Archived – Evaluation of DFO’s contributions to The Pacific Salmon Foundation’s Community Salmon Program and T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation

Archived information

The Standard on Web Usability replaces this content. This content is archived because Common Look and Feel 2.0 Standards have been rescinded.

Archived information is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Project Number 6B122
Final Report
February 16, 2010

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms

CSP
Community Salmon Program
DFO
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
FAM
Fisheries and Aquaculture Management
NHQ
National Headquarters
OHEB
Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement Branch
OHSAR
Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk
PSF
Pacific Salmon Foundation
PST
Pacific Salmon Treaty
RBAF
Risk-based Accountability Framework
RMAF
Results-based Management and Accountability Framework
SEP
Salmonid Enhancement Program
TB
Treasury Board
TBSEF
T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation

 

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 Description

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has entered into contribution arrangements with the Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF) for their Community Salmon Program (CSP) and the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation (TBSEF), under a single program approval authority. DFO has contributed $1.538M (includes the administrative fees) to the PSF’s CSP and $130,900 to the TBSEF over the last four years (2005-06 to 2008-09). 

The PSF’s CSP organizes community-based salmon projects undertaken by community and volunteer groups. The TBSEF undertakes activities to advance public outreach and collaboration among community stakeholders. The TBSEF also works to protect and enhance freshwater habitat and coast marine habitat for Salmon.

Prior to 2005, the TBSEF received its funds through the PSF. In 2005, separate Terms and Conditions were developed, and the TBSEF became a direct recipient and no longer funded through the PSF.

The cost of DFO’s contribution to these Foundations is fully offset by the revenues generated by the sale of the Pacific Salmon Recreational Conservation Stamp and the Commercial Conservation stamp. The Recreational Stamp is intended to support the preservation of salmon while the Commercial Stamp is intended to support fish habitat protection and restoration projects for all species of fish.

 

The Foundations generate additional revenue through sponsorships, cash and in-kind donations, and fundraising to support projects that help achieve their mandates. The PSF matches DFO funds and directs the funds to ultimate recipients who undertake projects. The TBSEF undertakes all activities in-house and does not redistribute funds to other recipients.

1.2 Objectives and Scope

This document provides an evaluation of two separate contribution arrangements; one to the PSF’s CSP and the other to the TBSEF. The evaluation assesses Relevance and Performance (efficiency, effectiveness and economy) as defined by the 2009 Policy on Evaluation and the extent to which the PSF’s CSP and TBSEF have achieved the objectives stated in their respective Terms and Conditions. The evaluation covered fiscal years 2005-06 to 2008-09.

1.3 Relevance

Key Finding: DFO’s contribution to the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF were relevant. The work of the two foundations addresses and responds to demonstrated needs, and continues to be aligned with federal priorities.

Through its authority from the Fisheries Act, DFO is mandated to work towards proper management and control of the fisheries, conservation and protection of fish, and protection of fish habitat and prevention of pollution. DFO’s contribution to the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF for the period evaluated was linked to the strategic outcomes of Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture and Healthy and Productive Aquatic Ecosystems. 

Further, some of the activities and projects undertaken under the PSF’s CSP, particularly those linked to Salmon enhancement activities, contribute to DFO’s obligations under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST). The PST is a bilateral agreement for the conservation and harvest sharing of Pacific salmon to the Governments of Canada and the United States.

1.4 Efficiency

Key Finding: DFO’s contribution to the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF for the period evaluated was used in an efficient manner by achieving the majority of expected outputs (activities).

DFO Contribution funds, raised through the Pacific Salmon Conservation Stamp has served as a source of incremental funding for community projects, with DFO funds providing opportunities for other funding sources to be secured by the PSF and its proponents.

Using the Conservation Stamp as a funding mechanism has led to efficiencies in the PSF’s CSP and TBSEF programs. The projects and activities were organized by PSF’s CSP and TBSEF, but the work was carried out by volunteers and community organizations, efficiently leveraging free labour on projects that advanced the objectives of the department in a way that would not be available in traditionally funded government projects. Interviewees felt that projects and initiatives received greater community support because they were funded through the stamp rather than by general taxpayer revenues. The review of projects and program files for PSF’s CSP and TBSEF indicates that the majority of outputs (activities) specified in the contribution agreements are being achieved.

1.5 Effectiveness

Key Finding: DFO’s contribution to the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF for the period evaluated was used in an effective manner, with some areas that could be improved.

The reporting format for the TBSEF is strong in that it identifies key indicators tied to outcomes. The majority of indicators were well defined and could be linked to outcomes. A few were not as well developed and these could be refined in the future. Overall indications are that the TBSEF is achieving its outcomes. TBSEF partners, such as the province of British Columbia and municipal governments, are recognizing that resource recovery needs to be a component of waste management plans.

While the Design and Delivery of the PSF’s CSP was largely effective to allow the program to achieve its expected outcomes, it was noted, that DFO staff contribute a significant amount of time and effort to the selection process.

The evaluation was able to link PSF’s CSP activities to DFO outcomes and objectives, although reporting could be improved to better demonstrate to what extent the activities undertaken under the agreement contributed to the achievement of outcomes and departmental objectives. DFO should ensure that PSF’s CSP collect, analyse and report on information such as area of habitat rehabilitated or stocks, impact of community involvement or role of community collaboration among stakeholders. This information and analysis would ensure that the program activities contribute to outputs, outcomes and DFO objectives.

1.6 Economy

Key Finding: DFO’s contribution to the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF for the period evaluated was used in an economic manner and funds were successfully leveraged.

The activities currently undertaken by the TBSEF and the PSF’s CSP benefits DFO and could not be done as economically by DFO alone. PSF’s Community Salmon Program is currently managed at less cost than one DFO Full Time Employee (FTE). Even considering the time and effort expended by DFO technical staff and Community Advisors, the cost to DFO is a fraction of what it would be to manage the activities under both contribution agreements.

PSF’s CSP has utilized the funds as a starting point (leverage) to engage partners and fundraise for projects. DFO’s engagement through the contribution is seen to demonstrate a level of support which the PSF has utilized to garner further funds. 

The rate of leveraging during the period evaluated has varied from 1:11 to 1:16; whereby for every $1 collected from the DFO stamp fee, $11 to $16 in additional revenue has been generated by the program. It was observed that these figures take into account only the funds dedicated directly to projects and do not include administrative funds or DFO in-kind contributions. Under the contribution agreement, PSF reserves 10% of the funds for administration of the program. Taking into account DFO contribution (in kind and 10% administrative), the ratio remain in excess of 1:6.

Top of page

1.7 Recommendation

It is recommended that the Regional Director General of the Pacific Region should ensure that a Performance Measurement Strategy is developed with clearly defined indicators and measures to demonstrate how, and to what extent, the activities undertaken by ultimate recipients of DFO funds contribute to the achievement of the Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP), Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Sector (FAM) and Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk sector (OSHAR) objectives and departmental outcomes. The Strategy should include a mechanism to report output(s)/outcome(s) to both FAM (fish production) and OSHAR (habitat restoration and conservation) at NHQ.

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Description

The contribution agreement between Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Pacific Salmon Foundation’s Community Salmon Program (PSF’s CSP) was established in 1992. Subsequent Program renewal occurred in 1996, and 2005. Initially, the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation (TBSEF) received its funds through the PSF. In 2005, separate Terms and Conditions were developed, and the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation became a direct recipient and was no longer funded through the PSF. Both agreements and related funds and projects are managed by the Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP) in Pacific Region.

2.1.1 Pacific Salmon Foundation’s Community Salmon Program

The Pacific Salmon Foundation, founded in 1989, is a federally incorporated not-for-profit organization dedicated to promoting the conservation, restoration and enhancement of the Pacific salmon for the benefit of present and future generations. The PSF does not specifically target the causes of decline in salmon abundance but emphasizes the potential for widespread community and stakeholder engagement in funding and implementing solutions.

DFO funds are channelled to one program within the PSF: the Community Salmon Program (CSP). The CSP, as the initial recipient of DFO’s contribution, establishes partnership with communities, First Nation representatives and non-profit organizations (ultimate recipients of DFO’s contributions) to carry out salmon conservation, restoration and enhancement projects throughout British Columbia. Typical project activities funded include: Public Education and Volunteer Steward Training (Education and Awareness), Habitat Assessment, Habitat Enhancement (Rehabilitation), Community Stewardship and Watershed Planning, Stock Assessment and Stock Enhancement.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has contributed $1.538M (includes the 10% administrative fee) to the PSF’s CSP over the last four years (2005-06 to 2008-09), an average of $358,000 per year. The funds are fully offset by incremental revenue deposited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund through the sale of Pacific Salmon Conservation Stamps. A portion of revenues collected from the sale of the Stamps is then directed to the Pacific Salmon Foundation.  

The Foundation generates additional revenue through sponsorship, cash, in-kind donations, banquets and bequests, and grants these funds to support projects that will help achieve their mandate.

The PSF’s CSP selects projects which address issues of Habitat Assessment, Habitat Rehabilitation, Stewardship and Community Planning, Stock Enhancement and Stock Assessment. The PSF requires the ultimate recipients to provide matching project funds of at least 50% from other sources and partners.

2.1.2 T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation

The T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation (TBSEF) was established in 1981 to protect and conserve fish and fish habitat in British Columbia. The TBSEF works to ensure that fish-bearing marshes, streams, rivers, lakes and marine waters are not polluted, dammed, diverted, wasted or degraded. Through the direct connection to fisheries, the foundation takes a grassroots approach to public education on fish habitat protection to sustain freshwater and marine resources for future generations.

TBSEF promotes the protection of fish habitat through:

  • Public education;
  • Sponsoring forums and conferences;
  • Participating in government policy dialogues, advisory and planning processes;
  • Building and maintaining effective communications and collaborations with volunteer stewards from the commercial fishing sector; and
  • Building collaborative alliances with community groups and other organizations mobilized to protect fish habitat.

DFO has contributed $130,900 to the TBSEF over the last four years (2005-06 to 2008-09), an average of $33,000 per year. TBSEF is the ultimate recipient of DFO’s contributions as work is undertaken internally by the Foundation. The funds provided by DFO are channelled towards projects and activities which protect fish and fish habitat.

The contribution is funded from the sale of the Commercial Fisheries Conservation Stamps on the purchase of fisher registration cards. Commercial Fishers may choose to direct funding to support the TBSEF, the PSF’s CSP or a portion to both foundations. The dollar amount transferred each year to the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation varies depending on the number of stamps sold with fishers’ registration cards and the organization to which the fishers chose to have their contribution directed.

2.2 Context

The Treasury Board’s former Policy on Transfer Payments (dated June 1, 2000)required that submissions for renewal of grant and contribution programs included a Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) and a Risk-based Accountability Framework (RBAF). This was also a recommendation of the Evaluation completed in 2005. Consequently, an Integrated RMAF/RBAF was developed, and stipulated that a summative evaluation should be completed during the last year of the Contribution Agreements. Therefore, the present evaluation fulfills a Treasury Board requirement. Note that a new Policy on Transfer Payments took effect on October 1, 2008 and replaces the June 1, 2000 policy. The current policy stipulates that all ongoing programs of grants and contributions are to be evaluated every five years.

2.3 Evaluation Scope

The scope of the evaluation includes two separate programs resulting from two separate contribution arrangements: one to the Pacific Salmon Foundation’s Community Salmon Program and the other to the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation.

The evaluation questions contained in the 2005 RMAF are reflected in this evaluation as well as questions under the new Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation (2009). The evaluation will assess Relevance and Performance (efficiency, effectiveness and economy) as defined by the 2009 Policy on Evaluation and the extent to which the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF have achieved the objectives stated in their respective Terms and Conditions. The evaluation covered the 2005-06 to 2008-09 fiscal year periods.

2.4 Methodology

The evaluation was conducted using multiple lines of evidence including: 

Document and file review
Documents and files included a review and analysis of policy and planning documents, Treasury Board submission, Terms and Conditions, agreements, project files, client reports, RMAF, and a sample of project applications, etc.

Interviews
Interviews were held with DFO Senior management in Pacific Region and at National Headquarters, staff of the Salmon Enhancement Program, DFO Community advisors and employees of the PSF and the TBSEF.

Review of Projects
A sample of 35 PSF’s CSP projects was reviewed out of the total of 366 that were funded during the period evaluated.

Other techniques
Other methods/techniques of analysis were used including trend analysis over the four year period, comparative analysis, etc. 

2.5 Limitations

For the purpose of the evaluation, the Terms and Conditions, the information contained in the RMAF and Contribution agreements were matched up as best as possible, because key activities (outputs) described were not consistent across documents. Specifically, the PSF logic model was based on the entirety of the PSF’s Community Salmon Program not solely on DFO’s contribution to the Program. Results based on this model could be attributable to other sources of funding and not solely to DFO’s contribution.

3.0 Key Findings

3.1 Relevance

Key Finding: DFO’s contribution to the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF were relevant. The work of the two foundations addresses and responds to demonstrated needs, and continues to be aligned with federal priorities.

DFO through its authority from the Fisheries Act, and with direction from Canada’s Policy for Conservation of Wild Pacific Salmon is mandated to work towards conserving and responsibly developing wild Pacific Salmon stocks for the current and future benefit of Canadians.

The evaluation assessed the relevance of both the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF Contribution agreements in relation to DFO’s strategic outcomes and the Government of Canada’s priorities. DFO’s contributions to the PSF’s CSP and TBSEF are linked to the Department’s strategic outcomes of Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture and Healthy and Productive Aquatic Ecosystems. 

DFO plays a strong role in contributing to the economic prosperity of Canadians by supporting a strong and competitive fisheries and marine sector. In 2005, the components of the ocean sector in total comprise 7-8% of the B.C. economy1 . Specifically, in 2007, cultured and wild salmon products combined, valued at $669.1 million, represent 52 per cent of the total wholesale value of British Columbia seafood.2

It was observed that the activities undertaken by the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF for habitat restoration, community capacity development and public stewardship shared similar objectives to, and complimentary activities with other DFO programs and contribution agreements recipients. Although there are similarities among these objectives, these programs and recipients do not share the same activities and project selection criteria, which differ between programs.  These other program activities were not examined in detail for this evaluation.

Both the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF undertake or oversee (activities) outputs that are carefully selected in order to advance progress towards protecting and enhancing salmon and salmon habitat. Moreover for the TBSEF, activities support fish habitat protection and restoration projects for all species of fish. All activities are closely tied to the objectives and plans (stock, watershed, etc) undertaken by DFO.

It should further be noted that some of the activities undertaken under the PSF’s CSP, particularly those linked to Salmon enhancement activities, contribute to DFO’s obligations under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST).

Top of page

3.2 Efficiency

Key Finding: DFO’s contribution to the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF for the period evaluated was used in an efficient manner by achieving the majority of expected outputs (activities).

3.2.1 Conservation Stamp as a Funding Mechanism

The cost of the contribution agreements to DFO is fully offset by incremental revenue deposited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund through the sale of Pacific Salmon Recreational and Commercial Conservation Stamps.

The Pacific Salmon Recreational Conservation Stamp is required on the license of any tidal water angler wishing to retain any species of salmon. The Commercial Conservation stamp is intended to support fish habitat protection and restoration projects for all species of fish. PSF receives $1 for each stamp for the first 262,800 stamps sold and $4 for each stamp over that amount, and also receives $4 for each stamp sold to individuals under the age of 16. Commercial fishers pay a $10 fee when purchasing their fishers’ registration card and may choose to direct funding to support the TBSEF, the PSF’s CSP or both.  The funds are redistributed through DFO’s contribution.

The projects and activities were organized by the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF, but the work was carried out by volunteers and community organizations, efficiently leveraging free labour work on projects that advanced the objectives of the department in a way that would not be available in traditionally funded government projects.

Although it was felt that many of the projects could fall under the Federal Government and DFO’s mandate, proponents recognized the scarcity of Federal resources and supported the approach of strong community support and involvement. Interviewees also felt that projects and initiatives received greater community support because they were funded through the stamp rather than by general taxpayer revenues.

3.2.2 Achievement of Outputs

Pacific Salmon Foundation’s Community Salmon Program
The evaluation assessed the extent to which DFO’s funds to the PSF’s CSP contributed to the achievement of outputs (activities) stated in the Contribution agreement. The review of projects and program files indicates that the majority of outputs (activities) are being achieved. During the period covered by the evaluation, DFO’s contribution of $1.436M to the PSF’s CSP funded 366 projects (amount does not include the 10% administration fee that covers labour costs, utilities and legal and bookkeeping fees). Table 1 shows the number of projects by fiscal year.

Table 1: Number of Projects and DFO Contribution by Fiscal Year (does not include the 10% administrative fee)

FY

# of Projects

DFO Cash Contribution

2005-06

94

 $      356,729

2006-07

93

 $      350,616

2007-08

103

 $      342,789

2008-09

76

 $      386,327

Total

366

 $   1,436,461

The PSF provides DFO with annual reports indicating the number and types of projects funded, amounts contributed by partners and other sources, funds leveraged by PSF’s CSP and partnerships created. The annual report did not contain strong performance indicators which could be linked to outcomes for the CSP and DFO. Stronger indicators should be developed to link program activities to DFO program activities and strategic outcomes.

Community Based Salmon Projects
It was demonstrated that funds were being used to fund community-based salmon projects undertaken by community and volunteer groups. Project selection criteria, descriptions and post project reviews demonstrated community involvement, local support and volunteer participation as well as the projects’ contribution to salmonid stock enhancement and habitat assessment, rehabilitation and conservation. Table 2 shows the number of PSF’s CSP projects by type.

Table 2: Number of PSF’s CSP projects by type

 

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

Education and Awareness

27

24

22

14

Habitat Assessment

8

9

8

2

Habitat Rehabilitation

40

34

34

25

Stewardship/Community Planning

3

4

9

3

Stock Assessment

3

5

6

9

Stock Enhancement

13

17

24

23

Total

94

93

103

76

DFO Contribution to Projects
Successful proponents of CSP projects were to bring matching funds of at least 50% of the total proposed project costs. DFO contribution funds were not to exceed 50% of the total project cost. This was achieved with PSF further ensuring that any other DFO contribution to the project (in-kind or from other programs), when added to the funds under the agreement, did not exceed the 50%. It should be noted that DFO staff provide technical advice to CSP, is fully engaged during project selection (which occurs twice a year) and Community Advisors assist proponents in developing proposals as well as post project reviews. The effort and time of DFO staff is not considered as a DFO contribution, nor is it quantified by DFO; staff resources contribution to the CSP forms part of the SEP staff resource allocation.

Incremental Funding and leveraging
DFO Contribution funds, raised through the Pacific Salmon conservation stamp were to serve as a source of incremental funding for the community projects, with DFO funds providing opportunities for other funding sources to be secured by proponents and the PSF. Indications were that DFO’s contribution funds did consist of incremental funding to projects.  Recipients were required to obtain materials, funding and in-kind contributions from other community sources and this was demonstrated through financial reporting as part of the application process and post-project reporting.

Increase in Partnerships
Interviewees and project reviews indicate that partnerships exist at both the project level and the program administration level. Project proponents demonstrated in their application that they had support from their community both through in-kind and cash donations, as well as through letters of support from community organizations, merchants and municipal bodies. Further, PSF through the Community Salmon Program has entered into partnerships with various organizations that provide funding to match DFO’s contribution or that fund projects not eligible under the Community Salmon program criteria. Although the existence of partnerships is evident, the PSF’s Community Salmon Program has not shown, nor has it been required by DFO, the level of increase in partnerships over the periods reviewed.

T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation
The evaluation assessed the extent to which DFO’s funds to the TBSEF contributed to the achievement of outputs stated in the Contribution agreement. The TBSEF, unlike PSF’s CSP, is the ultimate recipient of DFO funds, undertaking the activities directly.

The Final Report Format established for the TBSEF’s quarterly and annual reporting contained clear indicators and measures for most outcomes associated to the contribution agreement. The information provided in these reports allowed the evaluation team to clearly understand what activities were being undertaken and how these related back to results. 

Public Outreach and Awareness
TBSEF demonstrated having undertaken many activities to advance public outreach and awareness such as contributing to media articles, broadcasts and interviews, publishing information materials, and participating in various educational forums and events.

Collaboration among community stakeholders
TBSEF staff attended and contributed to various public meetings, consultations and educational events and partnered with municipal, provincial and federal agencies and representatives to advance the issues of fish habitat preservation and protection.

Financial Resources and Partnerships
TBSEF demonstrated through the annual report having developed and maintained various partnerships which resulted in financial support, volunteer participation and partnerships which support TBSEF’s activities.

Protection and enhancement of freshwater Habitat and Coast marine habitat
TBSEF reported annually on the indicators developed by DFO which included quantitative and content analysis of consultations with government officers and community groups as well as analysis of projects circulated among relevant community and environmental groups. TBSEF indicated the number and types of consultations and projects.

TBSEF’s activities varied annually as funding levels fluctuated from approximately $40,000 at its high, to $27,000 in 2008-09, this as a result of declining sales of commercial fishing licenses. Table 3 shows the number of projects by fiscal year. In accordance with the Contribution agreement, TBSEF provided revised plans, including new projects or revisions to existing projects to DFO staff for approval, ensuring they met eligibility and aligned with DFO program priorities and mandate.

Top of page

Table 3: DFO Contribution by Fiscal Year

FY

DFO Cash Contribution

2005-06

$38,925

2006-07

$33,570

2007-08

$30,622

2008-09

$27,786

Total

$130,903

3.2.3 Contribution to Outcomes

Pacific Salmon Foundation’s Community Salmon Program
The evaluation also sought to identify the level to which outputs (activities) contributed to the PSF’s CSP outcomes of increasing salmon stocks, increasing community capacity and involvement, increasing public awareness about salmon, increasing responsibility for rebuilding salmon resources and collaboration among multiple community stakeholders.

Project Selection Process
PSF has established a project selection process consisting of two funding cycles every year. The first round occurs in February, the second in October. This allows two windows to conduct work during the most appropriate stage of the fish production cycle. The first round in February is more significant, consisting of a greater number of applications than the second round in October. All projects are reviewed by DFO staff individually and then by a Technical Review committee which ranks all projects based on established selection criteria. This step is a precursor to the Project Selection Committee review process which determines the funding allocated to each project.

In establishing the project selection process, the PSF’s CSP in consultation with DFO program staff has succeeded in establishing selection criteria which the evaluation team in their analysis linked to the overall outcomes. Each criterion could be linked to at least two outcomes.  Table 4 shows that these criteria demonstrate that the projects can be linked to outcomes but do not establish the degree to which they contribute to outcomes.

Table 4: Project Selection Criteria and CSP outcomes


Project Selection Criteria

CSP Outcomes

Increased salmon juveniles & Improved Salmon Habitat

Increased community capacity and involvement

Increased public awareness about salmon

Increased responsibility for rebuilding salmon resource

Increased collaboration among multiple community stakeholders

Volunteerism

 

 

Benefits to the Resource

 

 

 

Leveraging

 

Community Engagement

 

 

Community Capacity Building

 

 

Public Relations

 

 

  ▲  

Primary link to outcome

  ●  

Secondary link to outcome

T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation
TBSEF activities under the contribution agreement have changed over the four years. In 2005, there were three outcomes envisaged, namely 1) public awareness around impact of sewage on fish habitat; 2) increase support for improvements, strengthened collaboration among stewardship, stream keepers and conservation groups to protect fish habitat; and 3) increased public awareness of the current state of habitat and fish stocks. Annual reports demonstrated how TBSEF activities were aligned with these outcomes and reporting on measures was completed. In subsequent years, the projects were revised and refocused as a result of decreasing funds, and to ensure TBSEF activities remained aligned with DFO priorities.

3.3 Effectiveness

Key Finding: DFO’s contribution to the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF for the period evaluated was used in an effective manner, with some areas that could be improved.

3.3.1 Achievement of Outcomes

Pacific Salmon Foundation’s Community Salmon Program
Although DFO was able to link the PSF’s CSP activities to outcomes and objectives, PSF’s CSP reporting could be improved to better demonstrate to what extent the activities undertaken under the agreement contributed to the achievement of outcomes and departmental objectives. DFO could require the PSF’s CSP to report on information such as area of habitat rehabilitated or stocks, impact of community involvement or role of community collaboration among stakeholders. This information and the related analysis could be used to provide stronger reporting and better tie the CSP activities to program outcomes and DFO objectives.

Overall Outcomes
There were the limitations inherent in the RMAF and logic model developed for the PSF’s CSP in 2005. Outcomes in the logic model were attributable to the program as a whole and all its activities; however, DFO’s Contribution to the PSF is only a portion of the CSP. Projects are undertaken using multiple sources of funding, and in some instances, DFO’s contribution is a small portion of the total funds spent. 

DFO could improve on its reporting on results of PSF’s CSP. The annual report does not require PSF to report on indicators which would demonstrate that projects contribute to stocks restored or habitat rehabilitated. Further DFO does not assess the level to which projects contribute to advancing departmental outcomes.

Partnerships
The Contribution agreement between DFO and the PSF’s CSP sought the establishment of short and long term partnerships, terms which should be clearly defined. It is evident that partnerships have been created both at the community/project level and at the broader program level. However, the number of short vs. long term partnerships is not made evident. It was unclear whether volunteers, contributors, in-kind donors and community supporters were in fact included in the definition of partners.

Salmon Stock and Habitat
Both the TBSEF and the PSF’s CSP have reported annually as per the conditions of the contribution agreement. It was noted however that some elements which would permit DFO to tie activities to outcomes and permit DFO to measure the impact of the various activities were not included in the reporting requirements. For example, the contribution agreement does not require the PSF’s CSP to report on quantitative aspects of habitat restoration or conservation. The contribution to DFO objectives could be taken into account by assessing the manner and extent to which partnerships were contributing to furthering Pacific salmon stocks and habitat.  Respondents felt that partnerships and projects undertaken were contributing to advancing the outcomes; however, the level of impact was not measured.

Design and Delivery
The current approach for delivery of the PSF’s CSP was seen as effective. A rigorous project selection process has been established by the PSF’s CSP with appropriate input from DFO technical staff to ensure that projects are consistent with DFO plans for stock and habitat management. It was felt that DFO could not manage the program as efficiently or cost-effectively as does the PSF’s CSP. Currently, the PSF’s CSP manages the program with only a 10% administrative fee, having leveraged funds from other sources. DFO staff needs alone would exceed this amount. It was unclear whether DFO could track and manage the projects, guide applicants, ensure follow-up and administration without significant resource cost (time, staff, funding) to the department. DFO does not currently have the capacity to manage the entirety of this program.

While the Design and Delivery of the PSF’s CSP was largely effective to allow the program to achieve its expected outcomes, it was noted, that DFO staff contribute a significant amount of time and effort to the selection process. Community Advisors, SEP staff and scientists are called upon to provide technical advice and expertise and at times guide applicants through the process. This time and effort is not quantified or measured by the SEP or other DFO sectors whose employees contribute time and expertise.

Top of page

Unintended Outcomes
The PSF was seen by many interviewees as a community partner and better able to engage the community and private sector partners than would DFO. The department’s mandate in various areas (e.g. Regulatory) and the appearance of conflicts of interest might not allow them to develop these types of partnerships. Through the CSP, DFO is seen as a supporting organization without being seen as the “long arm” of Government controlling the activities.

It was observed that approximately 50% of DFO funds were spent on projects related to Fisheries Management and the remaining 50% of funds were used for projects contributing to habitat conservation and restoration. The funds for both agreements being managed by SEP (funded by Fisheries and Aquaculture Management (FAM) at National Headquarters (NHQ)), and results related to Fisheries Management are linked in this way at NHQ.

The SEP does not collect from PSF, information relative to habitat restoration and conservation (e.g., kms, number of streams). The impact of Habitat related activities under PSF’s CSP should not only be collected, but also analysed. Further, the results of habitat related projects should be reported as part of Habitat Sector activities and results at the NHQ Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk (OHSAR) level, an aspect that is not done presently.

T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation
Overall Outcomes
Over the 4 years covered by the evaluation, one outcome has remained consistent, that of working to prevent pollution from impacting fish habitat while working to improve wastewater treatment in BC. This is in keeping with DFO’s long-term commitment to reducing the harm to fish stocks from toxic substances and pollution entering freshwater and marine waterways, as mandated under the Federal Fisheries Act. TBSEF has worked towards supporting DFO and Environment Canada’s initiative to establish national sewage standards in cooperation with provincial and territorial governments as well as supporting DFO and Transport Canada’s initiative to establish a national vessel pollution regulation. Activities related to public awareness of impacts of sewage pollution on the marine environment and promoting positive changes towards sewage treatment are in keeping with federal pollution prevention goals.

Overall indications are that the TBSEF is achieving its outcomes. TBSEF partners, such as the province of British Columbia and municipal governments, are recognizing that resource recovery needs to be a component of waste management plans.

Design and Delivery
As noted previously, the TBSEF undertakes all activities funded by DFO funds. Funds are used by the TBSEF to finance the activities undertaken by a small staff (2 full-time, 2 part-time). The process is streamlined and does not require significant DFO staff input and technical advice as does the PSF’s Community Salmon Program.

The reporting format for the TBSEF is strong in that it identifies key indicators tied to outcomes. The majority of indicators were well defined and could be linked to outcomes. A few were not as well developed and these could be refined in the future.

Finally, it was noted that a significant effort is required by TBSEF to report quarterly as per the conditions of funding. The two full-time staff members undertake most activities related to the contribution agreements, work to raise matching funds and form partnerships as well as prepare reporting material to DFO quarterly and roll-up into a final year-end report.

3.4 Economy

Key Finding: DFO’s contribution to the PSF’s CSP and the TBSEF for the period evaluated was used in an economic manner and funds were successfully leveraged.

3.4.1 Benefits to DFO from Pacific Salmon Foundation’s Community Salmon Program and T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation

The activities currently undertaken by the TBSEF and the PSF’s CSP could not be done with the same expediency by DFO without significant cost and resource allocation. For example, PSF’s CSP is currently managed at a cost to DFO of 10% of the contribution amount, which is less than one Full Time Employee (FTE). It was felt by internal respondents that DFO could not provide the level of project management that does PSF with one FTE allocated. Even considering the time and effort expended by DFO technical staff and Community Advisors, which is not quantified, the cost to DFO is a fraction of what it could be to manage the activities under both contribution agreements.

It was also felt by interviewees, that the contribution to community involvement and overall awareness of salmon habitat and preservation were significant and not quantifiable. DFO respondents indicated that the PSF and the TBSEF, through funds provided are better able to generate community participation, awareness and build partnerships than would DFO with the same funds. Both organizations have the freedom to enter into partnerships and use creative ways to achieve results. Many of these approaches would not be available to a Federal Department. DFO supports the activities undertaken by the TBSEF and the PSF’s CSP without being the face of these activities, thus deflecting criticism and risk to some degree. The PSF and the TBSEF are seen as being of the community rather than the Government, even though their activities are funded through DFO. It was felt that this approach creates a willingness, by private sector and community partners to participate and contribute to a solution, which otherwise might be seen as the sole responsibility of the Federal Government.

DFO benefits from the positive relationship between both the PSF and the TBSEF and the community as DFO is seen as being active and engaged with Fishers associations and the community.

3.4.2 Leveraging of the Pacific Salmon Foundation’s Community Salmon Program

PSF’s CSP has utilized the funds as a starting point (leverage) to engage partners and fundraise for projects. DFO’s engagement through the contribution is seen to demonstrate a level of support which the PSF has utilized to garner further funds. PSF and DFO have utilized leveraging as an indicator of success of the Community Salmon Program. The Contribution agreement does not identify leveraging as an outcome or indicator. 

Table 5 shows that the rate of leveraging during the period evaluated has varied from 1:11 to 1:16; whereby for every $1 collected from the DFO stamp fee, $11 to $16 in additional revenue has been generated by the program. It was observed that these figures take into account only the funds dedicated directly to projects and do not include administrative funds or DFO in-kind contributions. Under the contribution agreement, PSF reserves 10% of the funds for administration of the program. Taking into account all DFO contribution (in kind and 10% administrative), the ratio remain in excess of 1:6. DFO’s staff effort (SEP staff and Community Advisors) is significant but not quantified in terms of time and cost therefore, it has not been included in this leveraging ratio.

Table 5: PSF project rates of leveraging


FY

DFO Cash Contribution

DFO contribution (with in-kind and 10%)

Estimated Total Project Costs

Leveraging (project total cost / DFO contribution without in-kind and 10%)

Leveraging (project total cost / DFO contribution with in-kind and 10%)

2005-06

 $  356,729

 $ 615,001

 $ 4,032,694

1 : 11

1 : 7

2006-07

 $ 350,616

 $ 748,349

 $ 4,577,142

1 : 13

1 : 6

2007-08

 $ 342,789

 $ 574,613

 $ 4,137,939

1 : 12

1 : 7

2008-09

 $ 386,327

 $ 538,023

 $ 6,363,719

1 : 16

1: 12

3.5 Recommendation

It is recommended that the Regional Director General of the Pacific Region should ensure that a Performance Measurement Strategy is developed with clearly defined indicators and measures to demonstrate how, and to what extent, the activities undertaken by ultimate recipients of DFO funds contribute to the achievement of the Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP), Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Sector (FAM) and Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk sector (OHSAR) objectives and departmental outcomes. The Strategy should include a mechanism to report output(s)/outcome(s) to both FAM (fish production) and OSHAR (habitat restoration and conservation) at NHQ.

Top of page

4.0 Management Action Plan

Recommendation

Management Action Plan

Status Report Update

Actions Completed

Actions Outstanding

Target Date

1. The Regional Director General of the Pacific Region should ensure that a Performance Measurement Strategy is developed with clearly defined indicators and measures to demonstrate how, and to what extent, the activities undertaken by ultimate recipients of DFO funds contribute to the achievement of the Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP), Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Sector (FAM) and Oceans, Habitat and Species at Risk sector (OSHAR) objectives and departmental outcomes. The Strategy should include a mechanism to report output(s)/outcome(s) to both FAM (fish production) and OSHAR (habitat restoration and conservation) at NHQ.

 

The region will develop a single PSF/TBSEF Performance Measurement Strategy and Risk Framework (PMSRF) that links activities of the recipient programs to the achievement of DFO (SEP, FAM and OHSAR) objectives and outcomes.

Establish an annual reporting process with both FAM and OHSAR using the same process as established for reporting SEP outputs and outcomes.

SEP has completed a draft logic model for the Contribution Program with linkages to SEP and departmental outcomes.

 

SEP is reporting on outputs/outcomes through the annual NHQ FAM Management, Resources & Results Structure (MRRS) reporting process. 

Discussions re: sharing results with OHSAR pertaining to habitat restoration and conservation are underway.

Complete the PMSRF.

 

 

 

 

No action required

 

 

 

 

Develop a data sharing arrangement with OHSAR for their use in MRRS reporting on habitat restoration and conservation activities.

Initial: 
March 31, 2010

Revised:

 

 

 

Completed in September 2009

 

 

 

March 31, 2010


Economic Contribution of the Oceans Sector in British Columbia – April 2007.   
(http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/oceansector-economics.pdf)

2007 British Columbia Seafood Industry Year in Review – September 2008.
(http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/YIR-2007.pdf)