Evaluation of the Protected Areas Program: chapter 1

Executive Summary

This report presents the results of the evaluation of the Protected Areas Sub-sub Program (PA program) 1.1.4.2 of the departmental Program Alignment Architecture (PAA), the data collection for which was undertaken from January 2013 to October 2013.

The Protected Areas program strives to protect nationally important wildlife habitats whose loss would have a direct impact on the Canadian populations of one or more wild species. By establishing and designating protected areas, this program protects priority habitats from disturbances for the conservation of migratory birds, species at risk and other wildlife. The PA program comprises activities related to the planning, establishment, acquisition, maintenance and disposal of National Wildlife Areas (NWAs) and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (MBSs), as well as to the Inuit Impacts and Benefits Agreement (IIBA) grants and contribution program. The program manages a network of 146 protected areas covering approximately 10 million hectares.

The evaluation scope covers a five-year period from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 and examined core issues related to relevance and performance, in accordance with the Treasury Board (TB) Policy on Evaluation (2009).The evaluation excludes consideration of the North West Territories Protected Area Strategy (NWT-PAS) and Health of the Oceans (HOTO) initiatives, which have been evaluated separately, and the Canadian Biosphere Reserve Association (CBRA), whose EC funding was terminated in 2012. Total annual expenditures for all evaluated components of the PA program (i.e., core and other departmental supports) varied between roughly $12 and $17 million per year from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013.

Findings and Conclusions

Relevance

The PA program targets the continued need for the protection and preservation of habitat to support biodiversity and protect species at risk, as well as Aboriginal access and rights to manage the environment, and is intended to support legislated requirements of the Canadian Wildlife Act (CWA), Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) and the Species at Risk Act, as well as international efforts to protect migratory species.

The PA program is aligned to recent Government of Canada and departmental priorities and commitments (e.g., the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy), and is consistent with federal roles and responsibilities as identified in legislation and other agreements (e.g., the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement). 

Effectiveness^Footnote1

The PA program is making progress toward the achievement of many of its intended outcomes, such as the establishment of a protected areas network, linking to global and continental networks, and access and benefit sharing for Aboriginals, although there is opportunity for improvement in each of these areas. Little evidence was found of the generation of significant new knowledge contributing to EC conservation needs, of the promotion of public understanding of the need for and role of protected habitat, or of the ongoing ecological management/protection of the PAs. There is also insufficient site monitoring to properly assess the level of compliance with regulatory requirements.

Economy and Efficiency

While roles, responsibilities, and governance for the program have been well articulated, the PA program has been unable to implement consistent management practices, including for performance measurement, across the various regions and/or sites. Land acquisition, a key function of the PA program, is a lengthy process and acquisition delays have impacted program effectiveness. The program’s business model lacks the flexibility to enlarge protected areas or consolidate management of an area.

The PA program manages its sites with lower cost than other organizations performing similar roles, although differing mandates and site management activities renders such comparisons imperfect. While there is no evidence of significant waste, the program fails to perform all of the activities identified in its logic model.

Where possible, the PA program leverages resources from other organizations to enhance the achievement of its objectives, such as through the adoption of innovative site management practices (e.g., local partnerships to conduct species counts or manage surface water) to minimize investments while achieving the same results. There are, however, opportunities for the PA program to improve program efficiencies by implementing consistent processes across protected areas and more proactively engaging with a full range of stakeholders (within EC, ODGs, provincial/territorial governments, NGOs) to leverage partnerships.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are directed to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch (ADM ESB), as the senior departmental official responsible for the management of the PA program:

Recommendation 1: Revisit and refine the program logic model and performance measurement strategy.

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement an approach for Environment Canada to more actively engage with all program stakeholders in order to enhance the ecological integrity of the department’s Protected Areas and contribute to a national vision on the management and oversight of Protected Areas throughout Canada.

As demonstrated by the evaluation, such an approach should consider the need to:

• Strengthen the coordination of the overall activities of the Protected Areas program including, the research, monitoring and assessment functions.
• Complete Site Management Plans for specific protected areas according to their prioritized rankings.
• Enhance public understanding and support for the role and importance of Protected Areas in conserving and protecting wildlife.
• Open a dialogue with partners on how to work jointly toward the achievement of targets for protected areas in Canada.

The responsible ADM agrees with both recommendations and has developed a management response that appropriately addresses each of the recommendations. The full management response can be found in section 6 of the report.