Species at Risk results-based management, accountability and audit framework: chapter 3

3. Program Results Logic

3.1 Activities and Outputs
3.2 Program Results
3.3 Logic Model

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).

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**
Element	Activities	Outputs

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

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**
Element	Immediate 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

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.

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