Evaluation of the Protected Areas Program: chapter 7

4.0 Findings

This section outlines evaluation findings for each of the defined evaluation issues and questions. Findings and ratings are presented by evaluation issue for the PA program, with specific comments included under each evaluation question.  

For each evaluation question, a rating is provided based on a judgment of the evaluation findings. The rating statements and their significance are outlined below in Table 2. A summary of ratings for the evaluation issues and questions is presented in Annex 4.

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 Continued Need

There is a continued need for the PA program and its components, given documented evidence of continued pressures on species and habitats, the importance of protecting these areas for Aboriginal cultures, and the alignment of PA program activities to international commitments for the preservation of ecosystems.

• The Species at Risk Public Registry lists 911 species or populations of species, as of May 30, 2013, with 570 of these listed in the three schedules of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Likewise, provinces maintain lists of endangered flora and fauna. Additionally, various publications from international organizations, such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and Canadian organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), demonstrate a universal acceptance of the criticality of preservation of habitat in order to preserve species. A review of site plans and descriptions show that virtually all protected areas identify either species at risk within their boundaries or substantial percentage of populations of a major North American species (e.g., Snow Goose). All cases studied had habitats or species of special interest.
• Interviewees and documents also noted that economic development activities (e.g., farming, urban growth, forestry, etc.) apply pressure on important habitats, especially those south of the 60th parallel. The file review also found that some sites that were once rural are now situated within urban areas, thereby increasing the impact on habitats and endangered species.
• Aboriginal organizations report a need to protect claimed lands to maintain ecological, cultural, spiritual and archaeological traditions. Aboriginal communities have also expressed the desire to be involved in the management of lands, especially in the Nunavut Settlement Area. The IIBA references the need for Aboriginal involvement and is the direct government response to that need as a legal obligation under the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement in the Nunavut Settlement Area.
• International agreements commit Canada to preserve ecosystems. Canada participates in, or is a signatory to, such agreements as the Ramsar Convention, the North America Marine Protected Area Network (NAMPAN), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity sets a target of 17% for protection of land mass and 10% for protection of marine areas. Canada has not yet achieved these targets, as it protects just over 10% of terrestrial landmass and 0.7% of marine areas.^Footnote22

4.1.2 Alignment with Federal Government Priorities

The objectives of the PA program and its components correspond to recent federal and departmental commitments, as stated in national agreements, strategies, departmental RPPs, and speeches from the throne.

• The Canadian Biodiversity Strategy lists protected areas as a key component which fulfills some the Government of Canada’s obligations.
• The 2012-13 Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) links the PA program to the Canadian Government strategic outcome of a “Clean and Healthy Environment.” The PA program supports Strategic Activity SO 1: Sustainable Environment: Canada’s natural environment is conserved and restored for present and future generations.”^Footnote23  
• Interviewees noted that the PA program provides a mechanism for departments with land holdings to meet SARAobligations.
• The June 2011 Speech from the Throne identifies protected areas as a government commitment by stating “In this, the 100th anniversary year of our national parks system, our Government will create significant new protected areas.”^Footnote24
• The IIBA represents a federal obligation that derives from the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) which states “In addition to Parks, other areas that are of particular significance for ecological, cultural, archaeological, research and similar reasons require special protection.”(NCLA Article 9.2.1).  IIBA principles include the recognition that “NWAs and MBSs make an important contribution to wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation in the NSA, Canada and the world. They shall be co-managed by Inuit and CWS …”(IIBA Article 2.1.2).

4.1.3 Consistency with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

The PA program meets several federal legislative mandates, addresses needs on federal lands within the Minister of the Environment’s purview, complements other federal, provincial/territorial and NGO programs, and is consistent with federal roles in other countries.

The Migratory Birds Convention Act (MCBA) clearly identifies migratory birds as being under federal jurisdiction. The Canada Wildlife Act (CWA) stipulates that the Governor in Council may authorize the Minister of the Environment to “purchase or acquire any lands or any interests or rights in any lands, for the purpose of … conservation.”^Footnote25

• There are numerous Acts that outline the federal role in the protection of areas for habitat, migratory birds, and species at risk. The PA program is supported by unambiguous legislation: the Canada Wildlife Act (CWA), the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MCBA), and the Species at Risk Act (SARA). The MBCA places responsibility for migratory birds on the federal government and negotiations on these issues are carried out between nations. Only EC can establish an NWA.
• Many of the PAs represent the federal government exercising its environmental stewardship responsibility. NWAs are located on federal crown lands where the Minister of the Environment has stewardship responsibility.
• The PA program is complementary to programs in other government departments (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada Agency, AAFC), in provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, and in other non-government organizations (e.g., Ducks Unlimited, Nature Conservancy of Canada).
• The Canadian federal role is consistent with United States and Australia where biodiversity, conservation, and protected areas are significant public policy issues that require federal government leadership and programming. Both the United States and Australia have federal organizations with similar responsibilities to the PA program.   

4.2 Performance

4.2.1 Achievement of Intended Outcomes

The PA program has met a number of its intermediate outcomes^Footnote26related to the creation of a national network, linkages to international networks, and access and benefits sharing by Aboriginal peoples. Although not the sole responsibility of the department, national networks were not found to provide resiliency and redundancy of priorityhabitats, and were proportionately smaller than those of the US and Australia. The PA program is not making adequate progress toward its intended outcomes related to theecological management of PAs, the development of new knowledge and data contributing to EC’s needs and objectives, and the public’s understanding and support of the role and importance of PAs.

Intermediate Outcome 1: Opportunity for Improvement

“A national network of protected areas incorporating all partners is established that provides resilience^Footnote27 and redundancy in priority habitats”

The PA program makes an important contribution to the overall network of protected areas in Canada. Although no national targets or commitments have been established for the percentage of terrestrial landmass and marine areas to protect, the current national network was found to fall short of international averages and does not provide adequate redundancy of some priority habitats.

• The PA program has created a network of 146 Protected Areas managed by EC or, in the case of Suffield NWA, through delegation of authority to DND, with pan-Canadian management and appropriate linkages to international networks.
• As of 2011, the PA program protects a total of 1,958,900 hectares of marine habitat and 10,490,061 ha of terrestrial biome, representing approximately 10% of the 102.7 M ha protected in Canada or 1% of Canada’s overall landmass. The federal government overall (including Parks Canada, EC and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada) is responsible for the protection of just less than half (49%) of all lands currently protected in Canada.^Footnote28
• A 2009 comparison suggests that the overall proportion of land and marine protected areas set aside in Canada (8%)^Footnote29 is considerably less than that protected in the United States and Australia (14.8% and 10.5%, respectively).^Footnote30This is also less than the 2008 OECD countries’ and world averages for percentage landmass protected (13% and 12% respectively).^Footnote31
• Evidence from the document review suggests that many PAs are a patchwork of non-contiguous lands, which can potentially create management issues (e.g., control of invasive species, flood waters, etc.), and so affect the resiliency of sites. For example, three of the five NWAs in New Brunswick (Tintamarre, Shepody and Portobello Creek) have non-contiguous areas.^Footnote32
• The PAs do, however, leverage partner resources to influence landscapes that by virtue of their larger sizes are more resilient and have a better chance of protecting species. For instance, many of the EC PAs form the nucleus that allows other partners to establish a larger area of protection (e.g., the Long Point NWA anchors the much larger Long Point Conservation Area). EC also leverages the PA program’s efforts by contributing funds to and collaborating with the NCC^Footnote33 and Ducks Unlimited.^Footnote34 Although the PA program does not co-ordinate its acquisition decisions with these NGOs, as each develops its own habitat protection strategy, the PA program works with these NGOs as appropriate to provide input into planning activities.

Intermediate Outcome 2: Acceptable

“Continental and global networks complement and thereby enhance the conservation value of the national network”

There is evidence of PA linkages to continental and global networks, although there was no evidence that these networks enhance the conservation value of the national network. This suggests that participation in international networks may not be well-aligned to program goals and may need to be reconsidered in the context of the PA program model.

• Many sites bear international network designations, such as Ramsar, Man and Biosphere and Important Bird Areas. There is evidence of effective North American partnerships such as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the North American Marine Protected Areas Network (NAMPAN). Five protected areas form part of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.^Footnote35
• It was noted that while many of these designations confer international recognition, visibility and demonstrate Canadian support of international efforts, they do not themselves confer any greater degree of habitat protection; the PA program utilizes the CWA, SARA and MCBA for its authorities.

Intermediate Outcome 3: Acceptable

“Access and benefits sharing of biodiversity by Aboriginal peoples”

Although this outcome is relevant for the entire EC network of protected areas, access and benefits sharing of biodiversity by Aboriginal peoples occurs primarily for Inuit in Nunavut. South of the sixtieth parallel, CWS staff report that they do not receive many requests for access to PAs from Aboriginal groups, and this finding was validated by the results of the file review. Local Nunavut communities have supported the establishment of new PAs and are actively involved in their management. Inuit partners have reservations about the student and apprenticeship programs.

• The IIBA is being implemented and procedures are in place for its management. Establishment of the Area Co-Management Committees (ACMCs) is somewhat behind schedule (only five of six planned ACMC were established by the end of FY 2011-2012). Under the current IIBA, Inuit groups are engaged in the management of sites within the Nunavut Settlement Area. Since 2008 there has been a ramping up of O&M expenditures and contributions granted under the IIBA.^Footnote36The 5-year review noted that NTI maintains procurement processes to ensure that there is preferential treatment to qualified Inuit contractors when IIBA contracts go to tender.^{Footnote37Footnote38}
• Requests for access to PAs from all Aboriginal groups are typically granted throughout the network, although they are not frequently requested south of the sixtieth parallel where there is less dependence on hunting.
• In Nunavut, it was felt that some local communities were very supportive of the establishment of new PAs and are actively involved in their management through ACMCs. This statement is based on a small sample (n=3) of Inuit stakeholders interviewed and is only valid for those with direct involvement with the PA program.
• Aboriginals have unlimited access to PAs North of the 60th parallel where a high degree of collaboration among stakeholders was observed. Case studies suggest a high level of satisfaction from Inuit stakeholders in the activities performed (all sites are currently at the planning stage), despite the difficulties encountered with performing work in Nunavut (e.g. complex approvals and logistics barriers, weather impacts, limited communications infrastructure with various communities). Additionally, respondents to case studies noted that community members have expressed strong support for the creation of the Akpait NWA as they see it providing a measure of protection to a natural resource vital for the survival of the community. The site is almost exclusively accessed by local Inuit, who hunt on the land while respecting the wildlife.
• The program requirements do not meet the expectation of Inuit partners in areas such as student and apprentice programs, as federal staffing processes for engaging Inuit students and field assistants for the North are not well suited to Northern challenges. Specifically, O&M vote funding only allows for the hiring of Inuit Student Mentors and Field Research Assistants under the Federal Student Work Employment Program (FSWEP) or the Research Assistant Program (RAP), both of which are limited to school registered individuals and, in the case of RAP, those registered at a post-secondary institution. Candidates in Nunavut do not meet these conditions generally. As well, many individuals in the North must travel for their work and the American Express cards offered to pay for students’ travel expenses are not accepted in most locations in Nunavut.

Direct Outcome 4: Attention Required

“New knowledge and data contributing to EC needs and objectives are available”

No evidence was found that the PA program is generating significant new knowledge and/or data contributing to EC conservation needs and objectives. No evidence was found of the PA program directing research or maintaining reliable database of findings from research efforts of other units within EC, such as Species at Risk, Migratory Birds, or Science and Technology Branch. Interviews and a review of permits issued suggest that PA program staff assist other EC sub-programs, such as Migratory Birds or Species at Risk, by helping to obtain permits and occasionally participating in field work.

• Knowledge on PA wildlife content is necessary when aligning site management plans to the achievement of specific target population levels. Little evidence was found of the generation of significant knowledge and data (e.g. site visit reports that could be used to adjust site management plans on a periodic basis) that could contribute to EC site management needs.
• The Long Point site is the only PA site where new knowledge was generated by clearing an area to establish benchmarks for the impact of human activity. Practitioners do meet periodically to share best practices, but no evidence was found of best practices presentations or datasets.

Intermediate Outcome 4: Attention Required

“Public understands and supports the role and importance of protected areas in conserving and protecting wildlife”

The PA program has done little nationally to generate public understanding and support of the role and importance of PAs in conserving and protecting wildlife. The individual sites that promote understanding through engagement in the surrounding communities have demonstrated the benefits which can be attained through this type of activity.

• The PA program does not appear to effectively or sufficiently communicate the importance and role of EC’s PAs to the broader public. There is no evidence gathered and no performance data collected to show whether the general public understands the role and importance of EC’s protected areas network in conserving and protecting wildlife. CWS interviewees noted that the public has a very poor understanding of EC’s protected areas in general and confuses them with national parks. There is no formal communications or marketing role and/or function within the PA program.
• Public understanding and support for the role and importance of PAs can be greatly enhanced by nearby tourism or local sites of interest. As an example, the Cape Jourmain NWA sits at the base of the Confederation Bridge, which makes it an unintended tourist attraction and destination. The PA program has established an Information Centre on the site and is capitalizing on this high volume destination to raise the public profile of protected areas.
• Case studies and interviews show that communities adjacent to protected areas understand and support the role of PAs. The presence of an active PA provides benefits to local farmers (e.g., aid in controlling invasive alien species). The Last Mountain Lake case study shows, for example, how lure crops were planted to direct waterfowl to the site and away from nearby farms. CWS regional staff also reported that they assist in invasive alien species (IAS) management and some reported that they conduct seminars for local landowners, all with the intent of broadening the understanding of the Protected Areas program to adjacent properties.    

Intermediate Outcome 5: Attention Required

“Ecological integrity of protected areas is maintained or enhanced.”

The PA program protects sites from trespass and illegal activities, but the program’s capacity to maintain the ecological integrity (i.e., ensuring natural components and processes remain intact) of sites appears to be weak, with inconsistent application of site management plans, lack of site management plans, the lack of established species population targets, and the existence of sites which no longer require active management.

• The ecological integrity of PAs is only marginally maintained with low levels of site management activity being performed. A 2013 CESD audit^Footnote39 found “more than 70 percent of national wildlife areas and about 55 percent of migratory bird sanctuaries are considered to have less than adequate ecological integrity.” ^Footnote40
• In 2013, the CESD concluded “Without regular monitoring, the Department cannot properly track whether the ecological integrity of its areas is improving … or … identify early new or potential threats to local species so that it can react in an appropriate and timely manner.”
• Interviewees indicate there is insufficient site monitoring to assess the level of compliance with regulatory requirements. Site visits for enforcement purposes are described as too infrequent and not systematic enough to gauge the effectiveness of site protection efforts. Some sites were visited with insufficient frequency (e.g., once or twice a year or not at all) to enable the identification of patterns of trespassing or ecological degradation. CWS staff described other efforts, such as the installation of surveillance cameras, as not having much impact. Co-ordination with enforcement was described as good, but limited due to the budgets constraints.
• It was found that the majority (90%) of EC national wildlife areas did not have adequate management plans, in that the plans were either not based on ecological principles or being implemented, and concluded that “without such plans to support decision making to achieve specific goals and objectives, it is difficult to effectively manage or assess progress in its protected areas.”^Footnote41This is consistent with feedback from two key informants who reported that without an up-to-date plan, managers have no performance targets to strive for and no incentive to collect performance data, or that ecological integrity cannot be measured against targets.
• Only roughly a third of sites for the file review had either a draft (n=8 of 30) or approved (n=1 of 30) site management plan, despite the existence of a thorough site management plan template and evidence of its use in draft plans. This finding is consistent with the views of interviewees who suggest that between a third and half of all NWAs have site management plans that are in draft form. This finding may be explained in part by the approval process for site management plans, which was described as onerous with many levels of review.
• In response to a 2008 CESD audit, EC conducted an Operational Review in April 2008, which concluded that, without the current level of funding as well as additional funding, it would not be possible to improve the management of all of EC’s existing protected areas, and gaps would remain in responding to the 2008 CESD recommendations.^Footnote42
• Staff also attributes low levels of site management to limited resources. Regional CWS staff stated that they were under-resourced to meet ecological integrity activity needs (e.g., control of animal populations, erosion and surface water, invasive alien species). The 2008 and 2010 review of sites did suggest a slight improvement from 2008 to 2010 with regard to their overall ecological integrity (i.e., rose from 2.75 to 2.95 on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent), although the subjective nature of these indicators suggests this information may be unreliable.^Footnote43
• Despite that one of the program’s intended outcomes is that “Populations of managed species in protected areas are within target ranges”, there is no evidence of targets being established or data being gathered for populations of species of interest within the PA program. There is evidence that an understanding of acceptable and unacceptable levels does exist, as the file review showed that all of the sites control overpopulation through special measures, such as hunting and controlled burns. Also, all of the file review sites reported the presence of invasive alien species, but the majority of the sites were restricted in their efforts to control them due to limited resources.
• The ecological need for sites can change. The Vaseux Bighorn NWA, for example, was developed to protect California bighorn sheep that are no longer endangered. According to a 2013 CESD report, since 2008 “the Department has identified 6 national wildlife areas and 22 migratory bird sanctuaries that no longer meet the criteria for protected areas (for example, sites that are located in urban areas and have little value for wildlife)” but that no action had been taken to delist them. A number of interviewees within CWS also stated that they were aware of sites that are not actively managed and may no longer need protection.  

4.2.2 Appropriateness of Design

Comprehensive procedures and standards to support understanding of roles and responsibilities within the program and the consistent national delivery of program activities exist, but do not appear to be used in a consistent manner.

A draft program guide specifies procedures to establish and maintain PAs in a manner that is appropriate to the objectives of the PA program and covers all activities in the logic model. There is also a document titled Protected Area Strategy (2011) which details the vision, mission, goals, and strategic approaches of the PA program. A template exists for developing site management plans, along with other tools, such as checklists, consultation guidance and process diagrams. Documents discussing sites for consideration, procedural reviews and other reports show that the PA program does take significant consideration in the identification of sites in need of protection. Criteria exist for new site creation.

• Regional staff felt they were clear on the roles and responsibilities of regional and headquarters staff and that they were well informed of national policies. Stakeholders such as DND and NGO partners indicated that they were aware of the role of CWS staff. Despite this, some respondents observed a lack of coordination (e.g., inconsistency in national program delivery; lack of information sharing and use; lack of use of existing guidelines and templates), which could be indicative of a need for greater clarity, communication and understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders both within the program, CWS, and EC, and among the various external partners. There are no national mechanisms and processes for effective coordination, collaboration, communication, and information exchange of relevant program activities among all key stakeholders.

4.2.3 Performance Measurement

The department’s Performance Measurement Framework has been implemented, but with only four PA program indicators that provide insufficient detail to inform PA program management activities. Performance data is very limited and there are very few documented, well recognized and/or accepted specific performance indicators.

The departmental Performance Measurement Framework for 2010-11 covered only four indicators for 1.1.4.2 (e.g., increase in total area protected, unspecified indicators of ecological integrity; number and size of areas co-managed; and percentage of sites with site management plans), with no performance indicators present for the majority of the program logic model components. The program uses no other quantitative performance indicators.

• Indicators have not been identified for certain important components of the logic model, such as level of public understanding, characteristics of ecological integrity of the sites, level of access by Aboriginals, and level of compliance by individuals to regulations.
• No evidence exists of ecological benchmark data being collected, other than at one site (Long Point). No consistent data for ecological indicators is collected across all sites.
• The international review showed that a comparable US program, the US National Wildlife Refuge System, has a more comprehensive set of 16 performance indicators across all sites and reports them for multiple years.^Footnote44
• The PA program has previously assessed program performance using a subjective set of performance indicators. Operational reviews were performed twice; first in 2008 and then updated in 2010.^Footnote45 In each instance, sites were scored by their site managers for seven factors: Operational Health and Safety (employees), Safety (visitors), Ecological integrity, Management (capacity and management plans), Surveillance and permitting, Equipment, and Facilities. The 2010 follow-up to the review showed modest improvements in most sites, although the subjective nature of these indicators suggests they may be unreliable. Some interviewees have expressed that information obtained during the 2008 review was invaluable to management decision making, while others were concerned that the indicators were subjective.

4.2.4 Unintended Outcomes

No significant unintended outcomes were observed.

4.2.5 Program Efficiency

The PA program manages its sites with an expenditure of less than $1 per hectare, which is much lower than other organizations performing similar roles. There is no evidence of significant waste, but the program fails to perform all of the activities identified in the logic model.

As reported previously in Table 1 (section 2.3), core PA program expenditures increased from $7.6 M in 2008-09 to roughly $11M a year between 2010-11 and 2012-13. Similarly, salary expenditures for core program operations remained at around $4.5M between 2009-10 and 2012-13, while indirect expenditures in support of the PA program (i.e., expenditures from other EC program areas) ranged from $4 to $6 million over this same period. When all direct and indirect program costs are considered, overall expenditures rose from approximately $12M in 2008-2009 to peak at $17M in 2011-12. Expenditures subsequently fell in 2012-2013 to $15M.

• Between 2008-09 and 2012-13, the total average cost per hectare for the ongoing management of EC protected areas was $1.24 per hectare. The analysis revealed a steady increase in management costs, from a low of $1.01 per hectare in 2008-09 to a high of $1.37 per hectare in 2011-12 (see Table 3). Costs per hectare subsequently declined to $1.21 per hectare in 2012-13, although it is unclear whether the lower cost per hectare was associated with increased operational efficiency or simply less active site management overall due to resource reductions.

• Table 4 below presents a comparison of PA program site management costs with those of other jurisdictions and organizations. It should be noted that the costs per hectare presented below are not strictly comparable, as there are differences in mandate and activities undertaken by the various organizations for the ongoing management of the areas within their control. These differences are explained in the table. The comparison does, however, provide a rough gauge of relative cost-efficiency, although the evaluation is unable to distinguish cost-efficiencies reflecting operational efficiencies from those reflecting differences in the amount and nature of site management activity undertaken by the various organizations.
• Table 3 suggests that resources for the management of protected areas within EC’s purview ($1.24 per hectare) are much lower on average than those of other roughly comparable organizations in Canada and the US, whose ongoing management costs range from about $5 to $16 per hectare.

The PA program could enhance the achievement of its intended outcomes by playing a greater co-ordination role among the various stakeholders. Efforts to better coordinate program activities with both internal and external stakeholders may help the program to better leverage stakeholder activities and ensure they complement the PA mandate.

The Canada Wildlife Act authorizes the Minister of the Environment to “coordinate and implement wildlife policies and programs in cooperation with the government of any province having an interest therein.” Some challenges were identified with regard to the PA program’s coordination of activities with other EC programs and external stakeholders. Although program staff regularly cooperates with partners, opportunities exist to improve the coordination.

• The logic model identifies activities, such as landscape planning, species at risk management and enforcement, which are addressed in other EC programs that are not directly under the auspices of this PA program. Regional personnel responsible for managing PAs are often unaware of the outcomes of activities, such as species counts, done by other units on their sites. Likewise, such studies are not planned in consideration of PA program needs such that the PA program is unable to leverage these efforts to the program’s benefit. No evidence was found of proactive coordination between these other departmental programs and the PA program.
• Regional staff noted that prior to 2008, PA program staff used to conduct enforcement activities and that this arrangement enabled them to better manage the timing of site visits. An enforcement official reported that he believes CWS personnel do not inform them of all potential infractions, such as when they observe a duck blind on the site.
• Other programs routinely contact the PA program for permission to conduct studies on site and there is evidence of the PA program issuing permits for activities such as migratory or species at risk studies and bird banding. There appear to be opportunities for greater cooperation (e.g., closer working relationships, sharing of data and information) between the various units within CWS and other areas of EC.
• Many PA program outcomes are aligned to those of other external stakeholders. On a national level, however, there is little evidence of the PA program playing a national leadership role in coordinating the creation of new PAs. For example, no interviewees or documents suggested that the PA program has had any influence or input on recent land acquisition activities of the NCC or Ducks Unlimited, even though these NGO’s are protecting lands and helping build the same national network of PAs to which the PA program also contributes. It was also noted that the PA program’s work with other EC units, such as Waterfowl Management or Species at Risk, is reactive, and typically occurs only when the PA program responds to a request from another unit.

Lengthy approval processes make expansion of the PA network difficult to perform in a timely manner, although these processes are outside of the program’s control.

• Procedures for land purchase approval and acquisition are lengthy and time consuming, resulting in delays and lost acquisition opportunities. The process usually requires an Order in Council to change NWA boundaries or allow for creation of a new NWA, and timing for this is outside of the PA program’s control. Other mandatory steps outside of the PA program’s control include consultations, environmental assessments and/or departmental/Ministerial approval, all of which can take up to a year. In one example of a complex situation, the arrangement of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DND for CFB Suffield, the process took in excess of 15 years from inception to realization, but this is an exceptional case. In the event that land is acquired that is already within the boundaries of the NWA, however, acquisition can be accomplished in as short as four months.

Inconsistent standards for information management were observed in the regions.

• Site management data was not easily retrieved and was not consistent from one site to the next or from one region to the other. For example, some regions maintain electronic records of permits while others keep paper copies and do not have an electronic record. The file review revealed inconsistent reporting across sites in terms of important program management information, such as ecological observations, site visits or PA correspondence, despite the existence of a detailed Protected Areas Manual which provides a wide range of templates and standardized forms. Two interviewees also raised the same concern regarding their inability to retrieve information (e.g. species counts) needed to effectively manage their sites.

Various stakeholders perceive that other opportunities may exist to improve the efficiency of program delivery including a more consistent application of standard templates and tools, and simplifying IIBA funding agreements.

• Program staff from EC, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), and the Regional Inuit Associations commented that the current IIBA contribution agreement includes detailed requirements for annual work planning and financial expenditure information that undermines the spirit and intent of the NLCA, and that the process for securing funds under the agreement is cumbersome, time consuming and not conducive for providing funding to large projects. All signatory parties have emphasized that the subsequent IIBA needs to provide greater financial flexibility to the signatory parties. Both EC and NTI interviewees agreed that improved financial flexibility within the confines of TB Policies for grants and contributions would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the IIBA activities by reducing the administrative burden to program staff and increasing their ability to maximize investments for primary and secondary projects.^Footnote52
• Interviewees in regional offices explained that information management is a challenge and that the CWS lacks an effective information management system. This point was reiterated by regional staff who experienced difficulties in assembling the required documents given the inconsistent formats for documents received. Greater program efficiencies could be realized through the use of common templates that exist for site visits, site management plans and a variety of program processes (e.g., inventories, application of monitoring criteria, environmental assessments applications).

4.2.6 Program Economy

The PA program performs appropriate and essential activities, but does not adequately address all of its objectives. Innovative site management practices have been adopted to minimize investment while maximizing the achievement of program outcomes.  

• Interviewees both within and external to the PA program believe that the program is underfunded to accomplish the expected results, with some describing budgets as sufficient only to “keep the lights on”. For example, there is neither proactive public education nor performance measurement of target populations despite that these are identified as outcomes in the logic model. This finding remains consistent with the CESD’s 2008 observation that: “According to its own analyses, Environment Canada has allocated insufficient human and financial resources to address urgent needs or activities related to the maintenance of sites and enforcement of regulations in protected areas.”^Footnote53
• Regional and headquarters interviewees indicated that most resources expended on protected areas are focussed on ensuring sites are safe for employees and visitors. This includes maintenance of facilities, repairs and installation of signage and management of fencing. Interviewees observed that once those activities are performed, there are few resources left to support ecological integrity management or site visits.
• Innovative site management practices are adopted to minimize investment while achieving the same program outcomes. In an estimated 25-30% of active sites, local staff is able to share resources and specialist skills among partners located in proximity to the protected areas. For example, two sites (Cap Tourmente and Portobello Creek) reported that local biologists conduct a regular “bioblitz”, where they perform extensive species counts of fauna and flora. Sites that are part of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan have active surface water management activities carried out by Ducks Unlimited. Most case study sites collaborate with local NGO partners to develop regional activity plans to maximize the benefit. At CFB Suffield, habitat management planning and expenses are shared with DND, resulting in the PA program benefiting from the local expertise of the onsite DND biologist and providing greater value for the EC investment of human resources.  
• The PA program benefits from local assistance in site monitoring due to the involvement of local residents in site management activities. In the Maritimes, for example, local biologists volunteer to perform bird and insect counts.