About the evaluation
- The Office of Audit and Evaluation of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada undertook the evaluation of the Dairy Farm Investment Program (DFIP) and the Dairy Processing Investment Fund (DPIF) to assess their relevance, efficiency and effectiveness.
- The evaluation assessed DFIP and DPIF activities and outcomes from 2017–18 to 2022–23 using a variety of methods including: a literature review, a program document and file review and key informant interviews conducted with internal and external stakeholders.
What we found
DFIP summary
- The DFIP was established to assist the dairy farming sector adapt to the market changes anticipated as a result of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) by supporting improved productivity and increased efficiency on Canadian cow milk farms through non-repayable contributions offsetting the cost of purchasing eligible equipment. The program has since ended.
- DFIP had an overall budget of $250 million.
DPIF summary
- The DPIF was established to provide funding to dairy processors for investments that would improve productivity and competitiveness and help them prepare for market changes resulting from CETA. The program has since ended.
- DPIF had an overall budget of $100 million.
Relevance
- The programs were aligned with federal commitments and responsibilities, but this evaluation was unable to determine whether either program mitigated anticipated impacts from the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) for program participants.
Design and delivery
- Funding levels and an underestimation of program demand resulted in the oversubscription of DFIP and DPIF and a requirement to adjust program parameters during implementation.
- Both DFIP and DPIF implemented good practices in program design and delivery that can, and have, informed other AAFC programs, including implementing a two-step application process, using a data management system and integrating specialized operations teams. However, oversubscription, insufficient funding to meet demand and a lack of clear communication about the intent of DFIP and changes to key DPIF program parameters resulted in challenges managing stakeholder expectations.
Performance
- Small and medium sized farms received slightly over half of DFIP funds. Youth and/or new dairy producers under age 35 may have faced more challenges matching the 50% cost share required to participate in the program.
- DPIF provided the majority of its funding to small and medium-sized businesses.
- DFIP achieved its outcomes to varying extents depending on the type and size of project implemented, with most recipients reporting at least moderate cash and labour cost savings. Early results for capital investment projects indicate progress towards the outcomes such as increases in production and revenue. Project results for DFIP will continue to be reported until 2026.
- Performance measurement challenges in both programs make it difficult to assess program impacts or whether the programs met their stated objective of supporting the dairy sector adaptation to CETA impacts. Given the lack of ultimate outcome indicators linking either program's activities to the objective of supporting the dairy sector to adapt to CETA impacts, the evaluation was not able to determine the extent to which either program met this objective.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch should document and share within AAFC good practices used in DFIP and DPIF design and delivery.
Recommendation 2: The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch working with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch should review current supply management programs to ensure that they do not present barriers for producers and processors who are members of underrepresented groups and that Gender-Based Analysis Plus performance measures are in place.
Management response
Management agrees with the recommendations and has developed an action plan to address them by March 2024.