Evaluation of Water Resource Management and Use program: chapter 7

4. Findings

This section presents the findings of this evaluation by evaluation issue (relevance and performance) and by the related evaluation questions.

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 4. A summary of ratings for the evaluation issues and questions is presented in Annex 3.

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 Continued Need for the Program

Involvement in the WRMU program addresses a continued need for the federal government, and EC in particular, to play a role in water resource management to support the protection of ecosystems, provide protection from flooding and drought, and support economic activities. The program also addresses the need for management of watersheds across inter-jurisdictional boundaries. 

• Evaluation findings support a continued need for water information and water management stemming from a variety of environmental, safety (e.g., protection of health and property), and economic needs. For example,
  • the environmental need to maintain adequate stream flow in rivers to support aquatic ecosystems and fish populations;^Footnote23   
  • the need for protection from flooding and drought; and
  • needs linked with population increases, seaway traffic and commercial impacts of water level decisions.
• According to the Canadian Water Resources Association, “[s]ignificant floods in all parts of Canada have affected tens of thousands of people and result in billions of dollars of damage and lost economic productivity.”^Footnote24   
• EC’s support to the water management boards also addresses the need for management of watersheds across inter-jurisdictional boundaries, including support for the avoidance of water use conflicts. According to the Canadian Water Resources Association, “Canada’s freshwater resource is under pressure due to growing domestic and cross-border demands for economic growth.”^Footnote25 IRIA-related work is also intended to facilitate dispute resolution as needed between jurisdictions to manage potential water conflicts.
• Finally, the clients of the water management boards clearly identified the need for EC’s involvement, with 96% of survey respondents somewhat or strongly agreeing that EC performs a necessary role in support of water resource management. In open-ended comments to the survey, external stakeholders stated that the work of the boards could not proceed without the excellent support of EC, that EC is pivotal to the success of these boards, and that the support of EC is vital.

4.1.2 Alignment with Federal Government Priorities

The WRMU program is consistent with federal priorities related to the environment, public safety and the economy and aligns with departmental strategic outcomes.

• The work of this program aligns with the following departmental strategic outcomes:
  • “Canada’s natural environment is conserved and restored for present and future generations.” 
  • “Canadians are equipped to make informed decisions on changing weather, water and climate conditions.”
• Findings from the document review and key informant interviews indicate that the work of EC in support of the water management boards is consistent with federal priorities, such as those related to the economy, public safety, and the environment.^Footnote26
• Regarding EC’s work related to the IRIA, it was noted that the 2008 Speech from the Throne highlighted an increased focus on protecting Canadian water, and brought about Bill C-383, the Transboundary Waters Protection Act.^Footnote27This included amendments to the IRIA to prevent the diversion from Canada to the United States of non-transboundary waters via international rivers.   
• While it is clear that the program aligns with federal priorities, some EC program representatives noted that there is not a clear set of priorities when it comes to the water file in general (within government or within EC). The Federal Water Policy, a policy document which addresses the management of water resources, was released in 1987;^Footnote28 however, this document has not been updated since that time.

4.1.3 Consistency with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

EC’s involvement in the water management boards and the IRIA supports federal legislation related to water management and is consistent with federal roles and responsibilities related to managing watersheds across inter-jurisdictional waters. Further, the WRMU program supports commitments outlined in various domestic and international agreements.

• Responsibility for water resources is shared between provincial/territorial governments and the federal government. The federal government has responsibility for and jurisdiction pertaining to fisheries, navigable waters, federal lands, and international transboundary issues, including responsibilities related to the management of boundary waters shared with the US and relations with the IJC.^Footnote29
• National leadership for water management is assigned to the Minister of the Environment in the Department of the Environment Act, and there is alignment between the work of EC in support of the water management boardsand the Canada Water Act, which has provisions for formal consultation and agreements with the provinces. There is also alignment with the overall objective of the 1987 Federal Water Policy “to encourage the use of freshwater in an efficient and equitable manner” and its water management-related goal “[t]o promote the wise and efficient management and use of water.”^Footnote30 
• The WRMU program aligns with commitments outlined in a number of domestic and/or international governmental agreements to provide leadership, information and expertise in support of water management.^Footnote31
• The program also aligns with obligations related to the IRIA, particularly those of the responsible minister to grant licences under the IRIA^Footnote32 and the use of program expertise in hydrological and hydraulic studies to address section 20 obligations under CEAA 2012^Footnote33for projects proposed on non-international rivers in areas of federal interest.
• Results from the survey of external water management board members and IJC board advisors show that 91% somewhat or strongly agreed that EC’s board/committee participation is an appropriate role for the federal government.

4.2 Performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy)

4.2.1 Achievement of Intended Outcomes

Direct Outcomes

The WRMU program is effectively achieving its direct outcomes related to: meeting its commitments and legal obligations for inter-jurisdictional water resource management; ensuring water resource decision-makers have the information they need to make shared resource decisions; and supporting cooperative and integrated approaches with other governments and water managers for sustainable water management. The high level of satisfaction from external stakeholders (mean rating of 8 out of 10) regarding EC’s involvement in the water management boards reflects this finding.   

Direct Outcome 1: “Canada’s commitments and legal obligations with respect to the inter-jurisdictional water resource management boards are met.”

• EC’s commitments and obligations are outlined in various agreements and are primarily related to EC contributing resources to fulfill the role of chair/co-chair or other board members, the provision of secretariat services, contributions toward the boards’ annual budgets, and the provision of water quantity (and in some cases water quality) monitoring and data.^Footnote34 In several instances, there are also additional commitments related to participation in scientific assessments or task studies in support of the work of the board.
• A review of EC’s performance against its commitments to the boards identifies that EC is meeting its commitments to a large extent, although some vacancies exist in the International St. Croix River Watershed Board,^Footnote35 the International Souris River Board and the International Red River Board.^Footnote36Additionally, a long-term vacancy in the Lake of the Woods Control Board secretariat has been staffed as of early 2014.^Footnote37 It should be noted, however, that timelines for filling board vacancies are not fully within the control of EC. While EC nominates qualified individuals (a responsibility addressed by the DG IJC Committee for the IJC boards), the appointments are ultimately made either by order in council (for the domestic boards),^Footnote38 or the IJC commissioners (for IJC boards).^Footnote39Hiring of secretariat staff is conducted according to Government of Canada hiring and appointment processes, although board members do have a role in the process.^Footnote40
• EC representatives interviewed and external board members also supported the finding that EC is meeting its commitments and legal obligations, Most EC interviewees rated the degree to which EC is meeting its commitments at 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale and more than 4 in 5 (84%) of external board members agree that EC is meeting its commitments and legal obligations with respect to the board/committee.
• Interviewees also noted that EC is meeting its commitments related to the IRIA, as there is an adequate system in place under CEAA 2012 to flag projects where the IRIA may apply, ensuring all proposed projects are assessed and that licences are issued on time.

Direct Outcome 2:  “Water resource decision-makers have the information they need to make shared resource decisions.”

• EC contributes to the boards through the conduct and publication of water quantity and meteorological monitoring information, recommendations and directions on regulatory strategy, outflows, forecasts and flood warnings using mathematical models, and water basin studies.^Footnote41
• EC staff who fulfill a role as regulation representatives on IJC boards provide a variety of technical information. For example, regulation representatives on the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control provide the board with weekly reports on conditions in the water systems, monthly assessments of hydrological conditions and forecasts, and risk assessments.^Footnote42   
• Evidence from the evaluation indicates that the provision of information and expertise to support shared water resource decisions is a particular strength of the program.  External survey respondents expressed an overall high level of satisfaction with the amount and quality of technical and stakeholder information provided to the boards to enable decision making. When asked to identify the top three strengths of EC’s work in support of the water management boards/committees, 63% of survey respondents identified the provision of information to support decision making on the boards as a major strength. Most stakeholders surveyed (between 86% and 97%) somewhat or strongly agreed with statements relating to the achievement of this direct outcome, as outlined in the following table.

• In open-ended responses, about one-third of survey respondents (31%) emphasized the expertise, dedication and professionalism of EC staff in support of the boards.
• While the overall feedback from interviewed and surveyed stakeholders in relation to the achievement of this outcome was very positive, concerns were expressed  regarding:
  • maintaining appropriate levels of expertise and succession planning at EC; 
  • limited resources and resource reductions resulting from Budget 2012 affecting the provision of data and diminishing the level of support services from EC; and
  • limited participation of EC staff on special task forces/studies (an issue identified by 29% of external survey respondents as an area for improvement). 
• With respect to the IRIA, interviewees noted that the processes in which briefing memos for licence applications are written, submitted and approved by senior management allow decision-makers to be well informed of relevant issues and recommendations.

Direct Outcome 3: “Mechanisms are in place to support cooperative and integrated approaches for sustainable water management.”

• The governance processes for the various water management boards are not determined by EC alone but rather are identified at the individual board level or, for IJC boards, at the IJC. IJC and individual board mechanisms and structures have generally reached maturity level. EC’s contribution toward this outcome focuses primarily on leadership and support services, and includes the role of objective facilitator among different jurisdictions. EC fulfills many of the chair, co-chair and board member roles, as well as hosts and provides management oversight of board secretariats.
• External stakeholders expressed a generally positive view of EC’s and the boards’ cooperative management approach and practices. Most surveyed stakeholders somewhat or strongly agreed that “EC effectively contributes to board/committee management governance practices” (92%), that “the current structure and organization of the board/committee enables a cooperative and integrated approach to water management” (99%), and that, overall, they are “satisfied with EC’s involvement in the provision of secretariat services” (85%).
• Several external stakeholders noted that travel restrictions resulting in fewer EC staff attending board meetings/conferences in person limits EC’s ability to inform board decisions and build relationships and affects the quality of discussions at meetings. 

Intermediate Outcomes

The degree to which quality information is used in the water management boards’ consensus-based decision making, and the reported levels of collaboration and trust among water resource decision-makers across different jurisdictions indicates a high level of achievement toward the program’s intermediate outcome.

Intermediate Outcome: “Water resource decision-makers use information to make decisions in a collaborative manner to reduce risks^Footnote43 in inter-jurisdictional waters.”

• Evidence suggests that this outcome is being achieved to a high degree, with between 92% and 99% of survey respondents (representing non-EC board members and IJC Board Advisors) somewhat or strongly agreeing with the following statements: “board/committee members representing various organizations and jurisdictions work collaboratively to make decisions,” “information is used effectively by board/committee members to make decisions,” and “the technical information and analyses provided by secretariat staff contribute to the effective functioning of the board/committee.”
• Some external stakeholders surveyed identified key aspects of the work of the boards that they feel contribute to reducing risks in inter-jurisdictional waters, including:  forecasting and notifications (to the public/downstream users) on fluctuating water levels; a nutrient management strategy and management of re-emergence of algae; the collaborative forum the boards provide to raise issues, exchange information and advance decisions; monitoring of pollution in water (through programs/studies); and, in the case of IJC boards, the ability to keep both Canadian and US members informed and engaged.
• Almost all internal interviewees assigned the maximum rating of 5 to the achievement of this outcome (average ranking of 4.9) and noted the highly collaborative manner in which the boards operate. A majority of internal interviewees also commented on the boards’ use of available data and on the high quality of data. A few internal interviewees additionally pointed to an established trust relationship among board members, as well as a commitment to fact-based and consensus-based decision making.  External interviewees also ranked the achievement of this outcome at a high level (4.5 out of 5, with no rating lower than 4).
• All internal and external interviewees who could comment indicated that the relationship between EC and the IJC is working well, with several noting that the EC-IJC MOU has had a positive impact on clarifying roles and responsibilities.

Final Outcomes

Appropriate progress is being made toward the long-term outcomes related to effective management of Canada’s water resources to: i) protect ecosystems; ii) protect the health and property of citizens; and iii) support economic activities.

Final Outcome:  “Canada’s water resources are conserved and effectively managed to:
i) protect ecosystems,
ii) protect the health and property of citizens, and
iii) support economic activities.”

i) Protection of ecosystems

• A review of documents produced by domestic and international water management boards indicates that while the protection of ecosystems is not a direct mandate of all boards, it is adequately addressed by those boards (about half) that include a commitment to protect ecosystems in their mandates. The remaining boards do not specifically identify protection of ecosystems as one of their responsibilities.
• The work of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, the International St. Croix River Watershed Board and the International Rainy-Lake of the Woods Watershed Board provides examples of ecosystem-focused work of the boards based on their mandates and annual reports. This includes monitoring and reporting on the watersheds’ ecological health, support to the development of human and ecosystem indicators, and an integrated ecosystem response model.
• Two-thirds (65%) of external stakeholders were of the opinion that EC contributes to the achievement of this outcome to a “large” or a “great” extent. Twenty-seven percent of survey respondents saw it as being achieved to only a “moderate” extent. 
• In work related to the IRIA, EC ensures there is an increased focus on protecting ecosystems by seeking to maximize benefits and minimize hazards to ecosystems when conducting hydro-technical assessments as part of the review of licence applications.

ii) Protection of health and property of citizens 

• Regulation of water levels to balance the interests of those in the basin, along with corresponding support to help protect against floods and droughts, is a major focus of most of the water management boards in which EC participates. Examples of activities in this area include monitoring of flow conditions, regulation of outflows levels, development and implementation of apportionment and flow targets, review of flood management protocols, conducting studies on property damage due to floods and ice, providing the public with the most up-to-date water level data via websites,^Footnote44integrated management of principal reservoirs to reduce flooding, application of mathematical tools for water level monitoring and forecasting, and issuance of flood warnings.^Footnote45Recent examples of how water boards fulfill these responsibilities include:
  • the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board supported a number of public information initiatives related to an earlier-than-expected spring melt period in 2012, and the board’s secretariat maintains a website and toll-free information line to provide local residents with information about water levels and flows;
  • the International Osoyoos Lake Board of Control provides the public with real-time lake level tracking tools and timely status and trends updates via website to address residents’ concerns about high lake levels from heavy rains or snow melt;^Footnote46and
  • the International Rainy-Lake of the Woods Watershed Board assesses the vulnerability of shoreline properties to flooding and ice damage in high water conditions.^Footnote47
• Without exception, all internal interviewees were of the opinion that EC’s involvement on the water management boards contributes to the protection of health and property of citizens, with many specifically noting that EC contributes to this outcome to a “great extent” or that the involvement is “essential,” “key,” or “very important.” 
• A majority of external stakeholders surveyed (71%) ranked EC’s contribution to the achievement of this outcome as having been accomplished to a “large” or a “great” extent. About one-quarter (26%) said EC has contributed to it to a “moderate” extent. 
• IRIA interviewees noted that, as part of the review of licences, a key consideration is to ensure that preventive measures are being taken to minimize the chance of flooding, which is a major threat to citizen health and property.

iii) Support to economic activities

• Decisions made by board members attempt to consider and balance all interests in the basin, including commercial interests. For example, the work of the International Niagara Committee, which collaborates with the International Niagara Board of Control, determines the amount of water flow to balance the economic activities of the Niagara Falls both as a hydroelectric power generator and a tourist attraction.
• A majority of internal interviewees were of the opinion that EC’s involvement in water management boards contributes to support economic activities, citing the boards’ contribution to effective functioning of hydroelectric power generation, positive contribution to tourism, and impact on commercial water navigation.
• A majority of external stakeholders surveyed (56%) responded that EC’s involvement in the boards has contributed to the achievement of this outcome to a “large” or “great” extent. About one-quarter (27%) saw EC as contributing to a “moderate” extent, and a minority of stakeholders surveyed (16%) were of the opinion that EC contributes to the support of economic activities to only a “small” extent. 

4.2.2 Unintended Outcomes

Benefit to the Department’s work in other related areas was identified as a positive unintended outcome of EC’s activities in the WRMU program. 

• As part of its work with the boards, EC brings its program knowledge and expertise gained from related EC programs (e.g., Hydrological Service and Water Survey, ecosystem initiatives such as the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes Action Plans).  Interviewees noted that a positive unintended outcome of this program is that knowledge gained from board-related work is also applied to support improvements in these programs.

4.2.3 Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

Efficiency of Environment Canada’s Water Management Board Activities

A network of EC staff participates in the work of the various water management boards on a part-time basis. This contributes to efficient delivery as it allocates only as many resources as needed. Although individual board level activities are being conducted efficiently, there are opportunities to improve the overall efficiency of the WRMU program through greater coordination across the various water management boards.

• EC staff who participate as chair, board members, or expert advisors on specific water-related issues contribute their time to the various water management boards on a part-time basis, essentially accommodating the work within the responsibilities of their primary role in the organization. This manner of distributing work contributes to efficiency as it allocates only as many resources as are required, allows one individual to perform multiple functions within the Department, and ensures that the person with the appropriate expertise is engaged, allowing them to perform the work with a minimal learning curve.
• A strong majority of both EC program representatives and external stakeholder interviewees feel that EC performs its activities related to the water boards in an efficient manner, with several external interviewees recognizing that EC staff work hard to address their board responsibilities within the environment of fiscal restraint.^Footnote48 
• Evidence also indicates that secretariat services are being delivered in an efficient manner. As shown in Table 6, external stakeholders responding to the on-line survey provided very positive ratings regarding the delivery of secretariat services by EC staff. Additionally, EC program representatives, including EC board members who rely upon the secretariat services, were unanimous in their opinion that these services are being delivered in an effective and efficient manner. Several interviewees noted that staffing of the secretariats with knowledgeable individuals who understand both the technical issues and the unique characteristics of the various boards is a key factor contributing to the strength of work in this area. 

• Although evidence indicates that work in support of the individual boards is conducted in an efficient manner, opportunities were identified to improve the overall efficiency of the WRMU program through increased collaboration and information sharing across boards and among staff participating from all branches within the Department. To a large extent, work is managed on a board-by-board basis.  Interviewees highlighted the need to identify opportunities for synergies across boards, such as the use of common prediction models, yearly reporting forums to engage board participants with senior management, or sharing of best practices and lessons learned related to common issues.
• Additionally, given challenges associated with ensuring that appropriate expertise is available to support boards in a timely manner, a more coordinated approach to the identification and provision of appropriate technical expertise was another opportunity identified. Interviewees identified a need to fill vacancies in a timely manner, to ensure that boards and secretariats can be fully functioning, and to minimize transition challenges. The introduction of a common and systematic training program for new board participants to improve staffing transitions was also suggested. The recent MSC reorganization, which includes plans to establish a team of regional engineers with water management backgrounds to support the boards, was identified as a positive step forward in this area.
• Additionally, a high percentage of internal interviewees and a number of external stakeholders identified concerns with current travel restrictions impacting the efficiency of decision making when experts are not part of key discussions at board meetings or when relationships are not established that would support the ability to respond quickly to urgent matters.
• Regarding the IRIA, it was suggested that providing clearly documented protocols and procedures on licensing to proponents would be beneficial to improving information flows and increasing efficiency.

Clarity of Roles/Responsibilities

Those involved in the work of the water management boards reported that EC’s roles and responsibilities are generally clear and well understood. It is felt that EC’s involvement in the boards is not as clearly understood throughout the Department or by senior management.

• Most EC and external stakeholder interviewees indicated that the various roles and responsibilities for EC’s participation in the water management boards/committees are clear and/or well understood, particularly at the board level. Additionally, 9 out of 10 external stakeholders surveyed either somewhat or strongly agree that EC’s roles and responsibilities related to the board/committee are clear (91%) and that the roles and responsibilities for secretariat staff are clearly defined and understood (90%).The MOU between the IJC and EC was mentioned as contributing to clarity of roles and responsibilities. 
• Despite most interviewees reporting that roles and responsibilities are clear and well understood, EC program representatives expressed varied views as to whether those supporting the work of the boards serve as EC employees or as experts chosen for their professional abilities in a given field (rather than as representatives of a particular organization).This likely stems from IJC documentation which states that members of IJC boards serve in their “personal and professional capacity” and not as representatives of the agencies or organizations that employ them.”^Footnote50 The recent MOU between the IJC and EC does, however, provide clarification, indicating that “EC and the IJC expect board members to serve the Commission in their professional capacity, performing their duties in an impartial manner, for the common good of both countries.” The MOU also references an EC guidance document that is provided to all EC employees appointed to IJC boards and that provides further clarity regarding EC employees’ participation.^Footnote51 
• While roles are generally viewed as clear by those participating directly in the work, some EC program interviewees feel that EC’s involvement in this area, including EC roles and obligations, is not particularly well understood by senior management or more broadly within the Department, which may contribute to inefficiencies as employees need to justify or explain the nature of their involvement.

Adequacy of Resources

Resources for EC’s participation in the water management boards are generally viewed as “lean” but adequate, although challenges were identified in supporting boards managed by staff in the West and North Region and addressing requests for additional technical/scientific studies. The various MOUs which describe EC’s involvement in the water management boards serve to protect the Department from the potential of board decisions impacting EC operational budgets. 

• Most internal and external interviewees feel overall resources provided from EC to support EC participation on water boards are adequate, while acknowledging that they are very lean. Further, 70% of external stakeholders surveyed somewhat or strongly agree that “EC resources in support of secretariat services are adequate.”
• Several external stakeholder interviewees believe, however, that resources cannot be cut further if EC is to meet current obligations or support additional work, including increasing requests from the IJC. A number of other external stakeholders also suggested EC may be under-staffed and “struggling to keep a critical mass of expertise,” which puts pressure on those doing board work. 
• Interviewees agreed that there are some resource challenges related to requests for more or different technical/scientific studies to assist the boards in decision making. Further, vacancies for EC staff with key technical expertise on selected water boards are not always filled in a timely manner. This may be particularly true for western water boards, where interviewees indicated that resourcing issues related to the downsizing of FTEs and recent budget cuts have led to difficulties meeting commitments, filling board vacancies and fulfilling EC’s roles within water management.
• An assessment of the degree to which decisions made at the individual boards/committees could have the potential to impact Environment Canada’s operational budgets found there is little to no risk of this occurring.  For the most part, the level of resources which EC is expected to provide is clearly documented and as a result does not impact EC’s operational budgets. Several interviewees acknowledged, however, that the more difficult issue relates to the potential for the board to make decisions to take on new initiatives or special studies. The IJC MOU clearly identifies that “EC reserves the right to participate in IJC studies according to the level of resources available.” As such, the Department can indicate they do not have the available resources to contribute, or additional funding may be provided by the IJC. One board where the expectation is somewhat less clearly defined is the PPWB western domestic board, where the master agreement notes that “…the collection, compilation and publication of water quantity and quality data required… shall be conducted by Canada subject to provision of funds being voted by the Parliament of Canada.”^Footnote52  Although the level of support is certainly less precise in this agreement, it still does not obligate the Department to increased spending, and as such does not pose a significant risk.
• Interviewees mentioned that, after a period of understaffing, resources in support of the IRIA are currently adequate to allow staff to review licence applications and provide support to hydrological environmental assessments. There are concerns, however, that with an anticipated increase in the volume of licensing requests, it will become a challenge to continue supporting environmental assessment requirements with current resources.

4.2.3 Clarity, Appropriateness and Efficiency of Governance Structure

A majority of EC program representatives and management serving on boards feel the governance mechanisms for the WRMU program are unclear.  Although there are two DG-level committees that address components of EC’s work related to water management, there is no forum to coordinate EC’s work across the various water management boards. MSC’s recent reorganization, which consolidates the management of a number of boards under one director, is viewed as a positive step in this direction as it establishes a structure to support coordination and collaboration within the program.

• Delivery of the WRMU program is dispersed. Co-leadership for the program is shared between MSC and the Region (RDG, West and North), and water management board activities are conducted throughout the Department, including regional directors general’s offices, multiple teams in MSC, the International Affairs Branch, and S&T Branch.  
• A majority of EC program representatives indicated that governance mechanisms in support of the Department’s involvement in the water management boards are not very clear given the absence of a forum where decision making and discussions on priorities can take place, noting that day-to-day coordination across the program and among water boards does not currently exist.
• Although there are two DG-level committees that address certain components of this program (DG IJC Committee and Water Availability Committee (WAC)), neither committee is fully focused on the WRMU program or the overall coordination/ decision making/priority setting of the program. The DG IJC Committee is very effective for the logistical aspects related to meeting EC’s commitments with the IJC, including the appointment of members, but does not encompass the work of the domestic boards. The WAC is primarily an information-sharing committee for water quantity issues, but has no authority for decision making and does not specifically look at water board issues.
• Most internal interviewees feel the current approach, with responsibility for the water management boards shared between the MSC and regions, generally works well, with one individual specifically noting that it brings two different yet complementary perspectives (technical from MSC and regional from the RDGs) to bear; however, success of the shared leadership approach is dependent on high levels of communication and collaboration between the players, and most interviewees feel there are opportunities for improvements in this area, particularly as it relates to successful prioritization of work given available resources.
• The recent reorganization in MSC was identified as a positive step by a number of interviewees in terms of establishing a structure to support coordination and collaboration within the program. It does not, however, address the boards managed out of the West and North Region or the participation of other branches in the Department. Other individuals noted there were further opportunities to leverage the WAC to support a more collective approach for water management.
• EC program representatives involved in the work of the IRIA emphasized the need for improved coordination among stakeholders to improve the effectiveness of governance structures within the IRIA. One interviewee highlighted the need for a protocol document on decision making to improve the efficiency and clarity of IRIA processes, noting this may also address issues of sufficient coordination and collaboration within EC.

4.2.4 Collection and Reporting of Performance Data

A performance measurement strategy does not currently exist for the WRMU program and little performance data specific to EC’s activities in this area is collected. Reporting primarily occurs at the individual board level. The development of the first EC-IJC MOU Annual Report provides a brief synthesis of key outcomes achieved under each annex to the MOU, including a summary of financial expenditures and resources provided by Environment Canada in support of IJC activities.

• Although some preliminary work is underway,^Footnote53there is currently no formal performance measurement strategy that provides an integrated picture of the Department’s performance with respect to the WRMU program. 
• A departmental Performance Measurement Framework indicator was established for the WRMU program in 2013-14. However, no benchmark or baseline data had been collected for the indicator as of the time of this evaluation, although a baseline measure was established as part of this evaluation.^Footnote54
• In terms of the availability of performance data, most of the water boards provide some level of annual reporting focused primarily on outputs. Although these reports represent the overall accomplishments of the boards and do not allow for EC’s contribution to be parsed out, it was identified that these reports do serve as a valuable tool to engage and inform senior management.  Reports include:
  • A report on the activities performed in support of the Canada Water Act is prepared every fiscal year and includes a summary of the activities of the four domestic water boards^Footnote55such as a description of public information initiatives, number of board meetings, and issues examined during the year.
  • IJC boards must report on their progress to the IJC on an annual basis. The IJC in turn reports back to governments.^Footnote56
• Additionally, as required by the IRIA, a report on river improvement operations under the Act is prepared annually, covering activities relating to the granting of new and renewed licences, as well as applications and notifications for exceptions submitted during the previous year. 
• Stemming from a requirement in the recent EC-IJC MOU,^Footnote57 as of 2014, an annual report is now also prepared by IAB providing a consolidated summary of EC’s activities related to the IJC MOU. The report contains two sections: i) a description of the nature and level of EC support to the boards and a brief synthesis of each board’s key accomplishments; and ii) a summary of financial expenditures and resources provided by EC in support of IJC activities.^Footnote58