Home > Proactive Disclosure > Audits and Evaluations > A&E Reports > 2009-2010 > Evaluation of the Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk

Evaluation of the Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk

Previous page | ToC | Next page

2.0 Program Profile¹

• 2.1 Context
• 2.2 Program Goals
• 2.3 Program Activities
• 2.4 Stakeholders and Recipients
• 2.5 Governance Structure
• 2.6 Resource Allocation
• 2.7 Program Logic Model
• 2.8 Previous Evaluations

2.1 Context

The federal government established the HSP in 2000 as one of three pillars in Canada’s National Strategy for the Protection of Species at Risk. The other key components are the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, endorsed by provinces and territories, and the Species at Risk Act (SARA), both of which formally recognize the importance of stewardship activities in the protection of species at risk. The HSP has an annual budget of $10 million. Between 2004–2005 and 2007–2008, the HSP funded an average of 170 projects per year, at an average level of funding of approximately $54,000 per project.

The HSP provides financial support for stewardship activities that contribute to the survival and the recovery of designated flora and fauna and their habitats. The program responds to species-at-risk (SAR) designations (endangered, threatened or of special concern) made by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and supports SARA. HSP projects take place on private land, provincial Crown lands, Aboriginal lands, and in freshwater and marine areas in Canada and favour a landscape-level and multi-species approach.

2.2 Program Goals

According to official documents, the overall goal of the HSP is to “contribute to the recovery of endangered, threatened, and other species of concern, and to prevent other species from becoming a conservation concern”² by engaging Canadians in conservation actions to benefit wildlife.

Within this overall goal, the HSP has worked with stakeholders and HSP recipients to identify three objectives:

• to support habitat projects that benefit species at risk;
• to enable Canadians to become actively and concretely involved in stewardship projects for species at risk that will result in tangible, measurable environmental benefits; and
• to improve the scientific, sociological, and economic understanding of the role stewardship has as a conservation tool.

In support of these main objectives, expected results of approved HSP projects fall into three main areas:

• securing or protecting critical and important habitat to protect species at risk and support their recovery;
• mitigating threats to species at risk caused by human activities; and
• supporting the implementation of other priority activities in recovery strategies or action plans.

2.3  Program Activities

The HSP provides contribution funding in support of a range of actions to benefit species at risk and their habitats on lands and waters. Program personnel and partners, at the national³ and regional levels, are expected to establish species and landscape or waterscape priorities and then seek out project proponents with demonstrable capabilities whom they believe are best suited to develop and implement stewardship projects within those priority areas.

Since each region under the purview of the HSP has varying environmental needs, the five regions develop a regional prospectus or regional priority statement outlining regional priorities in terms of key species at risk and key habitats on an annual basis. Regional program personnel and partners must provide evidence as to how the projects being recommended for funding reflect the priorities of each region as outlined in the regional priority statements.

Figure 1 shows the annual activity cycle designed to support the development of projects leading to the establishment of new contribution agreements. This funding cycle aligns program decisions with those of other programs such as the Interdepartmental Recovery Fund (available to federal agencies only), the Endangered Species Recovery Fund (a science-and-research-focused fund) and the Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk (available to Aboriginal organizations and communities for capacity building and critical habitat protection).

According to the intended schedule⁴, HSP funding applications are submitted at the end of fall, the RIB committees submit their funding recommendations by January, and the SAR ADM Committee reviews and endorses funding recommendations in March, with a view to seeing funding approved and contribution agreements negotiated in time for projects to start by April-May. A spring start date for HSP projects is by all accounts necessary, given species-at-risk reproductive cycles and other ecological considerations for stewardship interventions.

Activities that are eligible for funding under the HSP must focus on stewardship to support program priorities based on species identified by the COSEWIC. In most cases, these activities should support the goals of a federal recovery strategy, action plan or management plan. Note that basic research activities are not included, neither is captive breeding activity. Seven types of eligible project activities fall under the three categories listed below:

Building Activities: Preparatory work and providing foundations for habitat stewardship.

• Program planning and development: Developing species-at-risk conservation strategies, land use guidelines and best practices, and planning the implementation of stewardship programs, including target audience engagement strategies.
• Surveys, inventories and monitoring: Supporting species-at-risk stewardship activities such as identifying potential sites for habitat restoration; or assessing the presence of a species at risk and its habitat in order to design and direct a current (or near future) stewardship project.
• Outreach, education, extension, and technology transfer: Providing information to appropriate target audiences on specific actions to be taken to protect species at risk; raising awareness about species-at-risk conservation needs; educating resource users about alternative methods that minimize impacts on wildlife and habitat; and promoting stewardship at the community level to improve attitudes and change behaviour.

Conservation Activities: Meeting the program’s objectives by protecting habitat and species.

• Habitat protection: this is achieved either through acquisition or other means: Protecting species-at-risk habitat by assisting recipients in acquiring the title to the property or by establishing conservation easements, leases or other types of agreements with property owners. Eligible recipients of funding for acquisition only include non-profit organizations with conservation as their core objective.
• Habitat improvement: Enhancing or restoring habitat; changing land management or land use practices to benefit species at risk.
• Human impact mitigation: Providing direct aid to species at risk under immediate threat from human activities, such as assisting the migration of animals across roadways, or preventative activities, such as fencing streams in cattle pastures, using modified gear to reduce the incidental take of species at risk during harvesting.

Reflection Activities: Measuring a project’s effectiveness to enable stewards to make future projects more successful.

• Stewardship project evaluation: Assessing the social and biological results and effectiveness of stewardship activities and to understand when stewardship is most effective.

2.4 Stakeholders and Recipients

Two federal departments and one federal agency cooperatively manage the HSP: Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Parks Canada Agency (PCA). Other stakeholders may be involved in the management and program design of the HSP at the regional level: the provinces and territories, the forestry, agriculture, and non-renewable resource sectors, Aboriginal organizations, conservation organizations, community groups, and landowner associations, as appropriate.

Eligible recipients of contributions from the HSP include

• not-for-profit organizations such as charitable and volunteer organizations, professional associations and NGOs;
• Aboriginal organizations, associations and wildlife management boards;
• educational institutions;
• local organizations such as community associations and groups, seniors’ and youth groups, and service clubs;
• private individuals and companies, including those that lease Crown lands or have lease agreements or permits for resource use and exploitation; or
• provincial, municipal and local governments.

2.5 Governance Structure

While Environment Canada, DFO and PCA cooperatively manage the HSP, overall responsibility and accountability for contributions under HSP rests with the Minister of the Environment. Regional implementation boards (RIBs), composed of representatives from the three federal departments/agency, representatives from the provincial and territorial governments and, where appropriate, other stakeholders, operate through five regions across Canada including

• Pacific and Yukon (encompassing British Columbia and the Yukon);
• Prairie and Northern (encompassing Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the  Northwest Territories and Nunavut);
• Ontario;
• Quebec; and
• Atlantic (encompassing New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island)

Priorities for the HSP are guided annually by various representatives of the three responsible federal departments/agency in response to species identified by the COSEWIC and priorities set out under the SARA and by the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). A Program Secretariat and five regional coordinators manage overall program coordination and delivery and are located in national and regional offices of Environment Canada. The RIBs provide advice on program direction, regional priorities, and project selection for their respective regions. The SAR ADM Committee, composed of representatives from the responsible federal departments/agency, is responsible for final decisions regarding project approval and funding. A Director General-level Operations Management Committee supports the SAR ADM Committee. Table 1 further describes program administration and responsibilities.

Table 1. Program Administration

2.6 Resource Allocation

Of the Species at Risk Program budget, $10 million was initially allocated to the HSP from 2003–2004 to 2007–2008 for funding stewardship contribution agreements but was subsequently reduced to $9 million in Budget 2005 following expenditure review. An additional $4 million was allocated annually for the 2007–2008 to 2011–2012 fiscal years period. The annual budget allocated to manage the HSP is approximately $1.2 million.

To be eligible for funding, projects must encourage and/or carry out stewardship activities and leverage matching funds from other sources through financial and/or in-kind resources (donated labour, products or services). The program requires 1:1 leveraging on funds that it invests but aims for 2:1, so that, for every one dollar provided by the HSP, two dollars are raised by project recipients. Activities funded by the HSP are funded through contribution agreements between the federal government and the recipients. Decisions to fund projects rest with the SAR ADM Committee based on the recommendations of the National Steering Committee (NSC) and the RIBs. Allocations are made to regions based on (1) ecological and species-based criteria and (2) investments in aquatic and terrestrial species. A notional allocation formula was developed to divide up the annual HSP funds among the five Environment Canada’s administrative regions (see Annex 1). The formula includes percentages of COSEWIC-designated terrestrial and aquatic species at risk. These percentages are updated annually. The program’s notional funding allocation formula dictated a funding split of 29%–71% between aquatic and terrestrial species in the 2007–2008 funding year.

2.7 Program Logic Model5

Figure 2 shows the program logic model, which translates the activities of the HSP into immediate and intermediate outcomes. The interdepartmental nature of the HSP implies that each long-term outcome for the program coincides with one of the key results or strategic outcomes for each of the three key departments/agency: 1) biodiversity is conserved, 2) marine and freshwater environments are protected and 3) heritage resources are protected.

The points below flow one into the next and are an elaboration of the items presented in Figure 2.

• Set conservation priorities in partnership – Using annual call letters, the program works regionally and nationally to identify species and habitats in greatest need of conservation action. The program coordinates with other policy activities, including those by other levels of government, recovery teams, other funding programs, SARA implementation and emerging species priorities (e.g., emergency listings).
• Lever contributions for priorities – The program engages provinces, municipalities, landowners, environmental NGOs and other interested parties in taking action to support program habitat priorities. A requirement for involvement in the program is generating and demonstrating that other contributions can be obtained to support projects’ HSP funds.
• Support projects and key activities – HSP contributions fund concrete actions involving a wide range of partners and aiming to achieve tangible benefits to species at risk and their habitats. HSP support activities aim to ensure that projects meet program eligibility criteria and are being delivered in accordance with its terms and conditions.
• Create immediate outcomes – The HSP is targeting outcomes in a number of areas directly related to SARA. By encouraging stewardship, the program is able to create immediate outcomes in areas important to supporting species-at-risk conservation.
• Support intermediate outcomes – The HSP supports recovery efforts, which are in turn expected to contribute to these intermediate SAR outcomes.
• Generate key results – HSP outcomes will contribute to generating key departmental/agency results.

2.8 Previous Evaluations

In 2003–2004, Stratos Inc. was commissioned by the HSP Secretariat to conduct a formative evaluation of the HSP. The evaluation found widespread support for the program, noting that partners and proponents viewed it as instrumental in enhancing cooperation among federal and provincial governments. The evaluation also found that the program was delivering the required outputs and making progress towards the expected outcomes associated with the program. The evaluation concluded that the program was well managed, with robust and well-documented management and accountability structures and priority setting mechanisms. The evaluation further concluded that the HSP was being successfully executed, achieving cash leveraging ratios of more than 2:1 and reaching more than 12 million Canadians during the first four years.

A few areas for improvement were also identified by the evaluation. First, while overall program O&M resources were deemed commensurate with other federal funding programs, Environment Canada’s program administration activities were seen to require resources far in excess of the Department’s O&M allocation under the National Strategy. Secondly, the involvement of the National Steering Committee in project screening was found to detract from its expected steering role. Thirdly, the evaluation found limited regional involvement in developing and integrating the program’s new results-based approach. Fourth, the evaluation revealed that opinions were highly polarized on whether contributions to projects involving provincially listed species and their habitats should be allowed or whether the program should evolve to include only COSEWIC-designated species and their habitats. Next, the evaluators concluded that the program needed to better integrate third-party stakeholders in the program design and decision making. Finally, they reported concern over the perceived lack of consistent, fair and transparent decision-making processes operated by the different regional implementation boards and the need expressed by unsuccessful funding applicants for more detailed feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their submissions.

Six key recommendations to improve the HSP were made:

• Balance program administration requirements with available Operating and Maintenance resources.
• Re-orient regional programs to a more results-based approach and continue the work already underway to develop an appropriate set of performance indicators.
• Resolve issues concerning the eligibility of projects involving species at risk listed under provincial legislation.
• Reduce project screening activities undertaken by the National Steering Committee.
• Increase third-party involvement in program design and decision making.
• Develop consistent and transparent decision-making processes.

The 2006 formative evaluation of the Species at Risk Program found that all of the recommendations made during the 2004 evaluation of the HSP had been thoroughly explored and responded to by the core departments/agency and responsible managers, and that follow-up implementation actions had been taken for a majority of the 15 recommendations and sub-recommendations identified. A 2007 update on actions taken on recommendations determined that follow-up implementation was outstanding on two sub-recommendations relating to the consideration of new strategic partners such as industry groups (as opposed to predominantly funding NGOs) and the definition of the role and value of stewardship, including the provision of funding for national projects and project evaluation activities.

¹ This section is based on information from the following sources:

• Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service National Site – Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk, available online at www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/hsp-pih/default.asp?lang=En&n=59BF488F-1.
• Environment Canada, Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk Annual Report 2003–2004 (March 2006).
• Environment Canada, Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk Annual Report 2004–2005 (March 2007).
• Environment Canada, Habitat Stewardship (Contribution) Program for Species at Risk – A Results-based Management Accountability Framework and Risk-based Audit Framework:  Final Draft (December 3, 2003).
• Stratos Inc., Evaluation of the Habitat Stewardship Program, Final Report (February 18, 2004).
• Marc Thibault, Assessment of the Results of The Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk: “Are There Any Definite Benefits to SAR?” (March 7, 2005).

² In October of 2008, the interdepartmental governing body for the HSP requested that eligibility criteria be adjusted to give higher priority to SARA-listed species, thereby putting less emphasis on prevention activities for species that are at risk of becoming a conservation concern.

³ In July 2005, the HSP National Steering Committee approved the Policy on National Projects. This policy, drafted as a result of the 2004 evaluation of the HSP, encourages the equal, merits-based consideration of national scope proposals in order to recognize the importance of the national component and to develop a process for ensuring that national goals are also met.

⁴ Environment Canada, Habitat Stewardship (Contribution) Program for Species at Risk - A Results-based Management Accountability Framework and Risk-based Audit Framework: Final Draft (December 3, 2003).

⁵ The program logic model that was used in this evaluation is found in the document Habitat Stewardship (Contribution) Program for Species at Risk – Results-Based Management Accountability Framework and Risk-Based Audit Framework: Final Draft, approved in December 2003. A revised logic model has been prepared in 2008; however, all projects that fall under the scope of this evaluation occurred within the last funding period and thus were implemented under the 2003 logic model.

Previous page | ToC | Next page