Species at Risk Program: Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework and Risk-Based Audit Framework

3. Program Results Logic

The results logic outlined in this section focuses on the "how, who, what and why" of species at risk protection and recovery. The "why" of the SAR Program refers to the long-term expected benefits to the environment, Canadians and the economy. The rationale for the Program is addressed by the Program context and objectives (sections 2.1 and 2.2). The intermediate and immediate outcomes can be described by "what" we would expect to see happen and to / by "whom" (Program partners, Aboriginal people and stakeholders) as indicators of progress towards the long-term outcomes. "How" refers to the operational aspects or activities required to meet the program objectives (see Section 3.1) and encompasses those activities and outputs that are under direct control of the core departments.  

A logic model is a graphical illustration of the links among the "how, who, what and why" of a program and shows the declining levels of influence of the core departments moving from activities through to long-term impacts.

To accommodate the range of activities and complexity of the SAR Program, four logic models have been developed (figures 2 to 5).

Top of page

3.1 Activities and Outputs

Activities refer to the internal operations or work process of the core departments responsible for delivering on species at risk, and outputs refer to the resulting deliverables (products and/or services). Activities are the first link in the chain through which outcomes are achieved.

The key activities and outputs are summarized in Table 1010

Table 10: Program Activities and Outputs
 
ElementActivitiesOutputs
Assessment

COSEWIC (arm's length organization)

  • Assess the conservation status of wildlife species based on the best available biological information, ATK and community knowledge
COSEWIC Status Reports

Core Departments

  • Provide professional, technical, secretarial services to COSEWIC (EC)
Secretariat support to COSEWIC
  • Monitor the status of wildlife species
Report on the general status of species
  • Establish and maintain federal SAR assessment policies and guidelines
Federal SAR assessment policies and guidelines
Protection

Core Departments

  • Undertake listing consultations with partners, Aboriginal people and stakeholders

 

Listing consultations

  • Issue permits for eligible activities 
Permits
  • Post statements of rationale for permitting decisions on the Public Registry
Statements of rationale
  • Develop and implement compliance promotion strategies, plans, tools and policies
Compliance promotion strategies, plans, tools and policies
  • Develop and implement enforcement tools, policies and capacity

Enforcement tools and policies

Trained enforcement officers

Enforcement activities /  investigative reports

  • Establish and maintain federal SAR protection policies and guidelines
Federal SAR protection policies and guidelines

Minister of the Environment

  • Coordinate responses to COSEWIC Assessments
Response statements
  • Complete recommendations to GIC for listing SAR or for other orders/regulations to protect SAR based on input from core departments

Minister’s recommendations

Statements that support decisions

  • Make orders to protect critical habitats
  • Make statements regarding the level of protection of critical habitats

Orders to legally protect critical habitat

Ministerial opinions on effective protection

Governor in Council

  • Make decisions for listing SAR and for other orders to protect SAR

GIC listing order

Orders, other than listing orders

  • Make regulations to protect critical habitat on federal lands
Regulations to protect critical habitat on federal lands
Recovery Planning

Core Departments

  • Develop recovery strategies, action plans and management plans, including the identification of critical habitat, within legislated timelines 
Recovery strategies,
recovery action plans, and
management plans
  • Undertake consultations with partners, Aboriginal people and stakeholders on recovery strategies, action plans and management plans
Recovery planning consultations
  • Establish and maintain federal SAR recovery planning policies and guidelines
Federal SAR recovery planning policies and guidelines
Implementation

Core Departments

  • Implement priority recovery actions on federal lands and for federal species as identified in recovery strategies, action plans and management plans
Core departments’ implementation of priority actions
  • Provide support to Program partners, Aboriginal people and stakeholders (through G&C programs) to implement actions identified in the recovery strategies, action plans and management plans, e.g.:
  • Other government department actions on federal lands (IRF)
  • Stewardship actions on non-federal land (HSP)
  • Aboriginal community capacity development and habitat protection activities
  • Contributions to the World Wildlife Fund/EC ESRF to support research and education efforts

 

G&C Funding Support

Funding  agreements

 

  • Review projects that require environmental assessments under CEAA
CEAA recommendations
  • Establish and maintain federal SAR implementation policies and guidelines
Federal SAR implementation policies and guidelines
Monitoring and Evaluation

Core Departments

  • Monitor actions identified in recovery strategies, action plans and management plans and compare results to date against expected progress
SAR 5 year recovery implementation reports
  • Monitor and report on SARA administration, e.g.:
  • COSEWIC’s assessments and the Minister’s responses
  • Preparation and implementation of recovery strategies, action plans and management plans
  • Administrative and funding agreements
  • Agreements and permits
  • Enforcement and compliance actions taken
  • Regulations and emergency orders
  • Mitigation measures identified in projects’ environmental assessments (CEAA monitoring requirement)
Annual report to Parliament on the administration of SARA
  • Establish and maintain federal SAR monitoring and evaluation policies and guidelines
Federal SAR monitoring and evaluation policies and guidelines

Minister of the Environment

  • Convene and facilitate a round table of SAR Program partners, Aboriginal people and stakeholders

Round table meetings

Responses to round table recommendations

Top of page

3.2 Program Results

Immediate Outcomes

Immediate outcomes refer to the impact of the core departments’ activities on those directly reached by and involved with the federal SAR Program and its activities (e.g., Program partners and Aboriginal people). Immediate outcomes of the program include increased engagement and co-operation on SAR Program delivery, alignment of F/P/T policies and programs, enhanced Aboriginal capacity on SAR conservation, and measures to protect species at risk. The core departments do not control these impacts but have a reasonable degree of influence on the outcomes.  

Intermediate Outcomes

Intermediate outcomes can be a consequence of a single immediate outcome or can result from the contribution of a number of immediate outcomes. The program’s intermediate outcomes will be seen in the SAR Program stakeholder groups (e.g., ENGOs, industry, private landowners, land managers, individual Canadians) in terms of increased awareness, capacity, and actions to protect species at risk and their habitat. 

The expected immediate and intermediate outcomes are shown in Table 11. 

Table 11: Immediate and Intermediate Outcomes
ElementImmediate Outcomes
(SAR Program Partners and Aboriginal People)
Intermediate Outcomes
(SAR Program Stakeholders)
Assessment and Protection
  • Engagement by partners and Aboriginal people in SAR assessment and protection activities
  • Identification of SAR priorities through a coordinated early detection system based in science, ATK and risk ranking of species
  • Legislative frameworks collectively provide protection to species at risk, their residence and critical habitats
  • Legal obligations are met
  • Implementation of compliance promotion
  • Enforcement of general and critical habitat prohibitions by departments
  • Engagement and support by stakeholders in the development of SAR assessment and protection activities
  • Critical habitat is protected
Recovery Planning
  • Engagement by partners and Aboriginal people in SAR recovery strategies, action plans and management plans
  • Engagement and support by stakeholders in recovery strategies, action plans and management plans
Implementation
  • Implementation of priority recovery actions by partners and Aboriginal people
  • Increased Aboriginal capacity to participate in SAR planning and implementation
  • Inclusion of SAR, their residence and/or critical habitat, in environmental assessments
  • Implementation of priority recovery actions by stakeholders
  • Stakeholders have the information necessary to contribute to the protection of species at risk and their habitat
Monitoring and Evaluation
  • Improved species monitoring
  • Improved administration of SARA
  • Engagement and support for species monitoring

Top of page

Final Outcomes

The final (long-term) outcome is the ultimate rationale for SARA implementation and responds to the question of why the Accord and the Act were developed. The final outcome is

  • Conservation and protection of Canada’s species at risk.

Top of page

3.3 Logic Model

The links between activities and outputs and outcomes are illustrated in the following four logic models (see figures 2 through 5). 

The first two elements of the SAR Conservation Cycle (i.e., Assessment and Protection) are represented in one logic model. While the assessment process is managed independently from the protection activity, there are a number of significant links between the two in terms of activities, outputs and expected outcomes. Each of the other three elements (i.e., Recovery Planning, Implementation, which includes Compliance Promotion and Enforcement and Monitoring and Evaluation is presented separately. The final outcome is shared by all elements of the SAR Program.

Figure 2: Results-based Logic Model for Species at Risk Assessment and Protection

Results-Based Logic Model for Species at Risk Assessment and Protection

Figure 2 - PDF Version 36 KB

Top of page

Figure 3:  Results-based Logic Model for Species at Risk Recovery Planning

Results-Based Logic Model for Species at Risk Monitoring and Evaluation

Figure 3 - PDF Version 26 KB

Top of page

Figure 4:  Results-based Logic Model for Species at Risk Implementation

Results-Based Logic Model for Species at Risk Implementation

Figure 4 - PDF Version 28 KB

Top of page

Figure 5: Results-based Logic Model for Species at Risk Monitoring and Evaluation

Results-Based Logic Model for Species at Risk Monitoring and Evaluation

Figure 5 - PDF Version 28 KB

10 More information on SAR Program activities overall can be found in Section 2.