Evaluation of the Agricultural Clean Technology Program

Abbreviations

Executive summary

Purpose

The Office of Audit and Evaluation at Agriculture at Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) undertook an evaluation of the Agricultural Clean Technology (ACT) program, including the Adoption (ACT-A) stream and the Research and Innovation (ACT-RI) stream.

Scope and methodology

This evaluation covered activities from April 2021 to December 2024 and was informed by multiple lines of evidence. The evaluation also covered Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) considerations.

Background

ACT launched in 2021 as a $166-million, 7-year program (2021-22 to 2027-28) consisting of 2 streams: Adoption (ACT-A) and Research and Innovation (ACT-RI). Budget 2022 committed an additional $330 million in funding to help Canada achieve its national emission reduction targets. The aim of ACT is to create an enabling environment for the development and adoption of clean technology to help drive the changes needed to achieve a low-carbon economy and promote sustainable growth in Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector. Both streams included 3 priority areas: green energy and efficiency, precision agriculture and bioeconomy.

Findings

• ACT addresses cost barriers to developing and adopting agricultural clean technology and is complementary to other similar programs in Canada.
• ACT-A responded quickly to improve elements of program design and delivery and surpassed service standard targets; ACT-RI design and delivery was generally efficient.
• Progress is being made towards outcomes with further progress expected through program duration. ACT’s Performance Measurement Framework’s logic model and indicators limit the ability to clearly identify and assess the full breadth of the program’s impacts.

Conclusion

ACT is relevant because it addresses barriers that impede the development and adoption of agricultural clean technology in Canada. ACT was generally efficiently delivered and is making progress on its intended outcomes for supporting the development and adoption of agricultural clean technology, including reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Improvements to the ACT logic model and indicators would support reporting and demonstration of program impacts.

Recommendation

Recommendation 1: The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, in consultation with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch, should update the program’s performance information profile to permit the measure of appropriate outcomes for each of the 2 streams against distinct immediate and intermediate outcome statements.

Management response and action plan

Management agrees with the evaluation recommendation and has developed an action plan to address it by January 2026. For further details see Annex C.

1.0 Introduction

The Office of Audit and Evaluation at Agriculture at Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) undertook an evaluation of the Agricultural Clean Technology program (ACT) as part of the 2022-2023 to 2026-2027 AAFC Audit and Evaluation Plan. The evaluation complies with the Treasury Board Policy on Results and fulfils the requirements of the Financial Administration Act. Findings from this evaluation are intended to inform current and future program and policy decisions.

2.0 Scope and methodology

This evaluation assessed the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the ACT-Adoption stream (ACT-A) and the ACT-Research and Innovation stream (ACT-RI) activities from April 2021 to December 2024 and employed a formative approach focusing primarily on elements of program design and delivery. The evaluation was informed by multiple lines of evidence including: a review of program documents and files; a literature review; key informant interviews; an analysis of potential overlap with similar domestic programs; a review of comparable international programs; and case studies of funded projects. The evaluation also included Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) considerations.^{Endnote 1}

The first iteration of ACT from 2018-19 to 2020-21 was out of scope of this evaluation as were the Accelerator^{Endnote 2} portion of the ACT-RI stream, and the Methane Challenge^{Endnote 3} under the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. This evaluation avoided duplication of efforts undertaken recently by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada,^{Endnote 4} and internal audit efforts of AAFC’s Office of Audit and Evaluation.^{Endnote 5}

For more detailed information on the methodology used, see Annex A.

3.0 Program profile

ACT launched in 2021 as a $166 million, 7-year program (2021-22 to 2027 28), consisting of 2 streams: Adoption (ACT-A) and Research and Innovation (ACT RI). Budget 2022 committed an additional $330 million in funding for clean technologies on farms to be delivered through the program.

As part of the Government of Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, ACT aims to create an enabling environment for the development and adoption of clean technology that will help drive the changes required to achieve a low-carbon economy and promote sustainable growth in Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector. The objective of the additional funding in Budget 2022 was to help Canada achieve its national emission reduction targets of 40% to 45% from 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050 as well as contribute to national fertilizer and methane emissions reduction commitments.

3.1 ACT Adoption Stream

ACT-A (2021-22 to 2025-26) supports the purchase and installation of commercially available clean technology or equipment upgrades that will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fertilizer and methane emissions.

ACT-A prioritizes projects in 3 priority areas:

• Green energy and energy efficiency improvements that enable better management of energy intensive agricultural processes (including, in the first 2 years of the program, designated carve-outs of $50 million for grain dryers and $10 million for fuel switching)
• Precision agriculture that contributes to more precise, therefore reduced, input use
• Bioeconomy solutions that use agricultural waste and by-products to generate energy or create bio-products

Eligible applicants for ACT-A are for-profit organizations, including:

• Businesses and corporations
• Individual or sole proprietorships
• Co-operatives or partnerships
• Indigenous groups

ACT-A provides non-repayable contributions ranging from $25,000 up to $2 million per project at a cost-shared ratio of 40% AAFC and 60% program recipient. ACT-A may provide an additional 10% to the cost-share ratio to applicants (for example, 50% AAFC and 50% recipient) where over 50% of the business is owned by 1 or more underrepresented and marginalized groups (URMGs).^{Endnote 6} These groups include: Indigenous peoples, youth aged 35 and under, women, visible minorities, persons with disabilities and 2SLGBTQI+.^{Endnote 7}

The maximum level of total government funding (federal, provincial/territorial and municipal) is 75% of eligible costs per project. Eligible costs under the program are the incremental, relevant, reasonable and essential expenses required to carry out the eligible activities to which they relate as specifically set out in the program application guide. Payments for eligible project costs are made after submission of project-related financial reports with a holdback on government funds until a final performance report is received.

ACT-A accepted applications in 2 intakes: Intake 1 (June 16, 2021 to March 31, 2022) and Intake 2 (June 1 to June 21, 2023).^{Endnote 8}

3.2 ACT Research and Innovation Stream

ACT-RI (2021-22 to 2027-28) supports pre-market innovation, including research, development, demonstration and commercialization activities to develop transformative clean technologies that enable the expansion of current technologies.

Similar to the adoption stream, ACT-RI prioritizes projects through 3 priority areas:

• Green energy and energy efficiency, including better management of energy intensive processes and introduction of energy generation
• Precision agriculture, which uses a wide range of technologies to gather and process data to guide targeted actions that improve the sustainability, efficiency and productivity of agricultural operations
• Bioeconomy, which utilizes agricultural waste and by-products for energy and bio-product generation

Eligible applicants under ACT-RI are:

• For-profit organizations, including agri-food processors
• Not-for-profit organizations, including co-operatives
• Indigenous groups

Eligible applicants must be legal entities capable of entering into legally binding agreements.

ACT-RI provides non-repayable contributions up to $2 million per project at a cost-shared ratio of 50% AAFC and 50% program recipient. ACT-RI may provide an additional 10% to the cost-share ratio (for example, 60% AAFC and 40% recipient) where over 50% of the business is owned by 1 more URMGs including: Indigenous peoples, youth aged 35 and under, women, visible minorities, and persons with disabilities.

ACT-RI also offers repayable contributions for activities involving commercialization and scale up of technologies. These contributions are to be repaid over a period of up to 10 years following project completion normally beginning 1 year after project completion, and following a schedule set out in the negotiated Contribution Agreement. Interest generally is not charged on the contribution funding.^{Endnote 9}

The maximum level of total government funding (federal, provincial/territorial and municipal) is 75% of eligible costs per project. Eligible costs under the program are the incremental, relevant, reasonable and essential expenses required to carry out the eligible activities to which they relate as specifically set out in the application guide. Payments for eligible project costs are made after submission of project-related financial and performance reports.

ACT-RI began its continuous intake of applications when ACT launched on June 16, 2021.

3.3 Governance

Within AAFC’s Programs Branch Innovation Programs Directorate, ACT-A is managed by the Commercialization Programs Division, and ACT-RI is managed by the Industry Development Division. Such management entails reviewing applications, developing and monitoring contribution agreements, administering funds, measuring program performance and closing out projects (for example, receiving and analyzing final performance reports from funding recipients). The Director General Innovation Committee is responsible for reviewing project proposals for both ACT-A and ACT-RI and recommending selected proposals for approval of contribution funding support. Upon approval, successful applicants enter into a contribution agreement with AAFC. Recipients are obligated to fulfill documentation requirements, including annual progress, performance and financial reports, ensuring accountability and transparency.

4.0 Relevance

4.1 Barriers to development and adoption and ongoing needs for demonstration of return on investment

The evaluation identified several barriers to the development and adoption of agricultural clean technologies, outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Barriers to adoption and research and innovation of agricultural clean technology

4.1.1 Barriers to adoption

The evaluation found that ACT-A addresses some barriers to producer adoption of agricultural clean technologies. Farming is an expensive business with many farms, especially smaller ones, operating with tight financial margins and limited cash-flow. The cost to purchase and install new clean technology is high, and securing capital may be challenging, especially for smaller producers. Many Canadian farmers lack confidence that the adoption of clean technology will deliver a good return on investment through increased efficiency and productivity; therefore, they are reluctant to invest in clean technology.

ACT-A’s provision of a 40% to 60% cost-share up to $2 million per project reduces a cost barrier associated with purchasing and installing clean technology and helps to reduce the risks associated with the initial investment. Without this financial support, many recipients would not have adopted their clean technologies.

Once installed, the technologies contribute to both a reduction of GHG emissions and to an increasing awareness and acceptance of clean technologies in the sector. As described in Section 5.4.3, the clean technologies also produce a range of additional co benefits. Together, the high demand for the program, and the benefits that result from the clean technologies, suggest that ACT does contribute to an enabling environment for the adoption of agricultural clean technologies.

4.1.2 Barriers to research and innovation

The evaluation found that it is challenging for Canadian start-up companies to access funds to support their research and innovation activities. Established small and medium-sized enterprises also experience challenges accessing funding to explore developing new technologies as a new business opportunity.

ACT-RI has been identified by recipients as one of the few funding opportunities available to support the development of clean technology in the agriculture sector and, for some, their only funding source. As such, ACT-RI makes an important contribution to advancing projects and supporting the development of technologies that otherwise may not have happened.

The need for highly qualified personnel with the skills and expertise required for research and innovation activities was identified as a potential barrier to the development of agricultural clean technology. With ACT-RI funding, highly qualified personnel working on approved projects can further develop their skills and expertise. In this way, ACT-RI helps foster an enabling environment for the development of technologies by Canadian companies.

4.1.3 Emerging priorities

The evaluation found that the current program priority areas are broad enough to include many of the emerging priorities for agricultural clean technology. For example, emerging priorities such as nutrient and manure management are eligible under the precision agriculture and bioeconomy priority areas respectively; and energy efficient equipment and renewable energy practices on farm are eligible under the green energy and energy efficiency priority area.

4.1.4 Need for demonstration of return on investment

Knowledge transfer sessions are included under the ACT-RI stream and are project-specific therefore, target a range of audiences and events. Events include: demonstrations, trade shows, farm shows and expos as well as meetings with licenses, industry partners and conferences, but generally do not occur in on-farm settings. There remains an ongoing need for more and better knowledge transfer mechanisms to demonstrate return on investment to producers to better enable the adoption of clean technologies without the need for ongoing government support for equipment upgrades. Farmer to farmer knowledge transfer initiatives on working farms are best suited to demonstrate to their peers that the adoption of clean technologies results in enhanced efficiency and productivity and a range of other benefits (see Section 5.4.3), in addition to reduced GHG emissions. Similar comparator international programs identified increased farm productivity as an explicit program objective along with reduced GHG emissions. This approach could highlight the anticipated returns on investments in clean technology and better support the goal of enabling the environment for the adoption of clean technologies.

4.2 Overlap with other programs

The evaluation found that ACT programming is mostly complementary to other federal, provincial, and territorial programming. While there are a few instances of overlap and potential duplication, ACT occupies a unique niche among Canadian agriculture programs due to its higher funding levels and targeted focus on GHG emission reduction through its priority areas.

4.2.1 ACT-A overlap

Several provincial and territorial programs operate in the areas of agricultural research and innovation as well as climate change and environment. Analysis indicates that in general, provincial and territorial programs were broader in their objectives and scope, offered lower funding amounts and were available only to applicants within their jurisdiction. Because of these differences, ACT-A was found to be complementary, rather than duplicative of these program offerings. However, 2 provincial programs are potentially duplicative of ACT-A. Alberta’s On Farm Efficiency Program and Nova Scotia’s Advancing Clean Technologies are provincial programs with similar goals to ACT in that they target GHG emissions reductions and the uptake of commercially available technologies. Both programs were launched after ACT-A in 2024. However, similar to other programs, each offers less funding than ACT-A, is limited to projects in their respective provinces and has a narrower list of eligible recipients. The evaluation found that ACT-A program officials were aware of the potential for duplication with the programs in Alberta and Nova Scotia, and they worked closely with their provincial counterparts to coordinate stacking of funds, thus mitigating potential duplication.

4.2.2 ACT-RI overlap

Within AAFC, 3 programs provide funding for research and innovation projects at various stages along the innovation continuum, with areas of overlap, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: AAFC programs supporting research and innovation

ACT-RI stands out as the only AAFC program providing repayable and non-repayable contributions specifically targeted at developing agricultural clean technologies to reduce GHG emissions. By contrast, the scope of both AgriScience and AgriInnovate is broader and not solely focused on clean technology or GHG reductions.

ACT-RI program officials collaborated internally with their colleagues in the other programs to manage the overlap. Applications were cross-referred between programs to ensure that the applications were considered by the most appropriate fund and to ensure alignment and complementary efforts across programs. For example, although commercialization is an eligible activity under ACT-RI, the program did not fund any commercialization projects. Project applications for commercialization activities were referred to AgriInnovate, as it provides more benefits to recipients because of higher repayable set of eligible costs for reimbursement.

5.0 Efficiency

5.1 Cost to deliver the program

Table 2 presents the actual expenditures by vote^{Endnote 10} for ACT-A. Spending for vote 10 grants and contributions for 2021-22 was exceeded by approximately $5 million dollars, a sum that was transferred as a loan from ACT-RI to ACT-A to help meet the unanticipated high demand for ACT-A funding (see Section 5.2.1). In 2024-2025, 4 million dollars was returned from ACT-A to ACT-RI. For 2022-23 and 2023-24, ACT-A actual expenditures were approximately 95% of authorities by vote.

Planned full time equivalents (FTEs) ranged from 8.7 in 2022-23 to 26.6 in 2024-25, with actual FTEs ranging from 5.4 in 2021-22 to 27.1 in 2023-24, reflecting high ACT-A project volume.

Table 2a: ACT-A planned and actual expenditures and authorities by vote, 2021–22 to 2024–25, millions of dollars

Table 2b: Full-time equivalents, 2021–22 to 2024–25

Table 3 presents the actual expenditures by authorities voted for ACT-RI. Total ACT-RI spending was lower than initially planned. Because the program was announced and launched in June 2021, there was insufficient time to permit the full cycle of application preparation and submission (which is often a more complex process for research projects than for capital purchase projects), assessment, and spending by the end of the 2021-22 fiscal year. ACT-RI spending has increased each year since.

Planned FTEs ranged from 1.8 in 2022-23 to 11.0 in 2024-25, with actual FTEs ranging from 2.5 in 2021-22 to 13.8 in 2023-24, reflecting ACT-RI project volume.

Table 3a: ACT-RI planned and actual expenditures and authorities by vote, 2021–22 to 2024–25, millions of dollars

Table 3b: Full-time equivalents, 2021–22 to 2024–25

Tables 2a and 3a both indicate that planned capital expenditures have not been spent. This was because the Grants and Contributions Digital Platform was not ready for use.^{Endnote 11}

Under the government's broader expenditure refocusing exercise in Budget 2023, $25 million was removed from both streams of the ACT, directly impacting spending levels in 2023-24. For ACT-RI, the reduction resulted in a pause of the implementation of the Accelerator component, in turn, impacting ACT-RI’s progress against immediate outcomes (see section 6.2.1).

5.2 ACT-A design and delivery

ACT-A’s first intake began in June 2021, shortly after the program was announced and launched in spring 2021. ACT-A encountered challenges including: functional limitations of program design elements and tools as well as a rapid oversubscription and limited resources within the department for reviewing applications. Together, these challenges resulted in a backlog of program applications and failure to meet the service standard target for assessment and notice of approval/rejection.

ACT-A learned from these challenges and responded quickly by making changes throughout the application and assessment process, resulting in significant improvements in program efficiency and response times for the second intake in 2023-24, with ACT-A surpassing all service standard targets during fiscal year 2023-24.

5.2.1 ACT-A lessons learned and improvements made

Program design elements and tools

For Intake 1, ACT-A used a two-step-application process. Step 1 required the submission of an initial Project Summary Form which was subject to an initial review by program officials. Applications deemed eligible were then invited to submit a full application in step 2. Full applications were then sent for technical review by experts in other AAFC Programs Branch units and branches.

During Intake 1, applicants were required to estimate the GHG reductions expected from the adoption of their technology, including any sources substantiating the estimate. The complexity of the application form posed challenges for applicants, with some hiring external consultants to help, potentially giving an advantage to those who could afford such assistance over those who could not. Additionally, applicants’ estimation of GHG reductions demanded additional time for review of applications to confirm correct estimates.

Finally, the database which was to be used to store all program application and performance information for the ACT program, was not yet functional for Intake 1. This meant that estimates of GHG reductions and project tracking information had to be inputted into manual tracking documents. Once the database was operational, data from the manual trackers had to be manually added to the database.

Over-subscription and limited resources

Several interviews with AAFC representatives indicated that the demand for ACT-A was unanticipated based on the low take-up of the first iteration of ACT in 2018-21.

ACT-A’s first intake was planned to remain open to applications from June 2021 until March 2022 with approximately $8.7 million allocated for the first year. By August 2021, 1,500 applications had already been received, surpassing the stream’s total allocated budget. It was decided not to close the intake prior to the published closing date, and the program website was updated to note that applications would be accepted but could not be reviewed at that time. This created a large backlog which could not be addressed in a timely manner due to limited human resources and limited funding, factors exacerbated by manual processes.^{Endnote 12}

Limited human resources

The ACT-A team that launched Intake 1 consisted of 5.4 FTEs. This team was responsible for: developing the technical knowledge required to properly assess project proposals for a new and complex program including 2 carve-outs and 3 program priority areas; reviewing all project proposals to identify those to be invited to submit full applications; and responding to communications from applicants enquiring about the status of their applications. In response to this under-resourcing, the number of ACT-A FTEs more than doubled from the planned 8.7 to 22.1 in 2022-23.

As part of the standardized assessment process, AAFC experts in other units and branches conducted technical assessments of full applications for all Programs Branch programs. These employees were also impacted by the high volume of applications and the need to develop the technical knowledge about the proposed technologies necessary to support their review. Some units were under resourced for several months during the high ACT-A application submission timeframe,^{Endnote 13}further delaying assessments.

The high volume of applications together with learning curves and under-resourcing resulted in not meeting the 80% target for the 100-day service standard to assess and notify applicants of approval or rejection. The 100-day service standard is not triggered until the full application is received therefore, given the phased approach to handling the oversubscription, many applications were backlogged for several months before an assessment began. These delays are not captured in the service standard data.

5.3 ACT-RI design and delivery

ACT-RI generally met or surpassed service standards over the evaluation period, with 1 exception. In 2023-24, ACT-RI achieved the 30 business-day target for claims payments 72% of the time, missing the 80% target. AAFC staff reported that this was due to significant pressures on the centralized unit that processes claims for all programs.^{Endnote 14}

The two-stage application process was viewed to be efficient by program officials because pre screening projects avoided unnecessary preparation time for applicants and avoided unnecessary review time by program officials of full applications that were unlikely to be approved.

ACT-RI’s delivery ratio was in line with similar AAFC programs with 12.6% of total program costs spent on administration.

5.4 Performance measurement

ACT’s program theory states that the objective of both ACT-A and ACT-RI is to create an enabling environment for the development and adoption of clean technologies that ultimately will lead to reduced GHG emissions and greater environmental sustainability in the agriculture and agri-food sector. While the ACT performance measurement strategy supports departmental reporting on the number of clean technologies developed and adopted, the challenges within the performance measurement strategy make it difficult to properly assess and thus demonstrate the full contributions of either stream towards the stated objective and targeted outcomes.

5.4.1 Challenges with logical chain of results

ACT is a complex program with 2 distinct streams: conducting research and developing technology is a very different undertaking than purchasing and installing new equipment. By extension, ACT-RI’s support for research and innovation leads to different types of outcomes for different types of recipients across a prolonged time frame compared to ACT-A’s support for the purchase and installation of equipment in the short term.

While the inclusion of 2 program streams in a single logic model is possible,^{Endnote 15} it should describe the logical flow from the program inputs and activities to appropriate and measurable results for each stream. According to Treasury Board Secretariat, logic models should demonstrate how the initial outcomes for beneficiaries are directly attributed to the program intervention itself, then extend into wider spheres of influence at the intermediate and ultimate outcome levels.^{Endnote 16}

The ACT logic model combines the streams sequentially such that all measures of immediate program results are attributed to ACT-RI, with ACT-A having no immediate outcome indicators. Similarly, all but 1 measures of intermediate results are attributed to ACT-A, while ACT-RI has 1 intermediate outcome indicator. An example of a misaligned indicator is the number of adopted clean technologies which is identified as an intermediate outcome indicator for ACT-A. It may be better suited as an immediate outcome indicator for ACT-A given that it follows directly from the ACT-A output indicator, number of adoption projects supported by ACT.

The sequential combination of ACT-RI and ACT-A indicators further suggests a linear progression from the technology developed under ACT-RI to the adoption of technology under ACT-A. While it is self-evident that technologies must be developed before they can be adopted, it is also clear that no such linear connection is intended between ACT-RI and ACT-A given that the research and innovation projects under ACT-RI happen concurrently with the adoption of new technologies under ACT-A. As a result, the ACT logic model does not accurately describe the logical flow for each stream.

5.4.2 Challenges with indicators

ACT’s program theory states that at the program beginning, both the ACT-RI and the ACT-A streams would engage in activities to support the program’s immediate outcome of increased knowledge and capacity to conduct research and advance the development and adoption of agricultural clean technologies. In particular, ACT-A was to commence outreach activities to promote proven clean technologies. However, such outreach activities were not funded program activities, nor did the evaluation find evidence that such outreach occurred. The program theory specifies that the immediate outcome would be measured by a combination of 3 indicators, all of which are ACT-RI indicators:

• Number of highly qualified personnel working on funded activities
• Number of peer reviewed publications
• Number of knowledge transfer events to share results with potential adopters or further commercialize the technology

However, these ACT-RI indicators are not relevant to ACT-A,^{Endnote 17}and there is no ACT-A immediate outcome indicator measuring increased knowledge and capacity for adoption resulting from outreach activities. Because ACT-A was quickly oversubscribed, the department did not engage in program promotion. Undertaking outreach activities to promote proven clean technologies (as per program theory) rather than promoting ACT, may have supported the program objective of enabling the environment for the adoption of clean technologies in addition to supporting program uptake.

5.4.3 Challenges measuring progress towards environmental sustainability

ACT’s ultimate indicator includes reduced GHG emissions and environmental sustainability in the agriculture and agri-food sector. The Agri-Environmental Sustainability Index is the sole ultimate indicator of environmental sustainability and is attributed to ACT-A. This index is based on the Canadian Census of Agriculture data, which won’t be collected again until 2026, and will be analyzed in the years following. While the index is expected to provide new information on environmental sustainability in the agriculture sector, attribution of change to the ACT program alone will be challenging.

Both ACT-RI and ACT-A projects have resulted in a range of benefits in addition to the reduction of GHG emissions including:

• other environmental benefits such as improved soil health and enhanced air quality
• economic benefits such as energy-related cost savings and increased efficiency and production^{Endnote 18}

These results are captured qualitatively through performance reports. There is an opportunity to employ results of analysis of qualitative performance data to more systematically capture and analyze data regarding co-benefits, which could provide more easily attributed measures of progress toward a more environmentally sustainable sector.

6.0 Effectiveness

6.1 Profile of outputs

The distribution of projects across the 3 ACT priority areas differs considerably between the 2 streams, as shown in Figure 2 below. ^{Endnote 19}

While the ACT-RI projects are fairly evenly distributed across all 3 priority areas (green energy and energy efficiency; precision agriculture; and bioeconomy), approximately 77% of the ACT-A projects fall under the green energy priority area. This is due to the two carve-outs for grain dryers and fuel switching, both of which fall under this priority area and were funded in the evaluation period. Of the remaining 23% of projects, 19% were precision agriculture priority area projects, with 4% falling under the bioeconomy priority area.

Figure 2: Distribution of ACT projects across priority areas

The difference between the distribution profiles of projects across the 3 ACT priority areas is less pronounced for ACT-A when considering the approved amount of funding as shown in Figure 3 below. Notably, the larger percentage of spending on ACT-A bioeconomy projects reflects the relatively higher cost to purchase and install bioeconomy technologies such as anaerobic digesters compared to green energy and precision agriculture technologies. For ACT RI, despite the even distribution of projects by priority area, slightly over half of approved funding supports the development of clean technologies under the green energy priority area.^{Endnote 20}

Figure 3: Distribution of ACT projects by funding amount

Both ACT-A and ACT-RI have funded projects in most provinces, although neither stream has funded projects in the territories. 35% of ACT-A projects were in Ontario, with a combined 44% of projects funded across the prairie provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. As the highest grain producing provinces, these numbers reflect the grain dryer carve-out. 27% of ACT-RI projects were in Ontario, followed by 20% of projects in British Columbia.

Both streams funded projects supporting small organizations; 70% of ACT-A projects and 57% of ACT-RI projects went to organizations with less than 20 employees.

6.2 Progress towards outcomes

See Annex B for ACT logic model.

6.2.1 Immediate outcome: increased knowledge and capacity to conduct research and advance the development and adoption of agricultural clean technologies

Some progress has been made towards ACT’s immediate outcome of increased knowledge and capacity to conduct research and advance the development and adoption of clean technologies. This reflects that it is still early in the implementation of the program as the date to achieve targets for all ACT-RI indicators is March 31, 2028, and continued progress against targets is expected.^{Endnote 21} Table 4 presents the achievement against the ACT-RI indicators.

Table 4: Achievement against immediate outcome indicator targets for ACT-RI

The evaluation found that some of the immediate indicators may not offer optimal measures of ACT-RI results. Moreover, it is noteworthy that ACT-A has no immediate outcome indicators defined. Discussion of ACT performance measurement, including issues with some indicators, is presented in Section 5.4.

6.2.2 Intermediate outcome: increased development and adoption of clean technologies to enhance environmental sustainability and reduce GHG emissions

Progress has been made toward ACT’s intermediate outcome of increased development and adoption of clean technologies to enhance environmental sustainability and reduce GHG emissions. The vast majority of intermediate indicators are ACT-A indicators. The date to achieve targets for all ACT-A indicators is March 31, 2026, therefore continued progress against targets is expected. Table 5 presents the achievement against intermediate outcome indicators.

Table 5: Achievement against intermediate outcome indicator targets for ACT-RI and ACT-A

Regarding the ACT-RI intermediate indicator "number of clean technologies that are developed", of completed ACT-RI projects, technologies progressed an average of 4 levels on the Technology Readiness Scale.

6.2.3 Ultimate outcome: the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector is reducing GHG emissions and being more environmentally sustainable

ACT is still in its early stages therefore limited progress is expected towards its intended ultimate outcome that the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector is reducing GHG emissions and being more environmentally sustainable. Table 6 presents the achievement against ultimate outcome indicators:

Table 6: Achievement against ultimate outcome indicator targets for ACT-RI and ACT A

6.3 Reach to underrepresented and marginalized groups

ACT is one of the first AAFC programs to offer a favourable cost-share ratio (that is, up to 60% of eligible costs) to support greater accessibility for URMGs including Indigenous Peoples, women, youth (under 35), persons with disabilities, visible minorities and 2SLGBTQI+ as of ACT-A intake 2. Recipients who attest that their organization is majority-owned or led by 1 or more URMGs may also receive the favourable cost-share ratio, as indicated on the application form submitted during the application phase.^{Endnote 22}

Program data indicates that 24% of ACT-A recipients said they belonged to an URMG and benefitted from a favourable cost-share ratio, while 67% did not belong to a URMG, and 9% declined to identify. Of the 24% who attested to belonging to a URMG, 5% self-identified further as 1 or more specific URMG, while 19% left blank responses. 36% of ACT-RI recipients attested they were majority-owned by URMG, with 62% leaving a blank response and the remaining 2% saying this was not applicable. Of those who claimed URMG majority ownership, all identified further as 1 or more specific URMGs.

Specific targets have been identified for equitable representation of URMGs among funded farm operators. However, while it is possible to confirm the percentage of ACT-A recipients that benefitted from the favourable cost share ratio, ambiguous response categories such as “decline to identify”, “not applicable”, and the large number of blank responses make it more difficult to conclude the extent to which specific URMGs were supported and progress made toward targets for representation. This is not unique to ACT or AAFC but reflects the broader challenge of balancing the desire for information to support better understanding of how diverse groups access and are impacted by government programs, with individual privacy rights.

While the favourable cost-share ratio has provided direct financial support to these recipients, the needs of specific URMGs may vary significantly, and favourable cost-share ratios alone may not address the most significant needs of all groups. For example, some applicants may benefit more from enhanced support in interacting with AAFC to ensure equitable access and navigating the application process.

Similar international programs employ a range of approaches for supporting URMGs. These include dedicated budget carve-outs for URMG applicants; dedicated committees to assess applications from historically underserved populations in addition to the standard technical assessment; and, requiring First Nation Engagement in designated programs as an assessment criterion for applications to these programs.

7.0 Conclusions and recommendations

ACT is relevant as it helps address cost barriers to meet recipient needs and enable the environment for the development and adoption of agricultural clean technology. ACT programming is mostly complementary with other federal, provincial and territorial programming.

Overall, ACT delivery was efficient. ACT-A quickly made required changes leading to significant improvements in program delivery.

ACT has made progress towards its immediate and intermediate outcomes, and more progress is expected with ongoing results reporting until program end. Improvements to the ACT logic model and indicators to better reflect the program’s theory of change for both streams and provide more complete measures of impacts of both streams against program outcomes would support enhanced understanding of program impacts.

Recommendation

Recommendation 1: The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch, in consultation with the Assistant Deputy Minister Corporate Management Branch, should update the program’s performance information profile to permit the measure of appropriate outcomes for each of the 2 streams against distinct immediate and intermediate outcome statements.

Management response and action plan

Management agrees with the evaluation recommendation and has developed an action plan to address it by January 2026. For further details see Annex C.

Annex A: Evaluation methodology

Literature review

A literature review addressing program relevance was conducted using academic databases and Internet based search tools to consult peer-reviewed publications in the following areas: GHG emissions, fertilizer emissions, clean technology adoption, precision agriculture, bioeconomy, sustainable farming and underrepresented groups. A thematic review of agricultural clean technology literature in relation to current AAFC programming was conducted.

Document and file review

A document review was conducted to support the assessment of program relevance, design, delivery and effectiveness. Documents reviewed included program foundational and governance documents, departmental and federal documents outlining Government of Canada priorities, and documents with economic statistics relevant to the agricultural sector and the program.

A project file review was conducted to assess program relevance, efficiency and effectiveness. The review examined a sample of project files from funded projects from both ACT-A and ACT-RI streams.

Overlap analysis

An overlap analysis was conducted to determine areas of overlap and duplication with similar programs offered federally and provincially. The analysis gathered information on best practices and lessons learned in developing and adopting agricultural clean technologies in other jurisdictions as well as alternative approaches to deliver funding to the sector to support the development and adoption of agricultural clean technology.

Comparative review

A comparative review was conducted to inform evaluation issues related to program design and delivery. Publicly available documents from 6 identified programs in Australia, New Zealand, the EU, the United States and the United Kingdom were reviewed and interviews were conducted with representatives from 2 programs.

Data analysis

A data analysis was conducted to support the assessment of program design, delivery and effectiveness. The analysis included data from both the ACT-A and ACT-RI streams, including available indicator data and descriptive statistics.

Key informant interviews

Key informant interviews gathered insights from program stakeholders on the relevance, design, delivery and effectiveness of both streams of the program. A total of 21 interviews were conducted with 28 AAFC staff members, 4 ACT-A recipients, 3 ACT-RI recipients, 3 industry association groups and 2 subject matter experts.

Case studies

4 case studies (2 ACT-A and 2 ACT-RI) were used to assess program relevance, design, delivery and effectiveness. The selection of specific cases was informed by consultation with program officials and based on a review of program files and issues of interest emerging from key informant interviews. Case studies included an interview and review of project files and data.

Methodological limitations

Annex B: Agricultural Clean Technology Programs logic model

The ACT program logic model below outlines the intended outcomes, the activities to undertake and the outputs the program will produce in achieving the expected outcomes.

Activities

Program activities

• Promote the program to potential applicants
• Receive project proposals
• Review project proposals and propose projects/proposals for approval or rejection
• Issue decision letters
• Negotiate and prepare contribution agreements
• Provide funding to recipients
• Process financial claims
• Collect and analyze performance information
• Monitor projects
• Development and advertisement of list of proven clean technologies for adoption by the sector

Recipient activities

• Develop research and development and adoption plans to be implemented in a project under Contribution funding
• Conduct research and development
• Ensure sector engagement and participation knowledge transfer activities
• Implementation of knowledge transfer plans and adoption strategies to incent and support adoption by the sector
• Test, develop and/or improve innovative Agri-Products, practices and processes
• Adopt and install clean technologies
• Data collection

Outputs

• Contribution agreements with recipients
• Clean technologies
• Publications
• Performance reports for AAFC

Immediate outcomes

Increased knowledge and capacity to conduct research and advance the development and adoption of agricultural clean technologies

Intermediate outcome

Increased development and adoption of clean technologies to enhance environmental sustainability and reduce GHG emissions

Ultimate outcome

Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector reduce GHG emissions and is more environmentally sustainable

Annex C: Management response and action plan

References and notes