Evaluation of the AgriScience Program, 2025

Abbreviations

AAFC

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

BARD

Binational Agricultural Research and Development Agreement 

CAP

Canadian Agricultural Partnership 

CRDA

Collaborative research and development agreement 

HQP

Highly qualified personnel 

KTT

Knowledge and technology transfer 

OAE

Office of Audit and Evaluation 

PIP

Performance information profile 

R&D

Research and development 

Sustainable CAP

Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership 

TRL

Technology readiness level 

Executive summary

Purpose

The Office of Audit and Evaluation (OAE) of Agriculture and Agri Food Canada (AAFC) conducted an evaluation of AgriScience to assess its relevance, design, delivery, efficiency and effectiveness.

Scope and methodology

The evaluation examined AgriScience activities from 2021–2022 to 2024–2025, during the last 2 years of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) and the first 2 years of the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership (Sustainable CAP). The evaluation used multiple lines of evidence including a review of program documents, a literature review, a targeted file review, key informant interviews, an environmental scan, case studies and an analysis of administrative and financial data.

Background

AgriScience provides funding and support for pre-commercial research in the agriculture and agri food sector. The program is delivered through 2 components: clusters and projects. Through the cluster component, coalitions of research partners (industry, government and academia) represented by not for profit organizations apply to have research activities funded over 5 years. AgriScience also has a continuous intake for smaller individual research projects led by for profit or not for profit organizations.

Under both components, the program allocates non-repayable contributions (known as Vote 10 funding) for research activities conducted by recipients or their contracted science partners. AgriScience recipients can also involve AAFC researchers in cost-shared activities funded through a separate operational envelope (Vote 1 funding).

Findings

• AgriScience supports research that contributes to a productive, resilient and sustainable agricultural sector. The program is well aligned with the federal government’s and AAFC’s roles and responsibilities.
• The funding landscape for research and innovation in the sector has grown more complex, increasing the importance of coordination between funders and providing an opportunity to better delineate and connect AAFC research programs. Although there is potential for duplication between AgriScience and other federal and provincial programs, in practice, funding sources are complementary — recipients use different funding sources to support a variety of research activities.
• Under CAP, the program met most of its intended outcomes. Recent performance measurement improvements are expected to help the program better understand its impacts at the end of the Sustainable CAP period.
• Challenges in the application and review processes delayed funding decisions under Sustainable CAP. AgriScience timelines do not align well with the reality of agricultural research.
• Some AgriScience assessment criteria — in particular, the innovation criterion — are not clearly communicated to applicants or consistently defined for reviewers.
• AgriScience has some key design strengths that support the achievement of outcomes. However, the program is now stretched between multiple objectives and its design lacks specificity to address any one of those objectives in an optimal way.

Conclusion

There is an ongoing need to support research related to building a resilient and sustainable food system in Canada and increasing agricultural productivity. AgriScience addresses key barriers to scientific research in the sector and is well aligned with the federal government’s and AAFC’s roles and responsibilities. However, the funding landscape for research and innovation in agriculture has grown more complex and there is some potential overlap between AgriScience and other federal and provincial programs.

AgriScience has some key design strengths that support the achievement of outcomes. However, the program has existed for over 20 years, and its context has evolved. There is now ambiguity around what objectives this program should pursue. This makes it challenging to reach consensus among industry and AAFC officials, to clarify expectations and to effectively prioritize research areas. The current design lacks specificity to address any one goal in an optimal way.

When AAFC introduced new principles and research priorities for Sustainable CAP, changes were communicated early to the recipient community. However, because AgriScience has been a major source of support over multiple frameworks for some clusters, those design changes were met with a strong negative reaction. This challenge highlights the importance of engagement with industry and the research community before design decisions are made.

Despite the program introducing processes to increase efficiency, internal application timelines increased under Sustainable CAP. Simultaneous cluster applications overwhelmed internal AAFC reviewers. Because of the structure of the 5 year Policy Framework, the AgriScience funding cycle does not align well with agricultural research timelines. In addition, AgriScience assessment criteria as communicated to applicants are not consistent with the criteria used for assessment; and not all criteria are consistently defined for reviewers.

Under CAP, AgriScience met most of its expected immediate, intermediate and long-term outcome targets. There is early evidence of progress towards Sustainable CAP outcomes. New performance measurement approaches are expected to provide more insight on AgriScience impacts in the coming years.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Assistant Deputy Minister of Programs Branch should revise the Sustainable CAP applicant guide, application forms and technical review forms to establish clear and consistent project assessment criteria in all relevant documentation.

Recommendation 2: The Assistant Deputy Minister of Programs Branch, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Ministers of Science and Technology Branch and Strategic Policy Branch, should address design issues in potential future programming by:

• developing a focused set of objectives
• identifying the means to support these objectives
• engaging with a wide range of stakeholders

Recommendation 3: As part of the design of potential future programming, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Programs Branch should:

• explore solutions for design issues around timing and business cycles, including those related to the Policy Framework
• determine timelines that better reflect requirements for agricultural research

Management response and action plan

Management agrees with the evaluation recommendations and has developed an action plan to address them by September 2027. For further details see Annex C.

1.0 Introduction

The Office of Audit and Evaluation (OAE) at Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC) conducted an evaluation of the AgriScience Program (AgriScience or “the program”) as part of its 2024-25 to 2028-29 Integrated Audit and Evaluation Plan. AgriScience provides funding and support for pre-commercial research that benefits the agriculture and agri-food sector and Canadians. This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Treasury Board Policy on Results and was required under the Financial Administration Act. Findings are intended to inform current and future program and policy decisions.

2.0 Scope and methodology

This evaluation assessed the relevance, design, delivery and performance (efficiency and effectiveness) of AgriScience activities from 2021–2022 to 2024–2025, during the last 2 years of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) and the first 2 years of the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership (Sustainable CAP). The evaluation used multiple lines of evidence including a review of program documents, a literature review, an environmental scan, a targeted file review, key informant interviews, case studies and an analysis of administrative and financial data. For more details on the evaluation methodology, see Annex A.

The evaluation took place in parallel with Programs Branch’s work towards the renewal of AgriScience. Throughout the evaluation, the OAE coordinated with the Program Renewal Team so new knowledge gained could be incorporated into the design of future programming.

3.0 Program profile

3.1 Activities

AgriScience is a 5-year programFootnote¹ that falls under AAFC’s core responsibility for Science and Innovation. It contributes to the departmental objective of increasing the knowledge base of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector through scientific research.

The program is delivered through 2 components: clusters and projects.

• Clusters are coalitions of research partners (industry, government and academia) coordinated by a not-for-profit organization. Ahead of the AgriScience single application intake for clusters, each coalition prepares a research proposal composed of several research activities. AAFC assesses cluster proposals. Approved activities are funded for 5-years, up to a maximum of $15 million per cluster. Clusters are meant to address priority national themes and horizontal issues.
• Projects are undertaken by either a for profit or not-for-profit organization. Project applications are less comprehensive than cluster proposals and can be submitted on a continuous basis, during the entire AgriScience period (or until funding has been fully committed or otherwise announced on the website). Projects can have a duration of up to 5-years but are typically conducted over a shorter period, up to a maximum of $5 million per project.

Under both components, the program allocates non-repayable contributions (known as Vote 10 funding) for research activities conducted by industry or their (non-AAFC) contracted science partners. AgriScience clusters and projects can also involve AAFC researchers directly as leads, co leads or contributors. AAFC involvement is described in collaborative research and development agreements (CRDAs) and funded through a separate operational envelope (Vote 1 funding).

3.2 Resources

During the entire CAP period (fiscal years 2018–19 to 2022–23), AgriScience spent just under $353 million (see Table 1). This included almost $182 million in the form of Vote 10 contributions and $69 million as Vote 1 science funding for CRDAs (part of overall Vote 1 spending in Table 1). During CAP, the program supported 19 clusters and 88 projects.

Table 1: Total expenditures for the CAP period
Actual expenditures - CAP ($)

	2018–19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022–23	CAP total spending
Vote 10: Contribution	24,353,890	41,706,960	36,382,024	44,344,588	34,905,836	181,693,298
Vote 1: Salary	15,232,369	16,311,561	17,180,355	18,683,729	15,719,106	83,127,120
Vote 1: Non pay operating	20,724,428	25,071,200	13,365,493	19,800,932	19,164,818	98,126,871
Employee benefit plan	2,484,867	3,246,056	3,108,914	3,335,897	3,082,634	15,258,368
Capital	5,162,322	536,515	438,144	1,409,429	762,982	8,309,392
RevenueFootnote1	(5,405,932)	(8,272,339)	(4,275,445)	(6,742,479)	(9,160,387)	(33,856,582)
Total	62,551,944	78,599,953	66,199,485	80,832,096	64,474,989	352,658,467

Source: Program financial reports

Notes

Under Sustainable CAP, the program supports 17 clusters and has approved 39 projects as of April 2025. As of the end of 2024–25, the second year of the program, AgriScience had committed roughly $116.9 million for contributions (69% of its Vote 10 budget) and about $48.6 million in Vote 1 CRDA funds (85% of its Vote 1 budget).

4.0 Relevance

4.1 Need for science research and innovation

Growing demand, food insecurity, climate change, supply chain disruptions, finite environmental resources and an acceleration in technological change put pressure on the agricultural sector to innovate. In the face of these challenges, science and research support programs like AgriScience are essential to support innovation, and thus to build a resilient and sustainable food system in Canada. Funding for research and development (R&D) in agriculture generates high returns by increasing productivity and reducing input costs, increasing the sector’s contribution to economic growth. Evaluations of scientific research programs like AgriScienceFootnote², as well as the previous evaluation of AgriScience, consistently find that these types of programs provide economic and societal benefits over time.

AgriScience helps to address barriers to science, research and innovation

AgriScience addresses a major barrier to science, research and innovation: the availability of funds. There is underinvestment in Canadian agricultural R&D, particularly from the private sector. In cases where return on investment is not immediate (for example, higher-risk innovation research), industry often struggles to attract funding for research. External key informants highlighted several advantages offered by AgriScience: The program allocates significant amounts of funding dedicated to agriculture research, covers longer periods than other programs and incentivizes private sector investments through its matching requirement.

Capacity is another barrier the sector faces in the area of research and innovation. The sector is experiencing labour shortages and limited availability of specialized expertise, which impacts the ability to conduct research. This is challenging, especially for smaller industry segments with limited administrative and financial capacity. AgriScience helps address this barrier by involving AAFC’s own capacity through the availability of Vote 1 funding. AgriScience-funded research also helps develop and maintain the expertise of highly qualified personnel (HQP) in agriculture.

A third barrier is the fragmentation of the agriculture science research and innovation ecosystem in Canada. For research to have a positive impact in the sector, there is a need to connect different research communities, as well as researchers with end users. AgriScience assists in addressing this barrier by supporting collaborative research and knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) activities. KTT involves the sharing of research results with various audiences, including potential end users.

4.2 Alignment with government priorities, roles and responsibilities

AgriScience is well aligned with departmental and federal priorities. Science and innovation advancement are identified as core responsibilities in AAFC’s 2023–2024 Departmental Plan as well as a key priority area in the joint federal, provincial, territorial Guelph Statement to address key challenges and opportunities. AAFC’s 2023–2027 Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy also identifies science research as playing a key role in contributing to AAFC’s commitments to climate change.

Departmental science goals in place during CAP and the development of the Sustainable CAP included:

• increasing agricultural productivity
• improving environmental performance
• improving attributes for food and non-food uses
• addressing threats to the agriculture and agri-food value chain

Launched in 2022, AAFC’s Strategic Plan for Science describes the need for collaborative R&D, knowledge translation and support for adoption of improved practices to advance 4 science missions:

• mitigating and adapting to climate change
• increasing the resiliency of agro-ecosystems
• advancing the circular economy by developing value-added opportunities
• accelerating the digital transformation of agriculture and agri-food

The need for government programming to support science research and innovation is also expressed in several documents including the 2024 Fall Economic Statement, the 2021 Speech from the Throne and AAFC Mandate Letter and the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. As part of the AgriScience proposal assessment process, AAFC reviewers examine the degree to which proposals align with sector and government priorities.

AgriScience put greater emphasis on government priority research areas under CAP and Sustainable CAP

In its first iterations, AgriScience was explicitly industry-led and focused on priorities identified by the sector. Since CAP, there has been greater emphasis on government priorities. Under Sustainable CAP, AgriScience prioritized 3 areas in line with the federal, provincial, territorial Guelph Statement: climate change and environment; economic growth and development; and sector resilience and societal challenges. The program established a new requirement to have 30% of cluster funds directed to environmental research and half of those funds (15% of the cluster envelope) dedicated to climate change mitigation. To support and incentivize investments in this area, AAFC maintained a favourable cost-sharing ratio of 70/30 for project activities focused on greenhouse gas emission reduction and carbon sequestration, while the cost-shared ratio for other research areas became 50/50. Although AgriScience’s scope remained broad and open to a variety of research objectives, clusters expressed concern that the program would be less sector-driven than previous iterations. This tension between government and industry priorities is further discussed below, under “Program design”.

4.3 Overlap and duplication

The evaluation found that the funding landscape for research and innovation in the sector has grown more complex since the launch of AgriScience nearly 20 years ago, with the creation of new programs, research entities and networks. AgriScience now exists in the same space as other federal and provincial programs. Recipients who access multiple funding sources use them in a complementary manner, to fund a variety of research activities. As the research and innovation ecosystem grows, coordination between funders is becoming increasingly important.

There is some potential overlap in science activities between AgriScience and other AAFC research programs, including Agricultural Climate Solutions – Living Labs, the Research and Innovation component of the Agricultural Clean Technology Program, AgriInnovate and AAFC’s Foundational Science and Research (as well as the Collaborative Framework). AgriScience occasionally transfers projects to other programs, but interviewees from AAFC believe there is an opportunity to better delineate or connect the different programs, especially given the involvement of AAFC scientists across several of them.

5.0 Program design

5.1 Design limitations

Some elements of AgriScience’s design are unique and well aligned with its intended outcomes as currently defined:

• A national scope and support for coordination and research collaboration across Canada
• Larger funding amounts and a longer funding period compared to other programs
• Broad eligibility that can support a range of pre-commercial research
• Funding for KTT activities
• Industry involvement and incentive for private investments in research

However, evaluation findings indicate that AgriScience’s potential to accelerate innovation in the sector is not fully realized through the current design.

The current design limits the program’s ability to fund some forms of research

Currently, clusters receive over 70% of the funding envelope, which leaves some forms of research under-supported. Clusters coordinate priority-setting processes and calls for research proposals in direct consultation with sector stakeholders. Cluster partners (primarily producer associations) prioritize research that generates good return on investment, applies to their region and benefits their sector directly. This means that AgriScience mainly funds commodity-specific, primary agriculture research. This type of R&D brings about incremental, continuous improvements of production processes or varieties. This is an important form of research, but AAFC’s Strategic Plan for Science calls for mission-driven, more-transformative science to help address cross-cutting sector issues, along the entire value chain. As over 70% of the funding goes to incremental, production and commodity-focused research, AgriScience is limited in its ability to support other types of work aligned with the program’s objective of accelerating innovation. AgriScience is not precise regarding what it is meant to support.

In addition, AgriScience’s broad and one-size-fits-all design lacks the specificity to support different categories of research activities in an optimal way. The current design does not distinguish between different forms of pre-commercial research (whether emerging, early stage, applied, incremental or transformative), even though these pursue distinct objectives and require different funding parameters.

AgriScience’s role in capacity building lacks clarity

The evaluation showed that there are 2 understandings of capacity building being discussed in relation with AgriScience: the capacity to undertake research during the funding period and capacity beyond what is supported by the program.

AgriScience creates short-term capacity by enabling research activities and the training and expertise development of HQP. The program does not incentivize or support the development of sustainable and autonomous industry research capacity. In fact, a significant share of supported science is conducted at Canadian universities (just under 40%) and in AAFC research centres through the Vote 1 component (just over 30%). Internal interviewees expressed concerns that industry remains dependent on AgriScience funding and others’ capacity for research, despite decades of investment. Interviewees worry that there has been no strategy for the private sector to become more autonomous in at least some research areas, which would allow AgriScience to support other strategic activities.

The question of long-term capacity building suggests that if the program intends capacity building to carry a broader meaning, clarification of that objective is necessary.

The program’s design is not tailored to a diverse eligible applicant population

The evaluation and a client journey mapping exercise commissioned by the program both found that the current design creates barriers for some prospective applicants. AgriScience is relatively complex administratively which is one potential hurdle. The delay from proposal development to research start and the requirement to match funds are additional challenges, especially for smaller organizations as well as clusters without stable funding sources (that do not have producer levies or service charges going to research). Getting private businesses to commit funding over several years is difficult and comes with significant financial risks if partners pull out. The limit on in-kind contributions is also challenging for sectors where direct participation of producers is a crucial form of industry support to research. Some of those factors have caused cluster recipients that were funded under CAP not to return under Sustainable CAP, and others to wonder whether they would return as clusters in potential future funding periods.

The involvement of AAFC researchers in AgriScience presents benefits and challenges

Where AAFC scientists deliver some of the research activities the program funds (through Vote 1 funding), AgriScience is not a typical grants and contributions program. External interviewees view the participation of AAFC experts in AgriScience supported research as a strength of the program, citing that AAFC possesses unique expertise, infrastructure and connections, as well as brings credibility and independence to research projects.

This aspect of the program also presents some challenges. Currently, AAFC scientists sometimes develop an AgriScience proposal with industry partners but see that proposal rejected when assessed against Program criteria, which gives external partners the impression that there is no internal cohesion within the department. AAFC interviewees pointed out that there is no guidance on how—or if—projects involving AAFC scientists should balance industry priorities with AAFC objectives — including mission-driven science. Clusters also expressed frustration over the difference in the level of financial reporting for Vote 1 and Vote 10 funds. Specifically, clusters criticized the lack of reporting from AAFC on how Vote 1 and matching funds are used in the context of AAFC research activities, compared to the detailed reporting required from recipients on their own activities and use of Vote 10 funds.

Some elements of Gender-Based Analysis Plus were built into the program

Foundational AgriScience documents recognize the systemic issues that impact diversity in research while also acknowledging the importance of diversity to innovation. The program refined its Gender-Based Analysis Plus data collection approach for Sustainable CAP and nearly half of applicants indicated that their organization has leadership or beneficiaries from underrepresented groups. Since 2020-21, the number of members of underrepresented groups involved in Program supported research has increased. This may be due to increased reporting or greater emphasis on diversity in various research environments.

Under Sustainable CAP, AgriScience had a specific amount of money set aside for Indigenous projects, with dedicated processes and more flexible funding terms. As of spring 2025, AgriScience had received 3 Indigenous project applications and approved 2. AAFC interviewees noted that this component supported fewer projects than what was hoped for, but that improved collaboration between teams within AAFC could help identify more Indigenous led research initiatives that could be supported through AgriScience.

5.2 Challenges to design changes

Under Sustainable CAP, AAFC faced challenges in introducing new mandatory research priorities. The 3 new priority areas, which were communicated starting in the summer of 2021, did not represent a major departure from past research supported through AgriScience and were broad enough to accommodate various industry priorities, yet those changes were met with resistance by established recipients.

Recipients reported that they would have wanted more dialogue with AAFC before decisions to change the design were made, given that the program intends to support industry government collaboration and now has a 50/50 cost-share ratio. Industry stakeholders worry that design changes may politicize program objectives, create a disconnect from the sector and devalue past research investments as well as the progress the sector has made up to now.

Given the collaborative nature of the program, future design changes to AgriScience would require early and meaningful engagement with the broader research community (beyond current recipients) to clearly establish the program’s objectives and adjust the design accordingly.

6.0 Efficiency

6.1 Applicant challenges

During Sustainable CAP, the average number of business days for a cluster application to be deemed complete rose by 20 days compared to CAP. For projects, there was a 6 day increase. Cluster applications were submitted close to the deadline and took longer to be deemed complete primarily because of the following:

• Some clusters needed to adjust their proposals to meet the new mandatory thresholds for activities related to environmental research and climate change mitigationFootnote³;
• Given a relatively small and interconnected pool of scientific expertise in Canada, clusters had difficulty identifying available peer reviewers without any conflict of interest. The peer review process took extra time, while providing limited value;
• AAFC introduced a new budget form for clusters with the intention of better assessing eligibility and efficient use of funds. To provide this more granular budget information, clusters had to complete additional back-and-forth with research teams.

Under CAP, all cluster applicants were invited to have their proposals reviewed by consultants hired by AAFC before official submission. This pre-review helped to ensure proposals were complete when submitted to the program. Under Sustainable CAP, the program encouraged clusters to submit a draft of their application in the fall, before the official application deadline in February, in an effort to try to mitigate approval and funding delays. Only one cluster submitted a full draft for preliminary review.

Because of the factors listed above, several cluster applications had to undergo revisions after submission to AAFC. Along with internal AAFC delays (described below), this contributed to late funding decisions. In a number of cases, clusters experienced setbacks to their timelines, with some research activities postponed by up to a year. Delays negatively impacted recipients’ ability to use Vote 1 and Vote 10 funds as planned and caused issues where project partners (including financial partners) were no longer available.

6.2 Internal processes

During the evaluation period, AgriScience introduced a few process improvements to increase efficiency. During CAP, project applicants filed a project summary form prior to submitting a full application, ensuring that resources were not wasted on ineligible project applications. For Sustainable CAP cluster applications, a new director-level committee was created to discuss issues, achieve consensus and develop recommendations, as a way to streamline the decision-making process at higher levels.

However, the average number of business days to deliver a funding decision for a completed cluster application increased from CAP to Sustainable CAP (See Table 2 below). The program only met its 100-day service standard to deliver a funding decision in 47% of cases for clusters and 63% of cases for projects (against a target of meeting the standard in 80% of cases).

Table 2: Average number of days for a cluster to receive a funding decision

Policy framework	Business days from application deemed complete to funding decision
Canadian Agricultural Partnership	74
Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership	100

In addition to the factors that impact the length of time for an application to be deemed complete (described above), a key contributor to the delays in reaching funding decisions is the technical assessment process. The technical assessment of clusters involves 4 branches: Programs; Science and Technology; Strategic Policy; and Market and Information Services. This is a time and resource intensive process. The simultaneous submission of all cluster proposals towards the end of the Sustainable CAP application period led to demands for technical reviews surpassing internal capacity: 98% of technical reviews were received after the 20 business days request and 49% took more than 30 business days.

The evaluation also noted inconsistencies between assessment criteria as outlined in the applicant guide, application form and internal reviewer forms. Specifically, “innovation” is not included as an assessment criterion in application documentation but is included in some internal technical review forms. The forms that do include innovation do not include a clear definitionFootnote⁴ of the term, or how to assess it. This type of ambiguity can delay funding decisions where reviewers’ perspectives diverge.

Finally, after the funding decision is made and communicated to the applicant, delays can also occur in obtaining approval signatures for contribution agreements and CRDAs.

To solve timeliness issues, recipients suggested having the application process occur earlier, to ensure AAFC can deliver funding decisions on time and provide principal investigators sufficient time to prepare. The program has worked to release application information as early as possible, but the structure of the multilateral framework limits flexibility to implement changes to program timelines.

7.0 Effectiveness

7.1 Performance measurement approach

Moving from CAP to Sustainable CAP, the AgriScience logic model (see Annex B) and PIP were updated with new and reformulated indicators and requirements. These changes include:

• a new requirement for clusters to conduct impact assessments
• requirements for applicants to outline performance measures and indicators to support impact tracking (from a list supplied by the program)
• requirements for clusters to outline intended outcomes in qualitative and quantitative terms, at the activity and sector level
• changes to annual reporting for clusters and projects, now in one report for each activity covering all years of the activity
• the addition of technology readiness levels (TRLs)Footnote⁵ to gather information about the development of products, practices, processes, services or technologies

These new requirements for outcome data are expected to provide information on the impact of research supported by AAFC, and thus allow for a more robust assessment of program effectiveness towards the end of Sustainable CAP.

7.2 Achievement of results

The following sections present available data on targets and results of AgriScience under CAP, covering all 5 years of the Framework (2018–19 to 2022–23). Sustainable CAP results are not included, as there is only 1 year of performance data available. Early results show some progress towards targets.

Capacity building

One intended outcome of AgriScience, as stated in the program’s PIP, is “increased research capacity in the sector”. The evaluation confirmed that the program increases the capacity of funding recipients to undertake research while they are receiving funds, including research they would not otherwise have been able to undertake. As noted above, AgriScience-funded research also contributes to developing and maintaining the expertise of HQP in agriculture.

The program helps support collaboration between industry, academia and government, who bring different experience and expertise to research activities. However, there is opportunity for the clusters to collaborate more with one another. In addition, the percentage of activities and projects with public/private partnership was lower than expected. Internal stakeholders suggest that this is likely because the target was set too high.

Table 3: AgriScience performance: Capacity building (CAP)

Indicator	Target	Actual
Dollar value ($) of non government and other government investments in clusters and projects	152,780,000	202,129,186
Number of HQP working on funded activities	524	980
Percentage of activities and projects with public/private partnershipFootnote1	55	34

The percentage of activities and projects with public/private partnerships (measured as the proportion of recipients receiving both Vote 1 and 10 funding) is the only indicator currently used to measure partnerships or collaboration. Complementary indicators to document partnerships beyond those between AAFC scientists and recipients would strengthen AAFC’s ability to tell the performance story of the program.

Knowledge development and KTT

Knowledge development

The program supports the development of valuable public knowledge and non-proprietary information that can primarily inform further research, and producers’ decision-making in some instances (see Table 4). Some of the knowledge developed by clusters has also contributed to non cluster projects. Under CAP, the program exceeded its targets for knowledge development (see Table 4).

When assessing the value of knowledge development, it is important to remember that:

• development of knowledge is not linear: research can lead to valuable results that are unexpected and differ from preset objectives
• results are cumulative, building over time and this incremental development is vital to research
• there is also value in research that invalidates a hypothesis or demonstrates that something does not work

Measuring the impact of knowledge development can be complex, as not all knowledge developed will have a clear output that is easily measured against preset short term objectives. That said, this does not mean there is no value to that development.

Table 4: AgriScience performance: Innovation and knowledge development (CAP)

Indicator	Target	Actual
Number of new technologies (products, practices, processes) developed	186	310
Number of new technologies assessed under research conditions	390	673
Number of new technologies demonstrated on-farm or in-plant	205	288
Number of new technologies that attained intellectual property protection	320	342

Knowledge and technology transfer

The program provides support for KTT activities during the funding period. Most projects and activities use a multi-pronged approach to reach different audiences (for example, provincial and national conferences, cluster events, articles, factsheets, podcasts, videos). The scale and success of KTT activities depend on a recipient’s network, their access to KTT expertise and their experience in transfer activities.

The evaluation suggests that the impact of KTT is limited by the fact that funding for these activities is available only during the funding period, while some research results that could be used as the basis for events or documentation only become available at the end of that period. KTT for these final results then has to be supported by other resources. This challenge can be more acute when research activities are delayed due to late funding decisions.

In addition, disseminating information is not a guarantee of knowledge mobilization and impact for the sector. Based on the indicators currently measured, KTT efforts are successful. However, there is no indication of whether those who attend KTT events or consult KTT documents intend to use or would be able to use the information they learn. KTT as defined in the context of AgriScience is also limited to information transfer from research teams to audiences outside of a research project, while a key enabler of knowledge mobilization is the participation of end users and other key partners in research as it is conducted. The program does encourage and support the inclusion of end users as well as other partners in research projects but does not report on partnerships as a KTT measure.

Table 5: AgriScience performance: KTT (CAP)

Indicator	Target	Actual
Number of knowledge transfer events/presentations to share results with potential adopters or towards commercializing the technology	2,620	954Footnote1
Number of participants at training/ knowledge transfer events	5,100	930,883
Number of new knowledge transfer products developed	3,800	5,293
Number of papers published in peer reviewed journals	1,100	1,726

Long-term outcomes

Adoption

AgriScience investments have resulted in research outputs that are adopted by the sector. This includes new agronomic practices adopted by growers, crop varieties and technologies adopted by farms. Adoption is facilitated by the focus on research that is aligned with sector priorities and is applicable to real-world scenarios. However, these priorities are often commodity-specific, which can limit the potential impact AgriScience supported research has for the agricultural sector.

Sustainability and economic outcomes

A key challenge for research support programs is measuring impact. Impacts of scientific research programs occur in the long-term and are unlikely to be observed during a 5-year funding period. A related challenge is that the benefits of research might not accrue to the funding recipient, but to others in the sector. Findings or discoveries from research may be used or commercialized by parties other than those that received the research support. This means that funding recipients may not have a full picture of the impact of their own research.

Under Sustainable CAP, AAFC is requiring clusters to prepare impact assessments, which are intended to capture the impact of AgriScience investments over time. In addition, the program added other indicators of longer-term impact including the application of the index of Agri-Environmental Sustainability. The future achievement of results related to environmental sustainability is supported by the favourable cost-share ratio for greenhouse gas reduction activities (and the resulting increase in those activities). However, there is limited evidence to date on the achievement of these outcomes.

In addition, there are plans to collect information on returns on investment, including the economic benefits for producers adopting innovative practices. Economic benefits can emerge through, for example, adoption of more resilient varieties, increased food safety (which prevents recalls and prolongs shelf life) and increased productivity. This type of impact could be increased by helping new and emerging sectors expand and develop, though these sectors are facing challenges in accessing AgriScience funding.

Some similar programs around the world do calculate the long-term cost-benefit ratios of their investments. For example, the United States-Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund (BARD) is a competitive funding program jointly funded by the governments of the United States and Israel for mission-oriented, strategic and applied research of agricultural problems. BARD undertook a 40 year external review and the authors estimated a return of $16.50 for every dollar invested over 40 years. Similar analysis of AgriScience would help illustrate the program’s impact.

8.0 Conclusions and recommendations

AgriScience supports research related to building a resilient and sustainable food system in Canada and increasing agricultural productivity. The program helps to address key barriers to science and innovation in the sector and is well aligned with the federal government’s and AAFC’s roles and responsibilities. The funding landscape for research and innovation in the sector has grown more complex and there is some potential for overlap between AgriScience and other federal and provincial programs, though funding is used to fund a variety of activities.

AgriScience has some key design strengths that support the achievement of outcomes. That said, the program has existed for over 20 years, and its context has evolved. There is now ambiguity around what objectives this Program should pursue and many possible avenues. This makes it challenging to reach consensus among industry and AAFC officials, to clarify expectations and to effectively prioritize research areas. The current design lacks specificity to address any one goal in an optimal way.

When AAFC introduced new principles and research priorities for Sustainable CAP, changes were communicated early to the recipient community. However, because AgriScience has been a major source of support over multiple frameworks for some clusters, those design changes were met with a strong negative reaction. This challenge highlights the importance of engagement with industry and the research community before design decisions are made.

Despite the program introducing processes to increase efficiency, internal application timelines increased under Sustainable CAP. Simultaneous cluster applications overwhelmed reviewers. Further, the AgriScience funding cycle, based on the structure of the 5 year Policy Framework, does not align well with agricultural research timelines.

In addition, AgriScience assessment criteria as communicated to applicants are not consistent with the criteria used for assessment; and not all criteria are consistently defined for reviewers.

Finally, under CAP, AgriScience met most of its expected immediate, intermediate and long-term outcome targets. While it is too early to conclude if Sustainable CAP outcomes were achieved, there is early evidence of progress towards outcomes. It continues to be difficult to determine the impact of the program, but new performance measurement approaches, including the introduction of impact assessments for clusters, are expected to provide more insight in the coming years.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Assistant Deputy Minister of Programs Branch should revise the Sustainable CAP applicant guide, application forms and technical review forms to establish clear and consistent project assessment criteria in all relevant documentation.

Recommendation 2: The Assistant Deputy Minister of Programs Branch, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Ministers of Science and Technology Branch and Strategic Policy Branch, should address design issues in potential future programming by:

• developing a focused set of objectives
• identifying the means to support these objectives
• engaging with a wide range of stakeholders

Recommendation 3: As part of the design of potential future programming, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Programs Branch should:

• explore solutions for design issues around timing and business cycles, including those related to the Policy Framework
• determine timelines that better reflect requirements for agricultural research

Annex A: Evaluation methodology

Document review

The document review was conducted to support the assessment of program relevance, design, delivery and effectiveness. This review included a broad range of document types, such as documents outlining Government of Canada and AAFC priorities, corporate documents relevant to the program’s context and priorities; policy, planning, and governance documents specific to AgriScience activities; documentation from the AgriScience renewal process and previous evaluations of the program.

Literature review

The literature review addressed program relevance using information gathered from recent peer reviewed articles and credible grey literature. Searches were conducted related to the topic of agricultural science research and innovation in Canada and other developed countries. Staff from the Canadian Agricultural Library helped to identify literature sources for this line of evidence based on a search request from the evaluation team.

Database and project file review

A database and project file review was conducted to assess program design, delivery, efficiency and effectiveness. The database review compiled relevant performance data and other statistics from the program’s Microsoft Access database. The project file review examined project files from a sample of clusters and projects. These files included: application forms, technical reviews, project recommendation forms, contribution agreements and performance reports.

Interviews

Key informant interviews gathered insights from program stakeholders on the relevance, design, delivery and effectiveness of AgriScience. A total of 50 interviews were conducted with

• program representatives (9)
• AAFC non AgriScience program representatives (9)
• funding recipients (new, former and current) (28)
• external principal investigator leads (3)
• experts (1)

Following interviews, evaluators gave cluster interviewees a short feedback form to complete as well.

Case studies

Four case studies were conducted to assess program relevance, design, delivery and effectiveness. Four clusters that have been funded over multiple iterations of the program were selected. Narratives were written based on evidence from interviews, a targeted file review (for example, relevant applications, performance reports and contribution agreements) and complementary information found online.

Environmental scan

The environmental scan complemented the jurisdictional scan that was conducted by the program’s renewal team and aimed to identify best practices, lessons learned and methodological considerations noted in evaluations and evaluative reviews of similar programs within and outside Canada. The environmental scan examined evaluations, evaluative reviews and published articles, papers, government or industry websites that discussed evaluation and performance measurement issues related to programs like AgriScience.

Methodological limitations

Data limitation: Due to timing, there was only 1 year of performance data available under Sustainable CAP.

This limitation has been noted in the report: OAE did not assess effectiveness for Sustainable CAP.

• Impact on evaluation: Low

Response bias: Interviewees may have been biased in their responses based on their role and responsibility in relation to AgriScience.

The evaluation included interviewees who represented a diversity of views. Interview data was triangulated with other lines of evidence and findings were reviewed by multiple team members to identify elements of bias.

• Impact on evaluation: Low

Timing of evaluation: In preparation for AgriScience Program renewal (for the Next Policy Framework), the program was conducting an internal review at the same time of the evaluation.

The evaluation team coordinated closely with Programs Branch to reduce the risk of duplicating work, to mobilize the work already completed by the renewal team and to bring value to the renewal process through the evaluation.

• Impact on evaluation: Low

Annex B: Logic model

CAP logic model

Activities

Program activities

• Receive applications
• Review and propose projects/applications for approval or rejection
• Negotiate and prepare contribution agreements
• Negotiate and prepare collaborative research and development agreements
• Process financial claims
• Collect and analyze performance information
• Monitor projects
• Communication with industry

Recipient activities

• Conduct scientific research and development
• Test, develop and/or improve innovative agri products, practices and processes
• Training and knowledge transfer
• Engage AAFC researchers to assist research and development
• Manage projects
• Prepare project reports

Outputs

Program outputs

• Applications received
• Approval/rejections letters sent out
• Contribution Agreements signed
• Collaborative research and development agreements signed
• Financial claims processed
• AAFC investment
• Documents/records indicating performance information
• Ongoing communication with industry

Recipient outputs

• Applications and research proposals
• Innovation and research and development outcomes
• Collaborative relationships and networks
• Knowledge transfer products (examples could include podcasts, brochures, factsheets, flyers, guides, articles in trade magazines, technical bulletins and social media items)
• Publications
• Technologies, products, processes
• Beneficial management practices

Immediate outcomes

• Innovations supported by research and development are commercialized

Intermediate outcomes

• The sector’s capacity to conduct innovative research and development is increased
• The sector’s knowledge base is increased
• Knowledge of innovative technologies, products, practices, processes and services is transferred to the sector
• Research and development supported innovations are generated

Ultimate outcomes

• The sector’s capacity to conduct innovative research and development is increased
• The sector’s knowledge base is increased

Sustainable CAP logic model

Activities

Program activities

• Develop call for applications and research proposals
• Receive applications
• Review and propose projects/applications for approval or rejection
• Negotiate and prepare contribution agreements
• Negotiate and prepare collaborative research and development agreements
• Process financial claims
• Collect and analyze performance information
• Monitor projects
• Ongoing communication with program applicants

Recipient activities

• Develop research proposals and applications
• Conduct research and development
• Develop and implement research and development, knowledge transfer and adoption plans
• Testing, piloting, demonstrating new processes, products, practices and technologies
• Test, develop and/or improve innovative agri products, practices and processes
• Adoption of new products, processes or practices
• Conduct knowledge transfer activities
• Data collection and creation of research reports

Outputs

Program outputs

• Applications received
• Approval/rejections letters sent out
• Contribution agreements and collaborative research and development agreements
• Performance reports
• Financial claims processed
• Ongoing communication with program applicants

Recipient outputs

• Applications and research proposals
• Innovation and research and development outcomes
• Collaborative relationships and networks
• Knowledge transfer products (examples could include podcasts, brochures, factsheets, flyers, guides, articles in trade magazines, technical bulletins and social media items.)
• Publications
• Technologies, products, processes
• Beneficial management practices

Immediate outcomes

• Improved knowledge and understanding of science based solutions by the scientific and agriculture community and increased capacity to support a sustainable sector and to improve the sector’s economic growth and resiliency
• Enhanced collaboration between the government and the sector Intermediate outcomes

Intermediate outcomes

• Increased development of innovative agricultural products, processes, practices, services and technologies that benefit the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sectors
• Increased application and adoption of agricultural products, processes, practices, services and technologies

Ultimate outcomes

• The Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector is effective in transforming ideas into new products, processes or practices to support a sustainable sector and to improve the sector’s economic growth and resiliency.

Note: Outcome is from the Departmental Results Framework.

Annex C: Management response and action plan

Recommendation	Management response and action plan	Target date	Responsible leads
1. The Assistant Deputy Minister of Programs Branch should revise the Sustainable CAP applicant guide, application forms and technical review forms to establish clear and consistent project assessment criteria in all relevant documentation.	Through internal consultation in 2024/2025, the AgriScience program is updating its assessment criteria, including the innovative component of a project and its adherence to the program’s five funding principles. These assessment criteria will be published on the program’s website and applicant guide and will be used in the review process. Additionally, all evaluation metrics will be made publicly available on the program’s website.   1.1: 2025/2026 Update program’s website, applicant guide and technical review forms to reflect the new assessment criteria Provide training to program officers and technical reviewers on the updated assessment criteria Publish evaluation metrics used in the review process on the program’s website	1.1 : March 2026	1. Director General, Programs Branch — Innovation Programs Directorate
2. The Assistant Deputy Minister of Programs Branch, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Ministers of Science and Technology Branch and Strategic Policy Branch, should address design issues in potential future programming by: developing a focused set of objectives identifying the means to support these objectives engaging with a wide range of stakeholders	Responsible branches (Strategic Policy Branch, Science and Technology Branch, Programs Branch) will develop options for more focused program objectives through the discussions and engagement on developing the Next Policy Framework, the successor to the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership (Sustainable CAP). 2.1: 2025/2026 Next Policy Framework negotiations are expected to commence with formal discussions with provinces and territories starting in the fall of 2025, followed by industry engagement to start in early 2026. Discuss means to improve the program’s ability to address barriers to science and innovation, including increasing private sector investment, building industry capacity to carry out research, and reducing ecosystem fragmentation. Discuss program alignment with government priorities and balance between supporting government priorities and advancing industry priorities. Review and discuss program overlap and duplication between both internal AAFC programming and between federal, provincial, and territorial programming. In preparation for Next Policy Framework discussions, program officials will begin engagement with current program recipients in fall 2025 to seek feedback on current program delivery and policies and to discuss future outlooks and program priorities. A variety of engagement opportunities will continue with both program recipients and external stakeholders to contribute to the development of the program under the Next Policy Framework. Feedback obtained will serve to identify sector needs and priorities; inform the development of program objectives; and program parameters and models will be put forward for consideration under a renewed framework. 2.2 : 2026/2027 Develop program options that address existing design issues and provide the program with a focused set of objectives and a clear means of supporting objectives.	2.1: March 2026 2.2: March 2027	Director General, Programs Branch — Innovation Programs Directorate Director General, Strategic Policy Branch — Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate
3. As part of the design of potential future programming, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Programs Branch should: explore solutions for design issues around timing and business cycles, including those related to the Policy Framework determine timelines that better reflect requirements for agricultural research	Through the Next Policy Framework consultation process in 2025–26, the program will assess operational improvements to address design issues around timing and business cycles and in its inclusion in the Next Policy Framework. 3.1 – 2025/2026 Prepare assessment report of potential options and recommendations to improve issues around timing, timelines, duration and inclusion in the Next Policy Framework (For example, better supporting the application process; potentially enabling earlier submissions; enabling a more efficient review of project proposals and increase flexibility in program durations). 3.2 – 2027/2028 Implement recommendations approved by AAFC senior management.	3.1: March 2026 3.2: September 2027	Director General, Programs Branch — Innovation Programs Directorate