Species at Risk Program results-based management, accountability framework and audit framework: chapter 5

• % of SAR species for which COSEWIC completed a conservation status review within 10 years.

• Trend in the resources provided to COSEWIC activities
• # of meetings organized

• Trend in the number of species addressed in report on the general status of species

• Extent to which core departments follow the policies and guidelines (6)
• Extent to which policies and guidance documents meet Program management needs (6)

• % of species assessed for which consultation have taken place (1, 2, 3, 4)
• % of species assessed found on Aboriginal lands for which consultation have taken place and have met the federal requirements, including those of land claim agreements (2, 4)

• Number of partners contacted during listing consultations (1, 4)
• Number of Aboriginal people or organizations contacted during listing consultations (2, 4)
• Number of stakeholders contacted during listing consultations (3, 4)

• Number of permit requests or applications received (4)
• Number of permits issued (4)
• Average time required to respond to permit applications, trend in average (4)
• % of enforcement actions with respect to permits

• % of annually listed SAR covered by compliance promotion strategies and plans¹⁶ (4)
• % of regulated communities that have been targeted by compliance promotion activities

• % of listed SAR covered by compliance promotion and enforcement planning mechanisms (4)

• Number of SARA-trained enforcement officers (F/P/T) (4)

• Number of recorded violations, charges laid, charges approved, enforcement inspections and investigations by the core departments' enforcement officers (4)
• Number of S.93 requests for investigation processed by the core departments' enforcement officers (4)
• Number of S.93 requests for investigation completed by the core departments' enforcement officers (4)

• Extent to which core departments follow the policies and guidelines (6)
• Extent to which policies and guidance documents met program management needs (6)

• % of response statements issued within 90 days (6)

• % of GIC receipt that led to a GIC decision issued within nine months (6)

• Number of orders to protect critical habitats(4)
• % of critical habitat in federal protected areas that is published in the Canada Gazette on time as per subsection 58(3)

• Number of emergency listing orders, trend in number of orders (4)
• Number of emergency protection orders (4)
• Number of orders to apply section 32 and/or section 33 to non-federal lands (safety net) (1, 4)

• Number of regulations to protect critical habitat on federal lands (4)

• Extent to which partners are engaged in assessment and protection activities (1)
• Extent to which Aboriginal people are engaged in assessment and protection activities (2)

• Number of partners providing input during the listing process (1)
• Number of Aboriginal people or organization providing input during the listing process (2)

• % of species assessed by COSEWIC that were identified a priori as at risk in the report on the general status of species
• % of COSEWIC decisions that were informed by ATK  and scientific information

• Number of times SARA was invoked to protect species at risk and their residence on lands of federal responsibility (1)
• Number of times SARA was invoked to protect critical habitat identified in recovery strategy (1)

• Progress towards a complementary set of F/P/T species at risk legislation and policies (1, 6)

• Number of legal challenges to the listing process (6)
• % of legal challenges successfully defended or resolved (6)

• Implementation of actions outlined in compliance promotion plans

• Number of recorded violations, charges laid, charges approved, enforcement inspections and investigations by core departments enforcement officers (4)
• 
  % of S.93 of SARA requests for investigation processed by core departments enforcement officers (4)
• 
  % of S.93 of SARA requests for investigation completed by core departments enforcement officers (4)

• Extent to which stakeholders are engaged in assessment and protection activities (3)

• Number of stakeholders providing input during the listing process (3)

• % of critical habitat identified in SARA recovery strategies that is protected

• % of recovery strategies, action plans and management plans developed and published within legislative timelines for listed SAR (4,5)
• % of listed SAR with a recovery strategy, action plan or management plan in place (4)
• % of threatened and endangered species for which critical habitat was identified in recovery strategies or action plans  (part or whole)

• % of listed SAR for which recovery planning consultations have taken place (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
• Number of partners and Aboriginal contacted during the recovery planning consultations (1, 2)
• Number of stakeholders contacted during the recovery planning consultations (3)

• Extent to which core departments follow the policies and guidelines (6)
• Extent to which policies and guidance documents meet program management needs (6)

• Extent to which partners are engaged in recovery planning activities (1) a
• Extent to which Aboriginal people are engaged in recovery planning activities (2)

• Number of partners that have participated during recovery planning (1)
• Number of Aboriginal people or organizations that have participated during recovery planning (2)
• Number of provincial recovery documents that can be adopted in their present condition (1)

DFO Director SARS

EC Director CSDP

PC Executive Director EI

• Extent to which stakeholders are engaged and support recovery planning (3)

• Number of stakeholders that provided input during recovery planning (3)
• % of recovery planning documents for which comments were received through the public comment period from stakeholders (3)

• % of priority actions implemented and completed (4, 5)

• Number of applications for funding received (4)
• Trend in the amount of G&C funding provided
• Number of projects funded under G&Cs
• Number of funding agreements signed (4)
• Number of projects funded under the Aboriginal programs (2)
• Number and type of Aboriginal organizations involved in the Aboriginal programs (2)

• Number of CEAA projects that identified mitigation and monitoring measures related to SAR
• Number of projects reviewed by an environmental assessment officer that had a SAR component

• Extent to which core departments follow the policies and guidelines (6)
• Extent to which policies and guidance documents meet program management needs (6)

• Distribution of the financial contribution by types of projects  (IRF, HSP, Aboriginal, ESRF) funded by the federal government in recovery implementation

• % of priority actions identified in recovery strategies, action plans and management plans that have been implemented by partners and Aboriginal people(1, 2)
• % of projects funded under G&Cs that have been implemented (1, 2)

• Level of awareness of Aboriginal people with respect to SAR issues and opportunity for action (2)

• Number of CEAA projects that identified mitigation and monitoring measures related to SAR

• Level of awareness of stakeholders with respect to SAR issues and opportunity for action (3, 8)
• Effectiveness of compliance promotion tools and policies in encouraging related communities to comply with SARA requirements

• % of actions identified as priority in recovery strategies, action plans and management plans that have been implemented by stakeholders (3)

• % of reports posted on Public Registry on time (4)

• Extent to which requirements under the Act are met (5)

• Extent to which core departments follow the policies and guidelines (6)

• Timeliness of roundtable meetings
• Timeliness of Minister’s response to recommendations

• % of Schedule 1 species that are monitored
• % of species with monitoring programs that cover critical habitat (7)
• Reduction in the number of data deficient species (9)
• # of collaborative arrangements for sharing data on SAR (7)

• Extent to which round table recommendations have an influence over the management of the Program
• Examples of improvements to the administration of SARA (4), such as:
• functioning of governance structures
• % of deadlines that are met (5)

• Level of engagement and support by stakeholders in species monitoring (3, 7)

• Number of species assessed by COSEWIC that are subsequently listed under SARA
• Number of species that have been reassessed to a lower threat category
• Number of species that have been reassessed to a higher threat category
• Number of species that have been removed from the list of wildlife SAR because they are no longer at risk
• % of listed species (% extirpated, % endangered, % threatened, % special concern) for which the recovery goals have been achieved (1, 2, 3, 4)