Previous page | ToC | Next page
This evaluation of the HSP revealed that the program is highly relevant to federal government roles and priorities, and is a particularly appropriate means of federal government intervention to address the needs of species at risk on non-federal lands because of its collaborative approach. While several similar programs co-exist with the HSP, none duplicates the program’s targeted activities.
The HSP was designed as a directed program to focus contribution funds on key program priorities, in collaboration with communities of interest where known capacity to deliver conservation exists. However, evidence has shown that the program has been ineffective in fulfilling this aspect of its mandate since funding decisions have been mostly reactive to the proposals being submitted and, according to key informants from all categories, the program needs to adopt a more strategic approach to allocating HSP funds because of the limited pool of funds available for HSP projects.
According to the evidence collected, the program’s difficulties in fulfilling its mandate as a directed program can be attributed to two main factors. First and foremost, achievement of HSP intended outcomes is closely linked to the implementation of the wider federal SAR Program. Various sources showed that the SAR Program faces challenges that must first be resolved before the HSP can possibly fulfill its mandate. Such challenges include slow progress in the identification of critical habitats and the development of SAR recovery and action plans. Such guides are needed to help focus HSP project activities. These activities are all beyond the current scope of the HSP; yet, slow progress in these aspects of the SAR Program affects the program’s ability to strategically focus HSP funding. In response to a recommendation of the 2006 evaluation of the SAR Program, the core departments/agency had committed to developing a comprehensive federal vision and strategy to support the preparation and implementation of SAR recovery action plans. Recent follow-up has shown that little progress has been made to articulate and implement this vision and to determine its implications for SAR programs, including the HSP.
Another factor impeding the HSP’s ability to strategically focus its funding is the uneven capacity of the environmental NGO community to develop and implement quality project proposals that address HSP priorities, combined with the program’s limited capacity to reach out to new potential funding applicants and strategic partners that might be able to respond to the program’s priorities. Various stakeholders believe that regional staff have a central role to play to develop NGO capacity and to articulate projects that might interest new strategic partners. To date, most Environment Canada regional coordinators and their DFO and PCA regional counterparts have had difficulty engaging in this role due to limited resources being assigned to HSP delivery.
In its current form, the program is well managed and administered. The program governance structure is clear and effective, and the RIBs offer a good model of consensus decision making involving multiple jurisdictions.
Overall, existing program resources are sufficient to support processing of the project applications, decision making and administration of the contribution agreements. They are insufficient to enable regional staff to develop NGO capacity and to actively monitor project performance and reporting.
In light of limitations inherent to the type of indicators being tracked, uncertainty about the accuracy of some of the performance data collected, and the absence of targets and baseline data, limited information could be gathered on the program’s success in achieving its immediate outcomes. Also, no evidence was found that the program is achieving its intermediate outcomes pertaining to increased species-at-risk populations and species at risk being delisted and reduced in number, in part because such outcomes can rarely be attributed solely to project activities and, according to all stakeholders interviewed, because most HSP project impacts on species at risk will take decades to occur. Furthermore, the program design and performance indicators, with their habitat focus, are better suited to address and measure impacts on terrestrial than aquatic species.
According to key informants and survey respondents, the strongest results achieved by the program pertain to the education and engagement of Canadians, followed by habitat protection results.
Delays encountered in 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 in obtaining Environment Canada departmental approval of the projects selection were a key external factor mentioned by every informant as having affected the program’s effectiveness. Moreover, a majority of DFO key informants suggested that the HSP administration and financial management for aquatic projects should be housed in Fisheries and Oceans Canada.