Evaluation of the Advancing Conservation Interests in the Northwest Territories Initiative (Protected Areas Strategy)

I. Relevance

The evidence clearly demonstrates a continued need for a network of protected areas in the NWT. This is due to: (a) increased interest and activity in economic/resource development in the NWT and its consequent impact on First Nations, wildlife, habitat; and (b) how the Initiative complements regional land use planning. The Strategy is also aligned with Government of Canada priorities (e.g. managing resources, land and environment in the North) and it is appropriately aligned with federal roles and responsibilities (e.g. statutory and regulatory responsibilities related to crown land). However, at the time of writing this evaluation report (December 2012 – January 2013) there was uncertainty with respect to  how and to what extent devolution^{Footnote 2} of lands and resources in the NWT may impact the Government of Canada's roles and responsibilities with respect to the NWT-PAS.

II. Design and Delivery

The NWT-PAS is appropriately designed to provide the opportunity for stakeholders to meaningfully participate in it, share their interests and priorities, while also building upon relationships. This is largely due to the governance structure's commitment to communication, collaboration and consultation to facilitate the 8-step process that is required to establish and maintain protected areas. However, significant challenges like vertical communication (between the NWT-PAS and senior federal Headquarters officials) and achieving quorum for Steering Committee meetings remain. There is a need to revisit and improve upon the clarity of roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee and Secretariat and to encourage a stronger understanding of the relationship between the NWT-PAS and marine conservation. There is also a need for the Steering Committee roles and responsibilities to evolve (i.e. provide more strategic direction and advice), specifically in terms of protected area management and monitoring.

With respect to the Strategy's delivery, the Initiative offers stakeholders sufficient financial, technical, scientific and administrative supports to participate in the NWT-PAS process. However, there is a need to improve the mechanisms for financial transfers as they are unpredictable and consequently pose unnecessary administrative burden and creates uncertainty in planning. There is also no evidence of Performance Measurement mechanisms. Mitigating such program delivery issues would improve the Initiative's effectiveness and efficiency.

III. Performance (Effectiveness, Efficiency and Economy)

The Government of Canada has not yet established any of the six mandated national wildlife areas. Approval for the finalization of these sites has been delayed in the approval process. Currently, there is only one established National Historic Site (Saoyú-?ehdacho) under Parks Canada Agency. With respect to Environment Canada, there are four candidate national wildlife areas under interim protection (Edéhzhíe, Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta, Ka'a'gee Tu and Sambaa K'e) and one awaiting approval (Kwets'oòtł'àà). According to the 2008 Results-based Management and Accountability Framework, the targeted immediate outcome of three additional areas under interim protection in 2011 and up to four more by 2013 has not been achieved.

There is awareness of the NWT-PAS among NWT residents and the Strategy is managed in a way which allows regional organisations and communities to be engaged. Due to a lack of appropriate data, it is unclear if there has been an increase in awareness of the Strategy among NWT residents or in their capacity to participate. At the same time, there is evidence of increased and sustained support for the NWT-PAS from numerous communities and from the majority of stakeholders.

Finally, financial and qualitative data suggest that the NWT-PAS has managed to minimize financial and material resources while optimizing outputs. However, human resource capacity in remote regions and outcomes can be improved through addressing capacity issues at the community level, reviewing the role of the Steering Committee and reviewing current funding mechanisms.

IV. Best Practices and Lessons Learned

The evaluation identified a number of best practices. These include earlier engagement of Aboriginal peoples', involvement in the NWT-PAS process, placing a strong emphasis on multi-stakeholder partnership and collaboration, substantial and active communication efforts through regular Steering Committee and working group meetings, newsletters, etc., and the use of Aboriginal traditional knowledge, which enhances the overall understanding of the culture, history, habitat, etc. of the land.

Evidence suggests numerous lessons learned, including informing stakeholders early on that the 8-step process can be longer than anticipated, clarifying ministerial approval timelines, encouraging stronger communication between NWT-PAS senior federal (Headquarters) government officials (i.e., Assistant Deputy Minister and Deputy Minister); and, clarifying to stakeholders all available land protection options before proceeding with the Strategy.

1.2.1 Background and Description

The Northwest Territories (NWT) and the Mackenzie Valley (Valley) in particular, provides numerous opportunities to protect new areas in Canada. The Valley covers a vast area of pristine boreal forest that supports a rich diversity of wildlife, including over 100 species of migratory birds and several species at risk, and contains significant historic sites that document traditional Aboriginal lifestyles and land uses. At the same time, it has potential for non-renewable resource development.

In 1974, the Government of Canada commissioned the Berger Inquiry to examine the social, environmental, and economic impacts of the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project, which would be one of the largest non-renewable resource infrastructure projects in Canadian history. Although the Mackenzie Gas Project is limited to producing and transporting natural gas from the Mackenzie Delta, it is regarded as having basin-opening potential, and would induce new resource exploration and development in other regions of the Valley. This would create unwanted direct impacts in 16 of the NWT's eco-regions; the long-term effects of the Mackenzie Gas Project and related developments may extend to all of its 42 eco-regions. The 1977 Report of the Inquiry concluded that such a pipeline would pose significant risk to the environment and provide few long-term economic benefits to northern communities. Particularly, it raised concerns about Aboriginal peoples, recommending that the Mackenzie Gas Project be delayed 10 years and that any development be preceded by land claim settlements and the establishment of protected areas.

Similar recommendations were made in 1996, when during the environmental assessment of the proposed BHP diamond mine, the World Wildlife Fund threatened legal action against the federal government unless a commitment was made to develop a strategy for protected areas in the NWT. Collaboration among federal and territorial governments, industries, communities, Aboriginal organizations and environmental non-government organizations ensued, resulting in the NWT-PAS in 1999.

The NWT-PAS has two primary goals: to protect significant natural and cultural areas, and to represent each of the NWT's 42 eco-regions. The NWT-PAS sets out an 8-step, community engagement process that utilizes the best available traditional, ecological, resource and economic knowledge to make land use decisions. The 8-steps include: candidate area identification; proposal development; various ecological, social/cultural, economic and resource assessments; management planning; interim and final protection; and ongoing management, monitoring and enforcement activities (see Annex A).

In 2003, the Minister of the then Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada requested that a plan be developed to address concerns that the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project might preclude the NWT-PAS vision of a network of protected areas in the Mackenzie Valley. The result was the Mackenzie Valley Five Year Action Plan – Conservation Planning for Pipeline Development. The Action Plan is subsequent to the NWT-PAS; its aim is designating protected areas ahead of, or concurrently with, pipeline development.

By 2008, three candidate protected areas (Edéhzhíe (Horn Plateau), Sambaa K'e (Trout Lake) and Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta (Ramparts)) had been proposed through the NWT-PAS but only one, Saoyú-?ehdacho, had achieved permanent protection as a National Historic Site. To pursue a more balanced approach to development and conservation, the Government of Canada decided to provide $25 million over five years and $4 million per year thereafter in Budget 2007 in an effort "to create or expand protected areas in the NWT, supporting the Protected Areas Strategy (PAS)."

The NWT-PAS relies on existing legislation. As a result, only Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency and the Government of the Northwest Territories can sponsor protected areas. There are two imperatives to sponsoring protected areas: the candidate area must fit within the planned results and priorities of mandated programs and there must be an available source of funds to provide for ongoing operations.

1.2.2 Program Objectives/Activities and Expected Outcomes

The Advancing Conservation Interests in the Northwest Territories Initiative supports the NWT-PAS and its objectives are to establish, develop and operate up to six federal national wildlife areas by Environment Canada. This includes establishing one national historic site; carrying out a consultation and a feasibility study that could lead to the establishment of a national park reserve (Thaidene Nene) to be completed by Parks Canada Agency; and assist in responsible resource development in support of the NWT's PAS. AANDC is to provide ongoing support (technical assistance) to the protected areas sponsors (Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency and the Government of Northwest Territories). AANDC also provides coordination and financial support to the PAS Secretariat, and is responsible for land management in the NWT.

Further, AANDC's role is to support the Government of Canada's commitment to assist Aboriginal communities in fulfilling their aspirations for greater self-reliance. AANDC delivers its programs through the following key strategic outcomes: The People, the Government, the Land and Economy, the North, Regional Operations and the Office of the Federal Interlocutor. The Initiative specifically contributes to the North outcome, which addresses the sustainable use of lands and resources by First Nations, Inuit and Northerners in ways that emphasize improved environmental management and stewardship.

1.2.3 Logic Model

A logic model is part of the Initiative's Results-Based Accountability Framework and Risk-based Audit Framework. This Results-based Management and Accountability Framework/Risk-based Audit Framework specify expected activities, outputs, and immediate, intermediate and final outcomes. The expected outcomes for the Initiative, which are presented in Annex C include: stakeholder and community support for candidate protected areas and interim protection (immediate); designation of ecologically important sites and permanent protection (intermediate); and, protection of culturally and ecologically important sites without the compromise of resource development (long term).

1.3.1 Program Management

The NWT-PAS involves collaboration among communities, regional Aboriginal organizations, governments, environmental groups and industry groups. It is led by a multi-stakeholder Steering Committee, which guides and facilitates the implementation process, with the objective of providing a forum for information exchange and offering strategic direction to the territorial and federal ministers on the implementation of the NWT-PAS, including the Mackenzie Valley Five-Year Action Plan. As a community-based initiative, community and regional-level stakeholders play an important role throughout the process, including site identification, preparing proposals for potential sponsoring agencies, and participating on Candidate Area Working Groups and on management bodies for established areas.

The NWT-PAS has a Managing Director who reports to, and receives direction from, the Steering Committee for Strategy Implementation, with the support of the multi-partner NWT-PAS team. The Steering Committee and the Managing Director have access to secretariat support provided by the Government of Northwest Territories and AANDC.

1.3.2 Key Stakeholders and Beneficiaries

Federal government departments and agencies, other levels of government and other non-federal entities, public or private, organizations, individuals, have an interest in the NWT-PAS. These include:

• Federal departments (AANDC, Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency)
• The Government of Northwest Territories
• Aboriginal groups/communities
• Industry
• Environmental non-government organizations

2.1.1 Objectives of the Evaluation

The main objective of this evaluation was to assess the performance and relevance of the Strategy in accordance with the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation.

Evaluation Questions

A suite of evaluation questions along with associated indicators and data sources was developed (see Evaluation Matrix in Annex B). Supplementary evaluation questions were also developed. The evaluation rigorously applied the ten evaluation questions contained in the evaluation framework, which together examined all five core evaluation issues noted above.

Evaluation Working Group

An evaluation working group, including Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency and AANDC program area representatives was formed in order to provide knowledge and expertise of the NWT-PAS. The working group's mandate was to provide ongoing advice to the evaluation team (e.g. methodology report, proposing key data sources and stakeholders, commenting on evaluation findings, etc).

Internal Peer Review

EPMRB evaluators who are not directly involved in the evaluation project conducted internal peer reviews (e.g. examined the degree to which final reports correspond with the evaluation's Terms of Reference and methodology reports). The reviewers' work is guided by the EPMRB's Peer Review Guides. These guides include questions, which reflect Treasury Board standards for evaluation quality and guidelines for final reports.

3.1.1 Is there a need for a network of protected areas in the Northwest Territories?

Home to some of the richest and most diversified resource bases in Canada, the NWT, in recent years, has sparked increasing interest in economic activity and in resource development, particularly in mining, energy, oil and gas. For example, annual expenditures in oil and gas exploration alone have more than doubled, from $130 million in 1999 to $325 million 2008, while capital expenditures invested in mining and oil and gas extraction have also tripled during the same period, from $264 million to $789 million.^{Footnote 6} The proposed construction of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, stretching from Inuvik to the northwest border of Alberta forecasts potential revenue of $2.2 billion per annum,^{Footnote 7} but poses significant environmental threats.^{Footnote 8} At the same time, the NWT is also home to unique ecosystems, flora and fauna, and harbours many species-at-risk, including the Peary Caribou, Whooping Crane, Polar Bear and Wolverine, all highly sensitive to environmental changes.^{Footnote 9}

Key informant interviews, case studies, document and literature reviews indicate that mounting developmental activities and pressures have not only posed a real threat to the future sustainability of the NWT's biodiversity, but also to the preservation of First Nations' culture, tradition and history. For example, case study participants raised the issue of human-modified landscapes, the decrease of animal populations and its impact on the environment and Aboriginal culture, while document and literature reviews indicate rampant land fragmentation^{Footnote 10} and its adverse effects on plant and animal habitat. One of the expectations of the NWT-PAS is to preserve Aboriginal culture, tradition, history and the environment, while benefiting communities, all Canadians and future generations. For instance, it is anticipated that permanent protection in Saoyú-?ehdacho will result in "positive and important impacts from the protection of cultural, traditional and educational resources for the Sahtugot'ine."^{Footnote 11} This includes the preservation and transference of traditional knowledge^{Footnote 12} and the preservation of "a rare cultural landscape for all time."^{Footnote 13}

The greatest concerns raised by First Nation interview and case study participants were the ongoing and projected growth in economic/resource development in the NWT and the adverse impact it would have on Aboriginal lifestyles, including vitally important social, cultural and economic activities that many continue to practice (i.e., hunting, gathering and medicinal practices). Case study participants indicated that their communities have already observed much of these impacts though specific examples were not offered. Considering the overall context of the Strategy, the evaluation finds the need to ensure a measure of environmental protection as well as a sustainable ecosystem, particularly since 51 percent of the territorial population is Aboriginal;^{Footnote 14} otherwise, Aboriginal Peoples are vulnerable to losing their connection to the land.

3.2.1 Is the NWT-PAS aligned with federal government priorities?

Affirming the need for balance between environmental protection and economic development in the NWT, the Auditor General of Canada stated in 2010 that the "federal government has specific obligations relating to the effective governance, environmental protection, and capacity building to provide sustainable and balanced development in the Northwest Territories. Failure to meet these obligations could mean missed economic opportunities, environmental degradation and increased social problems in NWT communities…"^{Footnote 15} The Government of Canada had previously indicated that sustainable development is a priority, even well before the establishment of the NWT-PAS in 1999, by ratifying numerous international and national commitments. International commitments include the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and the Inuvik Declaration (1996), while national plans and obligations include Canada's Green Plan (1990), the Tri-Council Statement of Commitment (1992), the Whitehorse Mining Initiative (1994), the Joint Federal-Territorial Task Force on Northern Conservation (1994), the Minerals and Metals Policy (1996), the Federal Water Policy, the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy (1996), and the Mackenzie River Basin Trans-boundary Waters Master Agreement (1997).

Likewise, both federal and NWT governments have committed to sustainable natural resource management and development that include policy commitments calling for increased regulation of industries interested in developing the NWT's natural resources. Such initiatives include the North of 60 Action Plan (2001), the Government of Northwest Territories' Sustainable Development Strategy (1993), Non-renewable Resource Development Strategy (1998), Improving the Northern Operating Environment (2001), and the Environmental Stewardship Framework and the NWT Water Stewardship Strategy (2010). Case studies, interview participants and document and literature reviews also indicate that the NWT-PAS is aligned with the priorities of the three sponsoring bodies: AANDC, Environment Canada and Parks Canada Agency.

In addition, interview and case study participants expressed the significance of federal support in the Initiative, particularly since communities, industry and other third parties would otherwise have very limited capacity to participate in the program. Interview and case study participants indicated that communities would be financially unable to participate in working group and Secretariat meetings, as well as the greater NWT-PAS process since their resources are spread quite thin. Interview participants also expressed concern for the future capacity of environmental non-government organizations in the NWT-PAS without federal support since their capacity had significantly decreased since the recent global financial crisis, specifically citing the consequential withdrawal of the World Wildlife Fund's support in the Initiative.

3.3.1 Is the NWT-PAS aligned with federal roles and responsibilities?

Evidence from key informants, case studies and document and literature reviews suggest that the roles and responsibilities of the federal government are appropriately aligned with the NWT-PAS in light of federal and departmental priorities discussed in 3.2.1., and specifically in terms of contributing to the fulfillment of international environmental commitments and conservation efforts in the NWT.

The Government of Canada subscribes to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the world's largest global environmental network, which has adopted protected area management categories to classify protected areas according to their management objectives. Canada's national parks fall under Category II – National Parks, reporting that "Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to: (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations; (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area; and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible." The International Union for the Conservation of Nature 1994 Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories, suggested that ownership and management of these areas should normally be undertaken by the highest competent authority of the nation, while maintaining jurisdiction over such responsibilities. More recently, International Union for the Conservation of Nature guidance (2008) has recognized that national parks may also be vested in another level of government, council of indigenous people, foundation or other legally established body.

Emphasizing the importance of the federal government's role, key informants indicated that significant barriers to land protection without federal sponsoring legislation exist, including financial resources and regulation. In other words, according to key informant interviews,there is limited community and local legislative capacitygoverning the NWT-PAS. Hence, the federal government's legislative responsibility as manager of Crown lands for the long-term benefit of Northerners and all Canadians is important.At the same time, the Strategy compliments other protection measures in the NWT. In particular, the Strategy is an accompaniment to LUPs, which is discussed in more detail in Section 3.1.1. Parks Canada Agency's National Park and/or National Historic Site designations and Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service's Migratory Bird Sanctuaries are compatible with the NWT-PAS.

4.1.1 Is the Initiative designed to respond to the needs related to the creation of a network of protected areas?

Case studies, interview participants and document reviews indicate that the NWT-PAS is designed to appropriately respond to the needs and contexts of regional organizations and communities, largely as a result of its governance structure. In terms of needs (which include interests, priorities and regional land use planning), interview participants reported that the working groups, in particular, have provided opportunity for individuals, communities and regional organizations to participate in the 8-step process, share their interests, express their priorities, points of view and build upon relationships. The NWT-PAS was purposely designed to ensure the inclusion of various stakeholders throughout each process in order to obtain better and more informed decisions, as well as attaining broad agreement on certain matters.

In addition, interviewees also stressed that the NWT-PAS is appropriately suited to different contexts (including the political, legislative, ecological, economic and cultural) due principally to its flexibility of adapting to various areas and dimensions in the NWT. For instance, interviewees stated that the NWT-PAS can operate in both settled and unsettled land claim areas, and its processes can be adapted to meet federal and territorial legislation. The evaluation noted that while the 8-step process is applied in the same manner across the territory, the level of complexity surrounding it (i.e., engagement of consultations) depends on the level of certainty regarding land rights and the priority accorded to different stakeholder interests, such as the relationship between conservation and development.

The NWT-PAS' governance structure (8-steps, working groups, Steering Committee and Secretariat) is intended to be  responsiveness to the needs and contexts of many stakeholders related to wildlife and creation of parks and protected areas and it has also contributed to the achievement of outcomes; this is due, in part, to three key strengths associated to the NWT-PAS' governance structure.

First, the Steering Committee has a strong commitment to transparency and to the sharing and dissemination of information. In particular, documents and literature reviewed shows that the Steering Committee has provided "a forum for communication among stakeholders and the public, by updating NWT-PAS guidelines as necessary, and by approving the NWT-PAS annual work-plan and budget."^{Footnote 20} Both key informant and case studies interviewees echo this sentiment, but also reflect upon the Steering Committee's value for inclusivity, which includes communication, participation and relationship-building. Second, working groups (typically comprised of members from the community and Elders, Aboriginal governments, territorial and federal government representatives, environmental non-government organizations and industry representatives), facilitate information dissemination and communication among the stakeholders, thereby contributing to the achievement of objectives like "increasing communication" and "capacity-building."^{Footnote 21} However, case studies demonstrate that working groups could be more representative of First Nations living within the boundaries of the candidate protected area. Third, interviewees noted the active and attentive role of the Secretariat, how it promotes cost-sharing and the achievement of mutual objectives.

At the same time, evidence from interviewees and the document review suggest there are three key areas for improvement in the manner the NWT-PAS is delivered. First, nearly half of all interview participants cited the need to revisit the roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee and Secretariat due to a lack of understanding in their functions, specifically noting that the Steering Committee performs some of the Secretariat's tasks. However, none of the interviewees provided specific details of this issue. Second, the structure and mandate of the Steering Committee must evolve in terms of area management and monitoring,^{Footnote 22} as well as provide more strategic direction and advice in order to stay relevant, particularly in light of impending devolution (see discussion on devolution in Section 3.3.1). For instance, the evaluation found that the Steering Committee is more of an information platform (individuals share information about other ongoing initiatives) than a body that provides strategic direction/advice, thus, not adhering to its Terms of Reference. Third, the role of the NWT-PAS in terms of marine conservation needs to be better defined (discussed in more detail below).

4.2.1 Is the program being delivered in a way that will achieve outcomes?

The Initiative offers communities, regional organizations and other stakeholders financial, technical, scientific and administrative supports in order to develop maps, hire local field assistants and community liaison workers, as well as ensuring (assessment) reports are employing "plain" language. However, case study and interview participants reported that resources should be increased, yet they did not go into detail of explaining why this would be optimal.

Of particular concern to interview participants was the process by which funds are transferred to the program. The timing and amount of financial resources are unpredictable and consequently poses an unnecessary administrative burden and creates uncertainty in planning.

Three of the most common issues mentioned among case study and interview participants, which also impede delivery included:

• Stakeholder lack of engagement: members on the various working groups, the Steering Committee and the Secretariat have several commitments and priorities beyond the NWT-PAS, which makes it, on occasion, challenging for individuals to meaningfully participate in the Strategy. For instance, most Steering Committee meetings do not achieve quorum and alternates are rarely present.
• Time: parts of the 8-step process take more time and are more resource intensive than expected; this is particularly the case for non-renewable resource assessments. Attaining interim protection also takes more time than originally anticipated with communities waiting many months, or even more than one year, to achieve this status.
• Communities withdrawing program support: There was one case where a community had been working on Step 5 and decided to withdraw from the PAS process and instead, use a land use plan as a mechanism to conserve the land; it must be kept in mind that considerable resources have been invested towards their participation in the NWT-PAS process. 

The NWT-PAS has been designed to include collaboration, consultation and communication in order to further the 8-step process, as reflected in its logic model. Consequently, the Initiative's governance structure, particularly working groups and the Steering Committee, is designed to ensure that all three elements are appropriately implemented with respect to the program's members, the public and other stakeholders. For example, working group participants are composed of community members (including Elders), federal and territorial governments and outfitters. While the Steering Committee incorporates all of the same participants, they also included members from industry. Case studies have noted that both bodies work hard to facilitate and ensure: communication through employing translators, exchanging information with other working groups and dissemination of information through their website, via radio, newsletters, annual and assessment reports, as well as going over working group agendas and documents a day before meetings in order for Elders to be better informed. They also ensure collaboration by encouraging working groups to engage closely with consultants and recognize that the Steering Committee collaborates on projects with other stakeholders. Further, both bodies help ensure consultation by having consultants present reports to the Steering Committee and working groups, as well as exchanging best practices and lessons between working groups.

The evaluation has found three shortcomings. First, interview participants reported on the challenges with respect to vertical communication between the NWT-PAS and senior federal (AANDC and Environment Canada Headquarters) officials. There was concern noted regarding communication delays, in the approvals process, for example explanations regarding prolonged delays for interim approval, which have hindered the 8-step process from moving forward. Case studies suggested that it would be beneficial to working groups if there could be real-time translation for the individuals whose first language is not English, as it would save time.

The evaluation did find some key challenges with the effectiveness of the Steering Committee. For example, in 2012, members from industry participated once due to their perception that the Initiative is no longer providing a balanced approach between conservation and development. Instead, they are of the view that it has considerably favoured the former; the same sentiment was echoed by a few other interview participants apart from industry. This tension with industry partners, as well as the fact that some members would attend only once a year either due to scheduling conflicts or other reasons, may be a factor in the habitual challenge of attaining quorum for Steering Committee meetings.

At a general level, it is not possible to ascertain whether assessments are conducted according to Environment Canada standards (ex. Non-renewable resource assessments) as evaluators were not able to review these documents given evaluation resource constrains. In terms of whether or not the assessments were conducted with an appropriate level of breadth and scope, answers varied pertaining to the type of assessment in question. For example:

1. Ecological assessments: Feedback from interview participants suggested that these Environment Canada standards and good practices though this evidence was largely anecdotal.
2. Renewable resource assessments: guidelines are provided by the Steering Committee and are regularly updated. Key informants suggest that though the process for conducting renewable assessments is not timely, they are generally done appropriately in terms of breadth and scope.
3. Non-renewable resource assessments: the assessment reports are generally detailed enough and appropriate in depth and scope. However, they are resource intensive in terms of both time (especially when the area is large) and cost (the undertaking requires roughly half of the AANDC budget for the NWT-PAS). Furthermore, there are a variety of perspectives/controversy regarding non-renewable resource assessment. It was noted by key informant interviews, for example, that industry gains an edge for potential development by benefitting from highly valuable data that they obtain at no cost. First Nations communities, on the other hand, would like to see the area protected under the NWT-PAS.  It was highlighted during the interviews that there is a risk these communities will loose trust in the process as they do not understand/are unsure why non-renewable resource assessments are allowed to go forward when they had stated they want the area protected under the NWT-PAS.
4. Cultural documentation: is typically done either in-house or with the help of contractors, but with communities involved in the process. Cultural documentation is not often made public due to sensitivity issues and that it also includes traditional information. It is hard to comment on the appropriate breadth and scope on cultural documentation. However, where it is shared, it provides a good understanding through a cultural perspective, as to why or why not a community or group would like to protect a particular area.
5. Socio-economic assessments: are always taken into consideration but there are, on occasion, issues with the quality of the report (i.e., figures and statistics are not referenced). Further, reports are highly technical and often not useful or usable for communities. At the same time, there is some difficulty related to gathering the information and this is due to a lack of available and/or knowledgeable contractors. As to whether or not socio-economic assessments are done in the appropriate breadth and scope, only one individual suggested that they were.

To date, only one protected area has been established under the NWT-PAS (Saoyú-?ehdacho), compared to the six sites that were originally envisioned. Case study evidence does indicate, however, that candidate national wildlife areas (e.g. Ka'a'gee 'Tu and Kwets'ootl'aa) may achieve Step 8 in less than one year.

There are several factors that have created delays and have impacted the extent to which the program has been delivered. Reasons for the delays, as reported by both case study and key informant interviewees, consist of: the complexity of the 8-step process and the degree to which the process is dependent on the involvement of many parties; the resource intensiveness specifically of subsurface rights discussions with AANDC that take between two to three years; the consultation time required for identifying the size of the candidate area with stakeholders; the time-consuming process of resource assessments; and, with respect to approvals, the challenges of communication between the NWT-PAS and senior federal officials. At a broad level, internal and external interviewees noted that the number of protected areas is smaller than originally expected as finalization of these sites has been delayed within senior decision-making groups. Several interviewees noted, for example, that while the appropriate steps have been taken to identify candidate sites, there has been no final decision. Further, the rational for the delays have not been clarified or communicated to NWT-PAS program staff and stakeholders.

Performance measurement and reporting is an additional program activity that has not been implemented as planned. A key informant working closely with the NWT-PAS indicated that there were no performance measurement systems, monitoring and adaptive management^{Footnote 25} programs associated with the Initiative. The document review also found that these are not addressed, for example, in two key NWT-PAS documents: "A Balanced Approach to Establishing Protected Areas in the Northwest Territories," (1999), neither in the strategy's Terms of Reference for the Steering Committee (revised December 2011). This gap resulted in unsure responses from interview and case study participants. While some were not aware, others reflected upon the Secretariat and its role, noting that at least it ensures that the 8-step process does not come to a halt; however, they did not provide explanations on how the Secretariat ensures continued progress in the PAS process. With respect to the Steering Committee, which reports on progress, success and challenges, interim protection measures^{Footnote 26}, and on the strategy's holistic approach (i.e. analyzing the NWT in order to assess which areas are important to protect for First Nation communities), the response was different.

The evaluation pre-assessment showed that data collection for performance measurement indicators was conducted primarily through annual progress reporting by NWT-PAS funding recipients. Information was also reported through the annual Departmental Performance Report. In the 2008-2009 Departmental Performance Reports, AANDC states that "In the area of environmental stewardship, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada designated three sites under the Protected Areas Strategy and made progress in identifying remaining national wildlife areas."^{Footnote 27} Also, the 2010-11 Departmental Performance Reports affirms that "As part of the Northern Strategy, AANDC moved forward a number of key initiatives to support the development of sustainable Northern communities and to improve the business climate while taking necessary steps to protect its fragile ecosystems…."^{Footnote 28}

4.3.1 What are the best practices and lessons learned in program design and delivery (i.e., implementation)?

Case studies, key informant interviews and the document and literature reviews highlight four key best practices associated to the NWT-PAS. These include Aboriginal involvement, partnership, collaboration, communication and the use of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge.

Awareness

Case studies, key informant interviews and document reviews identify three key means through which NWT residents are made aware of the NWT-PAS. The first is the Strategy's commitment to information dissemination, which is executed by a communications team that was established during the Mackenzie Valley Five-Year Action Plan (2004-2009) and is expected to remain active by conducting ongoing communications activities to increase awareness until 2015. For instance, the Strategy is communicated to the public via a website, through radio, by newsletters and mailing out annual reports to NWT households. However, not all communities in the NWT have access to, or have reliable internet in order to consult pertinent information on the Strategy. Working groups, the Steering Committee and Secretariat also share the same commitment to information dissemination by holding regular meetings to discuss concerns, progress and updates on certain topics, such as assessment reports.

The second avenue for promoting awareness of the NWT-PAS among NWT residents, but which also builds capacity to engage interested parties in the Initiative, is the Strategy's commitment of holding information workshops designed for new employees and managers for team building and training purposes. According to the Multi-Partner PAS Budget and Work Plan from fiscal years 2008-09 to 2010-11, a total of eight workshops were funded by the NWT-PAS Secretariat, AANDC, Environment Canada and Ducks Unlimited.

Candidate area working groups were recorded in the document reviews as avenues that were designed to promote awareness of the NWT-PAS among residents, and enabled capacity among interested parties to participate in the Initiative. Working groups encourage and engage Aboriginal, territorial and federal governments, community representatives, Elders, environmental non-government organizations and industry representatives to participate in the Initiative. For example, the Protected Area Working Group for the Edéhzhíe national wildlife area is comprised of representatives from 16 different groups. Likewise, stakeholders who are part of working groups return to their communities/organizations/government to share information with other interested parties.

At the same time, this awareness of data is linked to capacity-building in the sense that it engages additional individuals in the Strategy and encourages further discussion in communities, government, non-governmental organizations and the private sector. For instance, the evaluation shows that federal protected areas agencies (e.g., Environment Canada) have experience in long-term monitoring programmes, established monitoring protocols, communication techniques and that their expertise could be helpful to Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program, and vise versa. In particular, interviewees indicated that the NWT-PAS "has a good set of ecological (and cultural) data that can be useful in evaluating cumulative impacts."

This is particularly significant since AANDC's website asserts that in the NWT, scientists, governments, Aboriginal people and industry are cooperating to monitor the cumulative effects of development on the environment. The website maintains that while scientists and Aboriginal people are carrying out field studies to assess current trends in the environment, Elders are using Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge to provide valuable information about weather patterns, the land, plants and animals, and how these have changed over time. The evaluation also highlighted the significance of collaboration between the NWT-PAS and programs such as the Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program as departmental officials noted that good environmental management requires putting together all the pieces of an environmental stewardship framework typically in a framework entitled the Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management Strategy and Framework.

Capacity

While some issues relating to the capacity for individuals and organizations to participate in the NWT-PAS stemmed from the discussion on the types of awareness of the Strategy by NWT residents (as reflected above), the evaluation raises an additional mechanism related to capacity: financial resources. The Initiative offers funding to communities to support meetings in communities and to travel to meetings in other locations. Funding also supports hiring local translators, caterers and supporting regional or local community coordinator positions. Through the NWT-PAS, the Initiative also provides the financial means to promote the capacity (i.e., human resources) to engage in consultations for resource assessments, identify candidate areas and prepare proposals. Case studies stated that financial resources provided by the Initiative have been important means to increase community capacity (as indicated in Section 4.2.1), adding that the NWT-PAS is a highly important vehicle to the protection of Crown lands.

However, while the Strategy strives to build capacity, at the time of this evaluation, some communities have less financial capacity than others, such as the North Slave Métis Alliance due to non-recognition of their status. Key informant interviews cited an additional challenge that impeded capacity, which was a lack of engagement of Steering Committee members, in particular, from attending meetings due to other commitments and responsibilities.

The NWT-PAS is committed to work with Aboriginal governments and organizations, the Government of Northwest Territories, environmental non-government organizations, industry, the federal government and other stakeholders in order to establish protected areas in the NWT. Likewise, most stakeholders and communities share the same commitment to establishing protected areas in the NWT, reflecting the importance of environmental sustainability and preservation of Aboriginal culture, tradition and history (as noted in Section 3.1.1).

There has been maintained support for the NWT-PAS, in general, and protected areas, in particular, but the evaluation also noted that support had increased over time, largely as a reflection of the creation of additional working groups and candidate areas.

By definition, "candidate area" can only be applied when it has community, regional and sponsoring agency support. The evaluation noted considerable support for candidate areas, such as from the Tlicho and Dehcho. Levels of support include participation in working groups, sharing best practices and other important information with stakeholders, attending Steering Committee meetings, opposing attempts to reduce the boundaries of candidate protected areas, among other measures. On the other hand, there has been one instance of a community, the Tulita District Land Corporation from the Shúhtagot'ine Néné candidate area, who withdrew from the NWT-PAS process after obtaining a sponsoring agency. At the same time, some First Nations would like to have entire areas protected while others look for more balance, including opportunities for resource/economic development. When asked if the NWT-PAS would be supported and embraced by communities that have yet to be part of it, an informant responded that all the NWT-PAS can do is to make the offer that the opportunity is available and it would be up to the communities if they would like to take part.

The document review indicates that those who are less supportive of the proposed protected areas argue for the use of a mixture of various means for land and area protection, which include applying formal protections like national parks, national wildlife areas, LUPs, merged with the prevailing regulatory environment, etc.

More specifically, while the private sector resource industry appears to be conversant with concerns that communities are concerned about over development of their lands and resources, they have been generally less supportive of the process than other stakeholders as they see it as a hindrance to explore and develop some lands protected by the establishment of protected areas. In particular, they express interest for an approach where decision makers will opt for a flexible, shorter-term protection that can be derived from approved regulations. Therefore, they cite access and flexibility as their primary concerns. They also advocate for a combined use of available tools for more suitable results, such as LUPs, which can be revisited and altered over time, and express the belief that economic/resource development will provide sustained financial gain to communities. In addition, their dissatisfaction with the direction of the Steering Committee, in particular, has led them to be less present at Steering Committee meetings. However, industry recognises some benefits of the NWT-PAS, including providing clarification and conclusions on various assessments, which, for example, provides information on what can and cannot happen within an area.

The NWT-PAS works with LUP boards and committees in order to ensure that areas identified for protection through the NWT-PAS process are accurately reflected in regional LUPs; the inverse is also true, where areas identified as ecologically or culturally important in an LUP could, or may, also be referred to the NWT-PAS to be evaluated for legislative protection and management. Furthermore, since the NWT-PAS complements the LUP (and other processes that may or could be used to achieve conservation goals such as heritage sites, or heritage river designation), the NWT-PAS managers provide information and advice on ecological representation to LUP boards and committees. LUPs set out rules that govern how certain geographic areas are to be managed in order to provide for better conservation and the appropriate development and use of lands, waters and other resources.

From the above examples, the evaluation concludes that stronger partnership is needed, particularly with industry. The evaluation has observed that the NWT-PAS is committed to working with Aboriginal governments and organizations, the Government of Northwest Territories, industry, and environmental non-government organizations in order to progress toward the ultimate outcome of establishing six national wildlife areas, one National Park and one Historic Site in the NWT. To date, the Government of Canada has not established the six mandated national wildlife areas.

AANDC and the Government of Northwest Territories share responsibility for implementing the NWT-PAS. They do this in partnership with other federal departments (Environment Canada and Parks Canada Agency), communities, regional organizations, land claim organizations, environmental non-government organizations, and industry. An interim land withdrawal is applied to an area pursuant to the Territorial Lands Act and through a federal Order-in-Council. The Government uses interim protection or interim land withdrawal as a tool to protect land from development and other activities for a certain period of time. With respect to the NWT-PAS, the initial period is a maximum of five years although more commonly two years and with additional renewal periods of two years. During this time, no new mining rights can be registered nor can new oil and gas rights be issued, while existing rights are grandfathered.

According to the NWT-PAS, interim protection refers to a time-limited withdrawal of lands (within the study area of a candidate protected area) from new surface and/or subsurface interests. Candidate national wildlife areas can be protected through interim surface only, subsurface only, or surface and subsurface withdrawal. The NWT-PAS requires that interim protection be used to ensure that the establishment of new surface and/or subsurface interests does not compromise the natural and cultural values of a candidate protected area during the protected area planning process. Step 4 of the 8-step process calls for partners in the planning process to consider, and where necessary apply, interim protection measures. The support of communities, regional organizations and/or land claim bodies, and an established partnership with a sponsoring agency is required prior to the implementation of interim protection. Letters of support from the territorial government, regional organizations and/or land claim bodies are usually required when the federal government applies for interim and land withdrawal.

Information on interim protection was mainly obtained from the document and literature reviews. According to the Advancing Conservation Interests in the NWT's 2008 Results-based Management and Accountability Framework/Risk-based Audit Framework, land withdrawals were already in place for Edéhzhíe, Sambaa K'e and Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta national wildlife areas, as well as a permanent land withdrawal for the Saoyú-?ehdacho National Historic Site and an interim one for the proposed Thaidene Nene national park reserve^{Footnote 29}. The evaluation study ascertained that there are now four candidate national wildlife areas under interim protection.^{Footnote 30} These include: Edéhzhíe, Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta, Ka'a'gee Tu and Sambaa K'e.

Kwets'oòtł'àà is currently awaiting ministerial/Cabinet approval for a two-year surface and subsurface Interim Land Withdrawal. This consultation was completed in July 2012 with the expectation that the subsequent application will receive ministerial approval by March 2013.

Based on documents received from the NWT-PAS, the majority of national wildlife areas have progressed steadily through the 8-step process and are expected to achieve final protection status by 2015. Specifically, case study interviewees express the position that both Kwets'ootl'aa and Ka'a'gee Tu will achieve the final step in one year. However, while a targeted Immediate Outcome of attaining three additional areas under interim protection by 2011 and up to four more by 2013 was set in the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework, this was not achieved.

Ecologically representative areas contain samples of all living things and various landscapes in an eco-region and all proposed protected areas have cultural, ecological and economic values. The goals of the NWT-PAS are to protect core representative areas within each eco-region as well as special natural and cultural areas.

To help meet these goals, a working group is formed, which then undertakes a study of the specific Area of Interest and then prepares an analysis of its ecological representation. Based on the analysis, the Area of Interest is evaluated in order to determine if it adequately represents the ecological features of a particular eco-region. Likewise, the NWT-PAS team also provides information and advice on ecological representation to LUP boards and committees. An Area of Interest identified as ecologically or culturally important in an LUP may also be referred to the NWT-PAS to be evaluated for legislative protection and management.

At the same time, the NWT-PAS process requires to undertake detailed evaluations of an area's ecological, cultural, and economic values. This includes (once a candidate area has been identified) evaluating existing renewable and non-renewable resources within a study area, identifying economic opportunities associated to those resources, while also highlighting any knowledge gaps. The designation of ecologically important sites is an Intermediate Outcome that calls for six national wildlife areas by 2013 and up to four more national wildlife areas after 2013.

Presently, there are four candidate national wildlife areas under interim protection.^{Footnote 31} These include Edéhzhíe, Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta, Ka'a'gee Tu and Sambaa K'e.

1. Edéhzhíe
   Edéhzhíe includes the Horn Plateau, Horn River, Mills Lake and Willowlake River. The Edéhzhíe working group's recommended boundary is 14,250 km² and was sponsored by Environment Canada as a candidate national wildlife area in 2002. According to the NWT-PAS website, in December 21, 2011, an Order-in-Council granted interim land withdrawal of surface and subsurface rights until May 2013. It is now in the advanced stages of Step 6 of the NWT-PAS process where a formal request has been made for the site to become a permanent protected area. As of date, the Government of Canada is reviewing the proposal for establishment. AANDC is also reviewing Environment Canada's request for an extension of the interim land withdrawal until May 2015.
2. Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta
   Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta, or Ramparts River and Wetlands, consists of approximately 15,000km² of prime northern boreal forest. It is a rich cultural area that lies west of the Mackenzie River and the community of Fort Good Hope. The working group's recommended boundary is 10,103km2 and was sponsored by Environment Canada as a candidate national wildlife area. The Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta working group finalized their Recommendations Report in March 2012. It is temporarily protected by an interim land withdrawal through an Order-in-Counci that expires in November 2013. Their next step is to make an official request to Environment Canada to advise the Government of Canada to establish Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta as a national wildlife area based on the finalized Recommendations Report.
3. Ka'a'gee Tu
   Sponsored by Environment Canada, the Ka'a'gee Tu candidate area is approximately 9,600km² and is situated in the south-eastern corner of the Dehcho region and includes a large portion of the Kakisa River watershed. The NWT-PAS website information and program documents show that much of the Ka'a'gee Tu Candidate Area is temporarily protected under the Dehcho Process Interim Measures Agreement, which offers interim surface and subsurface land withdrawal until November 2013.
4. Sambaa K'e
   The Sambaa K'e candidate protected area is approximately 10,600 km² and is situated in the south-central Dehcho region.Sambaa K'e is currently is in the 5th step of the NWT-PAS process, which is to make recommendations on the area's designation, boundaries and management. The Sambaa K'e Candidate Area is temporarily protected through the Dehcho Process Interim Measures Agreement, which offers interim surface and subsurface land withdrawal until November 2013.
5. Kwets'ootł'àà
   Kwets'ootł'àà is an area of approximately 590 km² located in the northern portion of the north arm of Great Slave Lake watershed and was sponsored by Environment Canada as a candidate national wildlife area. It is currently waiting for approval by the Government of Canada for a two-year surface and subsurface Interim Land Withdrawal, which is anticipated to occur in March 2013.

In order to protect the land, the NWT-PAS process uses various legislation, including existing federal and territorial laws. Laws provide long-term protection and make it difficult to change or remove protection. Documents reviewed show that there are three categories of protected areas legislation in the NWT: Federal Protected Areas Legislation (e.g. Canada Wildlife Act, Canada National Parks Act), Territorial Protected Areas Legislation (e.g. Wildlife Act), and Regional Protected Areas (including areas protected under land claims and Land Use Planning). Regional LUPs^{Footnote 32} have the ability to zone areas for conservation. The evaluation found that the policy conditions that will enable successful delivery of the NWT-PAS, including protection from surrounding human activity, include such legislative frameworks that are complimentary to each other.

Currently, the NWT-PAS sites include one National Historic Site (Saoyú-?ehdacho), which is protected under the Historic Sites and Monuments Act and Territorial Lands Act. The federal government and the Deline Land Corporation own the entire surface and sub-surface rights.^{Footnote 33} The proposed Thaidene Nene National Park would also require federal ownership of surface and sub-surface rights. Proposed national wildlife areas are to be protected under the National Wildlife Act. Documentation reviewed on Environment Canada activities states the purpose of national wildlife areas, that they are created and managed for the purposes of wildlife research, conservation, and interpretation in respect of migratory birds, species at risk and other wildlife (Canadian Wildlife Services) and "to conserve essential habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife species, especially endangered wildlife." To date, Environment Canada has not been able to establish any of the six mandated national wildlife areas.

Under the authority of the Minister of the Environment who is also the Parks Canada Agency Minister, Environment Canada is usually the sponsoring agency with the Canadian Wildlife Services as the administrator. Surface rights are held by Environment Canada, who, under the Territorial Lands Act, could make a request for subsurface rights to be permanently withdrawn. The Minister of Environment Canada can make this request to the Minister of AANDC on behalf of the communities and the department. Key informants have admitted that without federal sponsoring legislation, the barriers to land protection would be cumbersome.

The NWT-PAS process is driven by community decisions and the objective is that it will result in permanent, legal protection for candidate areas. To this end, a legislative approach to protecting these values and areas, which involves the legislative weight of governments, is seen as complementary to other processes as well as a beneficial way of attaining and protecting candidate areas. To some extent, it is expected that legislation will protect candidate areas, particularly when interim protection is not in place.

While the various legislations are complementary to each other, they also lend credence to Canada's international commitments and obligations with respect to protected areas. However, the evaluation found that when interim protection expires, in particular candidate areas, this leaves room for possible human activity (e.g. resource development) to take place. Only when an additional interim protection is granted (which can take several months to receive), can the candidate area be free of human activity. As the National Historic Site (Saoyú-?ehdacho) has so far shown, legislation does guarantee protection from surrounding human activity, but not in its absence, which is the very reason why communities and stakeholders involved in the NWT-PAS process are keen to reach Step 7 (approve and set up the permanently protected area) and Step 8 (manage, monitor and review the protected area).

There are mixed responses by key informant interviews and case studies pertaining to evidence that protection will lead to the expected ecological, social and economic impacts. The first group (mix of stakeholders) suggests that while the NWT-PAS has yet to achieve a balance between different impacts, they believe that the Initiative is well on its way to realising them. They suggest that this is primarily due to their interconnectedness to the 8-step process and through discussions at Steering Committee and working group meetings. Informants noted that if the NWT-PAS manages to create at least five protected areas in the next few years, it will go a long way to fulfilling the NWT-PAS' vision of protection that will lead to the expected ecological, social and economic impacts. For instance, case studies suggest that in terms of ecological impact, species at risk and other animals will remain and flourish in a protected area for generations to come; socially, they note that Aboriginal people will be able to continue their way of life, while also preserving and protecting their history, culture, tradition for future generations; and they believe that economically, Aboriginal people and communities will "have a handle on other initiatives," such as eco-tourism and preventing ecologically detrimental resource exploration and development. However, there is fear among the Initiative's participants that people in the NWT do not know what will happen in the end when an area does become protected. For example, Aboriginal people are nervous that they could lose their rights, tradition and culture. They are also nervous about how the land will be managed by the governing authorities and whether it will protect all Aboriginal values.

The other mix of stakeholders, on the other hand, did not directly speak to whether the protection of candidate areas will lead to the expected ecological, social and economic impacts, but focused more on two elements: sustainable development and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge. Informants suggested that while they are not certain if the Initiative will achieve sustainable development, they recognize that the program is part of a larger picture of achieving this end (e.g. it is part of a proper land management regime). However, they also recognize that it is well beyond the scope of the NWT-PAS to achieve sustainable development in the NWT.  A small group of informants presented various views, ranging from the belief that sustainable development will only be present in certain parts of the territory, while others suggested that it will not be achieved at all, citing competing interests, a lack of a common definition, and confusion as to what sustainable development means for people working in other fields, such as mining, land claims, etc. At the same time, another small group of respondents believe that the Initiative will not achieve balance, specifically for industry as it will make it more difficult for them to operate.

Key informants and case studies also touched on the use of Traditional Knowledge, which provides valuable information and important guidance for such stewardship activities. They mention that the presence of Traditional Knowledge and/or information considers how to effectively involve residents in decision-making processes and is an indicator that protection will lead to expected impacts when a protected area is established. Traditional Knowledge is discussed in more detail as a best practice in Section 4.3.1. While the evaluation sought to establish the extent to which it is likely that the NWT-PAS will lead to the protection of culturally and ecologically important sites without the compromise of resource development, only two informants responded to the question, both citing opposing perspectives. However, the evaluation found that the discussion on sustainable development (above) reflects whether the protection of culturally and ecologically important sites without the compromise of resource development would be possible. 

Positive unintended outcomes

Case study and interview participants indicate two broad key unintended positive outcomes. While some positive outcomes can be interpreted as being purposefully designed to stem from the NWT-PAS, both lines of evidence stressed these for their impressive impact on the Initiative and the communities. First, key informant interviews and case studies reported the substantial knowledge of the land that was gained from communication with Elders and other Aboriginal people, which will remain with communities and benefit them in the long-run. Not only this, but the level and quantity of data from the various assessments, as well as the knowledge gained from working groups and the Steering Committee has resulted in substantial benefits for the NWT-PAS process in general and stakeholders in particular. Such information provides communities with more and alternate information that they did not, or may not otherwise have, thus filling a data gap and enabling them to use that information in land claim negotiations. For example, ecological and cultural reports have reiterated the importance of migratory birds and endangered species. Secondly, the NWT-PAS process has brought communities, government, environmental non-government organizations and industry to work together, which has resulted in building stronger relationship between them.

Negative unintended outcomes

Interviews cite nine key negative unintended outcomes stemming from the NWT-PAS. The first includes time, particularly in the sense that the NWT-PAS process takes much longer than originally anticipated, which can consequently develop levels of frustration among the Initiative's members. The second focuses on what was considered as misleading and controversial perceptions of the NWT-PAS, such as anti-development, that candidate areas are too big, the misconception that protected areas will become a national park.

Where non-renewable resource assessments are concerned, it was noted that there were some instances wherein these assessments were conducted and which resulted in communities forgoing the Strategy in order to explore the possibilities of resource development instead. Closely associated to this unexpected negative outcome are examples provided of industry receiving data (at no financial expense), as a result of non-renewable resource assessments (e.g. minerals, oil and gas), something that they otherwise would have had more difficulty in attaining and at a cost to them. Interviewees noted as well that this is not the only impact but, for example, should communities decide to pursue resource development, industry would have already obtained a better understanding of where to focus their activities, adding to the technological advantage that they already have.

The fourth issue is in regards to non-renewable resource assessments that arise out of competing interests and an ongoing need to find a balance between protection and development. Where non-renewable resource assessments are concerned, there is a perception that they create an unfair advantage to industry in that while the overriding goal of the NWT-PAS is protection, it is not to the exclusion of development.

The fifth concern is with regard to interim withdrawals in the sense that assessments are, at times, being conducted without communities' involvement and that they are not being renewed, which, as the evaluation learned, leads to distrust in communities. For example, concerns were raised that AANDC is, at times, not undertaking consultations, but instead taking unilateral decisions. Although interviewees did not provide specific examples, it is assumed that these comments were in reference to the Edéhzhie interim withdrawals, which were the subject of litigation during this evaluation process. This specific case was, however subsequently resolved through settlement by the Parties in March 2013.

Also of great concern, which was repeated by multiple individuals, is that there has not been stable flow of funding to the NWT-PAS with respect to the sum of money that the strategy can or should expect and when it will be made available. In turn, this has negatively affected future planning on behalf of the NWT-PAS. Interviewees have also indicated that while the Initiative strives to achieve high levels of collaboration and communication, industry has not been keen in participating in the NWT-PAS. Both of these issues were addressed in more detail in Section 4.2.1 in Design and Delivery and in immediate outcome (b) in the Performance section of the evaluation report.

Finally, there is fear that communities will not have a final input or authority over the candidate site once it is protected under the Initiative, which is expressed in detail in immediate outcome (e) in the Performance section of the report. Briefly, this particular unintended outcome is linked to a lack of communication regarding clear future roles and responsibilities for all parties involved in protected areas.

5.2.1 How has the program optimized its process and the quality/quantity of products or services to achieve expected outcomes? (Efficiency)

NWT-PAS personnel have been successful in the coordination of the Strategy's activities, an indication of the Initiative's efficiency. In addition, the evaluation found that use of NWT-PAS structures (e.g. working groups, AANDC and Environment Canada regional officials) also resulted in efficiencies. For example, there is demonstrated alignment between the 8-step NWT-PAS process and federal department practices/processes. Respondents also indicated that the 8-step process is efficient due to its flexibility, its acknowledgement of all stakeholder interests and recognition that the Initiative has been efficient in terms of costs (e.g. value for money). In addition, the evaluation found no duplication of efforts.

At the same time, key informant interviews, document review and case studies identified a series of elements that can be addressed in order to help improve the Strategy's efficiency of program delivery. Certain areas for improvement cited here have surfaced in other parts of the report. Briefly, they include: accelerating approval for interim withdrawals, clarifying the strategy's role in terms of marine conservation, consistency and timeliness of funding, collaboration with others (e.g. Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program), clarifying governance structures and improving stakeholders' capacity in participating in Steering Committee meetings.

5.3.1 What does a comparison of the Initiative with protected areas/park creation in other jurisdictions determine about alternative approaches to achieve similar results?

Comparing the NWT-PAS with similar initiatives in other territories, provinces and countries will yield interesting data, but the risks of misinterpretation are high and could be misleading. The evaluation found that while each initiative is unique, comparisons ought to be considered with careful discretion and prudence and interpretations be applied cautiously.

In the NWT-PAS situation, comparisons are made with other protected areas in other provinces and territories as well as with similar initiatives within the NWT itself. For instance, the literature identified conservation strategies in Canada that are comparable to the NWT-PAS. In the Yukon, the Government adopted the Wild Spaces and Protected Places: A Protected Areas Strategy in 1998 in the effort to protect core areas and special sites in each of its 23 eco-regions.^{Footnote 34} In the Nunavut, a Nunavut Park Program is currently being developed by the Nunavut government and is to be followed by the implementation of a Parks and Conservation Areas System Plan, ultimately leading to a Protected Areas Strategy. At the same time, each province has a comparable conservation initiative. Alberta, for example, has the Alberta Special Places; Manitoba, the Protected Areas Initiative and Newfoundland, the Natural Areas Plan.^{Footnote 35}

Likewise, there are specific conservation initiatives within settlement areas and regions in the NWT that complement the NWT-PAS. For instance, the Inuvialuit Settlement Region has adopted the Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Area in the Mackenzie Delta under Fisheries and Oceans Canada Ocean's Act, which is nearing completion, as well as the Gwich'in Settlement Area involving the Gwich'in Land Use Plan, which is the only approved regional plan within the NWT that identifies areas for conservation, special management and heritage conservation zones and general use zones.

While there are additional conservation initiatives within settlement areas and regions in the NWT and country-wide, it was beyond the scope of the evaluation to analyze each one in order to explore alternative practices. The lines of evidence did not sufficiently address this question, thus, the evaluation cannot suggest that any one strategy would be more efficient in the NWT than the NWT-PAS. The NWT-PAS has proven to be flexible and complements regional LUP (e.g. the Initiative has the authority to function in unsettled land claims, whereas regional LUP cannot), thus indicating the uniqueness of the NWT-PAS.

The evidence from the majority of key informant interviews and case studies suggest that the NWT-PAS is unique (i.e., that there is no program like it), it has been suggested that LUPs would be an appropriate alternative. However, this must be taken into careful consideration as LUPs have notable differences with respect to the NWT-PAS. In particular, LUPs have the authority to change or amend boundaries, whereas these boundaries are considered permanent under the NWT-PAS. Also, LUPs take much longer to implement in comparison to the NWT-PAS. Another difference between both processes is that there is no management funding associated with conservation zones under LUP as there is with the candidate national wildlife areas established under this Initiative. On the other hand, the NWT-PAS is appropriate for immediate results and until there is a land claim in place, interim withdrawal becomes highly important in order to halt undesired industrial activity.

It has been expressed by key informants that certain modifications could be adopted into the NWT-PAS process, including having the Strategy identify a maximum size of a protected area from the beginning instead of having to increase boundary size in an incremental manner; this leads to apprehension for some stakeholders. At the same time, a number of key informants stated that many alternatives were considered when the NWT-PAS was established and that it took a lot of time to refine the process, which included new aspects and different values.

5.4.1 What are the perceptions on challenges and opportunities to achieve immediate outcomes?

5.5.1 Has the program minimized resources (financial, human and material) while optimizing outputs and outcomes? (Economy)

Overall, the NWT-PAS has been on budget for the last four fiscal years (2008-09 to 2011-12),^{Footnote 36} even in light of a shrinking budget, as demonstrated in Table 3. This is particularly notable recognizing the high costs of conducting business in the North, such as flying to remote locations, shorter operational seasons, etc. The Steering Committee regularly reviews the budget in an effort to make best use of funding, which comes from multiple sources (see Table 5).^{Footnote 37} Both tables 3 and 4 do not include Parks Canada Agency's financial information because as a sponsoring agency for specific areas, Parks Canada Agency has its own processes that pre-date the NWT-PAS. Table 5 provides Parks Canada Agency's financial information.

Table 5 below shows that Parks Canada Agency has not spent the entire envelope that it was allocated. Delays have hampered progress but the Agency is nonetheless moving forward with the operationalization of the Saoyú-?ehdacho National Historic Site and a feasibility assessment of the Thaidene Nene proposal, albeit at a slower pace. Funds have been carried forward to complete the specific projects intended. For instance, in Saoyú-?ehdacho National Historic Site, work is ongoing to build a traditional log cabin at the site for multi-purpose uses, including cultural gatherings. Pertaining to Thaidene Nene, work will continue to focus on relationship building and negotiations with the aboriginal groups, completing the socio-economic assessment, wrapping up the Mineral Energy and Resource Assessment, with public consultation targeted to start shortly.

Table 6 below provides an example of how the funds are distributed throughout NWT-PAS.

One of the evaluation findings relating to costs and confirmed by key informant interviews and case studies is the unequal distribution of resources for assessments. As Table 7 shows, 84 percent of the funds that AANDC contributed to assessments of candidate national wildlife areas were allocated to non-renewable resource assessments.

A further breakdown of the costs for non-renewable assessments in terms of AANDC's expenditure is shown in Table 8. In fiscal year 2008-09, the amount spent for non-renewable assessments was $1,129,314. Though this amount kept dropping over the years to $172,484 in fiscal year 2011-12, the amount spent in comparison to the other assessments is significant. The evaluation was unable to ascertain the reason for the decrease, although it is known that the amount spent on a Non-Renewable Assessment depends largely on the size of the study area as well as the location and existing information. In years when smaller and/or less remote areas are assessed, the amount spent on Non-Renewable Assessments will decrease. Some years more than one Non-Renewable Assessment was conducted, causing the amount spent to increase.

According to some interviewees, this disproportionate distribution of funds is compensated by the wealth of information resulting from these assessments. AANDC is the main funder for this task and spent $3,494,072 from fiscal year 2008-09 to 2011-12. A comparison of total AANDC funds that went into non-renewable assessments (Table 8) with overall AANDC actual funding (Table 4) shows how much of available funds went into non-renewable assessments.

The evaluation also noted that resources leveraged from other sources are not large, as identified in the Multi-Partner Budget and Work Plan (Table 4). The amount leveraged from other sources in fiscal year 2008-09 (see Table 4 footnote) was $22,376; no other information was available for the other years. Key informants also indicated that at certain times, and due to the inconsistent flow of funding from the federal government, NWT-PAS was left to borrow money from environmental non-government organizations in order to proceed with the agenda. Key informants added that a multiyear funding agreement would be more appropriate for this program because the expected amount would be clearly identified, delays would be reduced, and the NWT-PAS' efficiency, economy and cost-effectiveness would improve.

There are mixed feelings from informants regarding adequate levels of human and financial resources (quantity and quality) in terms of achieving results, but stakeholders are in general satisfied with the products and services provided by the NWT-PAS. In particular, they mention that there is good value for money spent on the Initiative. However, from other stakeholders' perspective, there is room for improvement. Case studies interviews showed that working group members are not fully satisfied with the quality of resource assessments. For example, the resource assessment reports (done by consultants), according to interviewees, could have better quality data and are not always of the highest calibre (i.e., sometimes important information was absent). Key informant interviews indicated that the quality issues appeared to be a consequence of the consultant's lack of knowledge of the NWT (i.e., the people, culture, geography), thus losing credibility within the community.

Other interviewees are of the view that more funds be allocated to the socio-economic assessments because it identifies all organizations, communities and other parties that may have interests in and around the Candidate Protected Area, identifies past and present socio-economic conditions for the potentially-affected communities and finally estimates the economic and other values of different resources found in the Candidate Protected Area. Also, interviewees noted as well that all reports produced are not always presented to the working groups and rarely are people in communities consulted with regard to issues related to the land, animals, resources, etc.

Regarding staff, respondents mentioned that the staff work hard at transparency, collaboration and are passionate about their work. However, they noted that there is room for additional human resources, particularly due to instances of staff turnover that have contributed to the inconsistency in the NWT-PAS process. Staff turnover was attributed to the nature of the work, work location and the type of funding agreement in place. Inferring from the documents reviewed and interviews, the evaluation could not determine the exact number of employees hired or who left the program.

Step 5 (assessments) was also highlighted as an area that can be better resourced in terms of funding and obtaining the particular expertise in certain assessments (i.e., hiring cultural anthropologists for cultural assessments, economists to undertake socio-economic assessments, etc). Regarding representation in working groups, there are two opposing perspectives. According to interviewees, some working group members believe that they have the appropriate number of representatives while others believe that there should be more representatives from communities, particularly of communities that reside in the candidate area. Other capacity issues are discussed in Section 4.2.1. Most of the informants noted that without NWT-PAS funding, some communities could not participate in the different steps of the NWT-PAS process.

Key informants and case studies interviewees mentioned that regarding the issue of fewer resources related to assessments, LUP was the only alternative method to achieve outcomes. Respondents strongly recognized that while NWT-PAS and LUP have some similarities, they are both unique in certain capacities. For example, the literature review and document review shows that both LUP and NWT-PAS set out rules for how certain geographic areas will be managed to provide for conservation, development, and use of lands, waters and other resources. Based on the document review, the evaluation found that the development of LUP can be legally required through comprehensive claims or legislation, can be pursued by governments and Aboriginal people if desired. Notably, areas identified as ecologically or culturally important in a LUP may also be referred to the NWT-PAS to be evaluated for legislative protection and management.

The multiple lines of evidence did not provide sufficient evidence as to whether the Initiative is cost-effective, thus, the evaluation could not formulate a sound conclusion on this matter. This conclusion is drawn from the evaluation's analysis that it is difficult to attach a pecuniary value to achieving a given conservation target with limited resources. This challenge is compounded by such evaluation limitations as resource and time constraints. Undertaking a cost-effectiveness analysis requires, for example, an understanding of the biological aspects of conservation, or the complexities attached to a total area of a landmass; there are many inherent challenges in estimating this. For instance, disaggregating overlapping costs as several of the actions involved in protected areas can achieve multiple objectives (e.g., new trans-boundary areas can improve connectivity, representativeness and protecting key ecosystem services). And where the degree of overlap is unknown, it is very difficult to disentangle overlapping costs or distinguish between certain costs, etc.

Furthermore, ascertaining cost-effectiveness requires a mastery of the knowledge of the different types of conservation costs, including such variables as management costs (i.e., those associated with management of a conservation program like establishing and maintaining a network of protected areas); acquisition/transaction costs (i.e., the price of acquiring/transferring property rights to a given parcel of land, which include the costs of negotiating with landholders and obtaining approval for title transfer); damage costs (damages to economic activities resulting from conservation programs; for example, damages to livelihoods from wild animals living in protected areas adjacent to human settlements can result in significant losses in income); or, opportunity costs (costs of foregone opportunities which are a measure of what could have been earned via the next-best use of a resource had it not been put to that particular use).

Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence suggests that the majority of informants suggested that NWT-PAS is cost-effective in that it uses its funding to maximize results and, as a result, there have been very notable successes for communities to participate in the process; they remarked that it gets the job done for a "low price." Without NWT-PAS funding as a financial leverage, communities would not have the opportunity to participate in the process.  Key informants and case studies interviewees also noted the great benefits of interim protection to protected areas, citing as examples, the prevention of resource development in areas where it is not needed, sustainability of the land, preservation of Aboriginal culture, tradition and history, protection of the unique environment/ecosystem for the community, for future generations, all Canadians and the whole world.

Relevance

The evidence demonstrates a continued need for a network of protected wildlife areas in the NWT. This is particularly due to increased interest and activity in economic/resource development in the NWT and its subsequent impact on First Nations, wildlife and habitat. At the same time, it is complementary to regional LUPs.

Recognizing that the environmental issues that prompted the creation of the NWT-PAS still exist, there is a continued need for tools, mechanisms, policy, leadership, coordination and collaboration with government bodies and communities that will help challenge these issues. In this respect, there is a need to maintain the NWT-PAS.

The Initiative is also aligned with Government of Canada priorities as AANDC manages the resources, land and environment in the North. NWT-PAS is also appropriately aligned with federal roles and responsibilities since it holds statutory and regulatory responsibilities to Crown land. However, it is unclear how and to what extent devolution of lands and resources in the NWT may impact the Government of Canada's roles and responsibilities with respect to the NWT-PAS.

Design and delivery

The evaluation found that the NWT-PAS is appropriately managed. Yet, while its governance structure is clear and represents a model of good decision making that involves multiple interests, the role of the Steering Committee raises concerns among stakeholders who are of the view that it must provide strategic direction and evolve, especially with devolution on the horizon. This could help prepare the NWT-PAS to respond to devolution-related issues. Therefore, the evaluation finds it necessary to not only review the Steering Committee's role and approach, but to evolve particularly in terms of protected area management and monitoring.

Overall, the evaluation found that the NWT-PAS's financial resources are sufficient in terms of supporting NWT-PAS processes, including decision making, administrative support and conducting assessments. However, there has not been a consistent flow of expected funds, which has posed challenges for planning and administrative efforts. Thus, ensuring a steady flow of funds and a strengthened human resource capacity are seen to be particularly relevant for now and in the coming years, as industrial resource projects (e.g., mining and energy) are expected to increase. There is also no evidence of performance measurement mechanisms.

The evaluation raises a key issue found in the implementation and oversight of the NWT-PAS with respect to marine conservation areas. Specifically, there is no evidence of effort made toward marine conservation. This highlights an important gap in NWT-PAS activities since program documents cite that it is to focus both on marine and terrestrial conservation, in addition to the fact that national wildlife areas are intended to protect land and water.

Performance

This federal contribution to the NWT-PAS has achieved some of its targeted objectives. For instance, there is awareness of the initiative among NWT residents and it is managed in a way where there is capacity among regional organizations and communities to engage in it. The program did not achieve its immediate outcome of attaining three additional areas under interim protection by 2011 and up to four more by 2013 according to the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework, nor did it establish any of the six mandated national wildlife areas under federal legislation. Currently, there is only one: Saoyú-?ehdacho. The realization of key intermediate and long-term outcomes, particularly of establishing the protection of 7 candidate areas under legislation by 2013, has likewise not taken place. Delivery issues (e.g., complexity, resource intensity, delays in approvals) as well as improved communication regarding reasons for delays were highlighted as challenges for the successful attainment of immediate and longer-term outcomes.

As stressed by a wide range of stakeholders, the evaluation confirms that significant and long-lasting improvements in efficiency and effectiveness of the NWT-PAS will only come from major changes. These changes include collaboration and coordination with other existing programs like Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program to reduce the length and costs of assessments while strengthening capacity, as well as a strong central function of a revamped Steering Committee, in combination with improved coordination from senior-level Headquarters-based federal officials. The evaluation suggests that the NWT-PAS has taken steps to minimize financial and material resources while optimizing outputs but was unable to confirm if the NWT-PAS was cost-effective due to a lack of data.