Evaluation of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership Cost-shared Strategic Initiatives

Abbreviations

AAFC

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

CAP

Canadian Agricultural Partnership

FPT

Federal-Provincial/Territorial

WG

Working Group

Executive summary

Purpose

The Office of Audit and Evaluation of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) conducted an evaluation of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) Cost-shared Strategic Initiatives to assess relevance, design, delivery, effectiveness and efficiency.

Scope and methodology

CAP Cost-shared Strategic Initiatives activities from 2018-19 to 2022-23 were evaluated using multiple lines of evidence including: a document, administrative and performance data review; interviews with AAFC officials, provincial and territorial government officials and Federal-Provincial/Territorial (FPT) committee members; case studies and comparative reviews focused on program design and delivery.

Background

Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction and for more than 20 years FPT governments have built strong collaborations in support of the sector to increase its competitiveness, profitability and sustainability. This collaboration occurred through a series of negotiated policy frameworks including the Agricultural Policy Framework (2003-08), Growing Forward (2008-13), Growing Forward 2 (2013-18) and the fourth instalment, the Canadian Agriculture Partnership (CAP) (2018-23). The CAP Cost-shared Program component of the Framework Agreement funds initiatives in 6 priority areas: Science, Research and Innovation; Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change; Markets and Trade; Risk Management; Value-Added Agriculture and Agri-Food Processing; and Public Trust. Programs are designed and delivered by provincial and territorial governments. Costs to administer the programs are cost-shared between federal and provincial governments on a 60:40% basis. While provinces and territories may determine the suite of programs that best suit their regional needs, all provinces and territories must commit to meet the broad objectives of the 6 priority areas. The combined FPT contribution for the Cost-shared Program is approximately $2 billion over the 5-year evaluation period.

Findings

• The Cost-shared Program aligns with government and sector priorities that address current and future agriculture sector development and growth needs.
• Cost-shared programming manages and allocates resources effectively to achieve strategic initiatives. The combined shared funding amounts create an investment in the sector that one entity alone could not provide.
• The Cost-shared model responds to the need for a collective Pan-Canadian vision for the agriculture and agri-food sector, while addressing jurisdictional differences.
• Strong connections to stakeholders, the use of experts, flexible and adaptable programming, simplified processes and performance tracking are common approaches across provinces and territories leading to best practices in delivery.
• Performance targets for immediate outputs have been met for most planned activities in all priority areas and some examples of sector and producer outcomes are available.
• Performance measurement has improved somewhat since the last framework, though a lack of outcome and impact data persists. Little qualitative or quantifiable data is available to demonstrate outcomes thoroughly across all priority areas.
• The Cost-shared Program governance structure lacks the necessary coordination and collaboration between and among groups to best achieve shared goals.
• There is some duplication of cost-shared programming by federal, provincial or territorial initiatives that developed over the 5 years of the framework detracting from optimal efficiency.

Conclusion

Cost-shared programming reflects the variable agriculture and agri-food sector development needs across the country and the numerous priority activities continue to reach volumes of stakeholders in the sector. However, the lack of appropriate outcome measures precludes the ability to assess the extent to which Cost-shared programming meets those needs. Cooperation and calibration continues to be an issue for governance, performance measurement and program design. Enhanced communication and information sharing may help improve results for the shared agenda. A revised performance measurement framework that includes effective and efficient quantitative and qualitative measures of outcomes that would support the assessment of the long-term objectives of cost-shared programming is needed.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Ministers, Strategic Policy Branch and the Market and Industry Services Branch, undertake a review of the cost-shared governance structure to refine and implement mechanisms that will enhance coherence and coordination among participants.

Recommendation 2

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, work with CAP stakeholders to enhance transparency through increased joint data and information sharing related to programs, performance and best practices among federal, provincial and territorial stakeholders.

Recommendation 3

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, work with FPT partners to improve the performance measurement framework outcome indicators to support assessments of program impacts.

1.0 Introduction

The Office of Audit and Evaluation conducted an evaluation of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) Cost-shared Strategic Initiatives (also referred to as “the Cost-shared Program”). The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the FPT commitment under the CAP’s Multilateral Framework Agreement and the Bilateral Agreements with the provinces and territories. The evaluation is also a requirement under the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016) and the Financial Administration Act.

2.0 Scope and methodology

The evaluation strategy was developed collaboratively with federal, provincial and territorial partners in accordance with the Multilateral Framework Agreement. This evaluation assessed: relevance; design and delivery; effectiveness; and efficiency of Cost-shared activities in the 6 CAP priority areas from 2018-19 to 2022-23. The 6 priority areas are:

• science, research and innovation
• environmental sustainability and climate change
• markets and trade
• risk management
• value-added agriculture and agri-food processing
• public trust

Temporary emergency programs implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic and programming responding to other emerging emergency situations (for example, fires and floods) were out of scope for this evaluation.

The evaluation used multiple lines of evidence including: a document, administrative and performance data review; interviews with AAFC officials, provincial and territorial government officials and FPT committee members; case studies and comparative reviews focused on program design and delivery. For the detailed evaluation methodology see Annex A.

3.0 Program profile

3.1 Overview of the CAP Cost-shared Program

Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction and for more than 20 years, FPT governments have built strong collaborations in support of the sector to increase its competitiveness, profitability and sustainability. This collaboration occurred through a series of negotiated policy frameworks including the Agricultural Policy Framework (2003-08), Growing Forward (2008-13), Growing Forward 2 (2013-18) and the fourth instalment, the Canadian Agriculture Partnership (CAP) (2018-23). The April 2018 Multilateral Framework Agreement establishes CAP policy direction, defines the scope of designated programming and provides guidance for the development of cost-shared programming designed and delivered by FPT governments.

CAP programming is divided into 3 groups:

• Provincial and territorial delivered cost-shared programming
• Business Risk Management suite of programs
• Federally delivered CAP activities (AAFC services and federally delivered programs)

This evaluation focused on CAP FPT Cost-shared programming. The Business Risk Management suite of programs and federally delivered CAP activities are evaluated separately.

The CAP Cost-shared Program funds initiatives that are designed and delivered by provincial and territorial governments. Costs to administer the Program are cost-shared between federal and provincial governments on a 60:40% basis. While provinces and territories may determine the suite of programs that best suit their regional needs, all provinces and territories must commit to meet the broad objectives of the 6 priority areas set out in the Framework Agreement.

The Framework Agreement is implemented through 13 individual Bilateral Agreements, which define provincial and territorial programming, along with reporting and financial commitments specific to AAFC and each province and territory. Each Bilateral Agreement defines negotiated performance indicators and targets to measure progress towards outcomes identified in its Activities and Expenditure Plan. Provinces and territories submit annual performance reports to AAFC providing measures against these indicator targets.

The Service Program and Excellence Directorate within AAFC supports all required provincial and territorial reporting activities and co-chairs the FPT Finance and Performance Measurement Working Group.

3.2 Governance

Bilateral Agreements for each province and territory require the establishment of a Bilateral Management Committee with specified roles and responsibilities, These Committees are a key component of the CAP Cost-shared Program governance structure. Each Committee is co-chaired by an AAFC Market and Industry Services Branch Regional Director and a representative of the applicable provincial or territorial government.

Bilateral Management Committees are expected to oversee the performance of the programming, monitor and track funds, make recommendations regarding the list of designated programs and generally facilitate the implementation of the Bilateral Agreements. Bilateral Management Committees have the power to make minor variances to spending plans, with amendments to Bilateral Agreements requiring Ministerial approval. Financial claims from provinces and territories for Cost-shared programming below $5 million are reviewed by AAFC Regional Directors and approved for payment under Section 34 of the Financial Administration Act. For claims above $5 million, approval is required by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Programs Branch.

AAFC Regional Directors are supported by staff across the Department who provide input and advise on the alignment of proposed Provinces and Territories (PT) programming with stated AAFC priority areas and intended outcomes. In October 2018, the FPT Assistant Deputy Ministers agreed to implement a governance reporting structure with the creation of formal FPT working groups to provide information and advice in key policy and program areas related to CAP (see Figure 1). Each working group has a mandate issued by the FPT Assistant Deputy Ministers.

Figure 1: FPT priority area working group organization structure

Source: Federal-Provincial-Territorial Reporting for Cost-Shared Strategic Initiatives of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, Performance Measurement Strategy, as of 2019.

Description of Figure 1

Figure 1 presents a diagram showing the formal governance reporting structure of formal working groups under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership. This structure is represented as a hierarchy. 

At the most senior level is the FPT Policy Associate Deputy Ministers. The following groups report directly to the FPT Associate Deputy Ministers:

• The FPT Labour Task Team is an FPT policy temporary task team.  This group is guided by a mandate letter and reports to Policy Associate Deputy Ministers on an ad hoc basis;
• The FPT Finance and Performance Measurement Working Group. This group is guided by a mandate letter. It proposed mechanisms to report on results and enhance governance, and reports on policy results information.
• The following three FPT Policy Working Groups on Information Sharing: 
  • FPT Communications Working Group
  • FPT Trade Policy Committee
  • FPT Business Development Collaboration Group.

The following six FPT Policy Working Groups on Partnership Priorities are guided by mandate letters and report to the FPT Policy Associate Deputy Ministers and the FPT Finance and Performance Measurement working group: 

• FPT Business Risk Management working group
• FPT Food Processing Industry Development working group
• FPT Market Development Council
• FPT Agri-Environment working group
• FPT Innovation working group
• FPT Public Trust working group

 

Additional groups report to various policy working groups as follows:

• FPT Market Development Council:  
  • Export Market Analysis Consortium
  • International Market Engagement Teams (5 priority area sub-groups)
• FPT Innovation working group: 
  • Bioproducts
• FPT Public Trust working group: 
  • Assurance Systems
• FPT Business Risk Management Policy working group:  
  • FPT AgriInsurance working group
  • FPT Forecasting Methodology working group
  • FPT AgriInvest and AgriStability Administrators working group
  • FPT Business Risk Management Information Technology working group

 

3.3 Resources

The combined FPT contribution for the Cost-shared Program is approximately $2 billion over the five-year period. From the Framework Agreement, at least 50% of total estimated qualified spending must support the following 3 priority areas: Science, Research and Innovation; Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change; and Markets and Trade.^{Endnote 1}

Canada’s Cost-shared funding targets ^{Endnote 2} are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Cost-Share Federal Attributed Funding Targets 2018-19 to 2022-23

	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	Total
British Columbia ($)	13,815,000	13,815,000	13,815,000	13,815,000	13,815,000	69,075,000
Alberta ($)	48,765,000	48,765,000	48,765,000	48,765,000	48,765,000	243,825,000
Saskatchewan ($)	46,560,000	46,560,000	46,560,000	46,560,000	46,560,000	232,800,000
Manitoba ($)	21,214,500	21,214,500	21,214,500	21,214,500	21,214,500	106,072,500
Ontario ($)	54,585,000	54,585,000	54,585,000	54,585,000	54,585,000	272,925,000
Quebec ($)	35,191,500	35,191,500	35,191,500	35,191,500	35,191,500	175,957,500
New Brunswick ($)	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	22,200,000
Nova Scotia ($)	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	22,200,000
Prince Edward Island ($)	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	22,200,000
Newfoundland and Labrador ($)	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	4,440,000	22,200,000
Yukon ($)	888,000	888,000	888,000	888,000	888,000	4,440,000
Northwest Territories ($)	732,600	732,600	732,600	732,600	732,600	3,663,000
Nunavut ($)	488,400	488,400	488,400	488,400	488,400	2,442,000
Total ($)	240,000,000	240,000,000	240,000,000	240,000,000	240,000,000	1,200,000,000
Source: Schedule 1 to Part II: Funding Levels, CAP Multilateral Framework Agreement, December 2018.

3.4 Intended outcomes

There are 22 expected outcomes for the Cost-shared programming across all 6 priorities outlined in the CAP Cost-shared Program logic model. The evaluation focused on the following short-term, intermediate and long-term outcomes identified in that logic model:

• Short-term outcomes: Sectors in each priority area are increasing awareness, knowledge, capacity and skills to address needs.
• Intermediate outcome: Performance has improved and adaptation and development are occurring.
• Long-term outcomes for the suite of CAP Cost-shared programming:
  • Increase environmental sustainability
  • Increase competitiveness, productivity, profitability
  • Expand domestic and international markets
  • Improve anticipation, mitigation and response to risk

For the full CAP Cost-shared Program logic model, see Annex B.

4.0 Relevance

This section summarizes evaluation findings on the relevance of the Cost-shared Program; specifically, whether Cost-shared priorities are aligned with agriculture sector development and how the priorities have changed over time.

4.1 Alignment of priorities with the federal government, AAFC and the agriculture sector

The AAFC Minister is mandated to work closely with provinces, territories and producers to support sustainable growth of the agricultural and agri-food sectors, with the aim to establish Canada as a global leader in the sector.^{Endnote 3}

The Cost-shared Program aligns with Departmental Plans and other key documents that outline core responsibilities to: strengthen the sector’s capacity to develop and adopt innovative practices, products and processes; increase opportunities for the sector to export products by maintaining and expanding market access, advance agricultural interests internationally; and ensure that systems, standards and tools are developed to support the sector’s viability to prevent and control risks and address market demand.

The CAP Framework Agreement is the fourth FPT policy agreement on agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products. Priority areas for action were agreed upon and common goals were identified through FPT negotiations. The Cost-shared Program supports action across 6 priority areas.

FPT governments collaborated to ensure the Cost-shared Program supports the agriculture sector and that priority areas complement national efforts of the agriculture sector.

The sector continues to face risks in all priority areas that Cost-shared programming supports:

• Environmental issues are persistent and have attracted additional federal investment over the timeframe covered by the CAP. Emissions from agriculture (livestock and crop production) and extraction of forestry resources accounted for approximately 10% of Canada’s emissions in 2014 and are projected to remain at this rate to 2030.^{Endnote 4} The sector will continue to benefit from a national and regional focus on approaches that enhance mitigation and adaptation actions, in particular by improving the efficiency and productivity of agriculture systems. FPT partners have agreed to collaborate on projects of broad interest and conduct strategic analysis in support of current and future Canadian agri-environmental policy.
• Science, Research and Innovation capacity is critical to addressing agricultural challenges, including agri-environment research and economic growth. FPT governments, the sector and academia have a role to play in identifying innovation priorities and contributing to the research, development and knowledge transfer activities that are instrumental in enhancing the Sector’s resiliency, improving Sector productivity and accelerating the commercialization of products with new and improved attributes. Innovation contributes to increases in output and productivity. From 2019-23, AAFC’s Departmental Plan has continued to prioritize investments in science, research and innovation that create competitive advantage and accelerate growth of the agriculture sector through promotion of discoveries, advancement in clean technology and knowledge commercialization and transfer.
• Markets and Trade. Agriculture generates around 6.8% of Canada’s gross domestic product and is heavily dependent on Canada’s ability to export over 50% of the value of Canadian agricultural production.^{Endnote 5} Markets and trade programming are required to meet Canada’s agri-food exports targets of growth to at least $75 billion annually by 2025.^{Endnote 6} The AAFC Departmental Plan (2022-23) supports continued work to enhance competitiveness and improve domestic and international market access conditions for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector. This includes continued collaboration with other government departments to advance market access priorities and deliver market development programs and services, continued engagement in trade agreements such as the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Strong FPT collaboration with stakeholders, underpins success and growth in all of these areas.
• Risk Management. Uncertainties related to weather, natural hazards, pests and disease and trade restrictions can affect capacity, economic returns and livelihoods. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food mandate letter (2021) outlines a commitment towards working with provinces and territories on risk management programs including climate risk management. According to the Departmental Plan (2022-23), the agriculture sector is prone to risks from weather events, pests and diseases, as well as risks related to market fluctuations and potential volatilities in world markets. In the Departmental Plan, AAFC commits to collaborate with provincial and territorial governments to improve risk management programs that support resilience and risk management in the agriculture sector. The sector continues to need to implement proactive strategies to help prevent and mitigate against events that impact its sustainability and competitiveness.^{Endnote 7} Cost-shared programming offers additional initiatives outside the Business Risk Management suite of programs, the latter being evaluated separately.
• Value-Added Agriculture and Agri-Food Processing. The Minister has commitments to strengthen the value-added supply chain and support agribusinesses to diversify products for global markets. The Guelph Statement: A Vision to 2028 further reiterates the goal of building sector capacity and growth through realizing the potential of value-added agri-food and agri-products. The agriculture and agri-food processing sector is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada contributing over $110 billion to the Gross Domestic Product, employing 2.3 million people, exporting almost $56 billion and importing $45.5 billion in products.^{Endnote 8}
• Public Trust issues will continue to emerge in Canada including concerns around food safety and food supply (particularly in the North) and efforts to reduce uncertainty or future shocks to the food system (for example the food and staple shortages experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic). The Annual Results Report for CAP Year 2 (2019-20) acknowledges that public trust is critical to the growth of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sectors, particularly when dealing with demands from domestic and international consumers. Public trust issues may vary from province to province, while national issues such as environmental sustainability, animal welfare and agricultural technologies cut across provincial borders and attract greater consumer attention.

The evaluation found that sector priority areas have not changed significantly since the beginning of CAP and remain valid areas for investment in the future. The bilateral negotiation process is seen by FPT partners as a good mechanism to support the development of programs that are in alignment with the stated federal and sector priorities.

The evaluation found the flexibility of the Framework Agreement and Bilateral Agreements was a key enabler for provinces and territories to be able to respond to jurisdictional needs and enhance their ability to address provincial and territorial areas of importance, as well as emerging issues.

However, the evaluation found that during the period of the Framework Agreement, there were challenges to the federal and departmental ability to change PT focus and priorities given the number of different stakeholder perspectives that have to align for a common agreement.

While FPT cost-shared programming reflects Departmental and sectoral needs and priorities, the lack of outcome data across priorities and resulting challenges in assessing program impacts (see Section 5.4 below), make it difficult to reach conclusions regarding program ability to meet those needs.

5.0 Program design and delivery

This section summarizes evaluation findings on the design and delivery of the Cost-shared Program, starting with an assessment on the appropriateness of the model.

5.1 Cost-shared model

The Framework Agreement sets a Pan-Canadian strategic vision aligned to the priorities of the broader agriculture and agri-food sector. Through the Framework Agreement, jurisdictions agree to work together to achieve objectives and outcomes. The Framework Agreement also recognizes that the path to achieve meaningful results for the agriculture and agri-food sector varies across Canada due to different provincial and territorial resource capacity, commodities, landscape, climate and other considerations.

Partnering to invest in joint priorities has facilitated collaboration between and across different levels of government. Designated Cost-shared programs were developed and agreed upon as part of the Bilateral Agreement negotiations, enabling provinces and territories to define and develop their Cost-shared programming so it aligned with the scope of the Framework Agreement. However, the evaluation found that some of the flexibility negotiated into the Framework agreement has contributed to difficulties in reporting and measuring results in a cohesive manner.

The evaluation found FPT stakeholder consensus on the importance of the flexibility built into the Framework Agreement through the Bilateral Agreements, which enables provinces and territories to design and deliver Cost-shared programming that best meet jurisdictional needs. Stakeholders noted that this model enabled them to better serve their target audiences and respond more effectively to priority areas.

The Bilateral Agreements contain a requirement for planning meetings to convene once per fiscal year to review the forward-looking policy and program contexts. This planning meeting also enables provinces and territories to adapt to changing needs or environments, for example the 2021 British Columbia flooding, to better target investments or introduce new lines of programming. However, there are limitations to taking on new priorities, given that programs must continue to respect the outcomes outlined in the Framework Agreement.

Challenges exist with the decentralized model and the five-year timeframe of the Cost-shared Program. There is a risk of being unable to understand cumulative impacts on the sector when there are differences in regional programming and an inability to assess results from the current programming for the new negotiation cycle due to data lags from the provinces and territories. Provincial and territorial partners have differing emphasis on each of the priority areas as some do not support all possible activities. There can be a disconnect between federal and provincial and territorial focus (for example, emphasis on international markets at the federal level versus domestic markets by some provinces and territories) creating incoherence in the progress towards stated objectives of the Framework Agreement.

The evaluation identified challenges with the ramp-up/ramp-down nature of policy development and program planning that occurs with the five-year cycle. Maintaining uniformity of involvement during policy negotiations through to program design and delivery creates gaps in understanding and insufficient accumulation of information based on past decisions and activities.

5.2 Governance structure

The evaluation found that the governance structure for the Cost-shared Program includes FPT groups^{Endnote 9}, systems and practices required for stewardship, performance measurement and advancement of the policy agenda. However, coordination and collaboration between the Bilateral Management Committees and the FPT working groups is lacking and reduces their effectiveness. The 2018 revisions to the governance structure have not enhanced the federal or provincial and territorial governments’ ability to report on results, nor has it improved collaboration and information sharing among working groups and FPT partners to support and improve openness and transparency.

The evaluation found that FPT working groups are siloed and linkages between them and the Bilateral Management Committees are not coordinated. Relationships between AAFC staff responsible for programming under CAP and non-CAP programming, and between the Cost-shared Program, federal-only CAP programming and other federal (non-CAP) programming staff, are not clearly understood. Unclear roles and the lack of coordination of efforts can lead to duplication of effort, tasks not being completed, incomplete reporting and uninformed decision-making. Improved communications across AAFC branches would increase transparency, clarify lines of accountability and increase understanding of the policy framework.

There is a lack of clarity both within AAFC and by the provinces and territories regarding Cost-shared Program roles and responsibilities, particularly the role of AAFC Regional Directors. Issues included not knowing when records of decisions are required; confusion regarding the span of authority to approve minor spending adjustments or amendments to a Bilateral Agreement; and a lack of clarity on the role of AAFC Regional Directors versus the role of the Service and Program Excellence Directorate regarding engagement with provincial and territorial counterparts.

The information management system used for Cost-shared programming limits the capability to increase information sharing. Federal representatives are not always aware of what is available in the system and don’t always have access to sufficiently detailed information from the AgriShare database to support financial and performance monitoring of Cost-shared programming.

5.3 Delivery best practices

In 2019, over 200 programs were delivered across all priority areas in all jurisdictions with varying target populations. Provinces and territories used a variety of approaches to design and deliver Cost-shared programming, supported by internal and external expertise and knowledge and stakeholder engagement to enhance relevance of program design and delivery; even with the varied approaches, the evaluation observed common best practices and lessons learned across jurisdictions.

Comparing a number of the Cost-shared programs across jurisdictions provided insight to common practices and lessons learned from provincial and territorial delivery. Included for review were:

• Five programs targeting actions improving domestic competitiveness sector through the attraction of labour and provision of support to skill development (Markets and Trade priority).
• Three programs related to climate change including a data intensive program, a program providing energy efficiency advice and a program subsidizing acquisition of more efficient machinery^{Endnote 10}. All program were spin-offs from programs developed under prior framework agreements (Environment and Climate Change priority).
• Six programs targeting Indigenous Peoples, youth and racialized populations to encourage greater involvement of underrepresented groups in the agriculture sector through education and awareness-raising opportunities.

Across all programs, the evaluation found the establishment of strong connections to relevant stakeholders, whether Ministry employees or a third-party delivery agent, enabled effective promotion and administration of programming. Implementing flexible and adaptable programming (including adapting program activities according to evolving priorities) can help meet the priorities of target populations, reduce barriers to participation and may lead to increased involvement. Programs with simple, straightforward and as open as possible application processes helped reduce what might otherwise pose a barrier to participation. Setting submission deadlines (as opposed to continuous intake) and providing a sufficient timeframe to apply, enabled the ranking of applicants for relative merit, as opposed to granting funds on a first-come-first served basis. The evaluation found that programs that measured and analyzed performance data were better able to inform decision-making. Programs with good initial and ongoing support for project implementation and performance tracking had better uptake. The evaluation notes these common or best practices are not routinely shared across jurisdictions, which is a missed opportunity.

More details of reviewed programs and best practices are summarized in Annex C.

5.4 Performance measurement

After the Framework agreement was signed, as Bilateral Agreements were being finalized, a performance measurement framework was developed collaboratively with provinces and territories, which was viewed as a best practice. Expected outcomes were defined across the 6 priority areas along with measured indicators, identified data requirements and indicator definitions. Approaches for collecting performance measurement and financial information were included in provincial and territorial Bilateral Agreements, while approaches for collecting additional data (investment and qualitative information) were negotiated once the Framework was underway. Over 40 output-focused performance indicators are identified across all priority areas.

While performance measurement advancements have been made in the formalization and implementation of a joint performance measurement strategy for Cost-shared programming, the evaluation found that the design of the performance strategy was focused on outputs and performance data and was not meeting the needs of decision-makers. Across FPT interview groups there was consensus that the current set of indicators are not the right measurements to provide insights on outcomes. Finding cross-jurisdictional outcome performance metrics for all priority areas has been a challenge over multiple framework cycles. There is an opportunity to enhance the existing performance measurement strategy by including other appropriate and measurable quantitative and qualitative data sources.

While provincial and territorial interviewees noted there is insufficient analysis and summarization of the data being provided to AAFC, and generally a lack of Cost-shared and federal-only performance results shared with provinces and territories in a timely manner, the evaluation found that the provincial data that was shared was not always reliable. As an example, year 1 and year 2 performance data were readily available to the evaluation, with year 3 data being provided as evaluation findings were being generated. The year 3 data had reliability and validity issues, possibly in part due to year 3 covering most of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The evaluation found the utility of the data varied across stakeholders; provincial and territorial interviewees indicated that limited feedback on their performance data restricted their ability to assess their relative performance, while federal interviewees noted that federal performance information is held in different areas of AAFC making it difficult to present information to provincial and territorial partners in a cohesive way. The evaluation found that federal analysis of performance information is not shared in a timely manner with the province and territories.

In assessing performance measurement data, the evaluation found that the definitions of indicators were not commonly understood across FPT partners. For example, the science, research and innovation priority area could not provide evidence that the 391 technologies reported in year 3 were being utilized by industry. When and how to report on the utilization of these new technologies was not clearly understood by the provinces and territories, making it difficult to apply the performance measurement strategy consistently across the jurisdictions and programs to assess performance. The evaluation found that some provinces hold outcome data that is not being leveraged in the performance strategy nor is it shared elsewhere. Examples include outcome data measuring greenhouse gas reductions, job creation and new agricultural business development.

The evaluation found data availability challenges in specific priority areas including:

• public benefits (for example, greenhouse gas reductions) for environmental and climate change programming cannot be quantified as data is not tracked or captured by provinces and territories
• lack of administrative data collection such as quantitative and qualitative reports on-farm level changes by project and location and longitudinal trend analysis of research efforts over several Frameworks precludes useful outcome information

The evaluation encountered validity issues when analyzing performance data across 3 years of Cost-shared programming. Outputs reported were consistently modified from one year to the next. In some cases, differences were minimal, but in other cases, discrepancies ranged in the reduction of tens of thousands of a count. In some instances, year 1 Cost-shared achievements were still being adjusted in year 3.

6.0 Performance

This section provides an overview of the performance of the Cost-shared Program, including progress being made toward immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes in the 6 priority areas and the efficiency of the Cost-shared model.

6.1 Activities supported

The consolidated national delivery of activities resulted in over 48,000 new products, projects or assessments produced from over 20,000 events or activities. These new products or projects saw over one-half million producers, processors or agriculture organizations participate in Cost-shared programs during 2018-19 and 2019-20. The evaluation determined that Year 3 data is not reliable due to apparent changes in the approach to data analysis and the significant impact during year 3, 2020-21 of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of and participation in Cost-shared programming. For this reason, Year 3 data has not been included for assessment.

The data on programs offered across provinces per priority area indicate that 204 programs were delivered in 2019. Table 2 provides a summary of the national output, which met planned targets.

Table 2: Cost-shared national output totals (2018-19 and 2019-20)

Priority area	Events/activities			Beneficiaries/participants			New products/projects/assessments
	2018–2019	2019–2020	% change 2018-2019 and 2019-2020	2018–2019	2019–2020	% change 2018-2019 and 2019-2020	2018–2019	2019–2020	% change 2018-2019 and 2019-2020
Science, research and innovation	1,000	1,500	50	94,500	100,000	6	3,500	7,900	126
Environmental sustainability and climate change	3,000	3,300	10	38,000	23,000	−39	12,200	2,000	−84
Market and trade	2,120	3,080	45	63,000	97,700	55	3,700	5,700	54
Risk management	1,400	4,500	221	35,000	110,000	214	2,900	3,700	28
Public trust	139	432	211	0	0	N/A	0	0	N/A
Value-added	0	0	N/A	0	0	N/A	304	449	48
Total	20,471		N/A	561,200		N/A	42,353		N/A
Source: Annual Results Reports for the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, Year 1 and Year 2, as of June 2022.

The investment distribution across priority areas shows an increase between 2018-19 and 2019-20 of 7% in expenditures on activities. Table 3 summarizes the total FPT investments in each priority area. Financial data for years 3, 4 and 5 was not available from Service and Program Excellence Directorate, Programs Branch during the evaluation period.

Table 3: Investment by priority area

Priority area	Investment ($) (2018-19)	Investment ($) (2019-20)
Environmental sustainability and climate change	105,247,609	85,535,978
Science, research and innovation capacity	101,924,267	111,236,960
Markets and trade	60,183,861	64,853,013
Risk management	42,200,058	69,188,600
Value-added agriculture and agri-food processing	20,721,846	24,450,674
Public trust	5,582,430	4,592,360
Total	335,860,071	359,857,585
Source: Annual Results Reports for the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, Year 1 and Year 2, as of June 2022.

6.2 Outcomes and impacts

While the lack of outcome data makes it difficult to assess Cost-shared Program impacts, the evaluation found some evidence of outcomes and impacts including: improved products; improved efficiency; increased revenues; and improved soil and water management. A strong example from environmental and climate change programming indicates Cost-shared programming enabled economic benefits for producers. Over an eight-year timeframe, projects supported by Cost-shared programming have generated between $767 million and $3.5 billion worth of economic benefits.

The evaluation’s review of success stories (the qualitative pillar for results reporting under the Performance Measurement Strategy) developed by provinces and territories identified anecdotal examples of producers expanding product lines, increasing market share, expanding production and advancing new market possibilities.

Case studies conducted during the evaluation provided examples of an ongoing accrual of benefits and impacts being achieved from Cost-shared programming across all priority areas. The outcome results of all case studies are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Examples of outcomes achieved in all priority areas

Priority area	Project title / description	2016 outcomes	2022 outcomes
Risk management	Cow/calf indoor handling system	Reduction in labour costs Reduction in time to process animals Increased worker safety Improved traceability	Improved quality of product Increased processing efficiency Increased processing capacity (x10) Increased infrastructure value
Environmental sustainability and climate change	On-farm environmental risk assessment	Reduced manure leeching to soil Increase compost product Reduced risk from drought	Additional implementations to contain nutrient runoff Improved water quality Additional wildlife habitat areas
Science, research and innovation	Appassimento process for red wine	Commercialized technology Licensed to a manufacturer Increased production Increased quality	Economic impacts to vineyards (increased production, increased retail pricing). However, not notable expanded uptake of the technology
Markets and trade	New cold storage system	Increased capacity to supply local market Lengthened selling season Increased awareness of northern agricultural practices	New crop varieties Improved quality of product More product to local stores Expanded market to large retail chains Greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions
Public trust	Shellfish traceability system	Improved traceability Efficiency in record-keeping Efficiency in integration with other barcode identifications	No interview available
Value-added	Flax products colour sorter and roasting system	Increased retail business Increased Canadian supply purchases Additional job creation	Expanded product line New market penetration
Source: Case studies developed during the conduct of this evaluation using project document review and interviews as source information, as of September 2022.

A detailed example of how one farmer has continued to expand since participating in Cost-shared programming under Growing Forward 2 is provided in Figure 2. This vegetable and grain farm operation was able to move from enhancing its competitiveness in the local market in 2016 to being competitive enough to expand and sell to national retail grocery chains. The document review found that in 2016, the case study of the same farm, completed for the Evaluation of Growing Forward 2 Cost-shared Strategic Initiatives, at the time, indicated the northern location was far from self-sufficient in the production of local food and the project was important to assist in increasing food security. The results captured in 2022 indicate that this markets and trade project has impacted the local agriculture ecosystem in addition to creating economic impacts for the farmer.

Figure 2: Markets and trade, northern grain and vegetable farm

Source: Case study developed for the conduct of this evaluation using project document review and interviews as source information, as of September 2022.

Description of Figure 2

Figure 2 presents details of benefits to the producer and to the ecosystem resulting from participation in a markets and trade project under Growing Forward 2.  The Cost-shared program supported the development of a cold storage system. 

Benefits to the producer include the following outcomes which ultimately resulted in an expanded market, revenue growth and sustainability:

• Increased variety of crops
• Increased ability to supply a local grocery store
• Increased ability to supply food for more months of the year
• Improved product quality enabled expansion to two major retail chains: The Real Canadian Superstore and Save On Foods

Benefits to the ecosystem include the following outcomes which ultimately resulted in enhanced food security:

• Less importation of food
• Fresh vegetables for more months of the year
• Reduced costs from sourcing locally
• Increased profile of northern agriculture
• Reduced Greenhouse gas emissions from less need for shipping

6.3 Efficiency

The efficiency of Cost-shared programming was measured by the appropriateness of resource allocation and the extent of overlap or complementarity of programming.

The Framework 60:40 split embraces the use of financial instruments such as requiring investments by beneficiaries to greatly increase the potential of return. Actual spending by provinces and territories is monitored by AAFC Regional offices and, with the exception of the territories,^{Endnote 11} spending has proceeded as planned. Administrative costs for provinces and territories are limited to 8% of the funding envelope, which is lower than, or on par with, other federal programs (for example, AgriStability at 16%, Agri Insurance at 7% and AgriInvest at 4% ^{Endnote 12}). The flexibility built into the Cost-shared model recognizes that it is more efficient to have AAFC designing programming at the national level for Canada and provinces and territories designing programs that are more granular and tailored to their own jurisdictions.

The evaluation demonstrated specific CAP efficiencies, through various analyses. For example, the cost of delivering Cost-shared environmental and climate change programming was efficient as costs had been covered by the economic impacts generated. Environmental and climate change programming have covered the cost of FPT investments with a benefit-cost ratio in the range of 2:1 to 6:1 (depending on assumptions such as, accounting for variable discount rates used in sensitivity testing, assumptions on additional funding contributions by individual producers and the variability in quantifying social values).

However, the evaluation found duplicating programs and overlap between Cost-shared programming and other federal, provincial or territorial programming. Some overlap in programming is complementary or intentional, as was found in the Science, Research and Innovation priority area where some overlap exists because of the cumulative nature of research (for example, moving research from an applied state to product development to production/commercialization — one phase overlaps slightly into the next). advancement on the other). Other instances of duplicative programming do not seem to function as complementary. For example, the On-Farm Climate Action Fund, first announced in Budget 2021, demonstrates overlap and duplication. This is a $200 million initiative with the objective to support farmers in adopting beneficial management practices that store carbon and reduce greenhouse gases, specifically in the areas of nitrogen management, cover cropping and rotational grazing practices. Provincial and territorial Cost-share programming already provides significant levels of investment towards the implementation of beneficial management practices, with practices supporting cropland management, the same areas targeted by On-Farm Climate Action Fund, Under Cost-shared, these types of beneficial management practices are the most commonly adopted, at 11% of uptake of projects over the first 2 years.

There are instances of direct duplication of programming. Duplicative programming has confused producers and producer organizations as to which program they should be accessing. As in the case of environmental and climate change programming, the sector is being saturated with more funding than can be reasonably distributed. Saturation risks impact annual application rates and overburden the same third-party organization which tries to deliver double the amount of money without lapsing funding. This situation creates extra administrative costs to deliver programming that is already being delivered by provinces and territories.

7.0 Conclusions and recommendations

The evaluation concluded that Cost-shared programming addresses variable agriculture and agri-food sector development needs across the country. Government and sector priorities addressed by CAP remain consistent, with an increasing emphasis on environment and climate change issues as well as emerging labour and market challenges.

The evaluation found the cost-shared governance structure implemented during CAP includes elements to support accountability of the 14 stakeholders. The working relationships built between federal, provincial and territorial stakeholders, along with regional representation through the Bilateral Management Committees are a key contributing factor for successful implementation of the Cost-shared Program. However, the governance model requires improved collaboration, coordination and communication among the various FPT committees and working groups to strengthen oversight and alignment and better support the achievement of objectives.

Despite the varied approaches to programming by provinces and territories, the evaluation concluded that implementation and delivery of cost-shared programming across jurisdictions is producing best practices that could be replicated. Not sharing these best practices routinely is a missed opportunity to improve programming across the cost-shared model and support the achievement of outcomes.

Cost-shared programming has met activity and output targets and there are examples of impactful outcomes being achieved across the priority areas. However, the output focus of the current performance measurement strategy will not support eventual determination of Cost-shared programming outcomes or impacts that would contribute to the longer-term objectives of the CAP. The lack of outcome information impacts effective decision-making and the ability to fulfill accountability requirements. Data is not fully shared among and across jurisdictions, nor is the federal analysis of provincial and territorial performance data completed or shared in a timely manner. The lack of transparency in contributing to effective performance measurement practices by all FPT partners does not fulfill the spirit of the Framework Agreement and inhibits all stakeholders in their ability to fully understand the collective contributions to CAP objectives. The approach to collecting output performance indicators that are common across jurisdictions has proven difficult over several frameworks; alternatives to collecting impact information such as case studies and other qualitative analyses, some of which provinces and territories may already have on hand, could address this gap.

The Cost-shared model is a strong approach to achieving economical investments into the agriculture and agri-food sector; enabling combined shared funding amounts not possible for one entity alone. However, more attention needs to be given to the design and implementation of additional federal programming that may surface during the Framework Agreement period and overlap with priorities addressed by Cost-shared programming. Coordinating the best response for new programming to contribute to ongoing future development in the agriculture and agri-food sector, without duplicating efforts will best serve CAP objectives achievement.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Ministers, Strategic Policy Branch and the Market and Industry Services Branch, undertake a review of the cost-shared governance structure to refine and implement mechanisms that will enhance coherence and coordination among participants.

Recommendation 2

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, work with CAP stakeholders to enhance transparency through increased joint data and information sharing related to programs, performance and best practices among federal, provincial and territorial stakeholders.

Recommendation 3

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, work with FPT partners to improve the performance measurement framework outcome indicators to support assessments of program impacts.

See Annex D: Management Response and Action Plan (MRAP).

Annex A: Evaluation methodology

The evaluation used multiple lines of evidence including: a document, administrative and performance data review; interviews (n=41); case studies (n=6); comparative reviews (n=3), 14 programs, Climate, EDI, Labour).

Document, file and literature review

A review of relevant information from documentation was completed to provide background and context for the interpretation of results as well as inform evaluation questions related to relevance and performance. Relevant documents included:

• Treasury Board Submission
• Multilateral Framework Agreement
• Program Terms and Conditions
• Performance Measurement Strategy
• Qualitative Impact Stories collected across priority areas
• Program guidelines (separate from Terms and Conditions) or procedure manuals
• Samples of Bilateral Agreements
• Other AAFC reports (that is, reports on plans and priorities, departmental performance reports)
• Documentation on Cost-Shared programming activities
• Federal government legislation
• Advisory Study on the Roles and Responsibilities of Cost-shared Science, Research and Innovation Programming
• Science, research and innovation project descriptions for Year 3 (2020-21)
• Economic Impact Assessment of Cost-shared Environmental Programming
• Other documentation as deemed appropriate

Administrative and performance data review

The AgriShare database includes key financial and performance measurement information for all CAP Cost-Shared programs. All Bilateral Agreements now have a national “master list” of 40 performance indicators and financial tags included in a data plan. Reporting provided results against targets and identified where dollars were assigned.

There were 2 annual reports produced that summarized FPT cost-shared performance information from 2018-19 and elaborated on performance measurement, financial, qualitative and investment information for 2019-20. Qualitative information, in the form of impact stories, was provided through Agri-Share for both the first and second years of the Partnership (qualitative information for 2018-19 was optional).

Interviews

Interviews informed all evaluation issues and most evaluation questions. The opinions, explanations, examples and factual information collected from interviewees provided additional and clarifying information to the data collected from the other lines of evidence. 41 interviews were completed with a mixture of the following stakeholders:

• Provincial and territorial governments representatives
• Regional AAFC personnel
• AAFC headquarters personnel
• Members of FPT governance committees

Case studies

Case studies were used to research long-term impacts by following-up on cases completed under the previous policy framework. A selection of 18 case studies across priority areas were completed under Growing Forward 2 (3-8 years ago, 2013-2018).

Case studies were selected by area of intervention (for example, science, markets, risk management), balanced between livestock and crops and were selected across provinces and territories. Room to investigate the 2 new priority areas of value-added agriculture and agri-food and public trust was also created and 2 case studies were performed for each. However, neither of the 2 recipients receiving support under the new priority areas were able (or willing) to participate in an interview.

As case studies are not meant to depict outcomes in a representative way, the evaluation conducted one case study per priority area, resulting in 6 cases total. Four were selected from the sample of 18 conducted during the Growing Forward 2 evaluation to cover the areas of Science, Research and Innovation; Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change; Markets and Trade; and Risk Management; and 2 were developed to cover Value-Added Agriculture and Agri-Food Processing; and Public Trust.

Case studies were used to provide an in-depth examination of the impacts of Cost-shared programs on a sample of producers/projects. This involved a combination of data collection methods including interviews and document review. Data collection through case studies provided evidence and understanding of the impacts of individual CAP Cost-shared programs that have longevity across policy frameworks.

Comparative review

As there was significant interest from federal, provincial and territorial partners in understanding best practices in design and delivery of Cost-shared programming, a comparative review was performed to provide insights into the varying models of delivery to uncover better or leading practices being implemented by provinces and territories.

The comparative review was scoped to consider what primary mechanisms have been used to address priority areas as well as what the emerging priorities are for the next policy framework.

The evaluation focused on 3 priority areas to build the scope of the comparative review, guided by FPT input:

• climate change
• equity, diversity and inclusion
• labour and skills programming

Methodological limitations

The following methodological limitations were considered in interpreting the data:

Limitation	Mitigation strategy	Impact on evaluation
Stakeholders engaged in interviews consisted of representatives participating in FPT working groups and FPT Bilateral Committees, other stakeholders involved in program design, delivery, recipients of funding, or others with interest, were not contacted successfully.	The lack of contact with recipients of Cost-shared programming or interested sector organizations was not avoidable. Provinces and territories could not provide access to beneficiary contact information, either due to legislative restrictions or due to the lack of contact information available. The evaluation relied on secondary data to incorporate evidence related to beneficiary experience (that is, outcome information), as well as longitudinal case studies to provide unbiased examples.	Low
The evaluation relied on access to the analysis of performance information already completed by the Program as a best practice. For CAP Cost-shared, this turned out to be 2 years’ worth of data.	Data for Year 1 and Year 2 of CAP Cost-shared programming was available, reviewed and summarized to provide evidence in support of short-term outcomes. As the performance data is investment based, it is not likely the insight to activities undertaken will vary.	Low
The pilot approach of examining outcome results using difference-in-difference and propensity score matching did not prove to be beneficial due to lack of data.	The Markets and Trade area was targeted for the pilot implementation of difference-in-difference and propensity score matching (statistical analysis techniques) to better understand causal outcomes from the Program. As the available data did not produce reliable results from the modelling undertaken, there is a gap in understanding how Markets and Trade programming is contributing to the achievement of objectives under the Framework Agreement.	Low-Medium

Annex B: Summarized logic model – intended outcomes

CAP priority areas

Short-term outcomes

Markets and trade

• The sector is increasing its awareness, knowledge and skills related to business management practices.
• The sector is accessing generic and customized information and intelligence to assess market opportunities.
• The sector is addressing their specific market readiness needs using a range of tools, services and programs.

Science, research and innovation capacity

• The sector’s capacity to conduct innovative research and development is increasing.
• New knowledge is being transferred to the sector.
• The sector is increasing the scientific knowledge base.

Value-added agriculture and agri-food processing

• The sector is modernizing its systems, equipment and facilities.

Environmental sustainability and climate change

• The sector is increasing its awareness and knowledge of beneficial environmental practices and climate change.
• The sector is adopting practices and technologies to improve environmental performance, adapt to climate change and reduce GHG emissions.

Risk management

• The sector is increasing its awareness, knowledge and skill related to sustainability, food safety, biosecurity and traceability practices.

Public trust

• The sector is developing strategies and conducting research to increase public trust.

Intermediate outcomes

Markets and trade

• The sector is adopting business management practices.
• The sector is getting their products to markets with the support of new and enhanced programs and services.
• The sector is well-positioned in the market through the support of market development activities.

Science, research and innovation capacity

• New agriculture and agri-food technologies are generated and commercialized.

Environmental sustainability and climate change

• The agriculture and agri-food sector is improving its environmental performance and adapting to climate change.

Risk management

• The sector is adopting risk management activities to maximize resilience.

Public trust

• The sector is adopting education and awareness practices to increase public trust.

Long-term outcomes

• Expand domestic and international markets
• Increase competitiveness; productivity; profitability
• Increase environmental sustainability
• Improve anticipation, mitigation, and response to risks

Annex C: Comparison review of cost-shared programming

The evaluation team produced a summary of Cost-shared programming in 3 priority areas.

Markets and trade

Five programs targeting actions improving domestic competitiveness sector through the attraction of labour and provision of support to skill development.

Best practices

• active consultation with relevant stakeholders to obtain feedback and inform program design
• stakeholder feedback incorporated into program design helped identify program activities to address the needs and barriers reported by target populations
• maintained ongoing partnership with stakeholders
• recognition of equity, diversity and inclusion values and the connection to labour market issues point to importance of program flexibility to address barriers encountered by underrepresented groups
• project eligibility requirements expanded to address barriers
• expanded funded initiatives to include equity, diversity and inclusion training

Lessons learned

• few programs established outcomes and indicators to measure program impacts, or to measure the impact of funded projects.

Climate change

Three program spin-offs from programs developed under prior framework agreements^{Endnote 13}. All programs related to climate change, each in different ways: including a data intensive program, provision of energy efficiency advice and subsidizing of efficient machinery.

Best practices

• relied on highly specialized knowledge and third-party relationships to identify relevant technologies to support climate change goals
• decision-making guided by climate or energy data-based measurement component
• data proved essential in the successful outcomes

Lessons learned

Equity, diversity and inclusion

Six programs targeting Indigenous Peoples, youth and racialized populations to encourage greater involvement of underrepresented groups in the agriculture sector through education and awareness-raising opportunities

Best practices

• Equity, diversity and inclusion values incorporated into program design including input and involvement from underrepresented groups
• meaningful partnerships with stakeholders and use of cross-cultural competencies were key
• understanding needs and barriers of target population enables greater participation
• delivered activities specifically designed to meet target population needs
• outcomes or indicators of success identified
• additional funding enabled greater participation
• active outreach and knowledge dissemination by dedicated program staff member as liaison between ministry and target populations

Lessons learned

• Equity, diversity and inclusion not implemented in structured way in design of Cost-shared programming
• Disaggregated data not collected to support intersectional analyses and not part of Cost-shared Program performance measurement strategy
• Privacy and legal issues potential barriers to collecting demographic data
• Covid-19 impact on program delivery challenged some communities lacking reliable internet service

Annex D: Management response and action plan

Recommendation	Management response and action plan (MRAP) Please provide a “SMART” MRAP that is Succinct, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and TimelyEndnote 15	Target dateEndnote 14 Insert the month and year that the action plan will be completed	Responsible leads Insert position title of responsible ADM and DG(s)
1. The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Ministers, Strategic Policy Branch and the Market and Industry Services Branch, undertake a review of the cost-shared governance structure to refine and implement mechanisms that will enhance coherence and coordination among participants.	Agree with recommendation. Programs Branch officials will work with Strategic Policy Branch (SPB) and Market and Industry Services Branch (MISB) colleagues to review the existing cost-shared governance structure, to identify opportunities to enhance coherence and coordination among cost-shared participants by better leveraging existing mechanisms and proposing any potential changes (for example, MISB Regional Offices, SPB colleagues and Programs Branch staff). Additionally, Programs Branch officials will engage their provincial and territorial counterparts to explore opportunities to strengthen coherence and coordination, and any potential changes to the cost-shared programming governance structure.	Initiate governance structure review within AAFC by March 2023; simultaneously engage Provinces and Territories (PTs) to identify opportunities to strengthen the governance structure for cost-shared programming. Seek to establish a renewed governance structure, endorsed by AAFC and PTs that enhances the coherence and coordination of cost-shared programming by December 2023.	ADM Programs Branch and DG, Service and Programs Excellence Directorate
2. The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, work with CAP stakeholders to enhance transparency through increased joint data and information sharing related to programs, performance and best practices among federal, provincial and territorial stakeholders.	Agree with recommendation. An FPT Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership (Sustainable CAP) Partnership event, with key FPT stakeholders, is being planned for February 2023. This event will offer opportunity to establish collective understanding among FPT stakeholders of joint information sharing goals under Sustainable CAP. Under Sustainable CAP, Programs Branch will convene a Strategic Planning Meeting (SPM) a minimum of twice during the framework, with the first meeting taking place no later than Year 2 of the bilateral agreement, for the purpose of bilaterally sharing progress towards Collective Outcomes and Targets. To support information sharing amongst FPT stakeholders, the SPMs shall include Bilateral Management Committee (BMC) members, as well as additional government officials from both Parties, as applicable.	FPT Partnership Event planned by end of March 2023. First SPMs with each respective PT to restart by March 2025.	ADM Programs Branch and DG, Service and Programs Excellence Directorate
3. The Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch, work with FPT partners to improve the performance measurement framework outcome indicators to support assessments of program impacts.	Agree with recommendation. For Sustainable CAP, a number of enhancements have been made to the approach and performance measurement framework regarding outcome indicators, to better demonstrate the results and impacts of Sustainable CAP investments. Early collaboration with PTs (that is, earlier than previous frameworks) has enabled a number of improvements to what and how data will be available for evaluating performance measurement under Sustainable CAP. During negotiation of Sustainable CAP performance measurement indicators between AAFC and PT partners, AAFC will continue to support and promote a stronger collective understanding of the need for results / outcome measures. Additionally, for Sustainable CAP, AAFC will leverage Statistics Canada’s Linkable File data sets to further support performance measurement outcome analysis.	PT Performance Measurement Outcome Indicators for Sustainable CAP to be finalized by February 2023	ADM Programs Branch and DG, Service and Programs Excellence Directorate