Audit of the National Hydrometric Program

Final - March 19, 2010

Table 1: Governance models used in the audit
Institutions	Governance Models
Governance International	The Good Governance Model (2008)
World Bank	A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance (2007)
	Worldwide Governance Indicators (1996–2007)
	Assessing Governance: Diagnostic Tools and Applied Methods (2002)
Institute of Internal Auditors	Organizational Governance, Professional Guidance (2008)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants	CoCo Model: Guidance on Control, which presents a control model referred to as Criteria of Control (CoCo) (1995). Used for this audit: the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Operations aspect.
Office of the Auditor General	Governance Framework and excerpts from various Auditor General’s reports
Treasury Board Secretariat	Management and Accountability Framework

The right column of the Table 1 explains the different Governance Models used from the institutions listed in the left column to develop the audit methodology.

Back to document

Table 2: Criteria used to assess governance
Dimensions of Governance	Criteria	Correspondence with the Management and Accountability Framework
1. Program’s Objectives and Strategies	Clear and understood	Policy and programs
1. Program’s Objectives and Strategies	In line with mandate	Policy and programs
2. Authority & Responsibility	Participation and delegation	Governance and strategic Directions
	Clear
	Consistent
3. Decision Making	Open and transparent	Governance and strategic directions
	Efficient
	Coherent
	Based on effective, efficient and negotiated rules
4. Performance and Accountability	Accountability regime	Accountability
	Performance assessment	Results and performance
	Clients’ satisfaction assessment	Citizen-focused service
5. Internal and External Risks	Identified, monitored and managed	Risk management
6. Exchange of Information	Sufficient, complete, timely, accurate	Governance and strategic directions
7. Learning and Innovation	Continuous improvement strategy	Learning, innovation and change management

The Table 2 shows the Dimensions of Governance that were selected after the reading of all the models to develop the audit methodology, along with the criteria used from those models and their correspondence with the Management and Accountability Framework.

Back to document

Table 3: Sample for audit objectives I & II
Coverage	Representatives
	Provincial and Territorial Governments		Environment Canada National Headquarters		Environment Canada Regional Offices		Others		Total Sampling		Total NAT & NHPCC Popula-tion
	I	II	I	II	I	II	I	II	I	II
National Administrators Table	6	5	2	-	2	1	-	-	10	6	18
National Hydrometric Program Coordinators Committee	5	5	2	-	3	3	-	-	10	8	18
Others: Government, University, Hydro Utility, Consultant, and Developer	-	2	-	1	-	2	-	8	-	13	-
TOTAL	11	12	4	1	5	6	-	8	20	27	36

As previously explained in the report, the Table 3 illustrates the samples selected for the interviews, for objectives I and II of the audit, and the cross-coverage between: the National Administrators Table; the National Hydrometric Program Coordinators Committee; and Others such as representatives from Government, University, Hydro Utility, Consultant, and Developer; and between Provincial and Territorial Governments; Environment Canada National Head Quarters; Environment Canada Regional Offices; and Others.

Back to document

Table 4: Comparison of hydrometric network
Country	Population Density Per km²	Number of Hydro-metric Stations	Station Density Per 1000 km²	Area km²	Total ARWR - (km³) 2008¹	Station Density Per Total ARWR - (km³) 2008²	GNI -(PPP in billions, Current International Dollars) 2008³	Station Density Per GNI in billions of Current International Dollars
England And Wales	390	1,396	9.23	151,174	147	9.50	2,218.21	0.63
Germany	230	3,000	8.40	357,021	154	19.48	2,952.42	1.02
Japan	874	1,444	3.82	377,873	430	3.36	4,497.72	0.32
France	115	1,500	2.22	674,843	204	7.35	2,134.44	0.70
United States	31	7,000	0.71	9,826,630	2,071	3.38	14,282.67	0.49
Canada	3.2	2,931	0.29	9,984,670	2,902	1.01	1,206.46	2.43
Australia	2.8	2,100	0.27	7,686,850	492	4.27	727.49	2.89

The comparison of the hydrometric networks for seven different countries is represented here in the Table 4. It shows the following data in different columns, for each of the seven countries: name of the countries; Population Density per km²; Number of Hydro-metric Stations; Station Density Per 1000 km²; Area km²; Total ARWR - (km³) 2008; Station Density Per Total ARWR - (km³) 2008; GNI -(PPP in billions, Current International Dollars) 2008; and finally Station Density Per GNI in billions of Current International Dollars.

Back to document

1 Food and Water, World Resources Institute (Annex 3, #79)

2 Food and Water, World Resources Institute (Annex 3, #79)

3 World Development Indicators 2009, The World Bank Group (Annex 3, #80)