An international environmental agreement or, sometimes, an environmental protocol is a kind of legally binding treaty that allows them to achieve an environmental goal. In other words, it is “an intergovernmental document intended to be legally binding with a stated primary objective of preventing or managing human effects on natural resources”.  MEAS are state-to-state agreements that can take the form of a “soft law”, which define non-binding principles that parties must take into consideration when taking action to address a particular environmental problem, or “hard-law”, which define legally binding measures to achieve an environmental objective. 1.22 The government`s transfer policy requires the use of a results-based management accountability framework for any federal grants or contribution funding program. In addition, the government generally encourages the use of important directives, programs and initiatives. However, there are no other formal requirements to use this framework or other similar tools. It is up to the competent management services to use the necessary means or tools to define the expected environmental results and performance of their agreements. 1.19 Performance Forecasts. Setting clear, quantified and temporal performance expectations is an essential cornerstone of effective accountability. Departments cannot be held responsible for achieving results unless those results are properly defined from the outset.
However, setting expectations and subsequently measuring actual results those expectations can be a major challenge in managing complex environmental issues. 1.1 International environmental agreements reflect key government policies on important environmental issues and Canadians should know what has and has not been achieved as a result of these agreements. We examined five international environmental agreements to determine whether the relevant federal divisions are aware of the extent to which the specific objectives of the agreements are being achieved. We found that departments have a different amount of information on the achievement of the environmental objectives and outcomes of their respective agreements. 1.132 In our audit case studies, the Court found that management departments have different information and knowledge about the achievement of the environmental objectives and results of their agreements. The electricity sector found that the departments are aware of the environmental results of two agreements (the Montreal Protocol and the Ozone Annex), which do not know the results obtained for two others (MARPOL and Ramsar) and have partial knowledge of one agreement (UNFA). The We found that, for the Montreal Protocol and the Ozone Annex, the expected environmental outcomes were clearly defined and the results measured. 1.119 Our five case studies provided additional insight into the responsibility of management services for the results of their agreements. We found that, overall, there is no significant difference between how the federal government manages and takes into account the environmental policies and objectives set out in international environmental agreements and those set out elsewhere. . . .