Evaluation of the Pest Management Program

Table of contents

• Abbreviations
• Executive summary
• 1.0 Introduction
• 2.0 Scope and methodology
• 3.0 Program profile
• 4.0 Relevance
• 5.0 Performance
• 6.0 Conclusions and recommendations
• Annex A: Evaluation methodology
• Annex B: Pest Management Centre overview
• Annex C: PRRP on the Sustainable Crop Protection Innovation chain
• Annex D: Management response and action plan

Abbreviations

AAFC

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

GLP

Good Laboratory Practices

IPM

Integrated Pest Management

IR-4

Interregional Research Project No. 4

MUPP

Minor Use Pesticides Program

PIP

Performance Information Profile

PMC

Pest Management Centre

PMRA

Pest Management Regulatory Agency

PMUC

Provincial Minor Use Coordinator

PRRP

Pesticide Risk Reduction Program

STB

Science and Technology Branch

Executive summary

Purpose

The Office of Audit and Evaluation at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada conducted an evaluation of the Pest Management Program to assess its relevance, efficiency and effectiveness.

Scope and methodology

The evaluation assessed Pest Management Program activities from 2018-19 to 2023-24 using multiple lines of evidence including a literature review, a review of program documentation and data, key informant interviews, a case study, on-site observations and consultations with subject matter experts.

Background

The Pest Management Program, delivered by the Pest Management Centre under the Science and Technology Branch (STB), is composed of the Minor Use Pesticides Program (MUPP) and the Pesticide Risk Reduction Program (PRRP). The MUPP supports the registration of pesticides for minor uses by generating data for submission to Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency. The PRRP supports applied research, development and knowledge transfer of non-chemical alternative pest management approaches. Pest Management Program expenditures were approximately $60 million between 2018-19 and 2023-24.

Findings

• The MUPP continued to fill a critical market gap by enabling the registration of pesticides to protect minor crops, which are important to regional economies and represent over one-fifth of crop production in Canada.
• The PRRP’s activities are intended to address a gap for reduced-risk pest management strategies in Canadian agriculture, though a bridge between research and adoption remains a need for the sector.
• The MUPP generated scientific research in support of new registrations and the PRRP produced tools, approaches and information on reduced-risk approaches. During the evaluation period, both programs faced capacity pressures (that is, fewer resources over time) that constrained the achievement of outcomes.
• The PRRP developed and promoted reduced-risk solutions, but the program has limited influence over grower access to or adoption of existing alternatives.
• The MUPP and the PRRP supported sector adaptation in the long term, but not adaptation to immediate challenges.
• Some outcomes in the Pest Management Program Performance Information Profile lack clarity. Indicators are missing to capture the reach of activities, progress toward likely adoption of solutions and contributions from program partners.

Conclusion

Both components of the Pest Management Program are aligned with federal government priorities and sector needs. Capacity and resource limitations constrained the MUPP’s and the PRRP’s ability to meet intended outcomes. Three key conclusions inform the recommendations below: the PRRP’s scope is broad given its level of resourcing and the program faced challenges developing and promoting practical solutions in short research periods with limited resources; given reduced capacity, there are concerns about the MUPP’s continued ability to address ever-evolving sector priorities; and the Performance Information Profile for the Pest Management Program would benefit from further clarity on outcomes and more relevant indicators to report on impacts.

Recommendations

• The Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, should refine the scope of the PRRP to make a distinctive contribution to reduced-risk pest management.
• The Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, should strengthen the MUPP’s capacity to respond to sector needs for minor use pesticides, such as through further leveraging external support.
• The Assistant Deputy Ministers of Science and Technology Branch, in consultation with the Corporate Management Branch, should update the Pest Management Program Performance Information Profile to clarify expected outcomes and collect data to measure impact for the sector.

Management response and action plan

Management agrees with the evaluation recommendations and has developed an action plan to address them by March 2026. For further details see Annex D.

1.0 Introduction

The Office of Audit and Evaluation at Agriculture and Agri Food Canada (AAFC) conducted an evaluation of the Pest Management Program as part of its 2022-23 to 2027-28 plan. This discretionary evaluation was identified in a 2022 supplementary Treasury Board Submission. Findings 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 Pest Management Program activities from 2018-19 to 2023-24. Multiple lines of evidence informed this evaluation: a literature review, a review of program documentation and data, key informant interviews, a case study, on-site observations and consultations with subject matter experts. Please see Annex A for a detailed evaluation methodology.

3.0 Program profile

The Pest Management Program is delivered by the Pest Management Centre (PMC) located within AAFC’s Science and Technology Branch (STB). It is composed of 2 long-standing programs: the Minor Use Pesticides Program (MUPP) and the Pesticide Risk Reduction Program (PRRP). These 2 programs were originally launched in 2003 and have distinct resources, staff and objectives from one another (see Annex B for an overview of the PMC). Both Programs were last evaluated in 2017-18.

3.1 The Minor Use Pesticides Program

The MUPP supports the registration of pesticides for minor uses. The program is modelled after the United States of America’s minor use program, the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4). A minor use refers to crop protection treatments used on low acreage, high-value crops or where pest control is only needed on a small portion of the overall crop acreage. Minor use pesticides are typically used in fields and greenhouses for horticultural crops including fruits and vegetables, specialty crops and ornamentals.

Based on stakeholder-identified priorities, the MUPP conducts field and lab trials to produce the data necessary to submit new minor use registrations and label expansions to Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Field trials and lab research take place at 7 AAFC Research and Development Centres across Canada and on the land of partner growers.^note1 Additional work is also conducted by contracted private sector groups or university researchers at other qualified locations.

Resulting data packages are either submitted directly to the PMRA or to the registrant (the pesticide company who registers the product). PMRA evaluators review final submissions and deliver a regulatory decision; if accepted, the pesticide product is registered as approved for a new minor use or multiple uses. The registrant then updates the product label and growers are allowed to use it as outlined.^note2 AAFC currently funds the PMRA to review minor use submissions from the MUPP and the provinces. A close collaboration between the PMC and the PMRA facilitates minor use regulatory activities. Examples of MUPP projects conducted during the evaluation period include the following trials:

• Downy mildew affecting greenhouse cucumbers
• root and trunk rot affecting grapes
• leaf spot affecting broccoli
• various mites affecting greenhouse ornamentals

3.2 The Pesticide Risk Reduction Program

The PRRP supports applied research and knowledge transfer on pest management tools and approaches that reduce the environmental and health risks associated with pesticides. The PRRP also develops and updates crop profiles, which document pests of concern for crops and available management practices. The program also provides advice regarding the regulation and registration of reduced-risk pest management solutions (for example, biopesticides and other non-conventional compounds). PRRP staff are based in 4 AAFC research centres.^note3

Prior to the evaluation period, the PRRP coordinated, funded and contributed subject matter expertise to projects led by non-PMC researchers. Within the last 6 years, the PRRP team adopted a new model where, in addition to the program supporting research led outside of the PMC, PRRP scientists can develop and lead their own PRRP research projects. However, with the historical decline in operational funding, research projects must now be funded primarily through STB’s general call for proposals or other sources. In addition, PRRP staff contribute to other AAFC research projects related to pesticide risk reduction that are led by colleagues under different funding streams such as Living Labs, Agriculture Climate Solutions and Alternative Pest Management Solutions. Examples of PRRP projects conducted during the evaluation period include:

• on-farm demonstration trials of sterile insect release to manage onion maggots in Ontario
• testing the efficacy of steam treatment to manage cyclamen mite in field strawberries
• demonstrating biobeds for the treatment of pesticide rinsate in 2 Atlantic provinces
• using exclusion netting and Integrated Pest Management approaches for root maggots in leafy green and root Brassica vegetables

The evaluation was scoped to look specifically at the PRRP as a component of the Pest Management Program. Although related, STB research efforts on plant health, crop protection, biovigilance and alternatives to pesticides that did not involve the PRRP were out of scope. That said, the evaluation team engaged STB personnel outside of the PMC to better understand this broader AAFC research environment when conducting the assessment.

3.3 Resources

During the evaluation period, the MUPP was funded through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (2017-18 to 2022-23) and the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership (2023-24 to 2027-2028) policy frameworks as a federal-only program. From 2018-19 to 2023-24, the MUPP reported average annual expenditures of approximately $8.7 million, employing around 50 full-time equivalent staff. PRRP activities are funded primarily through ongoing funding (A-base), in addition to other AAFC sources of research funds. All funding sources combined, the federal government spent an average of $1.3 million per year for PRRP operations and research work during the evaluation period and the program operated with an average of 7 full-time equivalents per year. (See Table 1 for MUPP and PRRP expenditures and staff).

Notes: Salary includes employee benefit plans.

Source: Financial information from the Financial Management Advisory Division (STB), October 2024.

3.4 Intended outcomes

The Pest Management Program Performance Information Profile (PIP) falls under AAFC’s core responsibility of addressing sector risk. Expected outcomes of the program are:

Short term

• MUPP: Scientific data supporting safe use and registration of minor uses of pesticides and of biopesticides are generated and reviewed.
• PRRP: Tools, techniques and practices to reduce the risk to human health and the environment associated with pesticide use are made available to growers.
• PRRP: Increased awareness of and access to safer pest management products and practices.

Medium term

• PRRP: Dissemination of safer pest management practices and products to facilitate adoption.
• The agriculture and agri-food sector is able to adapt to a changing regulatory and crop protection environment with scientifically evaluated tools.

Long term

• The agriculture and agri-food sector is equipped with assurance systems and supporting tools.

4.0 Relevance

4.1 Gaps addressed by the Pest Management Program

Need for pest management programming

Pests, including insects, mites, diseases and weeds, can have a significant negative impact on food production and the livelihood of growers. Pest problems can cause lower yields, crop loss and poorer crop quality, negatively affecting prices and causing challenges for growers in domestic and export markets. Pests can destroy up to 40% of crops globally.^note4 As one example taken from the evaluation case study, cabbage root maggot can cause up to 100% rutabaga crop loss.

Pest damage can contribute to issues of food affordability and food security. The 2024 report from the Federal-Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Pesticides Management to Agriculture Ministers argued that “now more than ever, varied and effective pest management tools are critical to Canada's agriculture sector and food security”. Producers are facing challenges from evolving pest pressures including those driven by climate change, the development of pesticide resistance, changing regulations and varying rules from buyers on what types of pest control products they can use. There is a continued need for diversified pest management solutions to help growers adapt to these ongoing developments.

Need for the Minor Use Pesticide Program

Minor crops are diverse, high-value and high-investment-per-hectare crops, like fruits and vegetables, that are important to regional and local economies and represent a sizeable share of Canadian agriculture. Horticulture comprises 21% of crop production farms in Canada and $4.9 billion of Canada’s $34 billion in crop production exports.^{note 5} Pest management is a constant concern for growers of minor crops; in horticulture, there are generally more pest threats and less tolerance for pest damage than with major crops, in addition to tighter profit margins and stricter aesthetic criteria.

In Canada, all pesticides and biopesticides must be registered with Health Canada’s PMRA for sale and use. The MUPP is essential to the registration of pesticides for minor uses and new registrations are especially important as pests develop resistance to pesticides and as the PMRA deregisters older products. Registrants lack the financial incentive to register pesticides for minor uses in Canada given the small size of the market. In place of the private sector, the MUPP conducts field trials and generates the data required for minor use regulatory packages going to the PMRA. Health Canada dictates that pesticide residue trials must be conducted according to Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) standards, established by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In Canada, the MUPP is the only GLP-certified research program able to conduct residue research from field trials to analysis. Provinces and registrants also submit regulatory packages directly to the PMRA, but often expand on MUPP-generated data to add new pests or additional minor crops.

With access to a smaller pest management toolbox than their counterparts in the United States of America, Canadian growers are at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. For example, there are cases where minor crops grown using a product registered in the United States, but not in Canada, can still be sold in Canadian markets. The MUPP is intended to help address this gap by facilitating the registration of pesticides for minor use and through collaborative projects with IR-4, the American equivalent of the MUPP. Despite program efforts, evaluation evidence suggested that the technology gap between Canada and the United States may be growing wider due to declines in minor use registrations and new regulatory processes. This is a critical issue not only in terms of the numbers of available solutions for Canadian growers, but also in cases where key chemical solutions are not available in Canada but are in use in the United States.

The relevance of the MUPP program is further supported by its grower-driven approach to prioritizing projects. Each year, Provincial Minor Use Coordinators (PMUCs) create an initial priority list in consultation with growers and other stakeholders in their jurisdiction. The PMC then facilitates a spring workshop where grower representatives, crop specialists and PMUCs meet with the PMC, the PMRA and registrants to identify priorities from a rolling list of thousands of potential minor use projects. Stakeholders select final priorities based on viable crop-pest-solution combinations that reflect the needs of growers and are supported by a registrant. Projects are selected across a range of problem areas (that is, weeds, pathology, entomology, organic production and region-specific issues).

The priority setting workshop is intended to ensure the highest needs of growers are being met; however, in recent years, the MUPP has had to lower the number of projects it can take on and prioritize projects that accommodate reduced program capacity. This means fewer priority pest problems are being addressed.

Need for the Pesticide Risk Reduction Program

In addition to conventional chemistries, the Canadian agriculture sector needs alternative pest management solutions, as the use of chemical pesticides presents human health risks and environmental risks to water, soil health and biodiversity.^note6,^note7,^note8 Further, consumers have also shown a strong interest in having access to food grown with fewer or no conventional pesticides.

Reduced-risk pest management and pest management alternatives are solutions and practices that help growers lessen the use of chemical pesticides. IPM is a framework that encourages growers to combine diverse pest management methods to reduce the use of pesticides and manage pests in a sustainable way. Examples of reduced-risk approaches include:

• pest monitoring and the use of thresholds to better time and target pesticide application
• pest forecasting systems
• physical barriers like exclusion netting
• biocontrol agents
• biopesticides
• the release of sterile insects
• growing practices like intercropping and rotation that can help mitigate pest issues

PRRP activities are geared toward responding to a broad need for reduced-risk solutions that can be adopted by growers. Reduced-risk and alternative pest management solutions are needed to ensure growers are competitive, especially when they are facing pesticide resistance, deregistration or use restrictions on commonly used pesticides. Some growers are also seeking alternative solutions to lower their input costs or to increase the safety and sustainability of their operations. Similar to minor use pesticides, there is limited incentive for private industry to take on this type of research and development work. It is important for the federal government to play a role, especially since reduced-risk solutions could be relevant and useful for any type of farm across Canada. The PRRP is meant to contribute to the later stages of the applied research, development and knowledge transfer continuum (see Annex C for illustration).

The PRRP is part of a network of players — including government researchers within and outside of AAFC, academic and non-governmental research groups, crop advisors and growers — who develop and promote alternative pest management and risk-reduction methods. Within this landscape, the PRRP aims to bridge the gap between research and adoption of reduced-risk solutions through applied development, testing, demonstration and dissemination activities. However, extension services and on-the-ground support for growers to facilitate adoption of new agricultural practices are a provincial responsibility. There are also many factors that influence the attractiveness and viability of solutions for growers and their productions, as with any novel agricultural practice. As currently designed and given its size, the PRRP is not equipped to fill the research-to-practice gap on its own. Further, the evaluation found that the PRRP’s role is not well known or understood by external stakeholders, nor by all STB researchers who work on pest management solutions.

Historically, PRRP projects were based on priority areas for pesticide risk reduction and needs identified by stakeholders through specialized working groups and advisory committees. These engagement activities ended in 2018 due to reduced program capacity. Since then, the PRRP has used various strategies to identify and prioritize projects. These include supporting priorities identified prior to 2018, leveraging the MUPP priority setting workshop (though provincial participation in this process has been limited), and launching projects based on funding and collaboration opportunities identified by team members. As such, the scope of PRRP’s research activities has been broad relative to its level of resourcing and, at times, does not translate into a clear vision or focus for prioritization.

4.2 Alignment with AAFC and government priorities, roles and responsibilities

According to the Departmental Plan, sector resilience and public trust are key priorities for AAFC, which include addressing risks related to pests as well as the health, safety and environmental concerns associated with pesticides in agriculture. The Pest Management Program conducts and coordinates research and knowledge transfer in support of these priorities.

The MUPP is aligned with AAFC’s role and responsibilities in that it conducts scientific work in support of minor crop growers across Canada. It is the only federal program dedicated to minor use pesticide registration research. The program also plays a coordinating role to create efficiencies and minimize provincial duplication of effort for minor use pesticide registrations. Federal involvement supports harmonization and cooperation with other countries and international regulatory bodies.

The PRRP is aligned with AAFC’s mandate to support alternative pest management strategies and reduce reliance on chemical solutions. As laid out in the Pest Control Products Act, the intent of the federal regulatory system includes supporting lower-risk, sustainable pest management strategies. Programs like the PRRP are intended to meet the requirements outlined in the Act by encouraging the development and use of non-chemical approaches to pest management. The PRRP is also aligned with Canada’s new commitment to implement the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Target 7 of the Framework calls for reducing pollution harmful to biodiversity by 2030, including risks from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half. Increasing the resilience of agro-ecosystems through programs like the PRRP is a mission-driven priority in AAFC’s Strategic Plan for Science.

The PMC plays an important role in pesticide risk reduction given its 20 years of stakeholder engagement and research experience, its linkages to AAFC’s broader expertise, its focus on applied research and knowledge transfer, its links to national and international networks and its independence from commercial interests.

5.0 Performance

5.1 Performance measurement

In 2017, the MUPP and the PRRP were joined under one program with a new PIP that does not clearly distinguish between the 2 program components even though the MUPP and the PRRP have different activities and objectives, outcomes and performance. Furthermore, PIP outcomes do not clearly communicate the program’s theory of change, especially for the PRRP. The evaluation identified the following specific issues related to outcomes and indicators:

• The PRRP short-term outcome of ‘reduced-risk pest management tools, techniques and practices made available to growers’ does not capture that PRRP-supported work also increases knowledge incrementally, either before a fully formed solution is ready to transfer to the sector or to refine what is known about a given solution.
• The PRRP outcome on ‘dissemination to facilitate adoption’ includes no performance indicator on reach of dissemination activities, which would be a key measure of effectiveness (in the form of analytics, views, downloads, participation, attendance numbers, etc.).
• Neither program reports on the ways stakeholders contribute in-kind support to the PMC’s work, which could function as a measure of efficiency and of continued sector support for MUPP and PRRP activities.
• The relevance of the performance indicator for the ultimate outcome, which is related to assurance systems and supporting tools, is unclear and there is no performance data available for the indicator.
• The program area questioned whether the Pest Management Program should be positioned under AAFC’s core responsibility of ‘sector risk’ and noted that program objectives, especially for risk reduction, may be more aligned with the ultimate outcome for ‘science and innovation’: ‘the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector is effective in transforming ideas into new products, processes or practices’.

In terms of Gender-based Analysis Plus, the MUPP benefits minor crop growers who would bear a market disadvantage in the absence of the program. The MUPP also includes a sector-engaging priority setting process that participating growers described as inclusive and fair, and which has brought diverse priorities to the forefront. However, internal and external interviewees recognized that the process is likely more advantageous for grower groups who have a greater capacity to organize and strong channels to liaise with the PMC and provincial coordinators.

Although adoption of pest management solutions by the sector is an area of interest for AAFC, the PMC is not mandated to collect adoption information, and developing this type of indicator for the Pest Management Program would be challenging. More specifically:

• Minor uses represent a small fraction of the pesticide market that cannot be tracked separately from general sales, and use of these products vary depending on weather conditions and pest pressures in a given season. Growers are not asked to systematically report on the type of pesticide they use on their crop.
• Understanding what reduced-risk pest management strategies growers use on a large scale is complex. This question is best explored on a crop-by-crop basis and over time. For example, through the case study on Brassica crops, the evaluation team was able to gather localized information on the adoption of solutions supported by the program, from sector stakeholders who work with growers and providers of those technologies.

5.2 Efficiency

Efficiency of the MUPP

From 2018-19 to 2023-24, the MUPP’s average annual budget was about $8.8 million, for a total of $53 million over 6 years. The program spent roughly 97% of its allocated budget, with the main instance of underspending occurring in 2020-2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The evaluation found that the MUPP efficiently used its available resources. The program’s joint work with IR-4 continued to generate efficiencies by enabling the 2 jurisdictions to share information, avoid duplication of effort and achieve harmonized registrations. The MUPP’s priority-setting process also became more efficient during the evaluation period, as the program now requires attendees to do more work in preparation for the spring workshop so discussions are targeted and streamlined.

Site visits provided evidence that MUPP research teams find creative ways to optimize resources, such as repurposing older tools and equipment to use in new trials. In addition, the MUPP balances in-house work and contracting to support its objectives. When the MUPP first launched, all residue analysis was contracted out to third-party collaborators. In 2012, the PMC established the MUPP lab in Vineland and obtained GLP accreditation, meaning most residue analysis could be conducted internally. This reduced the reliance on third-party contracting, creating efficiency gains and greater autonomy. The MUPP finds efficiencies by contracting trials for certain commodity priorities and laboratory analyses as needed. However, AAFC interviewees noted the contracting process can be burdensome and discourages potential applicants.

Decreasing capacity of the MUPP is the primary efficiency concern for almost all interviewed stakeholders, especially growers. The MUPP budget has remained stable since the program launched in 2003, while inflation has eroded the relative capacity of the MUPP (see Figure 1). Challenges with workload and project delays made it difficult to meet grower needs. To address this, the MUPP contracted a third-party to perform an assessment in 2020 and 2021, which recommended decreasing project intake and submission targets to align with the program’s capacity. The MUPP made those changes to manage backlog and ensure new projects could proceed in a timely manner (also taking into consideration PMRA capacity), but all external stakeholders described the decreased targets as a concerning development.

The MUPP also instituted a post-workshop review to ensure selected priorities align with resources available in the upcoming period. While this review supported program efficiency, growers viewed it as opaque and taking away from the sector-driven nature of the program.

Figure 1: Decreasing value of the PMC budget over time due to inflation

Source: Program data

Note: The 2008 budget for the PRRP was not available, so was estimated at $2.25 million in line with adjacent years.

Efficiency of the PRRP

As operational funding declined over time, the PRRP adjusted its activities to continue delivering results. Upon its inception in 2003, the PRRP funded research projects directly using a share of its $3.5 million annual program envelope. Since then, the budget dedicated to PRRP research activities has declined. During the evaluation period, the PRRP had limited operational funding of its own to fund research activities. The program relied instead on funds transferred from the MUPP as well as on STB calls for proposals and other AAFC sources of funding. Expenditures for PRRP operational and research activities (all sources of funding combined) declined from just under $700,000 in 2018-19 to less than $300,000 in 2023-24.

Securing funding through STB calls for proposals can be challenging if thematic priorities are not aligned with pesticide risk reduction and if non-PMC researchers have their own projects to fund under the call. The PRRP team has also attempted to secure non-AAFC funding through external calls for proposals, however no projects have been funded through this approach to date. The distributed nature of the PRRP across various research centres facilitates research to cover different regions and develop local connections, but isolated team members have to manage various roles with limited technical support. The PRRP does not have the mandate nor capacity to coordinate national reduced-risk pest management research efforts to minimize duplication and create efficiencies.

PRRP-supported projects leverage vital in-kind contributions from stakeholders and subject matter experts including AAFC researchers, growers, provincial partners, local research organizations and on-the-ground specialists. These sector-rooted collaborations are highlighted as a major efficiency feature of PRRP work, but this is not quantified in program reporting or performance measurement.

5.3 Effectiveness

Outcome 1: Scientific data supporting safe use and registration of minor uses (MUPP)

Although the MUPP is producing scientific research to support minor use registrations, limited capacity has negatively impacted the program’s ability to meet output targets and the needs of stakeholders. Almost all interviewed stakeholders strongly agreed that the MUPP generated quality scientific data to support the safe use and registration of minor use pesticides, as the program has facilitated thousands of successful registrations in the past 2 decades. Research by the MUPP not only supports AAFC’s minor use submissions, but also those made by the provinces. To generate data for the PMRA, the MUPP adheres to GLP, a set of principles that “promote the development of quality test data” for non-clinical research studies.^{note 9}. Research teams who assess the health and environmental safety of chemicals for submission to regulatory authorities must follow standard operating procedures, operate in certified research facilities and follow guidelines for record keeping and quality assurance.^{note 10}

Site visits to the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu Research and Development Centre, the Vineland laboratory and the Jordan and Frelighsburg experimental farms, as well as discussions with MUPP staff, confirmed that adherence to GLP principles is a priority for the program. The MUPP laboratory in Vineland is one of few GLP-accredited labs in Canada and must hold that status to conduct residue analysis. MUPP teams have stringent processes for documentation, monitoring and calibration of tools. Occasionally, strict GLP rules can present communication and coordination challenges with other farm teams and host growers when non-testing tasks (such as weeding, irrigation, fertilization and maintenance) are not done according to established protocols.

The MUPP has 3 indicators against which to assess its contribution to this outcome: submissions of data packages to the PMRA and registrants; regulatory decisions made by the PMRA; and total new uses registered. The MUPP met its targets except for total submissions in 2021-22 and joint IR-4 submissions to the PMRA in 2021-22 and 2023-24 (see Table 2). In 2020-2021, a portion of field trials activities could not go ahead because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The total number of minor use submissions has declined year-over-year during the evaluation period (with the exception of 2022-23). The average number of annual submissions during the 2019-2023 period (50) is also lower compared to reported submissions for the 2014-2018 period (60). As noted above, the MUPP reduced its submission target by 25% (from 40 to 30) under the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership.

Source: Program data

The MUPP met targets for regulatory decisions made and total new uses in each year of the evaluation reference period (see Table 3). Regulatory decisions peaked in 2020-21 with 99 but have declined since. A given registration typically leads to a pesticide being authorized for use on multiple minor crops — hence the large number of new uses each year. Regulatory changes can also lead to a bulk update of pesticide labels, as was the case in 2022-2023.

Source: Program data

In addition to a decreasing number of projects and submissions over time, timeliness of registrations is a concern. The MUPP has a service standard of 5 years from project selection to submission of a data package to the PMRA or a registrant. When a project is selected through the priority-setting process, trials start the next year following planning and can take several growth seasons to complete. For MUPP projects that are at least 5 years old (from 2012 to current), almost half were completed within 5 years, while the other half took longer. Projects can be delayed due to weather conditions or the level of pest pressure, leading to inconclusive trials and a missed season. Projects can also be delayed by PMRA special reviews or re-evaluations, and decisions on the side of the registrant to withdraw support or postpone submissions. The PMRA review process that follows a submission can also be lengthy; the scientific review took over a year on average in 2019-20, which represented an increase from previous years. The delay to registration limits the effectiveness of the MUPP in the face of time-sensitive issues such as product cancellations and significant use restrictions, the arrival of invasive species, or worsening pest pressures due to climate change.

Outcome 2: Risk-reduction tools, techniques and practices available to growers (PRRP)

The PRRP has produced impactful tools over the years; for example, a new technique that significantly accelerates the detection of resistance in weeds is being used in provincial laboratories in Quebec and Ontario, and is now being expanded to other provinces. Other tools were aimed directly at growers and on-the-ground specialists, including field guides and technical factsheets. PRRP-supported projects built on previous research and contributed to answering practical questions on the implementation of reduced-risk solutions and IPM in different contexts. Prior to 2018, the PRRP also had a unit supporting the registration of biopesticides: 10 new products were registered with PRRP support between 2018-19 and 2023-2024 as a result of activities initiated before the period and a few additional submissions are with the PMRA.

During the evaluation period, the PRRP’s ability to generate tools, techniques and practices declined. Prior to 2014, the PRRP contributed to over 30 projects per year. In 2018, the program only supported 14 projects, followed by about 10 projects in subsequent years. Between 2018-19 and 2023-24, the PRRP team was involved in 24 research projects compared to 56 in the previous 5 year evaluation period. This decrease is a continuation of the historical decline in number of projects supported by the program.

The PRRP reported that 74 tools and practices were made available to growers from 2012-13 to 2016-17, whereas in the last 6 years, 32 were produced (see Table 4). The PRRP has a target of releasing at least 5 tools, techniques or practices per year; while the program exceeded that consistently during the previous evaluation period, it narrowly met the target during this evaluation period due to resourcing constraints and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021. The low number of outputs has prompted questions about the potential impact of the program.

Note: PRRP reduced annual targets in 2020-21 (6 for crop profiles, 3 for IPM tools, practices and knowledge products).

Source: PRRP annual reports

Crop profiles are another type of PRRP knowledge product. These online reference documents provide a national overview of production practices for a given crop in Canada, including possible IPM and pest control methods, but do not specifically encourage reduced-risk pest management. The PRRP contracts the Fruits and Vegetable Growers of Canada to gather crop profile data, which represents a significant use of operational funds for the program. Crop profiles are updated every 4 years (formerly 3 years) and focus only on horticultural crops. Analytics and 2021 PMC survey data indicated that crop profiles are accessed and used by both government and non-government users, primarily for general information and as a reference on pest issues. The PMRA also uses crop profiles in their review process.

During the evaluation period, most of the PRRP’s applied research made incremental contributions to the IPM and reduced-risk solutions body of knowledge. Applied research in real farm conditions takes time and short-term projects can only generate some of the concrete information growers need before they will adopt a technique or practice on their farm. Researchers are rarely able to generate a final tool or fully developed technique in the span of 2 growing seasons. While some projects were continued or extended, most PRRP initiatives were initially funded for short-term, two-year periods.

Outcome 3: Increased awareness of and access to safer pest management products and practices

There was a high level of confidence that growers are aware of and using newly registered minor use pesticides. These pesticides were identified as high priorities by growers, are shown to be effective through the registration process, and other stakeholders (for example, PMUCs and grower representatives) confirmed their use. Actual uptake of minor use pesticides may vary due to factors beyond the MUPP’s control, such as distribution by registrants, rules established by buyers or final product cost. Confidence regarding uptake of reduced-risk pest management approaches was not as high.

The PRRP has facilitated access to reduced-risk pest management tools and techniques for growers directly involved in research projects. For instance, during the evaluation period, the program supported the testing of insect netting for Brassica crops on 3 Quebec farms (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Insect netting on a cabbage farm in Île d'Orléans, Québec

Source: Office of Audit and Evaluation

The PRRP also enabled the deployment of sterile insect release technology at a few Brassica-growing farms in Ontario (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Sterile insect release on a rutabaga farm in Exeter, Ontario

Source: Office of Audit and Evaluation

These projects gave participating growers the opportunity to test and adopt reduced-risk techniques, but uptake of these alternatives remains experimental and low-acreage. On the whole, literature indicates that adoption of reduced-risk methods is rarely widespread, but observable in sub-sectors where the right conditions are present.

PRRP communications likely raised awareness of reduced-risk solutions, but the reach of the program’s outputs and transfer activities was not systematically captured in terms of citations, views, analytics or attendance tracking. Anecdotally, activities can generate strong interest: for example, a webinar delivered in 2021-22 on insect netting trials in Quebec had an audience of over 100 participants. The PRRP team’s network across Canada and internationally has been an asset for sharing information and connecting research teams with the agricultural sector. However, awareness of alternative pest management approaches varies between different categories of growers and evidence suggested that written communications, presentations and other communication techniques are not enough to lead to adoption of reduced-risk approaches.

There are various barriers hindering access to and adoption of reduced-risk pest management solutions, which the PRRP as currently designed does not address. In the 2017, 2018 and 2022 Strategic Issues Surveys with Growers, costs (70% and above) and the level of risk for the return on investment (60%) were the 2 most commonly cited barriers to adopting new technologies and farm practices. In recent projects, the PRRP engaged AAFC economists to conduct cost-benefit analyses that showed alternative methods were more expensive than conventional pest management in the short to medium term. Further, since reduced-risk tools and strategies tend to be more complex and knowledge-intensive, growers need sustained support and guidance to adopt them. The PRRP supports projects that involve local specialists and advisors working with growers, but the program itself cannot provide the on-the-ground, tailored support that is required for adoption writ large. Experts and the literature also highlighted how regulatory restrictions and parameters imposed through the market by buyers, suppliers and exporters significantly influence adoption. The PRRP has no way of influencing regulation or market actors, but a few external interviewees and subject matter experts suggested that the program could establish connections with private sector industry to promote reduced-risk practices and identify partnership opportunities for research involving industry.

Outcome 4: Dissemination of safer practices and products to facilitate adoption (PRRP)

The PRRP supported communication with the sector, but related performance targets are low due to resource limitations. From 2018-19 to 2023-24, the program aimed to disseminate information through 4 IPM outreach events and communication products annually. It has exceeded that target in most years (except 2018-19; see Table 5).

Note: Program’s annual targets were lowered to 2-3 for 2020-2021.

Source: PRRP annual reports

Project summaries are available online through a database. In addition to the reference documents mentioned above, project teams generated scientific and peer-reviewed publications. PRRP-supported researchers disseminated information through trade publications, media articles, social media posts and radio interviews or podcasts. The PRRP participated in scientific and sector forums, hosted webinars, supported demonstrations and was represented at research centre outreach activities. During the evaluation period, the PRRP team engaged AAFC knowledge transfer specialists located at research centres to help with dissemination.

Publicly available PRRP research outputs varied in terms of usefulness to growers and other pest management stakeholders (for example, advisors and agronomists). Some documents provided detailed concrete information or findings as well as implementation guidance, while others offered partial or high-level information. Interviewed stakeholders with on-the-ground experience and subject matter experts noted that sector-accessible mediums are likely more effective at informing growers compared to government webpages and scientific outputs.

Local experts, crop advisors, agronomists and retailers who work directly with growers are well positioned to encourage and support experimentation and the introduction of new techniques. Knowledge transfer activities, such as in-person practice-focussed sessions and regional round table discussions, are especially important. External interviewees involved in pest management or pesticide risk-reduction activities noted that the PRRP could do more in this area.

Typically, PRRP team members and non-PMC researchers supported by the PRRP have limited time for and expertise in knowledge transfer. Additionally, due to departmental technical restrictions, the PMC stopped using a LISTSERV that reached over 1,300 subscribers. This is not unique to the PRRP; the level of expertise and resources needed for effective knowledge transfer between researchers and growers is a challenge for other AAFC teams and external organizations working on reduced-risk pest management.

Outcome 5: Sector ability to adapt to a changing regulatory and crop protection environment with scientifically evaluated tools

The MUPP helps growers adapt to a changing regulatory and crop protection environment by supporting grower access to varied chemistries in the face of deregistration or pesticide resistance. In addition to its core business of supporting minor use registrations, the MUPP contributes to adaptation through special projects on new technologies (such as drone application methods).

The MUPP is constrained in its ability to support adaptation in the short-term. The timeline to register products and the program’s decreasing capacity limit the MUPP’s ability to help growers quickly adapt to regulatory changes and new pest pressures. Short-term needs must be addressed through provincial emergency use registrations, which have significantly increased since 2021 (see Figure 4).^note11 Interviewees and experts also noted that, as a result of a reduction in projects, the MUPP process is less likely to prioritize biopesticides, which are an alternative to conventional chemistries in the context of adaptation. In addition, the MUPP no longer conducts exploratory research to identify products that may help address pest issues without a clear control solution.

Figure 4: Number of provincial emergency use registrations, 2018 to 2023

Source: PMRA records

As with the MUPP, the PRRP’s work contributes to adaptation, but in the long term. The PRRP aims to be part of an innovation pipeline supporting reduced-risk pest management in the sector, which enables adaptation when conventional solutions are no longer an option. PRRP research also supports grower adaptation in the context of broader efforts toward a more sustainable and resilient agriculture. However, short-term funding and limited resources have constrained the extent to which the program can deliver tools and practices ready for use by growers. The program has contributed to knowledge development, but the PRRP is not designed to deliver solutions for rapid adaptation.

The Pest Management Program’s declining number of projects limits the support for adaptation in a regulatory and crop protection context that is getting more complex with climate change and the drive to reduce environmental and health risks. The ability to adapt to changing contexts also depends on whether growers can adopt the tools developed; as discussed above, it is difficult to lower barriers to uptake.

Ultimate Outcome: Contribution to assurance systems and supporting tools

The Pest Management Program is making a contribution to assurance systems, alongside other government organizations such as the PMRA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and provincial bodies. Assurance systems “describe all processes and procedures that provide confidence and trust that associated risks along the food supply chain are adequately addressed and claims can be proven”.^note12 This can include activities related to food safety, environmental sustainability, quality standards and food defense. Three other AAFC programs are linked to this departmental result: African Swine Fever Response, AgriAssurance and the Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Cost-Shared Assurance.

The MUPP contributes to the pesticide assurance system by providing data that ensures pesticides used in Canada are safe for growers and consumers. The strength of the overall assurance system, however, depends primarily on PMRA regulatory processes. The PRRP contributes to the development of reduced-risk pest management approaches that support safer and more sustainable pest management, if adopted by growers.

However, literature and subject matter experts point out that attaining a truly sustainable and resilient agricultural sector requires more than changing grower practices; it requires rethinking system-level aspects of the sector. Landscape simplification, intensification of agriculture, the nature of the input market and aesthetic criteria of marketable products are examples of broader forces that drive the use of conventional pesticides. Providing assurance that pesticides risks are mitigated requires concerted efforts at a systemic level.

6.0 Conclusions and recommendations

The evaluation concluded that both components of the Pest Management Program are aligned with sector needs as well as federal government priorities, roles and responsibilities. The MUPP and the PRRP adapted their activities to gain efficiencies and try to overcome declining resources and capacity, but their ability to meet short-term intended outcomes was constrained due to these limitations.

The following conclusions led to the formulation of 3 recommendations for improvements to the Pest Management Program.

In addition to conventional chemistries, the Canadian agriculture sector needs sustainable pest management approaches that reduce risks, meet consumers’ expectations and help growers adapt to evolving pest pressures and regulatory changes. Further, Canada has a commitment under the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to reduce pollution, including from risk of pesticides by 2030. The PRRP is part of AAFC’s pest management research and innovation continuum, but with a scope that is broad given its limited resources. The PRRP’s collaborative approach and partnerships are strengths of the program, but activities are not prioritized based on a clear overarching objective. With short research periods and limited resourcing, it is challenging for the program to develop practical solutions for growers. The PRRP also cannot influence the key factors that determine access to and adoption of reduced-risk practices.

There is a continued need for the MUPP to facilitate registration of products that can help address minor use pest management priorities. The MUPP lowered its output targets during the evaluation period in response to capacity limitations. This raised concerns about the program’s continued ability to help growers adapt to an evolving, increasingly complex regulatory and pest management environment.

The evaluation identified issues with the current PIP that made assessing program performance challenging. Outcomes are not always relevant or appropriate for program activities, and there are missing indicators and performance data that would enable a better assessment of program effectiveness.

Recommendation

• The Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, should refine the scope of the PRRP to make a distinctive contribution to reduced-risk pest management.
• The Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, should strengthen the MUPP’s capacity to respond to sector needs for minor use pesticides, such as through further leveraging external support.
• The Assistant Deputy Ministers of Science and Technology Branch, in consultation with the Corporate Management Branch, should update the Pest Management Program PIP to clarify expected outcomes and collect data to measure impact for the sector.

Management response and action plan

Management from the Science and Technology Branch, in consultation with Corporate Management Branch are supportive of this evaluation as well as the recommendations and have outlined an action plan to address them by March 2026. Please see Annex D.

Annex A: Evaluation methodology

Document review

To assess program relevance, performance measurement, efficiency and effectiveness, the evaluation reviewed internal program documents including the Performance Information Profile, past evaluations, documentation on the priority-setting process, MUPP reporting data, PRRP annual reports and Government of Canada documentation on relevant roles and priorities.

Literature review

With support from the Canadian Agriculture Library, key informant interviewees and subject matter experts, the evaluation examined selected academic literature and other primary sources to support the assessment of relevance, efficiency and effectiveness where appropriate.

Data review

To examine the extent to which the program achieved expected outcomes, the evaluation reviewed quantitative information including: data on MUPP and PRRP outputs (for example projects completed, regulatory submissions, regulatory decisions, tools generated, outreach outputs, etc.), and priority setting workshop feedback data.

Several data sources were used to assess the efficiency of the program. The evaluation reviewed MUPP and PRRP financial and capacity information, as well as IR-4 data for comparison purposes.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted with AAFC and external stakeholders. The evaluation involved 46 interviews with stakeholders, including:

• AAFC program staff (13)
• Provincial Minor Use Coordinators (5)
• Growers and grower representatives (9)
• Registrants (pesticide manufacturers) (4)
• Health Canada PRMA staff (4)
• IR-4 representative (1)
• Other external experts (7)
• AAFC Science and Technology Branch and Strategic Policy Branch representatives (3)

Site visits

With the support of the PMC, the evaluation team conducted visits to the 5 sites listed below. The visits involved observations of program activities (for instance, MUPP trial activities, lab work, presentations and outreach activities). An evaluator also attended the 2024 annual priority setting workshop in Gatineau.

• Saskatoon Research and Development Centre, Outlook and Scott, SK (PRRP)
• London Research and Development Centre and Exeter Produce Farm, ON (PRRP)
• Vineland Research Farm, including Jordan Farm, ON (MUPP, PRRP)
• St-Jean-sur-Richelieu Research and Development Centre and Frelighsburg Farm, QC (MUPP, PRRP)
• Grower partner farm in Ile d’Orléans, QC (PRRP)

Pesticide Risk Reduction Program case study

The case study “Protecting Brassica vegetables in Canada: Understanding the adoption of reduced-risk pest management solutions” was written based on an analysis of program documents, external documentation and literature, key informant interviews (13) and on-site observations and exchanges with project leads, growers and other partners.

Subject matter experts

Two subject matter experts were consulted throughout the duration of the project and provided the OAE with expert feedback regarding key evaluation questions and results which supported triangulation. The subject matter experts also peer reviewed the final report.

Triangulation

The evaluation incorporated across-method, within-method triangulation to ensure robustness of findings.

Annex B: Pest Management Centre overview

Source: PMC presentation (2020)

Annex C: PRRP on the Sustainable Crop Protection Innovation chain

Source: PRRP documentation

Annex D: Management response and action plan