 percent of their lands and inland waters in protected areas, which may be too small or fragmented to maintain the biodiversity values for which they were established.

The first target of the Global Biodiversity Framework highlights the need to include all national areas under conservation planning. This process plans the spatial and temporal allocation of activities across national territories in order to achieve a balance of social, ecological, and economic objectives. This approach was used recently in England to identify zones required to maintain current biodiversity and zones for habitat restoration, while meeting area-based targets for 50 priority habitat, landscape, landcover, and ecosystem service types.

While Key Biodiversity Areas are a useful prioritization criterion in ECCC’s protected areas network planning, they are no substitute for conservation planning at regional and national levels. To note, Key Biodiversity Areas do not capture all values that factor into nature conservation decisions, such as biocultural values, climatic refugia, ecosystem services, and landscape connectivity. Going beyond Key Biodiversity Areas is necessary to optimize biodiversity outcomes and to address national conservation deficits in a systematic manner.

4.1.2. Program results in southern Canada

Due to program investments in establishment and expansion projects located close to population centers, only 1,447 hectares were added to ECCC’s protected areas network in southern Canada over the evaluated period. As noted previously, the Big Glace Lake Bay area was already designated as an MBS, which means that the 2022 NWA designation did not increase the extent of this protected area, although it provided additional conservation management authorities to program administrators. Moreover, the Prairie Pastures Conservation Area added 80,093 hectares to ECCC’s protected areas network in southern Canada over the evaluated period.

With the exception of the Prairie Pastures Conservation Area, ECCC’s protected areas located in southern Canada are small and distributed across all provinces. Only 3 percent of ECCC’s protected areas network protects habitats located in southern Canada, while the remaining 97 percent protects habitats located in the North, where both biodiversity values and threats are comparatively lower. Despite having a high conservation value, small conserved and protected areas nevertheless raise the issue of habitat fragmentation, which causes declines in biodiversity values and ecosystem functions over time. According to a recent study, limiting habitat fragmentation and protecting ecological connectivity is important for the landscapes of southern Canada. However, expanding the protected area network in southern ecoregions is more challenging due to factors such as high human population density, competing land uses, high land value, high restoration needs, complex stakeholder landscape, and jurisdictional challenges.

4.2. Protecting habitats in a changing climate

Climate change is causing higher temperatures and is shifting weather patterns across Canada, with significant impacts expected on the country’s ecoregions. These include more intense precipitation, declines in snow cover, rising coastal water levels, stronger storms, and warmer lakes and rivers. These changes may exacerbate existing threats, such as invasive species, and create new management challenges, such as climate refugia and assisted migration.

A national panel of conservation experts recently identified science and knowledge needs to support progress towards Canada’s nature conservation objectives. According to experts, targeted research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of current management policies and measures in conservating biodiversity under various climate change scenarios. The ECCC 2024 report on national priorities for climate change science and knowledge emphasizes the need for:

• Improving our understanding of climate change impacts on ecosystems
• Advancing multidisciplinary science and knowledge to inform climate adaptation solutions
• Synthesizing and mobilizing knowledge to support and improve adaptive conservation management

A recent horizon scan highlighted key emerging issues related to climate change impacts on conserved and protected areas in Canada, including long-term and large-scale ecosystem-level effects, ecological integrity, species translocations to and from protected areas, changing snow patterns, and effects of interplay between wildland fire and climate change.

4.2.1. Climate risks to capital assets managed by the program

Several of ECCC’s protected areas are in coastal areas, where sea level rise is expected to occur over the course of the next century. Some protected areas sites are equipped with water management structures, some of which can be actively managed, such as gates and pumps, and some of which are passive, such as canals, dikes, and earthen berms. Climate change, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels are posing a risk to these capital assets and the habitats they create and maintain. We were informed during site visits of work being done to assess some infrastructure considering potential climate change risks. However, the evaluation found no evidence that climate risks to the protected areas network’s capital assets are being systematically assessed, monitored, and managed.

ECCC’s 2024-2027 Corporate Risk Profile highlights that historical fiscal pressures and lack of recapitalization have left the department with technological debt and eroding capital infrastructure, inclusive of its real property holdings and building portfolio. According to this internal document, ECCC’s capital infrastructure is critical to deliver on the department’s scientific and regulatory mandates. It is equally critical to deliver on the department’s mandate for nature conservation, especially for the ongoing management of ECCC’s network of protected and conserved areas.

4.2.2. Early efforts are underway to integrate climate change adaptation

The PA program’s second guiding principle recognizes that regulatory designation of a protected area does not guarantee the effective management of its ecological resources nor the achievement of its biodiversity objectives. Regular evaluation of protected area management effectiveness (PAME) and systematic and standardized ecological monitoring are both necessary to improve conservation outcomes. Further, PA Program administrators have committed to modify, adapt, and re-direct management practices as needed, according to what these diagnostic tools reveal.

PA Program administrators define adaptation to climate change as reducing the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change effects. In the 2019-2020 METT questionnaire, site managers were asked whether management planning or practices are taking climate change adaptation into consideration, for sites where climate impacts are present or expected. Site managers considered this question to be applicable to 102 sites (out of 128 surveyed sites), and they identified a lack of resources as an explanation for why they could not carry out specific management actions to manage climate risks to conservation values and undertake adaptation measures. Site managers were asked a similar question in the 2023-2024 METT survey, and their answers are summarized in Table 8 .

Although some regions are currently considering how to manage sites for potential climate change impacts, the low scores point to the fact that this work is in early stages and that not a single MP included measures (or a rationale for choosing not to implement any measures) to address climate risks to conservation values and to capital assets, over the evaluated period. Focused conservation research and ongoing monitoring are required to address knowledge gaps. Current capacity and resource levels are not sufficient to address these knowledge gaps and mitigate climate change risks to conservation values.

Note. Data provided by PA Program administrators.

4.3. Involvement of Canada’s Indigenous peoples in habitat conservation and protection

Over the evaluated period, PA Program administrators have supported the establishment of the first Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area in Canada; honoured the commitments in the 2016 Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) related to the ongoing management of MBSs and NWAs in the Nunavut Settlement Area; complied with departmental processes to ensure alignment with reconciliation principles and any applicable modern treaty provisions; engaged with Indigenous peoples with respect to the establishment of new protected areas and the management of existing protected areas; and planned to support and learn from Indigenous traditional knowledge through the ECOMaP.

4.3.1. Establishment of Edéhzhíe NWA and Dehcho Protected Area

The process to protect Edéhzhíe started in the 1970s with the report of Justice Thomas Berger, who was appointed to study the impacts of building a gas pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley. A key recommendation of that report was that no pipeline should be established until treaties were signed and a system of protected areas established. That recommendation eventually led to the 1999 Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy, for which ECCC received funding. In the early 2000s, Dehcho First Nations initiated discussions to protect Edéhzhíe, an integral part of their traditional territory and culture.

Close to 20 years later, Edéhzhíe became Canada’s first Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area and was designated a Dehcho Protected Area under Dehcho law in July 2018. In 2022, Edéhzhíe was designated as an NWA, to be protected and managed in accordance with the Wildlife Area Regulations under the CWA. Edéhzhíe NWA is located in the Northwest Territories on the traditional lands of the Dehcho First Nations and covers 14,218 square kilometers, or over twice the size of Banff National Park.

4.3.2. Implementation of the 2016 Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement

The Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries in the Nunavut Settlement Area, currently in force, was signed in 2016 by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, three regional Inuit associations (Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Kivalliq Inuit Association, and Kitikmeot Inuit Association), and the federal Crown. It applies to 13 ECCC protected areas located in Nunavut, which conserve a total of 9,618,609 hectares. These sites collectively account for 77 percent of the total area protected by NWAs and MBSs as of 2017-2018, and 64 percent of the largest extent of total area protected by ECCC’s protected areas over the evaluated period.

PA Program administrators are responsible for the ongoing implementation of the 2016 IIBA and, in doing so, for upholding the honour of the Crown and supporting reconciliation with the Nunavut Inuit. Over the evaluated period, responsibilities arising from IIBA commitments and obligations have been largely met, including the implementation of co-developed MPs for the three MBSs and the sole NWA which have published MPs: Ahiak (Queen Maud Gulf) MBS (MP), Qaqsauqtuuq (East Bay) MBS (MP), Ikkattuaq (Harry Gibbons) MBS (MP), and Ninginganiq NWA (MP).

However, some commitments have not yet been met. Those include the completion of MPs within five years of ratification of the agreement; the development of an NWA Strategy and Action Plan for Nunavut; and the renegotiation of the IIBA. ECCC has endeavoured to complete the strategy and renegotiate the agreement, but Nunavut partners have not been able or willing to engage, which reflects evolving priorities in the lead-up to and the signature of the final devolution agreement in January 2024. As a result, ECCC is renewing 2016 IIBA implementation funding at-level for five years.

4.3.3. Regulatory engagement and assessment of modern treaty implications

Indigenous peoples must be involved in the establishment of federal protected areas. This participation is warranted when the protected area in question overlaps with traditional territory or to the extent that it can reasonably be expected to have an impact on Indigenous peoples of Canada Aboriginal and treaty rights. This is true whether or not the area in question is subject to a land claim agreement.

Over the evaluated period, PA Program administrators have meaningfully engaged with Indigenous peoples in the context of the following NWA establishment proposals:

• The Scott Islands marine NWA (British Columbia)
• The Prairie Pastures Conservation Area (Saskatchewan)
• The Big Glace Bay Lake NWA (Nova Scotia)
• The Country Island, Isle Haute, and St. Paul Island NWAs (Nova Scotia, all established in 2025, after the evaluated period)

Administrators also assessed modern treaty implications and have collaborated with other departments and agencies to avoid duplication and minimize burden.

4.3.4. Knowledge co-production under ECOMaP

Under the ECOMaP, referred to in Section 3.3.4., knowledge co-production, or the integration of Indigenous knowledge systems alongside Western science, was identified as a cross-cutting priority. The vision for this priority is to establish ECCC’s first knowledge co-production network in collaboration with local Indigenous communities. Aligned with expert recommendations, ECOMaP’s knowledge co-production working group is expected to:

• Develop a framework to embed Indigenous knowledge systems in ECCC’s ecological and conservation monitoring programs
• Promote greater Indigenous engagement and participation ECCC’s conservation science activities and programs

Over the evaluated period, foundational work was undertaken by the ECOMaP coordination team. However, recent capacity constraints have jeopardized further implementation of the workplan and the achievement of meaningful progress on knowledge co-production.

4.3.5. Involvement of Indigenous peoples in site management

In the 2023-2024 METT questionnaire, protected areas managers were asked whether Indigenous peoples are involved in management decisions. Managers were provided with clear guidelines for providing an answer and were invited to consider “relevant management decisions,” which refers to all decisions about aspects of management that affect Indigenous peoples who live in proximity to the protected area, including their relationship and interaction with the site. Table 9 summarizes the answers provided to this survey question.

For most sites across the protected areas network (86 sites, or 71 percent of surveyed sites), Indigenous peoples either are not involved in management decisions (37 sites) or have some input into discussion, but no direct role in management (49 sites). This is largely because ECCC’s network of conserved and protected areas evolved under different processes and priorities over the decades, with reconciliation becoming an area of increased focus for the Government of Canada in the 21st century. Additions to the network were often based on opportunity, and historically few additions have included engagement with local Indigenous communities, especially in southern Canada.

Note. Data provided by PA Program administrators.

In contrast, most of ECCC’s protected areas located in northern Canada are collaboratively managed with Indigenous peoples (18 out of 21 northern sites). In 1995, the Nisutlin River Delta NWA was established under provisions in the final land claim agreement of the Teslin Tlingit people of the Yukon. The MP is prepared and reviewed jointly, considering the traditional and current use of the area by Teslin Tlingit. Since 2008, an IIBA has been in place to ensure the NWAs and MBSs located in Nunavut are established and managed collaboratively with the Inuit. And in 2023, a new co-management structure for all the MBSs located in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories and Yukon) was established by PA Program administrators and the Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat. As a result, Inuvialuit involvement has significantly increased, and input was provided for several aspects of MBS management decisions and actions.

5. Performance measurement and information for decision-making

This section presents the evaluation findings related to the program performance measurement and the availability and quality of information for decision-making.

5.1. Performance measurement and information

The 2014 evaluation of the PA Program noted that performance information was very limited and not being collected, monitored, tracked, nor reported in a consistent manner. It was then recommended to refine the performance measurement strategy and collect the information required to enable effective decision-making, at both site and network levels. The evaluation also noted that the program’s logic model was not aligned with priority activities and outcomes and should be revised. Management agreed with the findings and the recommendation and committed to improving program performance measurement and to updating the logic model.

5.1.1. Improvements to the logic model and to performance measurement

Over the evaluated period, the program revised its logic model and updated its performance measurement framework. Under ECCC’s departmental results framework, the PA Program logic model was included under the HCP logic model. The revised logic model establishes clear activities, outputs, and expected outcomes for the PA Program and other component programs of the HCP Program. The changes to the performance measurement framework included standardized units of measurement, retired indicators, and strengthened links between outcomes and indicators.

PA Program administrators also improved performance measurement practices. Building on earlier work, program administrators compile and manage the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database, in partnership with the data providers, which include federal, provincial, and territorial governments, as well as some local governments and private landowners. This public database contains the most up-to-date spatial and attribute data on marine and terrestrial protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures in Canada.

The extent of protected and conserved areas is a key element of performance information which indicates whether progress is being made against network expansion commitments and whether targets are met. However, measures of area do not provide information on the biodiversity conservation outcomes achieved in conserved and protected areas through ongoing management. In other words, the “quantity” of conservation is no indication of the “quality” of conservation. As discussed in Section 3.3.4., PA Program administrators have established the ECOMaP, which is designed to increase the availability of performance information related to biodiversity conservation outcomes.

5.1.2. Limited evidence that intended results are achieved for the Connecting Canadians to Nature initiative

Under ECCC’s PA Program, the Connecting Canadians to Nature initiative aims to contribute to two key high-level outcomes: a) improving Canadians’ access to nature and b) developing visitors’ sense of stewardship. Although these outcomes are sound and are aligned with the current mandate, there is limited evidence that progress is being made against these goals.

The number of visitors is collected to measure Canadians’ access to nature. However, these data primarily reflect outputs rather than meaningful outcomes. To better gauge improvement in access, visitation data needs to be interpreted within a broader context. For instance, a rise in site visitation numbers may indicate increased use, but without understanding various factors that can impact visitation and who is visiting, it’s difficult to determine if equitable access to nature has improved.

5.1.3. Indicator of network management effectiveness is misaligned

Overall, the updated HCP performance measurement framework is aligned with PA Program strategic objectives and roles and responsibilities with respect to delivering on the departmental mandate for nature conservation. However, the current indicator measuring the management effectiveness of ECCC’s protected areas network is not aligned with program goals and does not reflect the information needed to assess whether this outcome is met.

The current indicator of management effectiveness is the average of site-specific overall scores across the entire protected areas network, with a performance target set at 75 percent. The latest result is 60.7 percent, as per the 2023-2024 METT questionnaire, up from 44 percent in 2015-2016 (an increase of 16.7 percent). The fundamental issue with this indicator is that it is a summary indicator which conflates sites with adequate management, sites with basic management and major deficiencies, and sites with inadequate management. As such, the current performance target could be met while some sites continue to be inadequately managed. A better indicator would report the proportion of sites which are assessed as adequately managed. As per the 2023-2024 METT questionnaire, this result is 40 percent.

5.2. Financial and risk information

Available financial information related to the PA Program is not well aligned with ongoing program management and evaluation needs. Currently, it is not possible to examine linkages between expenditure categories, strategic plans, and workplans. Information on expenditures and investments is not available by activities and therefore is not linked to expected outputs and outcomes. As a result of the limited availability of financial information, it was not possible to assess resource allocation in relation to program activities, nor was it possible to assess the cost-effectiveness of the PA Program administration over the evaluated period.

While there is some evidence that PA Program capital assets and liabilities are being managed according to their life cycle, no comprehensive asset management plan was provided to support the evaluation. As a result, we were unable to assess whether capital funding requirements are met to ensure material and real property assets are maintained, repaired, replaced, or otherwise managed. This is increasingly important as climate change unfolds, and is a requirement under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, as per the 2024 Report on the Government of Canada’s Climate-Related Risk Management. One key area of risk to PA Program’s built infrastructure and managed habitats is the expected sea-level rise in coastal areas.

6. Conclusion

Over the evaluated period, the Protected Areas Program has increased the extent of the National Wildlife Area network, improved the effectiveness of its management of sites, carried out the regulatory administration of the protected areas network, strengthened program performance measurement, and increased collaborative work with Canada’s Indigenous peoples. However, the evaluation found that current authorities and resource levels may not be aligned with ongoing responsibilities and commitments to deliver on the nature conservation mandate, that financial and risk information related to program administration is lacking, that more could be done to contribute to addressing conservation deficits, and that a systematic approach to understanding and mitigating climate change risks could support the department in managing habitats and their conservation values.

7. Recommendations, Management Responses and Action Plan

The following recommendations are addressed to the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), as the senior departmental official responsible for the Habitat Conservation and Protection program, including the Protected Areas Program.

Management Response:

The Assistant Deputy Minister of the Canadian Wildlife Service agrees with the recommendation.

Action 1: Review the governance of the Protected Areas Program and propose an alignment of program authorities and processes to align with responsibilities, commitments, and operational needs.

Action 2: Consider regulatory and legislative reform to improve program delivery.

Management Response:

The Assistant Deputy Minister of the Canadian Wildlife Service agrees with the recommendation.

Action 1: Undertake improved immediate and ongoing program information and data collection and management.

Action 2: Review the HCP (or successor program) Program Logic Model and Indicators to better measure and demonstrate program performance as it relates to the evaluation of management effectiveness and the Connecting Canadians to Nature Initiative.

Management Response:

The Assistant Deputy Minister of the Canadian Wildlife Service agrees with the recommendation.

Action 1: Prioritize areas of importance to biodiversity for expansion of the Protected Areas network and seek additional flexibility for acquisitions.

Action 2: Address climate-related threats to assets located in Protected areas and make improvements to assets to better support nature conservation.