Archived – Summative Evaluation of the Aids to Navigation Program (ANP)

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 This content is archived because Common Look and Feel 2.0 Standards have been rescinded.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 6B129
Final Report
February 2011

Table of Contents

List of main acronyms

IALA
International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities
AToN 21
Aids to Navigation in the 21st Century
NOTMAR
Notice to mariners      
TSB
Transportation Safety Board
DGPS
Differential Global Positioning System
CCG
Canadian Coast Guard
CSA
Canada Shipping Act
MAM
Marine Aids Modernization
DFO
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
LoS
Levels of service
SoS
Standards of Service
IMO
International Marine Organization
ANP/AToN
Aids to Navigation Program
WMP
Waterways Management Program
MCTS
Marine Communications and Traffic Services
CHS
Canadian Hydrographic Service
SIPA
Marine Aids Program Information System
ITS
Integrated Technical Services
TC
Transport Canada

 

Summary

The Aids to Navigation Program (ANP) is a permanent program that provides aids to navigation in Canadian waters in order to facilitate safe and secure movements of maritime traffic. As identified in the Evaluation Policy, all direct spending programs must be evaluated every five years. As identified in DFO’s five-year evaluation plan, this evaluation, a first for the ANP, covers the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10 and applies to the whole program.

The main objective of this evaluation consists in reviewing the value-for-money of the ANP and in determining program relevance and performance. This report aims at presenting ANP evaluation results. In order to ensure a fair and useful evaluation report, the evaluation team has collaborated with program staff at each step of the process.

Program overview

The ANP is administered by the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) who is responsible for providing, within limits of its jurisdiction, aids to navigation in Canadian waters in order to facilitate safe and secure movements of maritime traffic. It is financed with marine shipping service fees (24%) collected as a Vote-netted Revenue and its operational budget (76%1) from the CCG. Total program expenses amount to 64.1 million dollars (from 2005-06 to 2008-09).

Its main activities consist in adopting nationwide standards for aids to navigation, in organizing and operating public aids to navigation systems, in providing advice and guidelines regarding the installation of private aids to navigation and in providing information on marine safety. All these activities reach DFO’s strategic result “Safe and accessible waterways”.

The ANP is implemented with the support of two main internal partners within the CCG, namely the Fleet Operational Service Directorate (the “Fleet”) and the Integrated Technical Services Directorate (“ITS”). The collaboration between the two is essential, since their combined activities have a direct effect on program results. Besides, the Fleet and ITS, the ANP have also signed different agreements with other partners.

The ANP clients and users include certified commercial ships (Commercial I), uncertified commercial ships (Commercial II) and pleasure boat owners and operators.

Methodology

The approach that is used to evaluate the ANP is based on a non-experimental model and on several sources of data. In other words, more than one method (including qualitative and quantitative approaches) has been used to measure each evaluation indicator, thus reinforcing the validity of findings.

However, like any evaluation study, this evaluation has its limits, but these limits were mitigated through a data triangulation process. Regarding attribution, we noticed that other federal programs contribute to the safety and security of marine navigation in Canada. However, the evaluation strategy was developed in order to link short-, medium- and long-term results with the ANP.

As a result, the methodological approach of the evaluation included:

  • An in-depth review of primary documents and files of the ANP, of department and government publications, as well as an analysis of internal data of the program.

  • A literature review in order to understand the operational context of the ANP and to draw lessons from practices used in other countries in order to suggest courses of action for improvement.

  • Interviews with key stakeholders and with program representatives, partners and clients.

  • An online survey with all clients listed in the ANP database in order to gather facts to prove program efficiency and to review its relevance with regards to needs (899 complete answers, which means a margin of error of +/- 2,8%, 19 times out of 20).

Evaluation findings and conclusions

Rationale and relevance

The ANP is not the only federal program that contributed to marine safety in Canada. However, given the evidence gathered within the framework of this evaluation, the ANP appears to be a unique and critical program that greatly helps ensure that marine navigation is safe and efficient in Canadian waters.

The evaluation also reveals that the ANP is highly relevant and that it meets the needs of Canadians, since a majority of survey respondents consider that the ANP is a necessary program. Besides, ANP objectives are in line with Fisheries and Oceans’ priorities and they correspond to actual roles and responsibilities of the Government of Canada.

We estimate that the number of aids should be increased in Canadian waters because of the high percentage of clients in favor of increasing the number of aids and of the strategic importance of the Arctic.

Effectiveness

The ANP is effective (aids reliability and availability) thanks to efforts made to comply with service standards, recommendations of the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities as well as raising awareness among navigators regarding marine safety. Several items confirm the effectiveness of this program, such as the low rate of clients who had an accident or who were involved in an accident linked with aids to navigation; or still, client’s satisfaction with regards to aids, the navigation system and transportation in Canada.

However, the evaluation reveals that in general the reliability of fixed aids is currently below the overall reliability of the system. The opposite is true of floating aids that, despite being above standard, their reliability is nevertheless decreasing. Causes that can explain such a decrease, as revealed through this evaluation, are the incapacity of ITS to always perform work on aids, Fleet ships that getting older, the lack of entrepreneurs in some regions, and the lack of funding to hire them in other cases.

Nevertheless, the evaluation has identified the outsourcing of services as an effective and efficient solution to provide aids to navigation services and thus allow the ANP to improve the overall reliability of fixed and floating aids. However, the outsourcing process should not replace the roles and responsibilities of the Fleet and ITS , but it should rather be perceived as an alternative service delivery when program partners cannot provide services on time.

The efficiency of the ANP is also attributable to awareness efforts and to the production of information on marine safety on the NOTMAR Web site and in its publications. Although clients are generally satisfied with information contained on the NOTMAR Web site, some worry about the proliferation of non-compliant private aids.

Efficiency

In general, gathered evidence suggests that the ANP has adequate structures to ensure a proper implementation despite many of its guidelines that need to be updated. In addition, the evaluation reveals that the CCG has difficulty applying nationwide a uniform approach to its aids to navigation review policy, thus causing some discrepancies in the concrete implementation of this program.

Nevertheless, the Aids to Navigation in the 21st prospect Century has allowed the ANP to complete an important and encouraging step in order to standardize practices in all five regions of the CCG. However, the evaluation has not determined if a monitoring measure to ensure the uniform application of the program nationwide has been implemented.

We mentioned previously that ANP results are influenced by its partners, namely the Fleet and the ITS. The evaluation reveals that the ANP has no authority on the latter to ensure that work is performed in accordance with its levels of service and that, besides, grey areas prevent the program capacity and that of its partners from being more efficient. Even if the program and its partners are generally working well together, it is essential that roles and responsibilities be defined clearly and precisely.

A performance measurement framework is being used by the ANP, but the evaluation is revealing gaps with regards to quality, occuring and usefulness of some of the data that is gathered. For example, no indicator informs about the reliability of the aids below the standards of service. A performance measurement framework that is better adapted is therefore necessary to allow the ANP to collect relevant and useful information for its management and implementation.

Economy

Overall, the ANP is economical, since it does not duplicate any other federal program, its funding method is adequate, it seems to respect its budget planning and it is constantly searching for new ways to provide services at a lesser cost, like resorting to subcontractors.

As revealed through the evaluation, subcontracting is an effective and efficient option to provide aids services when dealing with problems resulting from ageing Coast Guard ships or from the waiting time regarding aids repair. However, it can become a disadvantage and lead to high costs in case of a monopoly. Therefore, the ANP shall ensure that subcontracting is always an effective and efficient option for service delivery.

The evaluation finally reveals that operational costs linked with an automated station are less compared to a station manned with a lighthouse keeper. Therefore, we believe that savings can be made at this level and this would allow the GGC to reallocate these funds to other activities, such as supply and maintenance of new aids to navigation.

Recommendations

Based on findings from the aids to navigation program summative evaluation, the following recommendations were presented to program management.

  1. In the coming years, the Coast Guard should gradually provide aids to navigation in all regions, including the Arctic, where its directives so permit.

  2. The conditions set out in the AToN 21 report for the sound implementation of contracting out should be applied and followed in all regions; while encouraging contracts combining fixed and floating aids, CCG should continue to seek, analyze and examine other opportunities for improving the general reliability of fixed and floating aids.

  3. To better prevent the risk of accidents in Canadian Waters, the Aids to Navigation Program could work with Transport Canada to raise navigators’ awareness of private aids; and should develop a strategy for promoting the NOTMAR Web site to pleasure boaters with its internal partners. 

  4. In order to reduce gaps in practices, implement a uniform approach in all five regions, and better influence the quantity and quality of work of internal partners, the Aids to Navigation Program should:

    1. Immediately finalize the implementation of its directives and the methodology for designing and reviewing aids to navigation systems in order to determine a common understanding of these directives

    2. Clarify as quickly as possible the operational roles and responsibility of internal partners by negotiating service level agreements with them

    3. Introduce, within a reasonable timeframe, a national monitoring measure for the uniform implementation of the aids program.

  5. The review and finalization of the performance measure framework would enable Aids to Navigation program management to have precise and reliable information for better decision making. To do this:

    1. The Aids to Navigation Program shall review as soon as possible, in consultation with its internal partners and evaluation specialists, a performance measurement strategy including realistic and relevant indicators to collect data on the outputs and short-, medium- and long-term program results. The program shall ensure that the data collected by its partners is also available. Finally, the program should henceforth measure client satisfaction in its levels of service reviews and develop the means to complete the planned cyclical review on time.

    2. The SIPA data collection and entry protocol should be standardized nationally as soon as possible and complied with in all regions by the Coast Guard and its contractors.

  6. CCG should study the possibility of automating light stations in regions where it is possible while ensuring that there is no negative impact on Aids to Navigation service levels or other programs.

1.  Introduction

1.1  Evaluation context

The purpose of this report is to present the aids to navigation program (ANP) evaluation results. As mentioned in the Evaluation Policy, all direct spending programs should be evaluated every five years. As identified in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) five-year plan, this evaluation consists in reviewing the aids program relevancy and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy).

This evaluation, which is a first for the ANP, covers the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10 and it applies to the whole program. The evaluation was conducted by the DFO’s Evaluation Directorate. Activities within the framework of this evaluation (including visits to three regions) started in November 2009 and ended in August 2010.

1.2  Evaluation objectives

The main objective of this evaluation consists in determining to what extent the aids program remains relevant, is managed effectively and efficiently and has attained its objectives and produced its expected results. These evaluation issues will allow us to determine if the ANP corresponds to federal and departmental responsibilities (rationale and relevance), meets objectives and expectations of Canadians (effectiveness) and is properly implemented based on available resources. In this report, we report on the lessons learned linked with each of these items in addition to providing relevant recommendations.

1.3  Report structure

This report includes six sections, including the introduction. The next section (section 2) describes the ANP and the context on which its activities take place. Since this is the first evaluation of this program, this section provides enough details in order to present the reader with the history and a context. Section 3 describes the methodology that is used throughout the evaluation process. In section 4, main findings of the evaluation are presented, while section 5 contains conclusions and recommendations and finally, section 6 presents management’s response.

2.  Program description

This section provides an overview and a description of the ANP. It begins with an overview of the ANP history, mandate and activities. This overview is followed by four other sections; stakeholders, governance, financial resources and finally, objectives are listed, together with a logic model that describes causal links between activities and ANP results.

2.1  ANP history, context and overview

Canada has the longest inland waterway that extends on 3,700 km from the gulf of St. Lawrence to Lake Superior, the largest freshwater system, that includes two million lakes and rivers covering 755,000 km2 (i.e. 7.6% of Canada’s landmass) and finally, the longest coastline (close to 243,000 km, which is equal to six times the circumference of the Equator).

Following several shipwrecks, the first lighthouses and safety boats were build on the East coast of Canada during the 18th Century. No official safety measure existed before that. The first patrol officers made their appearance along the eastern coast and the Great Lakes region in the 19th century to meet urgent needs to protect and regulate fishing and shipping boats. At the time of the Confederation in 1867, the federal government acquired a certain elements of its marine infrastructure, including aids to navigation systems. The Department of Marine and Fisheries, created in 1868, was made responsible for this marine infrastructure.

In 1930, the Department was divided in two and in 1936, the responsibility for marine transportation was transferred to the Department of Transports. The Department of Transports then maintained a fleet of 241 ships that later on the fleet of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG). Between 1941 and 1961, several organizations and communities asked for the creation of a national Coast Guard and on January 26, 1962, the CCG was officially set up. Shortly after creating the GGC, five regions were defined. These regions still exist and they are: Center and Arctic, the Maritimes, Pacific, Quebec and Newfoundland-and-Labrador. The federal government then proceeded twice with a restructuring of the CCG. In 1995, the CCG was integrated into the DFO and in 2005, the CCG became a special operating agency. This new status allows it to concentrate on the provision of services. The CCG owns and operates the civil fleet of the federal government, in addition to providing essential marine services to Canadians.

The ANP is a permanent program that consists in providing aids to navigation in Canadian waters in order to facilitate safe and secure expeditious movements of maritime traffic. According to the Oceans Act, DFO’s mandate, through the ANP, consists in providing aids to navigation in Canadian waters in order to ensure safety and to further a quick, safe and efficient marine traffic.

Aids to navigation are defined as all markers or devices outside of ships that intend to help navigators determine their position and heading, to warn them of dangers or obstacles or to indicate the best or preferred itinerary. The ANP is administered by the CCG. It must therefore provide, within the limits of its jurisdiction, aids to navigation in Canadian waters.

The Canadian Aids to navigation System is a mixed system, i.e. lateral and cardinal. Knowing specifications of each type of aids is a must to be able to use this system at no risk. The program involves over 17,000 short-range aids to navigation, including visual aids (lighthouses and buoys) and aural aids (fog horns), as well as radar aids (reflectors and beacons) and long-range aids to navigation, including electronic aids, such as the Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)2. Aids to navigation must be used together with maritime publications, including marine maps, the List of Lights, Buoys and Fog Signals, Radio Aids to Marine Navigationand Nautical Instructions in order to properly understand and interpret their functions. Information on marine maps and Nautical Instructions are available with the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS).

The CCG owns and operates the largest number of aids to navigation in Canadian waters. In Canada, however, individuals, groups or other departments or government organizations may install private aids to navigation or anchoring buoys for their personal use insofar as these aids to navigation are provided in conformity with the Private Buoy Regulations. Aids to navigation are provided in conformity with Quality Service Standards and international conventions, guidelines and recommendations, including those of the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) and the International Marine Organization (IMO), which Canada is part of. These organizations aim at standardizing aids to navigation and at defining maritime navigation worldwide. On October 15, 1990, the CCG approved a quality level for marine aids that specified an overall system reliability of 99%, and a reliability of 99.8%, 99% and 97% depending on their importance.

In order to adapt to technological progress and to the constantly evolving needs of its clients, the ANP has, over the last few years, adopted major innovations that influenced its implementation process. These innovations include the Marine Aids Modernization (MAM) in 1994 and, more recently, the AToN 21 that began in 2006. As an example of innovation, we can refer to the readjustment of standards regarding service levels, equipment modernization as well as the contracting process for buoys and fixed aids.

The ANP helps mariners navigate efficiently and safely thanks to the following activities:

  1. Implementation of national standards for aids to navigation: Consists in ensuring that aids to navigation within the Canadian waterways network comply with national and international standards (IALA and IMO). Therefore, this activity consists in producing outputs, such as guidelines, standards or service levels. Please take note that tests are performed by Integrated Technical Services (ITS) in order to improve most relevant assets needed by the network.

  2. Development and operation of public aids to navigation systems: Network development and operation aim at providing navigable waters with aids to navigation, including floating, fixed and electronic aids. The role of the ITS and the Fleet is crucial to this activity. The ITS and the Fleet respectively design the physical structure of the network, i.e. they acquire and develop floating or fixed aids, depending on applicable standards, and they install them throughout the network. A sub-activity consists in monitoring and coordinating assistance services provided by the ITS and the Fleet and in ensuring the reliability and conformity of aids systems with established standards.

  3. Provision of advices and guidelines regarding the installation of private aids to navigation: Consists in advising clients or users regarding the design and installation of private aids to navigation to ensure that they comply with Private Buoy Regulations. Transports Canada (TC) is responsible for this activity according to an agreement signed in 2006 with DFO. Based on this agreement, TC is responsible for this activity, but the DFO must also provide advice given its expertise in the field.

  4. Provision of information on marine safety: This activity consists in providing information to clients or users on changes, updates or any information regarding aids. The ANP published Notices to mariners3 (monthly and yearly edition) as well as the List of Lights, Buoys and Fog Signals 4. The ANP Directorate also publishes The Canadian aids to navigation system that contains specifications of each type of aids that is used to warn of dangers or obstacles. The CHS is also a partner in this activity. It distributes a certain number of publications, such as marine maps showing aids, instructions and nautical guides. Essential outputs of this activity include Notices to mariners and the list of lights.

2.2  Program stakeholders

The efficient implementation of the ANP depends on a large number of partners, both within and outside of the department. The two main internal partners of the CCG are the Fleet Operational Services Directorate and the Integrated Technical Services (ITS) Directorate. The collaboration between these partners is essential, since their combined activities have a direct effect on program results.

While the ANP is responsible for designing the aids to navigation network, ITS must design the physical structure or systems that make up an aid to navigation, based on parameters and design specifications provided by aids program personnel. ITS ensures that aids to navigation, both electronic and conventional, are in good operating conditions, compliant, reliable and available by implementing a lifecycle asset management system. In addition, ITS acts as a guardian of fixed and floating aids, as well as of electronic navigation systems (such as the DGPS). As guardian and maintenance agent for aids, ITS is an essential partner to ensure that ANP Standards of Service (SoS) listed in CCG Levels of Services (LoS) are complied with. Lastly, ITS and the ANP collaborate in the development and testing of new technologies to increase the aids’ and, by extension, the network capacity

As for the Fleet, it determines needs in terms of resources to provide the aids to navigation system based on needs defined by the ANP. The Fleet is the main asset (ship and personnel) used by the aids program to lay and maintain buoys – which is an important activity of this program. The Fleet is also used to resupply lighthouses (with fuel and food supplies). As a service provider/partner providing services for laying the aids to navigation , the Fleet ensures that ANP SoS are complied with.

Figure 1: Main partners of the program

Figure 1: Main partners of the program

Several agreements were signed with other partners within the framework of the Aids Program. The ANP can therefore get support from the U.S. Coast Guard according to a special agreement. Other departments, such as TC, Indian Affairs, Parks Canada, Public Works and Government Services, or, Environment Canada also support the ANP. For example, special agreements were signed with other departments to install aids to navigation for which they are responsible (Parks Canada and the St. Lawrence Seaway).

ANP clients and users include, among others, certified commercial ship (Commercial I), uncertified commercial ship (Commercial II) and pleasure boat owners and operators. These clients also represent the main monitoring mechanism for aids to navigation, since the CCG counts on them to report defective aids and discrepancies, which mean that they bear part of the responsibility with regards to safety.

2.3  Program governance and resources

The aids program is part of the Navigation Systems Sector, which belongs to the Maritime Services division and is serviced by the CCG, a special operating agency of the DFO. The ANP has its headquarters in the National Capital Region and five regions (Central and Arctic, Maritimes, Pacific, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador). The program has 167 permanent employees throughout its five administrative regions.

The director general of the Directorate reports to the commissioner, who himself reports to the deputy minister. The Navigation Systems director reports to the director general, while the Program manager in charge of its implementation reports to the Navigation Systems director.

The ANP is a permanent program funded approximately 24% from marine navigation service fees (MNSF5), i.e. fees paid by certified commercial ships (these fees are listed in table 1 as vote-netted revenues – VNR), based on the size and traveled area, and approximately 76% from CCG’s operating budget.

The VNR is collected for marine navigation services, including aids to navigation. Three types of expenses are used to provide this service and justify the collection of this royalty: marine services, fleet and technical services. For more details, refer to footnotes.

ANP resources for the period from 2005-06 to 2008-09 are presented and summarized below:

Table 1: Program expenses6 in million dollars (not including the Fleet and ITS)

Item

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

Real costs

Real costs

Real costs

Real costs

Wages

    10,998.5

    10,962.5

   11,320.6

   11,504.2

Non-wages (O&M)

    4,821.3

    4,730.1

    4,644

    4,536.6

Vote-netted revenues (VNR)

   (5,562.6)

   (5,058.4)

   (5,269.4)

   (5,336.7)

Fuel

    4,946.9

    4,394.2

    5,380.4

    7,037.9

Total expenses

   15,204.1

   15,028.4

   16,075.5

   17,742.1

2.4  Program risks

The aids program is based on a risk profile sorted according to national priorities. Risks associated with the aids program have been identified in 2008-097 and they concern, by order of importance, recruiting and retention issues; aids deterioration (i.e. deficient aids and fleet problems); the lack of funding that would allow aids to navigation to grow; roles and responsibilities with main partners that influence program delivery; the lack of power over service quality; and finally, the incapacity to provide service levels. However, the importance of risks obviously varies from one region to the other.

2.5  Program logic model

The logic model below shows how ANP activities lead to final results. This model is used, by extension, to identify short-, medium- and long-term results of the ANP. It is also a roadmap for the aids program. The program has no management and accountability framework based on results, but it has a performance measurement framework and a logic model.

Based on the logic model created in 2003 and on the Report on plans and priorities (RPP) that remains effective until March 2010, the aids program helps attain DFO’s strategic result Safe and accessible waterways. This strategic result directly contributes to the following result sector of the Government of Canada called Safe and secures communities, and indirectly to the following strategic results: A strong economic growth and An economy based on innovation and knowledge.

ANP objectives are as follows:

  • Contribute to the safety of waterways;

  • Contribute to the safety of ship transits and movements;

  • Ensure the efficiency of positioning systems and detection of hazards;

  • Provide information concerning maritime security;

  • Protect marine environments (minimize effects on the environment).

Figure 2: ANP logic model: 2005/2006 to 2009/2010

Figure 2: ANP logic model: 2005/2006 to 2009/2010

3.  Methodology

We used different data collection methods to review issues and questions within the framework of this evaluation. This section describes the evaluation model, evaluation questions, the methodological approach, analysis methods for each evaluation tasks, as well as limitations and constraints.

3.1  Project management

The evaluation was conducted by an evaluation team within the Evaluation Directorate at the DFO. In order to ensure the fairness and usefulness of the evaluation report, the evaluation team has collaborated with the aids program staff to:

  • Make a list of documents that must be studied;

  • Determine sources of data and communicate with them;

  • Review and comment interview guides to be used when gathering data, as well as technical reports;

  • Review and comment preliminary and final versions of the evaluation report.

3.2.  Evaluation model

The evaluation model used within the framework of this evaluation process is a non-experimental model where measures are taken after implementing the program. This model was chosen, first of all, because the ANP is a global program with activities and services applying throughout Canada and, for this reason, it is difficult to create a control group. On the other hand, no measure existed before this program was implemented.

3.3.  Evaluation questions

Evaluation questions were identified on the basis of the new evaluation policy, document reviews and results of interviews with key informants conducted during phase I. Appendix A shows the matrix based on evaluation issues, namely relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy).

3.4.  Document and file review

Primary and secondary sources of information were reviewed. This document review was useful for the design of evaluation tools and for the analysis and interpretation of evaluation results.

3.5.  Environment scan

A literature review was performed in order to properly understand the operational context of the ANP and thus evaluate its rationale and its relevance. The other objective of this literature review consists in learning lessons and, if possible, in proposing improvement options regarding the administration of the ANP.

3.6.  Interviews with key informants

Between the months of March and May 2010, phone and face-to-face interviews (n=26) took place with key informants (ANP staff members (15) and partners (11)) in order to gather useful information on the perception and opinion of individuals having played a significant role or having experience in program design or implementation, and on the importance and efficiency of the ANP. Each interview guide was coded according to an issue, a question and an evaluation indicator. Participants were given the interview guide in advance and they validated interview notes.

3.7.  Interviews with clients

Between the months of March and May 2010, phone interviews (n=9) also took place with clients in order to discuss the aids program rationale and impact (more specifically its results) and to know their opinions on services provided and on government’s role. The final sample reflects customer categories that benefit from the ANP, i.e. commercial and pleasure boaters. Each interview guide was coded according to an issue, a question and an evaluation indicator. Participants were given the interview guide in advance and they validated interview notes.

3.8  Survey

Within the framework of this evaluation, EKOS research firm was asked to conduct an on-line survey with program clients in order to gather facts to show program efficiency and to examine its relevance with regards to needs. The survey took place between August 26 and September 20, 2010.

Based on the list provided by DFO, EKOS invited 3,722 program clients to take part in this survey. In total, 3,303 clients received the questionnaire and 899 completed it, which means a response rate of 27%. Two calls were made in order to increase the response rate. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/-2.8%, 19 times out of 20.

3.9.  Analytical methods

Methods of analysis that were used for this evaluation were adapted to the nature and availability of data to be gathered, the latter being based on evaluation questions. Triangulation was used extensively as analytical method. The triangulation process consists in using more than two methodologies in a study based on several lines of inquiry in order to corroborate findings several times.

3.10.  Limitations and Constraints

Throughout the study, limitations were noticed with regards to methodologies. In order to minimize impacts on evaluation results, a triangulation process was based on information gathered from different sources and using different methods. In other words, the different methods described above were combined to reach the same conclusions and thus reinforce our judgment with regards to their validity. None of these gaps was prejudicial to the validity and the exactness of evaluation results.

  • Non-experimental model. A non-experimental model is based on measures taken after implementing a program without a control group. This model can be represented in the diagram below:

 

ANP implementation

Measure
following implementation

Clients and beneficiaries

X

01

This diagram shows us that the obvious scope of aids program effects is hard to define. Since no measure is taken before implementing the program and no comparison group to associate results with, it is difficult to link success with the program (01 can be attributable to several factors). In other words, it is difficult to draw a strong conclusion with regards to the true impact of the ANP. We have made this model more rigorous by describing activities, outputs and results based on the logic model, thus allowing assessors to establish casual links and to logically maintain that results can be caused by the program (internal validity). Second, a detailed program profile completes the logic model. Program activities described in detail increase the construct validity. Finally, we have been using different methods to gather data (interviews, document review, surveys, etc.) to review issues and questions within the framework of this evaluation, which provided us with a better indication of the aids program impact.

  • Depth of the environmental analysis. Within the framework of this analysis, we have surveyed and reviewed at macro level the aids to navigation program of some industrialized countries (including the United States, England and Australia). Nevertheless, useful information was obtained.

  • Data gathered from interviews. The sample of interviewed clients reflects customer categories that the ANP is serving, but who are statistically barely representative in order to apply findings to all ANP service users. Regarding key informants, they are interested in the aids program and they therefore express their own points of view during interviews. In both cases, the interviewee may be guided by his will to be helpful or to look good in the assessor’s eyes, thus limiting the credibility of information revealed during maintenance operations. In order to mitigate these possible impacts, comments and findings were balanced with more “objective” data, namely the document review and the survey.

4.  Main findings

This section presents a synthesis of data gathered within the framework of this evaluation process by combining information obtained from sources described in section 3. Main findings on the data collection process are provided for each theme and evaluation question.

4.1.  ANP relevance

Findings presented in this section are based on multiple lines of evidence, namely the document review, the literature review, interviews and the survey. Based on information gathered from these lines of evidence, we notice that the ANP is aligned with priorities of the DFO and of the Government of Canada, in addition to meeting the needs of Canadians who favor an increase in the number of aids to navigation.

Evaluation question no. 1: To what extent is the ANP aligned with priorities of the Department and of the government and with the needs of Canadians?

The document review has shown that the mandate and objectives of the ANP align with DFO’s overall priorities (mandate, mission and vision) but more specifically with the strategic result Safe and accessible waterways. Thus, this strategic result also contributes to the following results of the Government of Canada: a strong economic growth, an economy based on innovation and on knowledge, and finally, safe and secure communities (Table 2). Furthermore, it was mentioned in the 2010 Speech of the Throne that the strategy to defend Canada’s sovereignty in the North also goes through an increase in marine safety.
 
Table 2: Alignment between DFO’s strategic result and results of the Government of Canada

Results of the Government of Canada

Safe and accessible waterways

Economic affairs

 

A strong economic growth

An economy based on innovation and knowledge

A fair and secure market

 

A clean and healthy environment

 

Social affairs

 

Safe and secure communities

Source: Information based on Reports on plans and priorities, as well as on Departmental Performance Reports from 2005-6 to 2009-10.

This review also reveals that Guideline no 2.2300 (Aids to navigation under the responsibility of government authorities) defines parameters governing the provision of aids to navigation by other federal government authorities. In addition, the legal framework in which the ANP operates does not allow transferring activities to the private or public sector, thus allowing the aids program to provide aids only in applicable jurisdictions.

All interviewed clients (7/7) are unanimous. The ANP is relevant and justified. Based on main arguments, aids to navigation allow reducing accidents (drowning and collisions) and they are a must for shipping. In addition, survey results reveal that 97% of respondents estimate that the ANP is necessary to allow a quick and safe marine traffic.

Figure 1: Necessity for aids to navigation
Figure 1: Necessity for aids to navigation

Furthermore, the document review indicates that clients interviewed when reviewing service levels in 2007 have stressed the importance of maintaining aids to navigation. Clients that we interviewed (5/7) maintain that aids to navigation still meet their needs. Finally, 79% of respondents have indicated that aids to navigation meet their needs.

Key informants (15/15) all agree that marine shipping in Canada would not be safe and secure if there were no aids program. Like clients, they stress the emergence of electronic navigation, but they ensure that visual aids to navigation are “important and even essential”.

Regarding emergent needs that the ANP may eventually have to meet, several findings were made from reviewed documents, reviewed literature, interviews and the survey. These are essentially specific needs that aim at improving service levels, such as the access to communities in the Ungava and Hudson Bay regions, the improvement of the buoy system in Quebec and in the Maritimes, and the reinstatement of foghorns on cape Beale and on the Leonard Island in the Pacific. Two (commercial) clients estimate that more aids to navigation should be provided in the Arctic in order to reduce the risks of accident. However, they indicated that this situation was not a source of accidents.

Half of the ANP staff (4/7) has confirmed the limited number of aids to navigation in the Arctic. According to them, actual service standards allow installing additional aids, but the ANP does not have enough financial resources to supply and maintain new aids to navigation. They also confirmed that they were now receiving from the marine industry requests regarding the need for buoys in the Arctic, namely in the Koksoak, Puvimituq and Kangiqsualujjuaq rivers.

When asked if they believe that there should be more aids to navigation, respondents (72%) are very much in favor of an increase rather than a decrease in aids to navigation (2% think that there should be less). Among those who think that there should be more aids to navigation, most contend that it is for safety reasons.

 

Figure 2: Reasons for wanting more aids to navigation
Figure 2: Reasons for wanting more aids to navigation

As a result, the ANP plays and will keep on playing a key role in marine safety and this aligns with priorities of the DFO and of the federal government as confirmed during inquiries. In addition to a demand for an increased number of aids by clients, the ANP is also necessary in the Arctic to affirm Canadian sovereignty in the North.

Evaluation question no. 2: Is the government intervention justified?

We estimate, on the one hand, that the government intervention is justified thanks to laws that govern interventions by the federal government with regards to aids to navigation. The aids program is governed by the Oceans Act, part III, and by the Shipping Act part 5: Navigation services. The mandate of the ANP is based on the Oceans Act. According to these acts, the DFO is responsible for provided services to ensure marine safety. Beside these legal aspects and since Canada is member of the IALA and of the IMO, our country agrees to provide uniform aids that comply with standards in the field of international maritime navigation.  

As well, the environmental analysis has also shown that aids to navigation programs in countries, such as the United States, England and Australia, were part of the public sector. Finally, key informants have also stressed the legal framework and Canada’s commitments with international organizations that made it accountable for these services. According to them, the federal government is in a better position to ensure safety and to provide this type of service.

In short, the analysis of laws, comments expressed by key informants and the environmental analysis indicate that aids to navigation remain a federal responsibility.

4.2.  Effectiveness

Based on the document review, on the analysis of data, on the literature review and on interviews with program employees, partners and clients, we have noticed that aids to navigation in Canada meet national and international standards. Aids to navigation are also available as revealed by the satisfaction of surveyed clients. However, the analysis of data regarding the reliability of these aids reveals that the ANP may be more effective at this level.

Evaluation question no. 3: To what extent aids to navigation meet national and international standards?

Aids to navigation provided through the aids program meet international standards. As a matter of fact, the ANP is based on IALA recommendations to define service standards for short-range aids to navigation (buoys, foghorns, etc.). The document review indicates that the CCG has approved service standards for marine aids indicating a general system reliability of 99%.

In addition, CCG service standards, in conformity with IALA recommendations and based on the aid importance, are determining beforehand the intervention time for each discrepancy on each aid with a reliability of 99,8%, 99% and 97%. By comparing IALA recommendations with short-range aids to navigation reliability standards as proposed by the ANP (Table 3), we notice that reliability objectives of ANP aids align with IALA recommendations.

Table 3: Reliability of the different categories of aids to navigation

Combined threat rating

Description

Aid importance rating

Intervention time

Reliability objective

IALA recommendation

Utmost important

Obvious danger for live or for the environment

1

24 h

99.80%

99.80%

Highly important

Very important underlying threats

2

72 h

99%

99%

Important

Important underlying threats

3

336 h

97%

97%

The formula used by the ANP to calculate the reliability of an aid also comes from IALA recommendations. This formula, which is identical to that recommended by the IALA, is the following:

Total time8- Down Time9
--------------------------------------
Total time

As we mentioned it before, the aids to navigation system has been designed by ANP employees based on IALA recommendations. ITS designs physical elements in compliance with specifications provided by the aids to navigation personnel. The document review and interviews conducted with key informants do not reveal any information indicating that manufactured aids do not comply with national standards. Therefore, we notice that aids to navigation comply both with international and national standards.

Evaluation question no. 4: To what extent aids to navigation are available and operational?

Based on information gathered during the document review and the Literature review, we estimate that aids to navigation are available. A comparison of available aids10 between 2008 and 2009 reveal an increase in fixed aids (5,653 in 2008 compared to 6,049 in 2009) and in floating aids (11,115 in 2008 compared to 11,185 in 2009) in almost all regions.

Regarding aids reliability, we may notice that, generally speaking, aids to navigation meet the overall reliability objective of 99% that the ANP has determined for its service standards (Graph 1). However, we notice a general decrease in fixed and floating aids reliability11 throughout the years. The reliability of fixed aids keeps on decreasing and has fallen below the general reliability objective in 2009. However, this observation also applies to floating aids that saw their reliability increase from 2005 to 2007. Despite such a decrease, floating aids are above the general standard in 2009.

Graph 1: Fixed and floating aids reliability between 2005 and 2009
Graph 1: Fixed and floating aids reliability between 2005 and 2009 

The document review and interviews conducted with partners and key informants indicate that this decrease would result from the lack of funding for the Fleet and ITS combined with the non-availability of contractors12. As a matter of fact, all program employees (7/7) have indicated that the fleet incapacity to perform all buoying activities within the prescribed time together with the limited number of contractors in Quebec and Center and Arctic regions will have an impact on the capacity of the aids program to meet deadlines and, to a certain extent, to comply with service levels.

The review and interviews reveal that the Fleet is necessary to allow ITS to perform work on aids to navigation. However, the latter is not always capable of performing work (repair or replacement of displaced aids) within deadlines, because they also do not get an adequate funding as mentioned in the evaluation report on asset lifecycle13. The report has identified that this lack of funding prevented ITS from providing expected results. Thus, the report has revealed that fixed aids are getting older and that they thus risk becoming unreliable. The incapacity of ITS to repair fixed aids on time may also explain the decreased reliability of fixed aids.

As well, the document review reveals that the Canadian aids to navigation public network is one of the largest worldwide with a coastline that extends over more than 243,000 km, which means a vast area to serve14. Resorting to contractors helps to reduce the workload and ensure expected service levels. As a matter of fact, the CCG has been giving aids to navigation maintenance, installation and removal contracts to the private sector for more than 40 years. The tasks is even more complicated, since nearly 70% of floating aids on the East coast and on Great Lakes in Canada must be removed each year and more than 250 of these aids must be replaced with spar buoys in winter.

Regarding DGPS coverage (Figure 1), 99.8% reliability is expected in areas served by several broadcast stations and 99% in areas served by a single broadcast station.

The analysis of reliability data for the years 2005 to 2008 (graph 2) shows that, generally speaking, the DGPS coverage complies with service standards and levels. However, we notice that said coverage has not reached the intended reliability level in some areas, such as Cape Race (99.69%), Wiarton (99.69%) and Cape Norman that had the lowest rate with 91.55%16 in 2008. Gathered information indicated no incident or accident regarding this situation. The reliability of coverage in the Rigolet area (number 2517) was not attained during the last three years (2005 to 2008). Nevertheless, several areas (such as Alert Bay & Sandspit, Cardinal & St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, St-Jean-sur-Richelieu & Lauzon or still Moisie & Cape Ray) had a 100% coverage during that same period.

Graph 2: Reliability of the DGPS coverage between 2005 and 2008
Graph 2: Reliability of the DGPS coverage between 2005 and 2008

On the other hand, most clients (5/7) that we interviewed estimated that aids to navigation are available, visible and reliable. These statements made by a customer summarize the observed trend regarding the availability and the reliability of aids to navigation: "The aids to navigation are maintained properly. Everything is good as far as visibility, availability and reliability". Some clients (2/7) have also declared that they would like to see more aids in their respective sectors, but they confirm that actual aids allow them to navigate safely. Even if a customer showed some reserve regarding the correction of displaced aids18, most of them consider that their warnings were received proper attention.

Figure 3: Aids to navigation availability and reliability
Figure 3: Aids to navigation availability and reliability

A great majority of survey respondents consider that aids to navigation are available and reliable (figure 3). In a proportion of 98%, they say that aids to navigation are available and reliable to a great extent (71%) or to some extent (27%). Nearly none of them has said that they disagree, while 2% are uncertain.

Survey results also show us that a majority of clients (67%) never had to report a failure or the improper position of an aid or never lodged a complaint in that respect (figure 4). Among those who replied that they had to report a failure, 78% were under the impression that their declaration or complaint was processed properly (only 12% consider that it was not processed).

Figure 4: Aids to navigation failure report
Figure 4: Aids to navigation failure report

The document review shows that, during the 2007 service level review, clients of the maritime industry in Quebec reported that the seasonal aids to navigation tending and removal process were not always completed within deadlines without giving any particular indications on the impact of this situation on their activities. Nevertheless, they are satisfied with the buoy tendering and removal process and they wish that the use of four-season buoys be extended. The report contains no statement regarding this situation in other regions. In addition, clients that we interviewed in other regions, including in Quebec, did not refer to this situation when asked if they were satisfied with the availability and reliability of aids to navigation.

Nevertheless, program employees in the Quebec region confirm this situation. They declare that delays in buoying activities resulting, among others, from the availability of the Fleet or of contractors sometimes caused buoys to be tended late in springtime and removed early in the fall. Besides, they indicated that this situation has an impact of the capacity of the ANP to meet deadlines and, to some extent, to comply with service levels. It should be noted that this observation applies more to fishing clients than to commercial ships.

Therefore, we notice that aids to navigation in Canada are available and operational based on information from these different sources. However, the analysis of data regarding the reliability of these aids also shows us that the ANP can be more efficient at this level.

Evaluation questions 5 and 7: To what extent are people more aware of information on marine safety? To what extent navigators have access to information allowing them to navigate safely and efficiently?

One of the program objectives consists in making clients aware of marine safety to make marine shipping safe and secure. On the other hand, we estimate that the ANP makes clients aware of marine safety because of the number of clients visiting the NOTMAR Web site and who subscribe to the map update service.

On the other hand, the ANP, within the framework of marine safety publications, also produces monthly notices to mariners (NOTMAR’s). It publishes each year a book in four volumes titled List of Lights, Buoys and Fog Signals. It also updates the brochure titled The Canadian Aids to Navigation System – 2001 issue that gives an overview of this system. In addition, the ANP provides information to the CHS regarding the elaboration of marine maps. The ANP also uses the Notice to Mariners (NOTMAR)19 Web site as a communications tool with navigators on marine safety and to notify them of marine map updates. Finally, we can mention the regional initiative of the Internet platform Marinfo that contains all the relevant marine information, such as the position of new shoals, a progress report on seasonal buoying operations, broadcast and written notices to shipping, ice conditions, etc.

The document review also reveals that related publications and sources on shipping safety that are not produced by the CCG are also available to navigators. Although distinct, these different publications all aim at ensuring the safety of marine shipping by providing information on marine safety. Let us mention, for example, the nautical safety guide, marine map catalogs and related publications, nautical instructions, radio aids to navigation, tables on tides and currents in Canada, the guide on information sources in the field of nautical safety, provincial guides on nautical safety courses, the Regulation on private buoys, and the Regulation of driving restrictions for boats.

Although most clients that we interviewed (4/7) know about the NOTMAR Web site, they declare that they do not refer to it on a regular basis, except for commercial clients. Incidentally, these clients mentioned that they referred to this Web site during their pilot training. For those who do not regularly refer to NOTMAR, main reasons are their departure from the navigation sector, their preference for the paper version20 and because they subscribed to information emails (NOTMAR). They thus receive information directly in their mailbox and this is why they need less to refer to the Web site.

All survey respondents were asked if they knew the Notice to Mariners (NOTMAR) Web site. In a proportion of 95%, program clients have declared that they know it rather well (36%) or well (59%), while only 4% replied that they do not know the NOTMAR Web site. Those who mentioned that they know the NOTMAR Web site rather well were also invited to state to what extent, according to them, this site dedicated to navigation and safety improves marine traffic safety and protection and to what extent they are satisfied with information provided in notices to mariners. Results were highly positive with regards to these two questions: 95% of respondents consider that the NOTMAR Web site increases marine traffic safety and protection to a large extent (41%) or to some extent (54%), while 58% are satisfied with information that is found on this site, i.e. truly satisfied (67%) or somewhat satisfied (31%).

Figure 5: Satisfaction with regards to the NOTMAR Web site
Figure 5: Satisfaction with regards to the NOTMAR Web site

Finally, interviewed clients have indicated that meteorological bulletins (Environment Canada), radio broadcast by Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) and marine maps (CHS) are other sources of information that they use to navigate.

Survey respondents were also invited to specify if they use sources of information other than the NOTMAR Web site when they navigate in Canadian waters. A majority replied that they use other sources of information (60%), while a rather large proportion (35%) declared that they rely strictly on information that they find on the NOTMAR Web site for navigation.

These different sources help us realize that the ANP raises awareness in different ways among its clients, but it also makes available different publications on marine safety, according to interviewed clients. In addition, survey results clearly indicate not only that information is produced, but also that surveyed individuals are satisfied with the information they can find.

Evaluation question no. 6: To what extent ship transits and movements are safe and efficient?

We notice that ship transits and movements are safe and efficient. On the one hand, as shown in survey results, the great majority of respondents (96%) are convinced that ship transits and movements in Canadian waterways are safe and secure.

The survey also reveals that exactly 90% of respondents have had no accident or were not involved in an accident related with aids to navigation during the last few years (only 10% of respondents have suffered a similar incident during that same period). To those who declared that they were involved in an accident related with aids to navigation, we asked to spontaneously give us details. Most of these respondents (28%) have said that the incident was linked with the absence of aids to navigation or with defective aids to navigation. One respondent out of five mentioned that aids to navigation were generally insufficient (20%) or that buoys were not marked or inadequate.

Figure 6: Safe movements of ships in Canadian waters
Figure 6: Safe movements of ships in Canadian waters

Interviewed clients (7/7) are also unanimous: ship transits and movements are safe and efficient in Canadian waterways. They also indicated that, over the last five years, they had not experienced accidents or incidents that would bring aids to navigation into question. According to them, these resulted from the incompetence of pleasure boaters or from human error caused by a lack of training. Nevertheless, clients recognized that they had to suffer delays owing to bad weather conditions, but these were not related with aids to navigation.

However, the document review has revealed that, during service level reviews performed in 2007, mariners indicated that there was an important proliferation of private buoys in the Trent-Severn channel21 in Ontario that these did not meet applicable standards in inland waters and close to marinas and that this could lead to confusion among pleasure boaters. However, interviewed clients did not raise any specific problem linked with private aids.

On the other hand, the analysis of information received from the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) regarding accidents22 and incidents23 linked with aids to navigation reveals that accidents and incidents involved aids to navigation. In total, between January 1, 2005 and March 30, 2010, there were 15 incidents and 36 accidents. This information reveals that in most cases, aids to navigation are not the cause of these accidents or incidents. Buoys were often hit and displaced by boats or accidents were sometimes caused by buoying activities. None of these accidents or incidents would involve aids to navigation. No information on delays caused by a poor visibility was identified, but data provided by the TSB reveal that 7 accidents and incidents were due to bad weather conditions during that same period.

As a result, we notice that ship transits and movements are safe and efficient according to clients, but also according to official statistics provided by the TSB and to survey results. Nevertheless, private aids to navigation (under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada) that do not meet applicable standards might have a negative influence on the effectiveness of the ANP.

Evaluation question no. 8: To what extent navigators have confidence in the aids to navigation system and in marine safety in Canada?

We have noticed that program clients have confidence in the aids to navigation system. As a matter of fact, all program clients were interrogated regarding their satisfaction with regards to the aids to navigation system in Canada and to their confidence in the aids to navigation system in Canada. Respondents expressed high levels of satisfaction and confidence, since 90% are satisfied, truly satisfied (68%) or rather satisfied (31%) with Canada’s aids to navigation system to a large extent (75%) or to some extent (24%).  

Figure 6: Satisfaction with regards to the aids and marine transportation system
Figure 6: Satisfaction with regards to the aids and marine transportation system

To conclude, no specific trend was obvious from gathered responses when asked how the ANP could be improved. However, a customer has indicated that pleasure boaters should be better informed on private aids to navigation. We can therefore notice, based on available information, that navigators have confidence in the Canadian aids to navigation system.

Evaluation question no. 9: To what extent results are attributable to the program?

All clients agree that marine navigation in Canada would not be safe and efficient without aids to navigation. All key informants that were interviewed recognize that the ANP greatly helps ensure the safety and efficiency of marine navigation in Canada.

However, observations made from the document review and notes taken during interviews with key informants also reveal that the ANP is not DFO’s only program that helps attain this result. We have noticed that the Waterways Management Program (WMP), marine maps produced by the CHS and the Icebreaking program as well as, radio broadcast by the MCTS are all examples of DFO’s internal programs that, thanks to their activities, help make marine navigation safe and efficient in Canada.

Outside of the DFO, some federal departments contribute to managing and regulating the marine transportation network, to ensuring safety and marine transportation in Canada. They are Transport Canada, the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, pilotage authorities, Harbour companies or authorities, National Defence and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police24.

The analysis of responsibilities (Table 5) reveals that the responsibilities of these departments and agencies are distinct, but especially DFO’s role in providing aids to navigation does not seem to duplicate the actual role of another department. As a result, we can only notice that overall results of the aids program are attributable to this department.

Table 525: Main federal responsibilities in the marine transportation network in Canada


Transport Canada
  • Regulation on commercial ships and seamen
  • Regulation on fishing boast
  • Safety inspection of ships and other control port functions by the State
  • Policy which consists in representing Canada’s interest within international organizations (such as the International Marine Organization)
  • Department in charge of safety and transportation matters

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

  • Regulation on pleasure boating and pleasure boaters26
  • Provision of services to marine navigation, such as marine communications and traffic services, channel maintenance, waterways protection, navigation maps and icebreaking activities.
  • Marine search and rescue – ships
  • Environmental response
  • Aids provided by the fleet to other government departments
  • Harbour (financial assistance to main fishing harbours)

Canadian Transportation Agency

  • Economic regulation of transportation of federal jurisdiction (such as piloting and harbour fees)

Transportation Safety Board of Canada

  • Inquiries and reports regarding accidents, including shipping accidents

Pilotage authority

  • Provision of pilotage services

Harbour companies or authorities

  • Harbour operations

National Defence

  • Sovereignty and military protection
  • Search and rescue at sea, coordination, aircraft and ships (support role)
  • Assistance to other government departments

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

  • Law enforcement, including nautical safety

4.3.  Efficiency

The document review and interviews made with program employees show that the ANP usually has management and administrative systems to implement the aids program. However, the aids reliability analysis and comments gathered from program staff reveal that improvements must be made regarding performance measurement in order to make it more useful for reporting and for result-based management.

Evaluation question no. 10: Does the program come with management and administration systems to ensure an efficient implementation?

This question is addressed at three levels, namely management, roles and responsibilities with main partners of the ANP and finally, performance measurement.

Management
Overall, the ANP has adequate structures to ensure an efficient management. It has a database to manage aids, as well as guidelines and policies for its implementation. However, outdated guidelines and the lack of adherence to guidelines in regions could be improved.

The ANP usually has management and administration systems to implement the aids program, but clarifications are still required regarding the roles and responsibilities with its main partners. We have effectively noticed that the ANP has management and administration systems nationwide (such as a yearly peer review of service levels) and in regions (such as its participation in regional advisory committees with clients and stakeholders). Different procedures and guidelines regarding its implementation exist. The ANP has a SIPA database that allows it to register and to manage all its aids to navigation. There are, however, grey areas. For example, the ANP does not know if it must provide aids in inland waters to the detriment of others. The ANP is now providing close to 2,667 aids to navigation in 20 bodies of inland water.

To give effect to recommendations of the auditor general27, program staff keeps on updating its guidelines. We noticed that updates were made, but efforts remain necessary, since some guidelines still date back to the 1980’s (such as guidelines 2.5100 and 2.7100) and to the 1990’s (guidelines 2.2500, 2.2600, 2.3100, 2.3300 and 2.6400). As well, the program staff has said that the systems design and review manual, despite being exemplary, must be updated, since it dates back to the 1990’s and given the changing needs of clients and technological progress, this manual has become outdated and contributes to problems surrounding the aids revision process.

When reviewing documents, we noticed practical gaps in the implementation of the aids program within regional directorates. For example, the ANP has a national policy that consists in reviewing all aids to navigation in a waterway at least once every five years . These peer-reviews performed nationwide were designed in order to determine the regional conformity with national policies. As we can see in table 6, this procedure is not always complied within regions. The auditor general’s report (December 2002) leads to the same conclusion (CCG regions operate differently). In addition, a minority of aids program employees are questioning the five-year objective that they consider unrealistic given the limited resources that it has.

The CCG has tried to correct this situation by introducing in 2006 the Aids to Navigation in the 21st Century (AtoN 21) project. Footnotes (P.77) present a summary of this report. AToN 21 project objectives consisted in meeting the evolving needs of users by providing navigators with aids to navigation services as useful and as ecologically as possible while complying with the absolute Coast Guard priority, which is marine safety. This project aims at improving the aids to navigation program efficiency and effectiveness; at improving the understanding and application of guidelines and policies nationwide thanks to efficient communications and by sharing information between regions and the headquarter; and thus at minimizing practical gaps when implementing policies, standards and service levels throughout the nation.

As we mentioned, the ANP has been updating these guidelines, but we have not determined if a monitoring capacity to ensure the uniform implementation nationwide has been elaborated. However, relevant recommendations in that sense, but especially to standardize practices, were formulated in the report28 on the outsourcing of services. For example, “Anchor in our attitudes the principles of a unified CCG to allow us to make decisions that are beneficial for the whole organization and not for a single directorate” or still “Ensure a total uniformity of the SIPA data management process nationwide in order to measure performance coherently; conciliate the use of the MAXIMO system29 and the SIPA in regions ».

Table 6: Number of aids reviewed by region since 198930


Region

Total number of systems

Systems reviewed since 1989

% of reviewed systems

Total number of aids

Aids reviewed since 1989

Percentage of reviewed aids

NFld

8

8

100

1595

1595

100

MAR.

145

105

72

5220

3409

65

Quebec

41

22

54

1760

908

52

Central and Arctic – five-year data

45

21

47

7090

4355

61

PAC31.

-

-

-

-

-

-

Relationship with partners

The efficient implementation of the ANP also depends on its main partners that provide internal and external services, such as the CCG Fleet, and ITS, Real Property and service providers with a diversified provision system. Within the framework of this evaluation, we try to determine if roles and responsibilities between the ANP and its main partners are properly defined.

We noticed that main partners of the ANP have usually met these requirements within more or less extended periods. Nevertheless, interviews and the document review indicate that roles and responsibilities between the aids program and its main partners should be reviewed and clarified.

We have also noticed that grey areas exist between the ANP and its main partners (Table 7) regarding their roles and responsibilities. Depending on the region, this situation does not seem to prevent the program from reaching results. Overall, key informants (program employees and partners) declare that they manage to understand one another and to work rather easily. However, most of them recognize that this situation is not adequate.

Table 7: Grey areas regarding roles and responsibilities32

Grey areas with ITS

Grey areas with the CCG Fleet

Relationship with the CHS

  • Operational needs as opposed to techniques/R&D/acquisition and testing
  • No service agreement

 

  • No service agreement
  • Leases, rentals, public services
  • Not always capable of complying with the work plan
  • Highly dependent on SIPA
  • Business case for the DMPS

 

  • Relationship not active in all geographic regions

 

The majority (over 50%) of program employees have indicated that authority was lacking to ensure work performance in accordance with performance indicators (deadlines and service standards) with internal partners, except for contractors. The staff can hardly guarantee service level to commercial clients, since ITS is not always capable of testing the equipment (for a lack of financial means). Depending on the region, the lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities with secondary partners (MCTS, Real Property, DFO and CHS) was mentioned. However, nothing indicated that this situation had had unprecedented consequences.

Most program employees (over 75%) regret these delays, but they estimate that most of their requests were processed satisfactorily by ITS and the Fleet. As for partners (Fleet and ITS), they effectively acknowledge the late processing of requests, but they confirm that they end up being met.

Performance measurement

We noticed that the ANP has a performance measurement strategy. However, based on the aids reliability analysis and on comments gathered from program employees, we estimate that improvements must be made to the performance measurement process to make it more useful for the reporting process and to better support the decision-making process.
Some respondents among ANP staff (less than 50%) reported that the quality of collected data left to be desired. They also estimate that actual indicators provide a vague indication of system performance (overall reliability of the system), but that they are not specific enough to identify problem areas.

As a matter of fact, the data analysis made by SIPA for the Quebec region and the performance management framework revealed that the ANP does not report on individual aids that fall below the overall system reliability (99%) (see diagram 3). We need to mention that the idea does not consist in analyzing each aid to navigation, but by presenting this graph, the objective consists in demonstrating that the network has aids to navigation that are below the general reliability standard and that the program does not report on these aids. Among probable consequences, marine navigation in Canada might become less safe and slow down ship circulation.

Besides, a few of the ANP employees who were interviewed (less than 50%) complained of overlapping efforts because databases33 are not interconnected, thus causing a delay in getting data, including a duplication of data. Based on this, the advantage of a link between SIPA and MAXIMO would allow reducing the data entering process and typing errors, so that information would become available more quickly. In addition, despite the fact that a common methodology for part of the SIPA module was created in 2001, interviewed employees declare that each region keeps on using different approaches.

Graph 3: Aids to navigation below 99% in the Quebec region

Graph 3: Aids to navigation below 99% in the Quebec region

In regions where the ANP is resorting to contractors to install and remove buoys, people worried about their capacity to gather and report data accurately. More over, the SIPA data verification and formatting project raised worries regarding the exactness of gathered data that vary from one region to the next, the data formatting process (there is no uniformity in the data entering process) and the counting of fixed lighting aids that do not belong to the CCG (the degree of performance also varies from one region to the other).

The ANP constantly interacts with its clients through formal forums (CCMC, CCM, Notices to mariners) and informal forums (workshops, open discussion sessions, nautical shows, etc.). Clients may comment service provision during service level reviews (the most recent one took place in 2007) and through the NOTMAR Web Site; MCTS, email, phone or by contacting the MP’s or the minister’s office. These reviews essentially deal with service provision (in new areas, retraining on actual systems or compliance with CCG guidelines), but no information on customer satisfaction is gathered.

Brief, we notice that the ANP has management and administrative systems to ensure the effective implementation and the efficient management. However, as we mentioned earlier, additional efforts would allow an improved implementation based, namely, on guidelines, uniform practices throughout regions; adequate, complete, uniform and consistent data to increase precision surrounding reliability indicators for aids. In addition, a more appropriate reporting process will result from the implementation of a more relevant performance measurement system.

Evaluation question no. 11: What challenges (operational or else) came up during the last few years? What changes were made in the implementation process?

Challenges came up over the last few years. The document review and interviews conducted with program staff and partners have allowed us to identify two major constraints that influence34 the implementation and results of the ANP. They are essentially the ship availability, the repair of buoys and fixed aids and the lack of funding to hire contractors.

Coast guard ships are sometimes not available, since the ANP is not always capable of meeting its LoS regarding buoys installation and removal activities. This unavailability also has repercussions on the time needed for work performed by ITS on aids, since they must be carried aboard ships.

We notice, on graph 4, a discrepancy between the expected number of days and the real number of days, even if ship availability remains slightly unchanged from one year to the next. Fleet personnel confirms that they have less ships and less resources to perform their work.

Graph 4: Ship availability

As well, findings of the auditor general in her 2007 report35 indicate that “The growing unreliability of the vessels is hampering the Coast Guard's ability to support the programs of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and other client departments”. In the evaluation of lifecycle management services performed in 2010, it is also mentioned that ship ageing (table 8), as shown by an expected decrease in reliability and availability has lead to a constant increase in their unexpected failures.

Table 8: Ship age in 2009

Ships

Actual number

Ships more than 25 years old

 

Ships between 15 and 24 years old

 

Ships less than 14 years old

 

LARGE SHIPS

Large ships (more than 88 m)

6

83%

17%

0%

Theoretical life – 30 years

Average ships (48 to 87 m)

28

46%

54%

0%

Theoretical life - 30 years

Smaller ships (33 to 47 m)

6

83%

17%

0%

Theoretical life – 15 to 20 years

TOTAL – Fleet of large ships

40

58%

42%

0%

SMALL SHIPS

Small ships and air cushion vehicles (ACV) (up to 33 m)

36

42%

39%

19%

Theoretical life – 15 to 20 years

SAR boats (14 m)

38

0%

5%

95%

Theoretical life – 15 years

TOTAL – Fleet of small ships

74

20%

22%

58%

TOTAL for the fleet

114

33%

29%

38%

The aids program is resorting more and more to contractors to deliver its services given the incapacity of the Fleet and ITS to respectively install and remove buoys and to perform work on fixed aids within deadlines. In order to comply with LoS, the aids program is resorting to contractors for buoys and fixed aids. However, since its budget has not increased significantly over the last few years, the lack of an adequate funding is the other constraint which the ANP is confronted with.

The delivery of the ANP in the Maritimes, for example, takes place through outside contractors whose costs have increased over the last few years, while the aids program funding for its implementation and for hiring resources has not evolved significantly over the last five years (table 1). However, some key informants (less than 25%) estimate that these challenges have allowed the Coast Guard to find alternative solutions, such as four-season lighted spar buoys or still, the modernization of its equipment as justified through business cases (materials for buoys, lanterns, moorings).

We have also effectively noticed that the ANP has innovated in order to meet challenges by modernizing the AToN 21 project (Aids to Navigation in the 21st Century). This project has led to the introduction of four-season buoys that will greatly reduce buoying activities. Actual buoys have not been designed to be used all four seasons. In addition to reducing costs, the aids program ensures that LoS will be met. Tests are now under progress on the St. Lawrence river. Finally, the ANP has managed to meet these challenges by resorting to the above-mentioned means in order to continuously deliver ANP services at a lesser cost.

4.4.  Economy

The document review and financial information have allowed us to notice that the ANP is economical, since it avoids any duplication with existing initiatives, it does not exceed the planned budget, it is resorting to other sources of funding and it is constantly looking for new ways to better deliver services at a lesser cost. The study on service subcontracting and interviews confirms these facts. Finally, these lines of inquiries have also led us to realize that the ANP could make additional savings if lighthouse stations were automated.

Evaluation question no. 12: Is there other more cost-effective methods to reach objectives and to produce expected results?

Vote-netted revenue
The document review and financial information make us realize that the ANP is economical, since it does not exceed its planned budget and it resorts to other sources of funding. As a matter of fact, besides its annual budget, the ANP also benefits from additional income resulting from collected fees and from services in the field of maritime navigation (table 9 – Vote netted revenue). As a matter of fact, according to article 47 of the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans determines what fees must be paid for maritime navigation services provided by the Coast Guard. As mentioned initially (refer to section 2.3), maritime fees represent only approximately 24% of the operating budget of the aids program.

The average ratio of expected expenses compared to real expenses based on financial data of this program (table 9) indicates that the ANP has an average ratio of 0.7336 (0.738499974). By subtracting the average ratio from 1, we notice that this program has allowed to save 0.27 (0.261500026) compared to expected expenses.

Table 9: Program expenses in thousands of dollars (excluding the Fleet and ITS)


Item

 2005-06

 2006-07

 2007-08

 2008-09

Expected costs

Real costs

 Expected costs

 Real costs

Expected costs

 Real costs

 Expected costs

 Real costs

Wages

   14,378.8

    10,998.5

   13,675.6

    10,962.5

   13,742.1

   11,320.6

   12,779.1

   11,504.2

Non-wages (O&M)

    8,189.1

    4,821.3

    6,484

    4,730.1

    4,417.8

    4,644

    5,913.2

    4,536.6

Vote-netted revenue (VNR)

   (4,754.7)

   (5,562.6)

   (4,754.7)

   (5,058.4)

   (4,754.7)

   (5,269.4)

   (4,767.5)

   (5,336.7)

Fuel

    5,186.6

    4,946.9

    5,361.5

    4,394.2

   10,146.1

    5,380.4

    6,084.7

    7,037.9

Total costs

   22,999.8

   15,204.1

   20,766.4

   15,028.4

   23,551.3

   16,075.5

   20,009.5

   17,742.1

Improved service provision at a lesser cost

The document review has allowed us to observe that the ANP is economical, since it involves no duplication of existing initiatives. Guideline no 2.2300 (Aids to navigation under the responsibility of other government authorities) defines parameters when aids to navigation services are provided by other authorities of the federal government. In addition, the legal framework of the ANP does not allow transferring activities to the private or public sector. The ANP strictly provides aids in jurisdictions where it applies. It is therefore very obvious that it is responsible for aids provided by the ANP. Other aids that are not operated by the government or a by a federal or provincial organization are private aids.

We have also observed that the ANP is constantly searching for new ways to improve its service delivery at a lesser cost. During the last 20 years, the ANP has thus adapted itself to the needs of its clients, to technological progress and to the economic situation worldwide (such as the fuel cost increase). For example, the aids program has implemented two major projects in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the aids program. They are the Marine Aids Modernization (MAM) between 1994 and 2006, and more recently, the Aids to Navigation in the 21st Century (AToN 21).

In addition, the aids program is also resorting to contractors to implement the ANP for the installation and removal of buoys or for the buoy maintenance and troubleshooting service. These items are also featured in the AToN 21 project. As a matter of fact, this consists, among others, in modernizing aids, in determining areas where aids to navigation must be installed and in studying contracting possibilities for private and public buoys in order to increase savings. In the fall of 2007, the CCG conducted public consultations on service levels throughout the country. Results indicated that overall, clients were highly satisfied with the actual level of service of aids to navigation provided by the CCG, no matter whether these aids were installed or maintained by the CCG or by a private contractor.

Besides, the document review reveals that the ANP may resort to contractors to perform some of these activities.37 Essentially, these activities include buoy installation, removal and maintenance (or buoying activities). We noticed, through discussions with key informants and during the document review that this practice already exists. Table 10, that comes from the service contracting study (National AToN 21 team – April 2009), shows the types of contractors with which the ANP has been doing business in 2007-08.

Table 10: Types of contractors (2007-2008)

 

Nfld and
Labrador

Maritimes

Quebec

C&A

Pacific

Total
CCG

Fishermen

-

72

1

-

-

73

Commercial fishermen

-

2

-

3

-

5

Individuals

-

2

11

3

2

18

Harbour authorities

84

6

-

1

-

91

Companies

-

6

18

3

-

27

TOTAL

84

88

30

10

2

214

Incidentally, the report of the study on the outsourcing of services concludes that there is not a huge discrepancy between buoying activities performed by the CCG or by a contractor (Table 11). The report also concludes that the outsourcing process represents an effective and efficient option to provide aids to navigation services when conditions to that purpose are applicable and applies. The program staff believes that this approach that was implemented a few years ago allows the program to make savings and to reach its LoS38.

Table 11: Seasonal installation and removal of floating aids, 2005 to 2008

 

Service provider

Nfld and Labrador

 

Maritimes

 

Quebec

 

C&A

 

Pacific*

Total CCG

Season begin

Contractors

100.0%

95.0%

Not available

95.8%

100.0%*

97.7%

CCG

100.0%

89.7%

Not available

100.0%

100.0%

97.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Season end

Contractors

100.0%

93.0%

Not available

95.8%

100.0%

97.2%

CCG

100.0%

74.3%

Not available

100.0%

100.0%

93.6%

*Pacific – Only two contractors – they laid and removed aids on time all three years.
*When the CCG (Fleet/ITS) has a 100% reliability, they are permanent aids and not buoys that were laid and removed according to a seasonal schedule.

However, this outsourcing process is not beneficial and its cost may be high in case of a monopoly (Table 12). In Quebec, for example, the average value per aid ($2,546 per aid) is high, since the Magdalene Islands contractor has the monopoly. However, if we exclude this market, the average value for Quebec amounts to $263 per aid.

Table 12: Fixed and floating aids – Outsourcing in 2007-2008

 

Nfld and Labrador

Maritimes

Quebec

C&A*

Pacific

Total CCG

Number of markets

84

199

30

28

2

343

Total value of markets

144,8 K

1 307 K

402 K

285 K

23 K

2 162 K

Number of aids concerned

379

3 532

158

1 006

97

5 178

Value per concerned aid

382

370

2 546
[263 ]

283

237

418  [318]

*The study based on years includes markets that did not cover the whole year (end of spring, beginning of fall). The overall average cost amounts in fact to $462 per aid after a readjustment based on these half-markets.

Based on these lines of evidence, we estimate that the ANP can make additional savings thanks to lighthouse station automation. As a matter of fact, financial information on expenses regarding program activities (table 13) leads us to observe that ANP activities that are more costly are maintenance costs for short-range aids, lighthouse stations and information on marine safety. Besides, program staff is wondering about the usefulness of maintaining lighthouse stations insofar as they can be automated in order to reduce operating costs.

Table 13: Total operating costs per region (in thousands of dollars)

 

2005-2006
actual

2006-2007
actual

2007-2008
actual

2008-2009
actual

Marine Services (SM)

 

 

 

 

Newfoundland and Labrador

2,766.7

2776.9

2,935.5

2,683.7

Pacific

3,989.2

3,708.8

4,226.2

4,261.5

Maritimes

210.8

229.8

255.9

229.6

Total SM

6,966.7

6,715.5

7,414.6

7,174.8

The Coast Guard wanted to automate lighthouse stations in Newfoundland and Labrador, but since lighthouse keepers protested, the DFO had indicated that the matter would be reviewed. A report on costs39 surrounding aids to navigation was prepared to clarify costs regarding these aids, as well as vectors that give rise to these costs. Identified vectors are the presence of staff members and their families, the location of lighthouses (the more their access is difficult, the more costly they are) and the source of electricity.

Essentially, the report concludes that automated lighthouses require less operational resources than staffed lighthouses40. The savings do not stem from operational resources linked directly with aids maintenance, but rather with cost associated with personnel (food and personnel transportation, electricity, etc.). In addition, based on detailed financial information found in Table 14, we notice that operating costs of staffed lighthouses exceed those of short range aids. In summary, the ANP is economical overall, but as we can observe, additional savings are possible by automating lighthouse stations.

Table 14: Direct expenses per ANP subactivity

 

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

 

Wages

Other O&M

Wages

Other O&M

Wages

Other O&M

Wages

Other O&M

Short range aids

1,064,366

2,785,680

865,588

2,586,081

865,352

2,419,279

1,068,411

2,408,619

Total

3,850,046

3,451,670

3,284,631

3,477,030

Staffed lighthou-
ses

6,054,890

1,124,140

5,999,567

1,233,707

6,346,973

1,256,295

6,375,202

1,294,795

Total

7,179,030

7,233,274

7,603,264

7,669,997

International experience

The literature review and conclusions drawn from the case study41 conducted with some member countries of the IALA reveal that different approaches are used to fund aids to navigation throughout the world. Countries were selected based on their funding approach, on the complexity of their aids to navigation system and on the extent of their waterways.

Table 1: Aids to navigation funding system

Funding methods

Country

Private (funded entirely through taxes or fees)

Australia, Belgium, Chile, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Malaysia, MENAS (Arab Gulf), Panama, Peru, Spain, South Africa, Sudan, England.

Public (funded by the public Treasure)

Argentina, China, Denmark, Equator, Egypt, Estonia, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Latvia, Korea, Mozambique, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, United States.

Combination (public and private)

Bermudas, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Finland, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, New-Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Thailand

Source: IALA

As a matter of fact, it was noticed in some countries that aids to navigation were funded entirely through public funds (Argentina, Germany, etc.), while in others, they were paid exclusively by users or by the private sector (Australia, South Africa, etc.). In countries such as Canada, they are funded jointly by the public and the private sectors, since 25% come from fees and services related with marine navigation, while 75% come from CCG’s operating budget.

Based on this report, the approach to pay for aids to navigation provided to users varies from one country to the other. For example, there is no fee in Denmark, but maximum fees in India. In the United States, harbor maintenance taxes generate additional income to this purpose. Besides, it was noted in countries where users must pay a fee that this approach is far from popular and some even ask that it be abolished.

4.5.  Learned lessons

The aids program is essential in order to ensure that Canadian waterways and maritime navigation in Canada are secure. The importance of aids to navigation is also crucial in order to symbolize the Canadian presence in the Arctic, in addition to the role that these aids may have in Canada’s economic growth. Incidentally, let us mention that the CCG has also successfully implemented a pilot program on e-navigation to broadcast, through portable computers, essential information on navigation to pilots working on the St. Lawrence river. One of the objectives consisted in increasing safety. Canada thus became one of the first countries in the world that implemented the e-navigation concept.

All these facts reveal the usefulness of the ANP, since it remains actual. However, the context in which this program is evolving may be prejudicial if adequate measures are not implemented. We will come back to these points in section 5 and we will provide recommendations that, we hope, will allow the ANP to be more effective and efficient.

The aids program is delivered with the support of two main partners. Throughout the evaluation process, we observed that they can have impacts on attaining program objectives. For example, funding problems of these partners to renew the Fleet and to repair assets respectively have an impact on aids reliability, as we can see in Graph 1.

Nevertheless, work performed by the CCG through the ANP deserves to be mentioned, since the Canadian public network of aids to navigation in one of the largest worldwide, with a coastline that extends on over 243,000 km, which means a large territory to cover and to serve. The challenge is even more complex, since close to 70% of floating aids on the east coast and on Great Lakes in Canada must be removed from water each year and more than 450 of these aids must be replaced with spar buoys in winter. Thus, with such a large and diversified area, it is difficult to provide a coherent network of aids to navigation in Canadian waters. However, this is possible thanks to established levels and standards of service. Resorting to contractors also helps reduce the workload and ensure the provision of planned LoS. Finally, the introduction of four-season buoys, that do not yet apply to the whole network, would help reduce this workload even more.

The ANP is close to its clients and, through formal and informal consultations, it tries to meet their needs despite a context where funding has seen no significant increase over the last few years. In addition, the program does everything necessary to ensure an effective and efficient management process by conducting different studies (study on lighthouse station costs) and projects (MAM, AToN 21). Nevertheless, efforts remain necessary in the field of performance measurement, but especially regarding its role in the decision-making process.

We also observed that regions had the will to follow guidelines regarding the implementation of the aids program, but that they are faced with operational obstacles, since not all guidelines have been updated so far. A leadership from the Headquarters is essential to ensure a uniform implementation and performance measurement process for the ANP. In the end, the key to a fruitful implementation lies in efficient communication, coordination and cooperation between regional directorates; and on the application of recommendations listed in this report and of those arising from the study on the aids to navigation (AToN 21) outsourcing process.

5.0.  Conclusions and recommendations

This section contains conclusions and recommendations based on observations presented in the previous section. It deals with the aids to navigation program based on four evaluation issues, namely the rationale and relevancy, the effectiveness, the efficiency and the economy.

5.1.  Rationale and relevance

The federal government’s intervention in the field of aids to navigation is legitimate, since it is governed by the 2001 Canada Shipping Act. The ANP mandate is directly related with the Oceans Act that makes Fisheries and Oceans Canada responsible for providing services to ensure marine safety. Like in Canada, aids to navigation are also a government responsibility in the United States, in England or as well as, in Australia.

The ANP mission statement which consists in “providing aids to navigation in Canadian waters in order to further maritime traffic safety and capacity” truly corresponds with priorities of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Besides, ANP objectives correspond with the actual roles and responsibilities of the government of Canada regarding its population as defined in the strategic result Safe and Secure Communities. In addition, in the actual political context where Arctic represents a strategic issue for our country, the ANP is necessary in order to affirm Canada’s sovereignty in the North.

The ANP is not the only federal program that contributes to marine safety in Canada. Other Coast Guard programs (WMP) or programs of other departments (Transport Canada) also help to reach this objective. However, the ANP is a unique and essential program that greatly contributes to the safety and efficiency of marine navigation in Canadian waters, as confirmed by clients and key informants. Thus, maritime navigation would be less safe if the ANP ceased to exist or if its levels of service were diminished.

The ANP is therefore needed, but it is also a popular program, as shown in survey results. As a matter of fact, 97% of respondents consider that the ANP is necessary and 72% are greatly in favor of an increased number in aids to navigation. Besides, the document review and interviews with employees reveal that the Arctic is a priority area where aids to navigation should be provided given the true risks of accidents for ships and populations living in Northern Canada, not to mention the strategic importance of this area for Canada.

Although the Canadian network usually has aids to navigation that allow safe navigation practices, as confirmed by interviewed clients and survey results, we estimate that aids should be increased in Canadian waters (72% are greatly in favor of an increased number of aids) including in the Arctic if we take into account the strategic importance of the North for Canada, populations that live there and the growing demand from navigators traveling in that area.

1.  In the coming years, the Coast Guard should gradually provide aids to navigation in all regions, including the Arctic, where its directives so permit.

5.2.  Effectiveness

By adopting IALA recommendations, by providing enough aids to navigation in Canadian waters, by ensuring the reliability of aids and by making navigators aware of marine safety, the ANP encourages safe and efficient ship transits and movements and thus reaches its intended results.

Accidents or incidents on which the Transportation Safety Board has enquired have not found that aids to navigation as being the cause . In addition, survey results indicate that most clients (67%) never had to report the failure or improper position of an aid and never lodged a complaint in that respect. As well , the survey revealed that 90% of respondents did not have an accident or were not involved in an accident related with aids to navigation. For those involved in an incident (10%), the absence of aids to navigation was the cause.

Coast Guard aids to navigation comply with IALA recommendations of which it is a member. As a matter of fact, Coast Guard standards regarding the reliability of aids to navigation comply with IALA recommendations in addition to determining beforehand the intervention time for each discrepancy on each aid and based on its importance. Aids to navigation were also designed by Integrated Services in conformity with these standards.

Despite the level of client satisfaction (71%) regarding the reliability of aids to navigation, the aids to navigation system and maritime transportation in Canada (90% are satisfied), we consider that aids can be more reliable. The situation is problematic, since the overall reliability of fixed aids is now below the global reliability standard (99%) of the system. In addition, if corrective measures are not taken immediately to remedy this situation, the same observations will be made regarding the reliability of floating aids that is also decreasing (Graph 1).

Based on gathered information, the evaluation has determined that this decrease in reliability could be explained by ITS’s incapacity to perform work on these aids for a lack of resources; by the ageing fleet ships; by the lack of contractors in some regions and by the lack of funding to hire contractors in other regions. In the long term , this reduced reliability of fixed and floating aids could hamper the safety and the effectiveness of maritime navigation in Canadian waters.

The outsourcing of services now allows to ensure the provision of planned levels of service and, therefore, to mitigate the influence of these factors on these levels. The report on the service outsourcing study effectively concludes that outsourcing is an effective and efficient option for providing aids to navigation services where applicable. More over , the outsourcing of services becomes and effective and efficient solution for program delivery and we can then expect that it will allow to improve the reliability of fixed and floating aids. However, the outsourcing process should not replace Fleet and ITS activities, but it should rather be seen as a complement when they cannot provide services on time to the aids program.

2.  The conditions set out in the AToN 21 report for the sound implementation of contracting out should be applied and followed in all regions; while encouraging contracts combining fixed and floating aids, CCG should continue to seek, analyze and examine other opportunities for improving the general reliability of fixed and floating aids.

The ANP provides information to navigators and makes them aware through its publications, notices to mariners and the NOTMAR Web site, and by broadcasting notices to mariners through Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS). Information is accessible to clients who, incidentally, expressed their satisfaction with regards to information released on this site. The latter also have access to related sources of information (marine maps, meteorological bulletins, etc.) in order to better navigate.

Efforts made by the CCG to raise awareness among navigators are reflected in the implementation of e-navigation. Canada has effectively become the first country in the world to implement the e-navigation concept by broadcasting on portable computers essential information on navigation to pilots working on the St. Lawrence river. In order to keep the momentum, additional efforts must be made to make pleasure boaters aware of private buoys and to increase the NOTMAR Web site promotion among pleasure boaters. For example information sessions during nautical shows would be a solution that might be considered. As a matter of fact, some pleasure boaters worry about the proliferation of private aids that do not comply with standards and those that we interviewed (in the pleasure boating category) admit that they do not use the NOTMAR Web site. In addition, since the paper version is no longer produced, this procedure would be a good strategy to promote the program in its electronic version.

3.  To better prevent the risk of accidents in Canadian Waters, the Aids to Navigation Program could work with Transport Canada to raise navigators’ awareness of private aids; and should develop a strategy for promoting the NOTMAR Web site to pleasure boaters with its internal partners.

5.3  Efficiency

Altogether, the ANP has adequate structures to ensure an efficient management. The program effectively has guidelines and policies regarding its implementation. It also has a database to manage aids as a whole. Nevertheless, we estimate that the aids program could be more efficient if principle of a unified CCG were rooted in people’s attitudes.

Management and relationship with internal partners
The program has guidelines to ensure its efficient implementation. However, most of these guidelines are obsolete and should be updated in order not only to make program staff’s job easier, but also to improve program efficiency. The ANP has started updating these guidelines following recommendations made by the auditor general, but we noticed that this process has not been finalized yet.

The obsolescence of these guidelines combined with CCG’s difficulty to implement a similar approach nationwide result in deficiencies when implementing the program in regions when referring to the application of the aids to navigation review policy.
The AToN21 project, piloted by the program, is an important and encouraging step to standardize policies among the five administrative regions. Despite relevant recommendations expressed within the framework of this project in order, among others, to improve guideline and policy understanding and application nationwide and thus reduce practical gaps, we could not determine if a monitoring process to ensure the uniform implementation of the program nationwide exists.

Partners in the aids program delivery process, i.e. the Fleet and ITS, play a key role in order to reach ANP results. It is true that these two try to meet the program requests, even if this sometimes takes a lot of time. As a matter of fact, the program staff has no authority to ensure work performance in accordance with these service levels. In addition, grey areas limit the capacity of the program and that of its partners to become more efficient even if they manage to work in such conditions. However, clear and precise roles and responsibilities at the operational level would allow them to become more efficient.

4.  In order to reduce gaps in practices, implement a uniform approach in all five regions, and better influence the quantity and quality of work of internal partners, the Aids to Navigation Program should:

  1. immediately finalize the implementation of its directives and the methodology for designing and reviewing aids to navigation systems in order to determine a common understanding of these directives
  2. clarify as quickly as possible the operational roles and responsibility of internal partners by negotiating service level agreements with them
  3. introduce, within a reasonable timeframe, a national monitoring measure for the uniform implementation of the aids program.

Performance measurement framework

The ANP has a performance measurement and an information gathering framework to make the decision process easier. The actual framework can feed the decision-making process better and improve performance reports of the program. As a matter of fact, the quality of collected data has its gaps, since the process to enter data is not standardized and the ANP depends on some of its partners to collect some data. Therefore, the ANP cannot always provide data for some of these indicators, as seen during this evaluation.

Throughout the evaluation process, we have observed a methodology to enter data into the SIPA. However, interviews conducted with key informants reveal that this methodology is not used and that regions are using different approaches. In addition, the duplication of efforts made by program employees also jeopardizes the quality of collected data. These consequences are caused by the fact that SIPA and MAXIMO data do not communicate. This situation also causes delays in the data gathering process, as well as their duplication.

Regarding their precision, we observed that some indicators, such as the reliability of aids, are too general. They do provide a performance indication of the program, but they are not precise enough to allow us to identify problem areas. For example, there is no indicator in the performance management framework on the reliability of aids that do not meet service levels. In addition, the program only gathers information on clients’ impressions regarding service levels but no information on their satisfaction.

Furthermore , by limiting itself exclusively to the overall system reliability or to aids meeting service levels, the program is neglecting important information that will help it become more efficient. We thus observed (Graph 1) that the overall reliability of fixed and floating aids has been decreasing since 2005. The cyclical review which is an essential activity of the program in order to determine if services exceed levels of service or if adjustments are necessary, does not always take place and this is the exercise that leads to recommendations. We estimate that a performance management framework that is better adapted is therefore necessary to allow the program to collect on time relevant information that is useful for its management and implementation.

5.  The review and finalization of the performance measure framework would enable Aids to Navigation program management to have precise and reliable information for better decision making. To do this:

  1. a. The Aids to Navigation Program shall review as soon as possible, in consultation with its internal partners and evaluation specialists, a performance measurement strategy including realistic and relevant indicators to collect data on the outputs and short-, medium- and long-term program results. The program shall ensure that the data collected by its partners is also available. Finally, the program should henceforth measure client satisfaction in its levels of service reviews and develop the means to complete the planned cyclical review on time.
  2. b. The SIPA data collection and entry protocol should be standardized nationally as soon as possible and complied with in all regions by the Coast Guard and its contractors.

5.4  Economy

Overall, the aids to navigation program is economical. Indeed, it overlaps no other federal program, its funding method is adequate and it seems in compliance with its budget planning, not to mention that it is constantly looking for new ways to provide its services at a lesser cost. However, the program must be vigilant (with regards to process profitability and the quality of work performed, i.e. the safety of navigators) when resorting to subcontractors. The aids program may also study the possibility to automate lighthouse stations in areas where they are not automated yet.

The ANP is the only program of its kind that is implemented by the federal government even if other federal programs contribute to maritime safety in Canada. As a matter of fact, guideline 2.2300 defines parameters governing the provision of aids to navigation by other authorities of the federal government. Thus, the ANP only provides aids in applicable jurisdictions, despite the ambiguity surrounding the provision of aids to navigation in inland waters. Therefore, on these bases, the aids program does not overlap with any other federal program.

In Canada, the aids to navigation funding method is based on a public-private partnership that is applied in other member countries of the IALA, such as Portugal, Norway or Brazil. Effectively, in addition to its budget, the ANP also benefits from additional income from collected fees and services with regards to maritime services. These fees represent 24% of its operating budget. Countries such as Argentina and France are funding aids to navigation with public money, while these costs are covered by the private sector in Australia, South Africa and England. As a result, there is no ideal approach in terms of aids to navigation funding, since the strategy depends to a large extent on intended objectives. However, the approach that consists in charging users are not popular in countries where it is applied and demands were made to abolish it.

The aids program communicates with its clients through formal and informal forums to allow them to comment and suggest improvements to its levels of service. By so doing, the ANP wishes to improve itself and to better meet the needs of its clients by adjusting its levels of service. This best practice shows that the program can use this lever to improve its levels of service as shown when removing the LORAN C service. However, the possibility of automating lighthouse stations that are not yet automated deserves special attention by the Coast Guard. As a matter of fact, we observed that operating costs of an automated station are less compared to a station that is not automated. We believe that savings can be made at this level and that this will allow the CCG to reallocate these funds to other activities, such as the supply and maintenance of new aids to navigation.

6.  CCG should study the possibility of automating light stations in regions where it is possible while ensuring that there is no negative impact on Aids to Navigation service levels or other programs.

The ANP is constantly adapting itself to its environment while ensuring the provision of services at an affordable cost using the most appropriate technology. Research and development activities conducted under the guidance of ITS are also taking place in order to test new aids (four-season buoys). MAM and AToN 21 projects are concrete examples of this adaptation.

An important turning point of these projects consisted in resorting to subcontractors for buoying activities. This option is more and more effective and efficient to provide aids services when we think of problems resulting from the ageing of Coast Guard ships or of the time needed to distribute aids. However, this situation might become a disadvantage and give rise to high costs in case of a monopoly, like in the Magdalene Islands in Quebec. The ANP must therefore ensure that the outsourcing of services does not jeopardize the quality of its levels of service and that it always represents an effective and efficient option for providing aids to navigation services.

6.0  Management responses

This section presents us with management responses and with the plan of action following observations and recommendations. The plan of action describes the objectives of measures that will be taken and deadlines.

 

Status Report Update

Recommendations

Management Action Plan

Actions Completed

Actions Outstanding

Deadlines

1.  In the coming years, the Coast Guard should gradually provide aids to navigation in all regions, including the Arctic, where its directives so permit.

CCG has identified growing aids to navigation requirements in areas such as the Arctic and the West coast in the context of directives and through its existing methodology for the design and review of aids to navigation systems.  Unfortunately, CCG only has resources to maintain its existing network of aids to navigation, and not to cover for growth.

To meet the spirit of this recommendation, CCG will benefit from leveraging partnerships, where possible, and efficiencies in an effort to deliver new aids to navigation where the Program’s systematic methodology supports these requirements.  

For example, CCG is leveraging its partnership with DFO’s Small Craft Harbour on a multi-year project to address growing requirements for aids to navigation in the Arctic. As part of this project, CCG’s will design, acquire and install a new aids to navigation system in Pangnirtung, Nunavut.

The design of new aids to navigation system and acquisition of four tower structures for Pangnirtung, Nunavut.

Installation of new aids to navigation; four towers structures along with lanterns and daymarks in Pangnirtung, Nunavut

March 2012

 

 

Leverage partnerships and efficiencies, where possible, to support growing requirements for new aids to navigation which adhere to the Program’s Levels of Service and systematic methodology.

March 2013

2.  The conditions set out in the AToN 21 report for the sound implementation of contracting out should be applied and followed in all regions; while encouraging contracts combining fixed and floating aids, CCG should continue to seek, analyze and examine other opportunities for improving the general reliability of fixed and floating aids.

The conditions set out in the AToN21 report were about identifying and implementing efficiencies in the use of contractors for the maintenance and tending of aids.  CCG will ensure this practice is consistently applied in all regions through the review and update of its Alternative Service Delivery Directive and will continue to seek and analyze opportunities for the implementation of contracting; in line with the conditions set out in the AToN 21 report.

  

Start updating the Alternate Service Delivery Directive to reflect the conditions set out in the AToN 21 report. The directive will encourage contracts combining fixed and floating aids only where it in line with the conditions set out in the AToN 21 report.

The update will be completed through careful review and consultations with the regions to ensure standardization in its implementation.

April 2012

 

 

 

 

March 2013

 

 

CCG aids to navigation meet or exceed international requirements.  Nonetheless, CCG agrees that there is a continuous need to continue to identify, analyze and improve the reliability of the aids to navigation system to ensure CCG continually meet the evolving needs of users, and this is being done as a matter of course for CCG.  As per normal practice, corrective and/or preventative actions are taken when an aid to navigation or system consistently falls below reliability targets.

 

 

Completed

3.  To better prevent the risk of accidents in Canadian Waters, the Aids to Navigation Program could work with Transport Canada to raise navigators’ awareness of private aids; and should develop a strategy for promoting the NOTMAR Web site to pleasure boaters with its internal partners.

Transport Canada has the legislative authority for the enforcement of the Private Aids to Navigation, which specify that they must comply with CCG’s Canadian Aids to Navigation Publication (TP968). CCG will actively support Transport Canada in raising awareness of private aids through the review and update of this publication while continuing to provide advice and information related to aids to navigation system design and equipment.

 

Review, update and publish on the NOTMAR and CCG websites The Canadian Aids to Navigation System publication (TP968) which includes specifications for aids to navigation, including private aids; and issue a NOTMAR notifying subscribers that a new version has been released.

March 2012

CCG agrees that pleasure craft operators would benefit from the NOTMAR website. In light of this, CCG will implement the strategy developed with its internal partners to promote the NOTMAR website.

Sent internal partners promotional material on NOTMAR website.

Developed a strategy to further distribute and advertise the NOTMAR website to navigators, with a focus on pleasure craft operators.

Implement the strategy for the promotion of the NOTMAR website.

March 2012

4.  In order to reduce gaps in practices, implement a uniform approach in all five regions, and better influence the quantity and quality of work of internal partners, the Aids to Navigation Program should:

a.  immediately finalize the implementation of its directives and the methodology for designing and reviewing aids to navigation systems in order to determine a common understanding of these directives

CCG has been actively reviewing and updating the Aids to Navigation directives as part of its Business Plan Commitments. Once complete, CCG will conduct a review and update of the methodology for designing and reviewing aids to navigation systems.
It is anticipated that the review and update of the methodology will take approximately 3 years in the absence of the dedicated resources and funds needed to complete the task.  

Reviewed and updated 12 of 17 Aids to Navigation directives.

Review and update of remaining 5 Aids to Navigation directives.

 

March 2011

 

Initiate the review and update of the methodology for designing and reviewing aids to navigation systems.

April 2011

Prioritize the most critical sections that require updates and develop a plan to better define the scope of the review given the absence of dedicated resources and funds. 

March 2012

Execute the plan and review progress made to date. Adjust priorities and plan if needed.

March 2013

Finalize the review and update of the methodology for designing and reviewing aids to navigation systems.

March 2014

b.  clarify as quickly as possible the operational roles and responsibility of internal partners by negotiating service level agreements with them

CCG identified the clarification of the operational roles and responsibility of internal partners as a priority and incorporated it into its current Business Plan. CCG agrees to continue developing the roles and responsibilities in order to negotiate service memorandum of understanding with internal partners.

 

Develop roles and responsibility documents for internal partners (ITS, Fleet, CHS)

March 2011

Partner and collaborate with Maritime Services stakeholders in meetings with internal partners to discuss, negotiate Service Level Agreements (SLA) and/or Memorandums of Understanding (MOU).

March 2012

Sign and implement SLAs and/or MOUs with internal partners (ITS, Fleet, CHS).

March 2013

c.  introduce, within a reasonable timeframe, a national monitoring measure for the uniform implementation of the aids program.

CCG agrees there is a need for a national monitoring measure to ensure the uniformity of the implementation of the Aids to Navigation program.  For this reason, CCG reintroduced the Aids to Navigation Peer Review process in late 2009.  CCG will ensure the peer review process is kept ongoing as long as it serves the intended purpose.

 

 

Completed

5.  The review and finalization of the performance measure framework would enable Aids to Navigation program management to have precise and reliable information for better decision making. To do this:

 

 

 

 

 

a.  the Aids to Navigation Program shall review as soon as possible, in consultation with its internal partners and evaluation specialists, a performance measurement strategy including realistic and relevant indicators to collect data on the outputs and short-, medium- and long-term program results. The program shall ensure that the data collected by its partners is also available. Finally, the program should henceforth measure client satisfaction in its levels of service reviews and develop the means to complete the planned cyclical review on time.

CCG will review, finalize and implement a Performance Measurement Strategy (PMS), in consultation with internal partners and DFO evaluation specialists, which will provide realistic and relevant indicators and ensure that data is collected and available by partners.
As per the DFO Performance Measurement Action Plan, the Program has submitted a PMS to the DFO Evaluation Directorate for review.

Draft PMS developed.

DFO Evaluation Directorate to review and provide comments on PMS.

Finalize and implement the PMS once approved by the CFO and Commissioner.

March 2011

 

March 2012

CCG agrees that client satisfaction must be measured.  This is being done by soliciting feedback directly from clients during Review of Aids to Navigation Systems.

Cyclical reviews, which consist of reviewing Aids to navigation systems to ensure their continued relevance currently, have a 5 year cyclical review target.
Unfortunately, resource limitation currently hinders the Program’s ability to deliver on this target.
 
To meet the intent of this recommendation, CCG will amend its directive to include a risk-based approach to be applied to set the frequencies of the reviews to be conducted, in recognition of the available funding and resources.

 

 

 

 

Collaborate with Risk Management team to identify criteria and guidelines for a risk-based cyclical review process.

Develop a risk-based approach to replace the 5 year cyclical review process for aids to navigation systems.

Implement a risk-based approach that will set the frequencies of the aids to navigation system reviews.

March 2012

 

    

March 2013

 

 

March 2014

b.  The SIPA data collection and entry protocol should be standardized nationally as soon as possible and complied with in all regions by the Coast Guard and its contractors.

CCG fully supports this recommendation. CCG agrees to standardize the SIPA data collection and entry protocol nationally.

Introduced an Annual National SIPA workshop and  quarterly conference calls across SIPA team

Create and publish a national SIPA Directive covering data collection and entry protocol

March 2012

6.  CCG should study the possibility of automating light stations in regions where it is possible while ensuring that there is no negative impact on Aids to Navigation service levels or other programs.

The automation of lightstations has been an issue of long-standing interest and debate.  In March 2010, the assistance of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (SCOFO) was sought to review the additional services from lightkeepers.

The Senate SCOFO has recently completed a study on this issue at the request of the Minister.  CCG next steps will be governed by the directions of the Minister. 

 

Completed.

Appendix A – Evaluation matrix

Table 1- Evaluation matrix linking questions with indicators and methods

Questions

Indicators

Methods

Pertinence

1. To what extent is the ANP aligned with priorities of the Department and of the government and with the needs of Canadians?

  1. The degree of coherence between objectives, activities, outputs and intended results with priorities and strategic results of the department and the government.
  2. The demand for this program.
  3. New needs that the ANP should cover.
  • Document, file and internal data review
  • Literature review
  • Interviews with clients/beneficiaries
  • Interview with key informants (program staff and delivery partners)
  • Surveys with clients/beneficiaries

 

2. Is the government’s intervention justified?

  1. The program has a federal constitutional and/or legislative link.
  2. Perceptions by key stakeholders regarding the degree of legitimacy and need for the federal government to intervene in this field.
  3. Activities which the ANP should get rid of.
  • Interview with key informants (program staff and delivery partners)
  • Document, file and internal data review
  • Literature review

 

Performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy)

To what extent did the ANP produce the expected results?

3. To what extent aids to navigation meet national and international standards?

  1. Number of updated standards.
  2. Number of updated guidelines.
  3. Degree of conformity of aids with national and international standards.
  • Document, file and internal data review (SIPA)
  • Literature review

 

4. To what extent aids to navigation are available and operational?

  1. Number of available floating or fixed aids.
  2. Number of non-operational floating or fixed aids.
  3. Reliability of fixed, floating and long range aids (DGPS).
  4. Complaints related with aids to navigation.
  5. Perception of clients regarding the availability and reliability of aids.
  • Document, file and internal data review (SIPA)
  • Literature review
  • Interviews with clients/beneficiaries
  • Surveys with clients/beneficiaries

5. To what extent are people more aware of information on marine safety?

  1. Number and types of publications.
  2. Number of visitors on the NOTMAR Web site.
  3. Number and types of NOTMAR correspondence.
  4. Perception of clients/users regarding their awareness to information on marine safety.
  • Document, file and internal data review (SIPA)
  • Interviews with clients/beneficiaries
  • Surveys with clients/beneficiaries

6. To what extent ship transits and movements are safe and efficient?

  1. Number of movements.
  2. Number of accidents/incidents related with aids to navigation.
  3. Perception of clients/users regarding the safety of maritime navigation and the efficiency of ship transits and movements.
  • Document, file and internal data review
  • Literature review
  • Interviews with clients/beneficiaries
  • Surveys with clients/beneficiaries

 

7. To what extent navigators have access to information allowing them to navigate safely and efficiently?

  1. Proof that clients/users have access to information.
  2. Perception of clients/users regarding their access to information.
  • Document, file and internal data review
  • Interviews with clients/beneficiaries
  • Surveys with clients/beneficiaries

 

8. To what extent navigators have confidence in the aids to navigation system and in marine safety in Canada?

  1. Level of confidence of clients/users regarding the aids to navigation system and the safety of maritime transportation in Canada.
  • Document, file and internal data review
  • Analysis of Statistics Canada data
  • Interviews with clients/beneficiaries
  • Surveys with clients/beneficiaries

 

9. To what extent results are attributable to the program?

 

  1. What are the positive or negative effects of the program?
  2. Proof that results are associated with the program.
  • Literature review
  • Interviews with clients/beneficiaries
  • Interview with key informants (program staff and delivery partners)

 

To what extent was the ANP efficient?

10. Does the program come with management and administration systems to ensure it efficient implementation?

  1. Perception regarding the degree of implementation of the program, including its relationship with main delivery partners.
  2. Relevancy of the actual performance management system:
    1. To what extent do performance indicators reflect outputs and results (exactness)?
    2. To what extent do the ANP data gathering and analysis capacity (including activities par delivery partners) correspond to TBS requirements in that field (exactness)?
    3. To what extent is gathered data adequate and complete (quality)?
    4. To what extent can information and data be collected (availability)?
  3. To what extent do performance data support the decision-making process and Department reporting responsibilities (usefulness)?
  • Interview with key informants (program staff and delivery partners)
  • Document, file and internal data review
  • Literature review

 

11. What challenges (operational or else) came up during the last few years? What changes were made in the implementation process?

  1. Identified operational constraints and their impacts.
  2. Perception regarding how constraints can be tackled.
  3. Comments by aids to navigation employees and their delivery partners.
  • Document, file and internal data review
  • Interview with key informants (program staff and delivery partners)

To what extent was the ANP economical?

12. Is there other more profitable methods to reach objectives and produce expected results?

  1. Identification of alternatives to the ANP.
  2. Possibility to transfer some activities to the private sector or to provinces.
  3. Proofs of the ideal allocation of resources to perform program activities.
  • Interview with key informants (program staff and delivery partners)
  • Document, file and internal data review
  • Literature review

Appendix B – Documents and link consulted

Bibliographie – Examen des documents

1.  Rapport annuel

Rapport ministériel sur le rendement (2005-2006)
Rapport ministériel sur le rendement (2006-2007)
Rapport ministériel sur le rendement (2007-2008)
Rapport ministériel sur le rendement (2008-2009)

2.  Rapport sur les plans et priorités

Rapport sur les plans et priorités (2005-2006)
Rapport sur les plans et priorités (2006-2007)
Rapport sur les plans et priorités (2007-2008)
Rapport sur les plans et priorités (2008-2009)  

3.  Planification annuelle de la division des aides

Planification annuelle de la division des aides de 2006 à 2007
Planification annuelle de la division des aides de 2007 à 2008
Planification annuelle de la division des aides de 2008 à 2009

4.  CCG Sector Business Plan

CCG Sector Business Plan – 2007-2010
CCG Sector Business Plan – 2008-2011
CCG Sector Business Plan – 2009-2012

5.  Données du programme

Stats on active aids – 2005-2006
Stats on active aids – 2006-2007
Stats on active aids – 2007-2008
Stats on active aids – 2008-2009

Statistiques sur le nombre d'aide qui n'ont pas pu atteindre les niveaux de fiabilité établies dans les normes de service

6.  Stats - DGPS Availability for 2 Years for All Covered Areas

7.  Stats - Ship Movements per Region 2005-2009

8.  Expérience de la GCC en impartition de services d’aides à la navigation (2009)

9.  CSP élément 8 – Résultats & Rendement / Results & performance

10.  Niveaux de service et Normes de service – 2007

11.  Norme de diffusion du DGPS pour la navigation maritime

12.  Aids to Navigation of the 21st Century (AToN 21) – 2009

13.  Statistiques sur les accidents et incidents reliés aux aides à la navigation

14.  Alternate Service Delivery Directive 2.3500 – 2006

15.  Strategic Review Financial Information from 2005-06 to 2009-10

16.  Program Assessment: Canadian Coast Guard Aids to Navigation (Program Profile)

17.  Mesure du rendement – modèle logique – 2003

18.  Rapport national sur le rendement (Overview – Logic model)

19.  Présentation CEM, gouvernance - Cadre stratégique du programme (CSP)

20.  CCG Program RMAF's (logics Models)

21.  Examen des niveaux de service – Résumé des commentaires des clients

22.  Réponses aux commentaires des clients

23.  Inventory of mandate documents

24.  Baseline Study of Marine Navigational Services in Canada

25.  The Aids to Navigation Action Plan of 2009

26.  Correspondance Ministérielle

27.  Reliability Report for short range aids 2005-2006

28.  Marine Services Fees Discussion Paper – 2008

29.  Partners table Version 12 with managers' comments

30.  Strategic Activity Expenditure Review Fixes Aids- Lighthouses Cost

31.  Marine Services Fees Discussion Paper – 2008

32.  IALA Recommendation O-130 on Categorization and Availability Objectives for Short Range Aids to Navigation (December 2004)

33.  Guide d'élaboration des cadres de gestion et de responsabilisation axés sur les résultats (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/cee/tools-outils/RMAF-CGRR/guide08-PR-fra.asp?printable=True)

34.  Rapport de la vérificatrice générale du Canada (Décembre 2002), Chapitre 2 «Pêches et Océans Canada- Contribuer à la sécurité et à l’efficience de la navigation maritime»

35.  Rapport de la vérificatrice générale du Canada (Février 2007), Chapitre 4 «La gestion de la flotte et des services à la navigation maritime de la Garde côtière- Pêches et Océans Canada»

Aids to navigation in other countries

United States

Australia

United Kingdom

Newspapers Articles

  • The Globe and MailThe new climate: Canada’s arctic where shipping firms fear to tread navigating the Northwest Passage Even if waters become clear of ice, the risky route is unlikely to see a great boost in traffic, experts predict - October 04, 2007
  • Victoria Times-Colonist - Beacons amid stormy seas; A federal government review of staffing at lighthouses re-ignites a battle over automation that lighthouse keepers have been losing - January 17, 2010
  • Nunatsiaq News - Canada needs stronger Coast Guard in the Arctic - May 15, 2009
  • The Standard (Elliot Lake) - Council upset with Coast Guard plan to drop marine markers - May 07, 2008
  • St. John's Telegram - Going the way of the dinosaur; De-staffing of manned lighthouses imminent - Sep 23, 2009
  • St. John's Telegram - Keepers of the light - October 14, 2009
  • Gazette du CanadaFees to be paid for marine navigation services – 9 avril 2005

Appendix C – Interview guides

Summative Evaluation Of The Aids To Navigation Program (ATON)
Interview Guide
Program Personnel

The Evaluation Directorate at Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has been mandated to conduct a summative evaluation of the Aids to Navigation Program (AToN). The evaluation will focus on the relevance, delivery, success and cost-effectiveness of the AToN and will cover the period from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. Information on the AToN is provided in the appendix of this guide.

A key component of the evaluation consists of interviews with the persons responsible for AToN to allow them to share their knowledge and views of the Program. Your participation in the evaluation is completely voluntary and your decision to participate or not participate will have no impact on your relationship with DFO or the AToN. The information you provide will be used for research purposes only and will be treated in accordance with the provisions of applicable privacy legislation. Your responses will remain strictly confidential.

The interview should take on average 60 minutes.

Do not hesitate to inform the interviewer if you are unable to answer certain questions or if there are questions that do not apply to you.

Introduction

1.  Please briefly describe your role or involvement in the Aids to Navigation Program (AToN) to date.

Relevance

2.  Is it the federal government’s responsibility to provide aids to navigation and to facilitate safe and expeditious movement of maritime traffic? Please elaborate. (QE2)

  1. Are there new needs that should be addressed by the AToN?
  2. Should the AToN divest itself of certain activities?

Effectiveness

3.  In your experience, are there other factors that can be associated with the Program results? Please elaborate. (Q10)

4.  In your experience, what are the unanticipated effects (positive or negative) of the Program? Please elaborate. (QE10)

Efficiency

5.  Are you generally satisfied with the design and implementation of the Program? Would you have any improvements to propose regarding the following aspects? (QE11)

  • Design and development of the aids to navigation system
  • Provision of advice for the development of private aids
  • Provision of marine safety information

6.  The AToN is working to achieve certain key results.  With which partners are you working to achieve the results listed below? (QE11)

For each result, indicate whether

  1. the roles and responsibilities with your partners are clearly defined.
  2. levels of service exist for identifying priority requests. Are they clearly defined?
  3. changes are needed?

List of results:

  1. Aids to navigation are in compliance with national and international standards
  2. Aids to navigation are available and operational
  3. Increased awareness of marine safety information
  4. Safe and effective vessel transits and movements
  5. Mariners have access to information for safe and effective navigation

7.  In your opinion, is the performance measurement of the AToN sufficient to monitor the progress towards the achievement of the desired Program outcomes? To what extent do the performance indicators established for the AToN accurately reflect the Program outcomes and results? (QE11)

  1. To what extent are the data gathered on performance accurate and complete? To what extent is it possible to gather information and data on the Program?
  2. What changes, if any, should be made to the performance measurement?

8.  To what extent does the data on performance support decision making and the accounting requirements of the Department? Please elaborate. (QE11)

9.  Have your requests generally been handled satisfactorily by ITS and Fleet? Please elaborate. (QE12)

10.  Have there been any operational constraints? If so, what have been their impacts? Please elaborate. (QE12)

  1. Have there been other challenges? How did you address them?

Economy

11.  In your opinion, are there any alternatives to the AToN that will facilitate marine traffic and make Canadian waterways safe and secure? Please elaborate. (QE14)

12.  Do you believe that certain activities of the AToN could (should) be transferred to the private sector or to the provincial government? Please elaborate. (QE 2 et QE14)

13.  Is there anything you would like to add regarding the Program?

 

Thank you very much for participating in this evaluation!

 

Summative Evaluation Of The Aids To Navigation Program (ATON)
Interview Guide
Program Delivery Partners

The Evaluation Directorate at Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has been mandated to conduct a summative evaluation of the Aids to Navigation Program (AToN). The evaluation will focus on the relevance, delivery, success and cost-effectiveness of the AToN and will cover the period from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. Information on the AToN is provided in the appendix of this guide.

A key component of the evaluation consists of interviews with AToN delivery partners to allow them to share their knowledge and views of the Program. Your participation in the evaluation is completely voluntary and your decision to participate or not participate will have no impact on your relationship with DFO or the AToN. The information you provide will be used for research purposes only and will be treated in accordance with the provisions of applicable privacy legislation. Your responses will remain strictly confidential.

The interview should take on average 60 minutes.

Do not hesitate to inform the interviewer if you are unable to answer certain questions or if there are questions that do not apply to you.

Introduction

14.  Please briefly describe your role or involvement in the Aids to Navigation Program (AToN) to date.

Relevance

15.  Is it the federal government’s responsibility to provide aids to navigation and to facilitate safe and expeditious movement of maritime traffic? Please elaborate. (QE2)

16.  In your opinion, in the absence of the AToN, would marine navigation in Canada be safe and secure? Please elaborate. (QE10)

Effectiveness

17.  In your experience, are there other factors that can be associated with the Program results? Please elaborate. (Q10)

18.  In your experience, what are the unanticipated effects (positive or negative) of the Program? Please elaborate. (QE10)

Efficiency

19.  The AToN is working to achieve certain key results.  How would you describe your role in the achievement of the results listed below?

For each result, indicate whether

  1. the roles and responsibilities of the Program are clearly defined.
  2. levels of service exist for identifying priority requests. Are they clearly defined?
  3. changes are needed?

List of results:

  1. Aids to navigation are in compliance with national and international standards
  2. Aids to navigation are available and operational
  3. Increased awareness of marine safety information
  4. Safe and effective vessel transits and movements
  5. Mariners have access to information for safe and effective navigation

20.  Have you always been able to meet the requests of the AToN (design of the physical structure of the aids, their operation and their disposition)?  (QE12)

  1. If not, please explain why with concrete examples (if possible) and indicate how you were able to meet the demand.

21.  Have there been any operational constraints? If so, what were they and what was their impact? (QE12)

  1. Have there been other challenges? How did you address them?

22.  What type of data do you gather as part of the AToN? (QE11)

23.  Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the Program?

  

Thank you very much for participating in this evaluation!

Summative Evaluation Of The Aids To Navigation Program (ATON)
Interview Guide
Program Clients

The Evaluation Directorate at Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has been mandated to conduct a summative evaluation of the Aids to Navigation Program (AToN). The evaluation will focus on the relevance, delivery, success and cost-effectiveness of the AToN and will cover the period from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. Information on the AToN is provided in the appendix of this guide.

A key component of the evaluation consists of interviews with the clients of the AToN to allow them to share their knowledge and views of the Program. Your participation in the evaluation is completely voluntary and your decision to participate or not participate will have no impact on your relationship with DFO or the AToN. The information you provide will be used for research purposes only and will be treated in accordance with the provisions of applicable privacy legislation. Your responses will remain strictly confidential.

The interview should take on average 60 minutes.

Do not hesitate to inform the interviewer if you are unable to answer certain questions or if there are questions that do not apply to you.

Introduction

1.  Please briefly describe your role or involvement in the Aids to Navigation Program (AToN) to date.

Relevance

1.  In your opinion, is a program like the AToN needed to provide aids to navigation and facilitate safe and expeditious movement of maritime traffic? Please elaborate. (EQ1)

2.  In your opinion, do the aids to navigation (floating, fixed and electronic) meet your needs? (EQ1)

  1. Should there be more or fewer aids to navigation?
  2. Are there future needs that will have to be met?

Effectiveness

3.  In your opinion, are the aids to navigation (floating, fixed and electronic, i.e., DGPS) visible, available and reliable? (EQ4)

4.  Have you ever had to report a navigation aid failure or off-position aid or submit a complaint? (EQ4)

  1. Do you feel that your reports or complaints to the AToN were addressed?

5.  Are you familiar with the NOTMAR web site? (EQ5)

  1. Do you regularly consult the NOTMAR site? If so, how often? If not, why?
  2. Are you generally satisfied with the information published? Why or why not?
  3. Is it an effective means of raising mariners’ awareness?
  4. Do you use sources of information other than NOTMAR? Do you consult them regularly? If so, do they enable you to navigate securely?

6.  In your opinion, are vessel transits and movements in Canadian waterways secure and effective? (EQ6)

  1. Have you had delays due to poor visibility or other weather conditions in recent years?
  2. Have you had any incidents related to aids to navigation in recent years?

7.  Does the information published by NOTMAR on marine navigation allow you to navigate safely and securely? (EQ7)

8.  Which of the following describes your level of confidence in the aids to navigation system and in the safety and security of marine transportation in Canada: not at all satisfied, satisfied or very satisfied?  Please specify. (QE8)

  1. Are improvements needed? Please elaborate.

9.  In your opinion, in the absence of the AToN, would marine navigation in Canada be safe and secure? Please elaborate. (QE9)

10.  Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the Program?

Thank you very much for participating in this evaluation!

Appendix D –Sondage des Clients

Evaluation Of The Aids To Navigation Program
Online Survey

The Aids to Navigation Program (AToN) is an ongoing program designed to provide aids to navigation (visual- buoys and electronic- DGPS) in Canadian waters to facilitate safe and expeditious movement of maritime traffic. Under the Canada Shipping Act (CSA), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has a mandate to provide, through the AToN, aids to navigation in Canadian waters in order to facilitate safe and expeditious movement of maritime traffic. For more information on the program: http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/Ccg/atn_Home

Q1
1.  Is a program like the Aids to Navigation Program needed to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of maritime traffic?
Yes........................................................................................1
No.........................................................................................2
Don't know/No response............................................................9

Q2
2.  To what extent do the aids to navigation (floating, fixed and electronic) meet your needs? Would you say to a great extent, to some extent or to no extent?
A great extent.........................................................................1
Some extent............................................................................2
No extent...............................................................................3
Don't know/No response............................................................9

Q3
3.  Do you think there should be more or fewer aids to navigation?
More............................................................................................1
Fewer..........................................................................................2
Don't know/No response..................................................................9

Q4
4. Why do you say that?
Other....................................................................................97
Don't know/No response...........................................................99

Q5
5.  In your experience, to what extent are the aids to navigation (floating, fixed and electronic, i.e., DGPS) available and reliable? Would you say to a great extent, to some extent or to no extent?
A great extent..............................................................................1
Some extent.................................................................................2
No extent.....................................................................................3
Don't know/No response..................................................................9

Q6
6.  Have you ever had to report an aid to navigation failure or off-position or submit a complaint?
Yes.............................................................................................1
No..............................................................................................2
Don't know/No response.................................................................9

Q7
7. Do you feel that your reports or complaints were addressed?
Yes..................................................................................................1
No....................................................................................................2
Don't know/No response.......................................................................9

Q8
8.  To what extent do you think vessel transits and movements in Canadian waterways are safe and secure? Would you say to a great extent, to some extent or to no extent?
A great extent........................................................................................ 1
Some extent........................................................................................... 2
No extent............................................................................................... 3
Don't know/No response.............................................................................9

Q9
9.  Have you had any incidents (or accidents) related to aids to navigation in recent years?
Yes..................................................................................................1
No....................................................................................................2
Don't know/No response.......................................................................9

Q10
10. Could you please elaborate on this/these incidents (or accidents)?
Other.............................................................................................97
Don't know/No response.....................................................................99

Q11
11.  How familiar are you with the Notices To Mariners (NOTMAR) website? Would you say you are familiar, somewhat familiar or not familiar?
Familiar..............................................................................................1
Somewhat familiar................................................................................2
Not familiar.........................................................................................3

Q12
12. Do you feel that you have access to sufficient navigation safety information through the NOTMAR Web site?
Yes....................................................................................................1
No.....................................................................................................2
Don't know/No response.........................................................................9

Q13
13. To what extent do you think the NOTMAR Web site on safety and navigation information increases the safety and security of marine travel? Would you say to a great extent, to some extent or to no extent?
A great extent........................................................................................1
Some extent...........................................................................................2
No extent...............................................................................................3
Don't know/No response............................................................................9

Q14
14. How satisfied are you with the information contained on the NOTMAR website? Would you say you are satisfied, somewhat satisfied or not satisfied.
Satisfied.............................................................................................1
Somewhat satisfied...............................................................................2
Not satisfied........................................................................................3

Q15
15. What other information would you like to have on the NOTMAR Web site?
Other.............................................................................................97
Don't know/No response.....................................................................99

Q16
16.  Do you use other sources of information other than the NOTMAR Web site?
Yes...................................................................................................1
No....................................................................................................2
Don't know/No response.......................................................................9

Q17
17. Which ones?
Other.............................................................................................97
Don't know/No response.....................................................................99

Q18
18.  Overall, how satisfied are you with the aids to navigation system in Canada? Would you say you are satisfied, somewhat satisfied or not satisfied?
Satisfied.............................................................................................1
Somewhat satisfied...............................................................................2
Not satisfied........................................................................................3

Q19
19.  Overall, to what extent do you trust the aids to navigation system and the sea transport in Canada? Would you say to a great extent, to some extent or to no extent?
A great extent......................................................................................1
Some extent.........................................................................................2
No extent.............................................................................................3
Don't know/No response..........................................................................9

Q20
20.  Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the Aids to Navigation Program?
Don't know/No response..................................................................... 99

QDEMO [0,0]
21. These last few questions are for statistical purposes only.

Q21
22.  Which of the following best describes your role within the marine community?
Commercial user....................................................................................1
Pleasure crafter....................................................................................2
General public.......................................................................................3
State/Military........................................................................................4
Other (please specify)............................................................................77

Q22
23.  In which geographical zone do you mainly conduct your marine role?
Maritime................................................................................................1
Quebec.................................................................................................2
Central and Arctic...................................................................................3
Newfoundland and Labrador......................................................................4
Pacific..................................................................................................5

THNK [0,0]
24.  Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey.

i Vote-netted Revenue (VNR) is collected for the Marine Navigation Service Fee (MNSF). This fee is collected for Marine Navigation Services, including Aids to Navigation. There are three main areas where spending occurs to provide this service and justify the collection of fees: Maritime Services; the Fleet; and Technical Services. 

The Maritime Services Directorate is responsible for: Operating a System of floating, fixed and electronic aids to navigation; Monitoring the reliability and relevance of the Canadian aids to navigation system; Ensuring the application of national standards for aids to navigation; providing and distributing safety information (NOTMARs); managing buoy tendering contracts with private contractors; and consulting with stakeholders. These activities are considered direct program expenditures and are charged directly to the Aids to Navigation PAA Sub-activity. Added to this are the allocated Fleet fuel costs incurred in support of the Aids to Navigation Program. The total of these direct costs plus the fuel represents, over the long term, approximately 17.09% of the cost of providing the Marine Navigation service.

The Fleet Directorate is responsible for tending floating aids to navigation, as directed by the Maritime Services Directorate. All of the Fleet expenditures during the fiscal year (including salary, O&M and fuel) are charged to the Fleet Operational Readiness PAA Sub-activity.  The fuel costs related to Aids to Navigation are allocated to the Aids to Navigation Program at the end of each year in Public Accounts and the Departmental Performance Report.  There are costs remaining that are reported in the Fleet Operational Readiness sub-activity (Salary and O&M) that are also incurred to support the Aids to Navigation Program. This remaining amount represents, over the long-term, approximately 45.59% of the cost of providing the Marine Navigation service.

The Technical Services Directorate is responsible for ensuring that the aids to navigation assets are capable, reliable and available through the implementation of a lifecycle management system.  All of these costs are reported under the Lifecycle Asset Management Services PAA Sub-activity.  The Lifecycle Asset Management Services costs that support the Aids to Navigation represent, over the long-term, approximately 37.32% of the cost of providing the Marine Navigation service.

So every dollar of MNSF revenue that is collected is allocated to Aids to Navigation (17.09%), Fleet Operational Readiness (45.59%), and Lifecycle Asset Management (37.32%).  Generally, all revenue collected for the MNSF is charged to the Aids to Navigation program during the year, and at the end of the year (for Public Accounts and the DPR) it is allocated to the above PAA Sub-activities in the above percentages.

ii ANP permanents employees

Category

Number

Superintendents

5

Leaders (Ottawa)

3

Supervisors

7

Supervisors (Light Stations)

2

Standards Officers(Ottawa)

2

LOS Officers

17

Internet Leader

1

Support (Internet)(Ottawa)

3

Research (Ottawa)

1

Admin(Ottawa)

1

SIPA (2 Regions)

2

Various LOS/Admin Clerks

15

Lightkeepers

108

TOTAL

167

iii The cyclical review allows reviewing aids to navigation system in a given location. This consists in making a list of all aids (fixed and floating) and in identifying natural benchmarks that can help define their position. One must then apply the method described in the systems design and review manual to identify navigational risks for ship types that navigate in that area. The analysis of these data and risks will help identify the need for aids to navigation. This exercise consists in comparing actual aids with needs that were determined following the analysis and that correspond to national standards of service. Excessive aids, i.e. those that exceed standards of service, will be deleted, while others will be modified and others will be added, if the analysis reveals that standards of service were not attained.

iv The objectives of the Aids to Navigation of the 21st Century (AToN 21) project were to meet the changing needs of users by achieving the most cost-effective and environmentally responsible aids to navigation service to mariners while upholding Coast Guard’s first priority: marine safety. The impetus of AToN 21 project came primarily from the 2000 and 2002 reports of the Auditor General that indicated that Coast Guard must improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its aids to navigation program. The structure of the project was comprehensive with seven Themes – Service Levels; Technology; Service Delivery; Loran-C; Program Consistency; Infrastructure and Real Property; and e-Navigation - and 19 initiatives associated with these themes.

Many positive outcomes have been achieved in response to this complex project. The success of a project such as AToN 21 cannot be evaluated just by considering tangible results. Impacts on efficiency and effectiveness can take a certain period of time before being known or evaluated as the aids to navigation program is a very complex service involving all parts of CCG.

With regards to Service Levels, all of the 19 national directives and the associated design methodology have been evaluated and all revisions will be completed in 2010-2011. As of April 2009, a total of 10 directives have been updated. In order to continue to respond to the mariners needs, not only today but in the future, the national directives and design methodology must be kept up to date on a continuous basis.

It is no secret that today’s technology evolves at a very fast pace and considering the plethora of technology available, the only way that CCG can cope with the technological advances is to communicate, share expertise and knowledge across regional boundaries and most importantly avoid duplication of efforts. This was determined by the AToN 21 Integrated Technical Services (ITS) working groups to be the best way to respond to the objectives under the Technology theme while implementing the Life Cycle Material Management concept for the aids to navigation assets. Under AToN 21, the conversion to plastic buoys and Light Emitting Diode (LED) lanterns were technically completed as were business cases for new technology such as the four-season lighted buoys and national standards and specifications. An important recommendation once AToN 21 is completed is to keep in place the national ITS working teams for aids to navigation in order to maintain communications, share information, experience and expertise.

Under the Service Delivery theme, a Business Case Framework was prepared and eight business cases were completed on the best options for provision of aids to navigation services. The major challenge under this theme was to identify CCG costs and savings in comparison with contracting-out options. The results of the business cases indicated that CCG was already very efficient, but could improve in areas of integration of the management of the service delivery. Contracting-out remains a valid option for CCG under specific conditions in selective areas and when funding can be transferred from internal resources to pay for the contracts.

At this time, June 2009, a decision on the future of the Canadian Loran-C service is still pending. On February 27, 2009, the U.S. President announced his intention to discontinue the U.S. Loran-C system. A final decision by the U.S. congress is expected by August 2009.  In the event the U.S. proceeds with discontinuing their Loran-C system, CCG will proceed similarly given that the Canadian system would not be operational without U.S. stations. Meanwhile, CCG will continue developing a Loran-C discontinuation plan and will inform potentially affected Departments (Public Safety, Transport Canada, National Defense and Industry Canada) of its intentions.

The Program Consistency theme required that a legal review take place to examine Port Authorities as they have unclear mandates in their letters patent and also included provisions for other navigations services such as Icebreaking and Marine Communications and Traffic Services.  In light of this increased complexity and the many other priorities facing the Aids to Navigation program, it was decided to conclude this theme and to re-assess at a later date.

The Infrastructure and Real Property theme was overtaken by external events involving the advent of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act (S-215). Coast Guard will work with DFO Real Property for the implementation of the Act.

In September 2008, the CCG completed a draft vision and strategy for e-Navigation in consultation with international experts and other stakeholders. A national plan for e-Navigation will be developed after a consultation exercise in 2009-10, which will identify and prioritize the needs of our clients. Since the concept of e-Navigation has matured to the point where it requires dedicated work, it was decided to move this theme outside of the AToN21 project context and to create a project dedicated to e-Navigation alone.

Looking at the work accomplished under the AToN 21, it is now recognized that the aids to navigation program is now more cohesive and rejuvenated, with updated national policies both in the Maritime Services and ITS directorates, with a standard national method to evaluate new technology and service delivery options, with national teams in place communicating and exchanging solutions, with an updated method for focusing on clients needs through on-going consultations and updating the established level of services as required and finally, with dedicated and capable personnel.

v The report also has concludes that contracting out represents an effective and efficient service delivery option for CCG’s aids to navigation if the following factors, success criteria, are met:

  • Identification of a succinct collection of aids in terms of type, technology and geographic area that can be bundled together and offered for contract – Coast Guard could facilitate this by modernizing towards a single type of aid and technology in defined areas.

  • Near complete freeing-up of Coast Guard resources in the area covered by the contract.

  • More than one capable and competent contractor available in the area.

  • Funding flexibility so that transfers and conversions can be made from the budget that is currently supporting the delivery of aids to navigation services in the area to the budget that will pay the contractor.

  • Accurate, current and complete SIPA information entered into database which is appropriately reconciled with MIMS data.

  • Clear standards for quality assurance that are equitably applicable regardless of the contract length and that permit managers to understand their requirements for operational assets and skilled employees in light of reduced need for vessels, trucks, barges and skilled and knowledgeable employees. This is an important area and should be addressed by a national approach/standard.

  • Comprehensive and truly integrated work planning involving the 3 directorates is carried out so that contracts can be evaluated against most efficient and effective Coast Guard operational plans.

1 Fuel, O&M and wages

2 The differential GPS is an important way to improve the precision of positions provided to small ship operators on their GPS receiver.

3 These notices provide navigators with important information, such as new dangers, changes made to marine maps or the publication of new maps.

4 This work contains information on specifications and positions of coastal lights, light buoys and fog horns. Published in both official languages and available on NOTMAR

5 MNFS were fixed officially on July 1, 1997 by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. These are usage fees for marine navigation services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard to all ships involved in commercial shipping activities in Canadian waters. Since then, the fee schedule suffered one major review one on October 1, 1998.

6 In order to determine total expenses, one must subtract the vote-netted revenue from the total of wages, non-wages and fuel.

7 Since risks are evolving, some of them may have changed.

8 Total Time is the time that an individual AtoN or a system of AtoN should be performing their specified function.

9 Down Time is the sum of the periods during which the AtoN of the system of AtoN are unable to perform their specific function. It does not include those periods when the mariner has been notified of a discrepancy by prior publications through a Preliminary Notice to Mariners2.

10 An aid is available when it is physically present and used for maritime navigation. When it is no longer used for navigation following a cyclical review, it is removed and it then becomes inactive. However, an aid may be available but unreliable if it does not meet service standards.

11 An aid is not reliable when it does not meet its service standard based on its importance (refer to table 3).

12 The CCG gives contractors contracts for the maintenance, installation or removal of aids to navigation.

13 Aids to navigation are assets and, for this reason, they are governed by the Asset Lifecycle Management Program, that is managed by ITS.

14 Natural Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada, Facts about Canada’s Coastline.

15 Corresponds to number 27 on graph 2

16 Based on received information, there were a total of 44 DGPS coverage areas.

17 The CCG relies on navigators to report immediately any failure of aids to navigation to the closest Coast Guard office or to CCG Marine Communications and Traffic Services.

18 Navigators can find all publications and updated marine maps on the NOTMAR Web site.

19 In 2000, a survey was conducted with NOTMAR users in order to determine if they preferred the electronic or the paper version of published information. Out of 534 participants, 253 indicated that they do not need to receive the paper version, while 41 said ‘Yes’ and 240 did not respond. Since April 1, 2010, the ANP no longer offers a paper version.

20 Aids on this channel do not fall under the responsibility of the CCG, but rather under that of Parks Canada and Transport Canada

21 Sudden and expected event that causes damages.

22 Problem that occurs during an action and that poses real difficulty

23 Report of the Auditor General of Canada (December 2002), chapter 2 “Fisheries and Oceans — Contributing to Safe and Efficient Marine Navigation”, page 5.

24 Ibid

25 This responsibility was transferred to TC, but more specifically to the Office of Boating Safety.

26 Report of the auditor general of Canada (February 2007), chapter 4 « Managing the Coast Guard Fleet and Marine Navigational Services – Fisheries and Oceans Canada », page 2

27 This study took place within the framework of activities of the national team of the Aids to Navigation in the 21st Century (AToN21) project. Information that it contains comes from data of three complete years, i.e. 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008.

28 MAXIMO is a database that is used and managed by ITS. It is a commercial and independent electronic system to manage maintenance activities. This system is used to manage land-based assets and equipment on board of small ships, as well as for managing navigation and communication equipment installed on all ships.

29 These numbers are based on data gathered from the program during the evaluation process. However, other systems may have been reviewed since then.

30 Information not available.

31 Program staff and its partners managed to make changes on time.

32 MAXIMO is a system parallel to SIPA. This system is used by ITS to report work perform on aids to navigation. This information is then copied into SIPA.

33 Although interviews and reviewed documents indicate logically that constraints influence ANP results and implementation, we cannot say concretely what their degree of influence is like.

34 The report also indicates that the Coast Guard’s fleet is ageing and that its maintenance and operation are costly.

35 In order to determine the average, the ratios of all years have been added and divided by the number of years.  

36 This practice already exists. Resorting to contractors helps reduce the workload and ensuring the expected level of service provision.

37 The study intended to determine if the outsourcing process was an effective and efficient solution for providing aids to navigation services. The report shows enough that outsourcing is a good alternative to reach levels of service, but it does not show if this process leads to savings. The report only describes possible (theoretical) financial consequences that the outsourcing process can have on the CCG.

38 Lighthouses Cost final Report, December 2009

39 This report essentially aimed at determining costs attributable to lighthouses without determining, due to the lack of data, the impact of these services on the aids service.

40 Evaluation of the provision of marine aids to navigation around the United Kingdom and Ireland (March 2010).