Evaluation of the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program

Abbreviations

AAFC

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

CASPP

Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program

Executive summary

Purpose

The Office of Audit and Evaluation of AAFC conducted an evaluation of the CASPP to assess its relevance, design, delivery and performance (efficiency and effectiveness).

Scope and methodology

The evaluation examined CASPP activities from 2019-2020 to 2022-2023 using multiple lines of evidence including a review of program documents, project files and literature; key informant interviews; and analyses of administrative and financial data.

Background

CASPP is, on average, a $10-million per year program of non-repayable and repayable contribution funding. The Program’s objective is to facilitate the Canadian agricultural sector's ability to seize opportunities, to respond to new and emerging issues and to find and assess solutions to new and ongoing challenges to competitiveness.

Findings

• CASPP plays a unique role in supporting the Canadian agri-food system by advancing strategic priorities in adaptation to new technology, environmental sustainability, strategic capacity building and emerging issues affecting the sector.
• The Program’s flexibility is its key strength, maintaining a balance between both proactive and reactive design elements. However, there were frequent revisions to the terms and conditions to accommodate projects supported by the Emerging Issues priority area.
• The format, quality and timeliness of program performance data limit its usefulness for evaluation and reporting purposes.
• CASPP is delivered efficiently. Stakeholders’ understanding of the Program is adequate but accessibility for and the benefit to underrepresented and marginalized groups is unclear.
• The Program developed and implemented tools, strategies and partnerships that address multiple sector priorities. Knowledge gained, best practices and lessons learned from projects are currently not shared between program recipients or other stakeholders.

Conclusions

CASPP addresses a clear need in the agricultural sector by funding projects aligned with AAFC’s strategic policy priorities. The Program’s flexible design and broad eligibility criteria enable Canada’s agricultural sector to seize opportunities and develop technologies to address relevant issues of national interest. Given frequent revisions to CASPP’s terms and conditions, they should be reviewed to ensure they meet AAFC’s policy objectives. The quality of CASPP’s performance data can be improved and there are opportunities to better understand the degree to which underrepresented and marginalized groups are benefiting from and accessing the Program. Sharing knowledge from lessons learned and best practices with sector stakeholders would be valuable for Program stakeholders.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch working with the Assistant Deputy Minister Strategic Policy Branch should review the policy priorities of the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program and the associated terms and conditions.

Recommendation 2: The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch should review the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program’s performance indicators to ensure that they are clearly defined, relevant and measurable.

Recommendation 3: The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch should conduct analysis of the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program based on Gender-based Analysis Plus principles.

Recommendation 4: The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch, working with the Assistant Deputy Minister Public Affairs Branch, should consider how to leverage best practices and success stories reported by individual recipients and assess options for sharing information with internal and external stakeholders.

Management response and action plan

Management agrees with the evaluation recommendations and has developed an action plan to address them by March 2025. For further details see Annex C.

1.0 Introduction

The Office of Audit and Evaluation of AAFC undertook an evaluation of the CASPP as part of the 2022-23 to 2026-27 Integrated Audit and Evaluation Plan. CASPP funds national or sector-wide projects that support strategic priorities of the agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products sector. The results of this evaluation are intended to inform current and future program and policy decisions.

2.0 Scope and methodology

This evaluation assessed the relevance, design, delivery, efficiency and effectiveness of CASPP activities over a four-year period from 2019-2020 to 2022-23. The evaluation used multiple lines of evidence including a review of program documents, project files and literature; key informant interviews; and analyses of administrative and financial data. For more detailed evaluation methodology, see Annex A.

3.0 Program profile

3.1 Overview of the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program

The CASPP is, on average, a $10 million per year non-repayable and repayable contribution program. The objectives of the Program are to facilitate the Canadian agricultural sector's ability to seize opportunities, to respond to new and emerging issues and to find and assess solutions for new and ongoing challenges for competitiveness. CASPP considers funding for projects within 4 priority areas:

• Adaptation to new technology
• Environmental sustainability
• Strategic planning and capacity building
• Emerging issues

Eligible applicants under CASPP are typically not-for-profit organizations including associations, cooperatives, marketing boards and Indigenous groups. For-profit organizations may be considered for funding in situations where there is benefit to the entire sector or significant benefit to public safety or the public good.

Eligible project costs are usually shared evenly between AAFC and the funding recipient. AAFC may contribute up to 75% of total project costs for projects deemed to be of high priority for a sector, or those that address a public safety concern, such as a sudden crop or animal disease outbreak. AAFC may also contribute greater than 75% of project costs in exceptional cases.

Over the evaluation reference period (2019-2023), a total of 29 projects were approved, with funding allocated to 22 different not-for-profit organizations and 2 different for-profit organizations. AAFC contributed a total of $45.9 million to these projects. On average, CASPP projects received $1.49 million, with the smallest project receiving $34,500 and the largest receiving $22.9 million in non-repayable contributions. The length of funding agreements varied by project.

3.2 Resources

Allocation of funds and full-time equivalents

Total spending over the evaluation period including planned expenditures for 2023-24 was $56.8 million, with significant fluctuations in year over year actual expenditures (see Table 1).^{Endnote 1} AAFC employed an average of 4.5 full-time equivalent employees over the reference period to deliver the Program.

Table 1: Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program expenditures

	Actual expenditures ($)				Planned ($) 2023-24	Total spending ($)
	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
Salary	923,699	1,305,014	1,239,822	602,579	822,681	4,893,795
Non-Pay Operating	122,624	52,113	54,996	69,155	140,862	439,750
Vote 10 Contribution	546,135	3,278,424	30,283,775	11,879,224	4,831,000	5,0818,55
Employee Benefit Plan	128,488	200,567	167,144	68,886	125,048	690,133
Total	1,720,946	4,836,118	31,745,73	12,619,84	5,919,591	56,842,23
Source: Corporate Management Branch (as of October 25, 2023)

4.0 Relevance

• This section summarizes the evaluation’s conclusions on the need to maintain CASSP and the degree to which the program tracks with the roles, responsibilities and priorities of the departments and the government.

4.1 Gaps addressed by CASPP

The Canadian agri-food system faces rapidly shifting local and global market conditions, increasingly diverse consumer demands and heightened environmental challenges related to climate change. Adaptation in the agricultural sector is essential to meet these challenges and maintain Canada’s economic growth. AAFC began implementing ongoing adaptation programming in 1995. The evaluation of AAFC's previous cycle of adaptation programming (Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program, 2014 to 2019) revealed that the previous iteration’s broad objectives lacked clarity which made attracting suitable proposals from industry partners difficult and resulted in lapsed funds. Subsequent changes were made to the Program to stimulate adaptation and innovation in the agricultural sector within the 4 following strategic priority areas:

Adapting to new technologies to secure competitive advantage

There is a growing productivity gap in Canada between agri-businesses that can rapidly adopt new technologies and those that cannot. This technological shift is critical for the sector to remain competitive. CASPP is designed to enable industry-led solutions to establish market presence by facilitating adaptation to new technology at the pre-commercialization stage of the innovation continuum.^{Endnote 2} Findings from the evaluation indicate that government support for adaptation to new technology should be prioritized because funding the development of value-added products has the potential to enhance sustainable development and improve supply chain performance, and federal support for these priorities acts as a catalyst to stimulate transformative change within the sector. CASPP addresses a gap in the sector’s technology adaptation requirements by reducing exposure to changing marketplace conditions and enabling greater market orientation in the context of evolving agri-food technology.

Developing technology solutions to support environmental sustainability

Evaluation evidence indicates that adoption of new environmentally sustainable technologies within the Canadian agricultural sector is low relative to other sectors. The primary barriers to uptake can include resistance to widespread adoption of new technologies or environmentally sustainable farming practices. CASPP helps the sector increase sustainable and technologically advanced farming practices in Canada by complementing other federal environmental sustainability and climate change programs.

Advancing sectoral capacity and strategic planning

Many smaller agricultural sectors in Canada lack organizational capacity to stimulate better management practices and effective response strategies to sector priorities. For example, individual Canadian agri-businesses often lack capacity or incentive to share market information with other businesses which would increase market opportunities for their sector. Competing interests at the provincial and/or regional levels can also result in sector fragmentation that may impede Canada's ability to advance national strategic priorities. By leveraging industry organizations’ understanding of the key factors defining sector priorities at the national, regional and even commodity level, CASPP is able to address this gap.

Responding to emerging national issues affecting the agricultural sector

The need for a mechanism to enable a national response to emerging issues affecting the Canadian agricultural sector is increasingly relevant considering the recent increase in the number of extreme weather events and other unforeseen crises impacting the sector. Interviews with CASPP officials and sector stakeholders underscored the Program’s direct relationship with agricultural industry organizations as critical for addressing urgent emerging issues such as:

• implementing veterinary medicine and/or animal management practices to reduce the risks of infectious diseases
• mitigating climate change impacts through adaptation in livestock systems like feedstock support
• testing innovative crop destruction methods to control disease outbreaks and other threats to field crops
• developing short food supply chains to mitigate the risks of future pandemics or loss of markets due to trade restrictions put in place
• testing new depopulation techniques to mitigate the impact of disease on herds as well as creating processes that can be more broadly applied to animal welfare issues
• adaptation of agricultural water management practices to assess the risk of drought

The evaluation found that no other AAFC program includes a mechanism like CASPP’s Emerging Issues priority area to deal with urgent national issues affecting the sector. As such, CASPP serves a niche role within the department's suite of programming to advance the sector’s strategic priorities.

4.2 Alignment with priorities and roles and responsibilities

CASPP is well aligned with departmental and federal priorities, such as:

• recent federal Budget statements and the 2023 Fall Economic Statement by supporting climate solutions, green technologies and a clean economy
• the 2021 Speech from the Throne by funding innovative research and sustainable growth projects intended to maintain sector competitiveness
• Mandate Letters to AAFC’s Minister, Departmental Plans and the 2023-2027 Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy. Intended outcomes of CASPP are clearly aligned with the department’s science and innovation core responsibility.

4.3 Overlap and duplication

The evaluation found that the pre-screening stage of CASPP’s application process enabled the Program to determine unsuitable projects at an early stage and effectively reduce duplication of other AAFC funding. Based on Program data, over half (56%) of CASPP applicants were not invited to submit a full application following pre-screening. The main reason for not advancing was that the proposed project was not sector-wide in scope or was of limited national benefit. In other cases, project activities were not aligned with CASPP objectives, or were better suited to another AAFC program.

The evaluation found potential overlap in eligibility for funding between the Department’s innovation programs such as AgriInnovate and AgriScience, as well as programming under the Business Risk Management suite like the AgriRecovery Framework, because they have similar objectives and beneficiaries. Based on interview and document review evidence, this overlap was not considered duplicative in nature because CASPP’s flexibility enables it to address core industry issues that other programming cannot, given their more restrictive eligibility criteria.

5.0 Program design and delivery

5.1 Program design

Flexibility in CASPP’s cost-share ratio, intake process and advance payments were key program strengths

CASPP enabled industry priorities to be addressed through flexibility built into its cost-share funding model. The fifty-fifty cost-share ratio was adequate for recipients to leverage industry matching funds in most cases. Certain projects received a higher share of funding from AAFC in situations where a higher financial risk for the Department was considered justified, like projects that were deemed high priority or that addressed exceptional circumstances. The evaluation found that reducing the risk to recipients via the flexible cost-share ratio facilitated industry organizations to initiate projects and enabled the Canadian agricultural sector to address significant technological challenges that would not be otherwise feasible.

CASPP’s advanced payment availability and ongoing intake process were also found to be program strengths. The availability of advanced funding enabled recipients to initiate projects without delay and to avoid drawing on internal funds which were not necessarily available at project start-up. This was particularly important for smaller not-for profit industry organizations whose budget flexibility is more restricted. The ongoing intake process supported the successful implementation of projects within wider organizational operational parameters and provided recipients with flexibility in applying for funding from other sources.

Maintaining a proactive versus reactive balance in CASPP’s design

Evaluation findings highlight the importance of maintaining a balance between a reactive and proactive program design. CASPP’s design allows it to support the sector in addressing immediate or short-term challenges via the Emerging Issues priority area and this mechanism is unique among AAFC’s suite of programming. However, CASPP also provides proactive support to the sector for strategic priorities designed to address long-term industry solutions for the future. The evaluation found that CASPP’s program design currently enables the Department to support the industry proactively, over the long-term via 3 strategic priority areas, while at the same time supporting near-term industry challenges through an immediate response mechanism (the Emerging Issues priority area).

Balance of approved projects across CASPP’s 4 priority areas

In terms of total count, there was a relatively even distribution of projects across CASPP’s 4 priority areas, though in terms of funding, most projects (81%) included Emerging Issues as a priority (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: CASPP funding allocation and count of projects by priority area

Note: Priority areas are not mutually exclusive categories
Source: Systems, Data and Performance Analysis Unit, Innovation Programs Directorate, AAFC

[Description of the above image]

Figure 1: Funding allocation and count of projects by priority area

Figure 1 presents a horizontal bar graph showing the percentage of AAFC funding and the percentage of projects (by total count) by priority area. The results were as follows:

• 81% of AAFC funding and 50% of projects were allocated to the Emerging Issues priority area
• 35% of AAFC funding and 54% of projects were allocated to the Environmental Sustainability priority area
• 30% of AAFC funding and 57% of projects were allocated to the Adaptation to New Technology priority area
• 20% of AAFC funding and 50% of projects were allocated to the Strategic Development and Capacity Building priority area

There are a wide variety of strategic priorities relevant to the growth and competitiveness of the Canadian agricultural sector which may not be directly supported through CASPP. For example, a 2022 survey of 501 Canadian food and beverage processors shows that supply chain issues and public trust were ranked as top priorities for most respondents.^{Endnote 3} Interview evidence from CASPP recipients as well as AAFC staff confirms that current program priority areas are well-aligned with sector priorities.

However, Program officials noted that more input from other federal government bodies (including within AAFC), as well as feedback from key industry stakeholders, is important for the ongoing validation of CASPP’s priorities, particularly with respect to the Emerging Issues priority area. Due to its nature and correspondingly broad application criteria, the Emerging Issues priority area lacks detail relative to CASPP’s other 3 priority areas. Increased clarity regarding the purpose and objectives of the Program is a key area for improvement.

Frequent revisions to the Program’s terms and conditions

CASPP is an AAFC strategic priorities program and thus must evolve with changing Department policy priorities. When ministerial direction was given based on emergent policy priorities, the Program was able to adequately support projects via the Emerging Issues priority area, which at times required revisions of the Program’s terms and conditions. During the evaluation period, CASPP’s terms and conditions were amended on 3 different occasions to accommodate projects addressing urgent or nationally significant issues affecting the agriculture and agri-food sector (with 2 additional changes made for other reasons). The scope of the projects required revisions to specific areas such as maximum amount of funding, length of payment terms, conditions on capital costs and eligible recipients. The evaluation found that frequent changes to CASPP’s terms and conditions necessitated a significant administrative burden to accommodate projects within the Emerging Issues priority area, suggesting that the Program’s design for this priority area may not be appropriately aligned to its current objectives.

5.2 Program delivery

Program promotion and awareness

Program data shows low uptake in its first fiscal year (2019-2020), likely due to low awareness at the time within the sector. Most recipients stated that they became aware of the Program only through networking with colleagues. AAFC staff suggested that broad eligibility criteria may also make promoting CASPP difficult as lack of clarity in some priority areas can be challenging for potential applicants to understand what might be eligible. However, the application intake period was suspended in September 2023 due to high demand, suggesting that Program awareness in the sector is adequate.

Supporting new, emerging or small sectors

Smaller agricultural organizations often lack internal resources such as financial or technical knowledge which can create challenges in accessing government support. CASPP’s application and performance reporting processes require time, resources and expertise that may not be available to all organizations. The level of administrative effort required for these processes is similar regardless of organization size. Program administrative data indicates that micro and small organizations represent 96% of CASPP’s funding (83% of funded projects)^{Endnote 4} (see Table 1). This finding supports CASPP’s stated objective to support new and emerging sectors which face unique barriers, such as a lack of organizational capacity.

Table 2: Percentage of CASPP projects and funding by organization size

Organization size	Proportion of projects (%)	Proportion of funding (%)
Micro (1 to 4 employees)	52	23
Small (5 to 99)	31	73
Medium (100 to 499)	14	3
Large (500 or more)	3	Less than 1
Source: AAFC program data

Accessibility for underrepresented and marginalized groups

Literature suggests that ensuring federal programming is accessible to a diverse range of agricultural stakeholders contributes to an optimal program delivery. Program applicants were given the opportunity to voluntarily identify which underrepresented and marginalized groups they anticipated would directly benefit from the intent of their project’s activities. Thirty-two% of projects chose to identify that their project would potentially benefit one or more underrepresented groups (see Table 3). This includes 6 projects that identified potential benefit to Indigenous peoples.

Table 3: Percentage of approved CASPP projects identifying potential benefit to underrepresented and marginalized groups

Underrepresented/marginalized group	Number of projects	Proportion of projects (%)
Not applicable	19	68
Women	9	32
Youth	7	25
Indigenous	6	21
Persons with disabilities	4	14
Visible Minorities	4	14
Decline to identify	0	0
Notes Data were provided in response to self-identification questions and may not accurately represent all projects. Underrepresented and marginalized groups are not mutually exclusive categories. Table 3 data includes 28 of the 29 funded projects. Source: AAFC program data

CASPP’s application guide specifically identifies Indigenous groups as eligible applicants, in addition to for-profit and not-for-profit organizations including associations, cooperatives and marketing boards. While Indigenous organizations are eligible applicants, the Program did not receive full applications from any organizations identifying as “Indigenous for-profit” or “Indigenous not-for-profit"; therefore, there were no self-identified Indigenous organizations approved for funding.

CASPP is unique in comparison to international counterparts

The evaluation found that CASPP is unique in terms of its structure and the way its priority areas are defined when compared to similar programs in other countries. For example, agriculture adaptation programming offered through the United States Department of Agriculture Climate Hubs focuses solely on the environmental sustainability priority area, whereas CASPP includes other strategic priorities beyond adaptation programming in its scope. New Zealand’s Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program is primarily a research-focused program. In contrast, CASPP focuses on practical, industry-led solutions to sector problems that move beyond theory and knowledge production. Finally, in Australia and the United Kingdom, adaptation programming is directed at solving immediate problems in the agricultural sector through funding reactive projects. CASPP’s unique program design supports reactive projects in the near-term as well as proactive projects intended to solve long-term issues that address future challenges in the Canadian agricultural sector.

6.0 Performance

6.1 Efficiency

Planned budget versus actual spending

CASPP exceeded its planned spending over the evaluation reference period by 20%^{Endnote 5}(see Table 3, 4). There were 2 fiscal years with lower-than-expected spending: 2019-20 resulting from lower than anticipated initial uptake, and 2022-23 where construction delays affected spending for at least one project. Any lapsed funding in the Program’s early stages was reallocated in subsequent fiscal years to support projects considered key departmental priorities. Evaluation evidence shows that CASPP resulted in a lower total spending variance compared to the previous iteration, which had 74% of its funding lapse.^{Endnote 6}

Table 4: Total planned versus actual CASPP spending

Fiscal year	Planned budget (%)	Actual spending ($)	Variance ($)	Variance (%)
2019-2020	9,554,247	1,720,946	-7,833,301	82
2020-2021	10,113,906	4,836,118	-5,277,788	52
2021-2022	8,408,135	31,745,737	23,337,602	278
2022-2023	14,405,657	12,619,844	-1,785,813	12
Total	42,481,945	50,922,645	8,440,700	20
Note: Planned spending for 2023-2024 is not included. Source: Program financial tables provided by Corporate Management Branch (as of October 25, 2023).

Standard operating procedures in place

The evaluation found that standard operating procedures are in place to ensure administrative functions are carried out efficiently and to a high corporate standard. In addition, detailed guidelines are available to program officers for reviewing project applications at both the pre-screening and approval stages. Differentiated roles and responsibilities for AAFC staff are also defined in project intake documentation. For example, senior program officers prepare project recommendation forms, present recommendations to the Directors General Innovation Committee for project approval and communicate with applicants on the approval decision. Experience requirements and training courses are in place to ensure staff are prepared to deliver CASPP in an efficient manner. The AAFC’s Centre of Expertise for Grants and Contributions is a valuable resource to support and guide the work of program officers.

Value of consistency in program staff

Interviewed recipients emphasized that CASPP staff contributed positively to the Program's administrative efficiency by effectively communicating and supporting their projects, including responding to questions or guiding them through challenging technical processes like financial reporting. Recipients perceived some inconsistencies in the interpretation of eligibility requirements and feedback by different program officers (or other AAFC staff) which caused some confusion at the organizational level. The relationship between a program officer and the recipient’s project lead is important for the efficient administration of projects, particularly those of a long-term nature. Interviewed recipients stated that having one assigned program officer over the life of a project is beneficial for overall project efficiency.

CASPP service standards were consistently met

Program data shows that CASPP’s service standard targets were consistently met in all fiscal years in the evaluation period, except for 2021-2022 (see Figure 2). AAFC staff identified the influence of the pandemic as a key factor impacting service standards during 2021-2022 because of limitations on program resources. Notably, the Program met or exceeded the service standard for receipt of payments being sent within 30 business days in all other fiscal years.

Figure 2: Achievement of CASPP service standards (2019 to 2023)

Source: AAFC Service Standards Annual Reports

[Description of the above image]

Figure 2: Achievement of CASPP service standards (2019-2023)

Figure 2 presents a vertical bar graph showing the percentage of service standards achieved for the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program from 2019-2020 to 2022-2023. The service standard target is 80%. The results were as follows:

In fiscal year 2019 to 2020,

• 94% of general enquiries were responded to before the end of the next business day
• 85% acknowledged receipt of application within 1 business day
• 30% sent an approval or rejection notification letter within 100 business days
• 100% sent receipt of payments within 30 business days

In fiscal year 2020 to 2021,

• 86% of general enquiries were responded to before the end of the next business day
• 65% acknowledged receipt of application within 1 business day
• 63% sent an approval or rejection notification letter within 100 business days
• 91% sent receipt of payments within 30 business days

In fiscal year 2021 to 2022,

• 68% of general enquiries were responded to before the end of the next business day
• 38% acknowledged receipt of application within 1 business day
• 58% sent an approval or rejection notification letter within 100 business days
• 71% sent receipt of payments within 30 business days

In fiscal year 2022 to 2023,

• 100% of general enquiries were responded to before the end of the next business day
• 80% acknowledged receipt of application within 1 business day
• 100% sent an approval or rejection notification letter within 100 business days
• 83% sent receipt of payments within 30 business days

6.2 Performance measurement

Quality of performance indicator data lacking

The Program Information Profile includes 7 performance indicators. To inform reporting on immediate program outcomes, CASPP recipients reported on the results of their activities using one mandatory performance indicator applicable to all projects, regardless of what priority area they were funded under (number of tools and strategies developed), and one indicator which may not apply to their project (number of information items shared). Because these indicators are broadly defined, recipient responses varied in the types of activities and outputs as well as the level of detail they reported for each indicator. The validity of the project data is also uncertain as results were self-reported and there was no requirement to provide evidence to validate results. For these reasons, the accuracy of some reported results could not be verified.

Key indicators not captured in Program database

Despite the Program's efforts in standardizing indicators, the “number of partnerships” indicator was not entered into the performance database though it was collected qualitatively via performance reports. Performance data for this indicator was extracted by hand from scanned reports, cleaned and organized for the current analysis. The partnerships indicator also lacks a clear definition, where in the performance reports recipients are simply asked whether the partnership was a financial or technical contribution. Further, the organization type variable is missing in the performance database for organizations who applied but were not funded. The evaluation found that senior management would benefit from more readily accessible performance information.

Missing long-term outcome indicator data

According to program documents, indicator data for the ultimate outcome is to be collected twice: once at project completion and once at one or 2 years following project completion, through a long-term tracking study. Project file data shows completed recipient final performance reports for 15 of 29 projects.^{Endnote 7} A long-term tracking study of 8 projects funded under the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (2014-2019) was also conducted in the fall of 2023. However, the evaluation found no evidence of data collection for a long-term tracking study occurring for CASPP projects that were completed a year or more ago. For this reason, the performance indicator for percentage of projects reporting on-going collaboration beyond project completion could not be measured.

Absence of indicators to assess Gender-based Analysis Plus

CASPP’s Performance Information Profile does not require the collection of data related to Gender-based Analysis Plus, which is consistent with the approach currently taken by most other AAFC programming. In examining program administrative data, 32% of funded projects chose to indicate that their project would benefit underrepresented and marginalized groups, primarily women, visible minorities and Indigenous people (see Table 3 above). However, there is no opportunity to provide accompanying narrative information explaining the way in which projects would benefit underrepresented and marginalized groups. Therefore, the manner in which CASPP projects support underrepresented and marginalized groups is unclear.

6.3 Effectiveness

Immediate outcomes: developing tools and/or strategies and establishing partnerships

The Program achieved its immediate outcome supporting the development of 56 tools and/or strategies to adapt to changing circumstances and respond to urgent or critical issues, exceeding its target of 30. Program data shows that 79% of CASPP projects (23 of 29) resulted in the development of at least one tool or strategy, and of the projects that did not meet the minimum target, all of them (6 of 6) were ongoing projects. Examples of tools or strategies developed include:

• installation packages for track and trace technologies of livestock vehicles designed to mitigate the spread of disease
• a guide for food and produce packaging based on a framework developed by industry
• an online collaboration platform to support and to stimulate strategic planning/capacity across the Canadian food sector
• a report on 5 different depopulation technologies to mitigate animal disease outbreak in Canada that will guide decisions for emergency preparedness

A total of 346 partnerships were enabled in the sector through CASPP support, with an average of 12 partnerships per project. Evaluation evidence shows that a diverse range of partnerships were established between major Canadian universities, privately owned businesses, municipal entities and provincial government ministries advancing sector priorities in all 4 program priority areas. In fact, CASPP funded projects successfully leveraged over $16 million in sector investment from 2019-20 to 2022-23. This demonstrates that federal support through CASPP stimulated significant return on investment and benefited multiple sector stakeholders.

CASPP supports multisector projects

Crop production was the highest contributor of Canada’s GDP amongst agricultural commodity groups in 2022, contributing $30.6 billion, followed by animal production at $5.7 billion.^{Endnote 8} Correspondingly, Program administrative data illustrates that the largest proportion of CASPP funding was for projects that focused on crop production, while animal production had the greatest number of single sector projects (see Table 4). Multi-sector projects received the second largest proportion of funding. Compared to the previous iteration, the proportion of funding for multi-sector projects has increased under CASPP.

Table 5: CASPP Projects 2019-2023 by agricultural sector^{Endnote 9}

Sector	Number of projects	Contributions ($)	Funding (%)
Crop production	6	25,698,262	59
Multi-sector	13	12,223,709	28
Animal production	9	5,138,840	12
Other	1	199,593	1
Total	29	43,260,404	100
Source: AAFC Program data

Intermediate outcome: Increasing knowledge of systems, techniques, processes or practices

The Program achieved its intermediate outcomes by supporting the sharing of 387 information items (an average of 16 per project). Information item sharing activities generated knowledge of systems, techniques, processes or practices across the sector in several ways, including:

• project findings shared through media articles and information events, where one presentation was delivered to 200 farmers and industry stakeholders
• results for one recipient disseminated to over 400 industry and government stakeholders through social media, newsletters and magazines
• a report on the modelling and analysis funding options for another project was shared through articles in association newsletters and conference presentations
• a technical report on a humane animal depopulation prototype developed by another recipient was shared with stakeholders to assist in preparing for African Swine Fever

The evaluation found that annual and final performance reports, as well as other project outputs, offer a vast collection of project results that demonstrate impact beyond the Program’s performance indicators. However, there is no procedure in place to automatically capture and share this information internally or with external stakeholders. This multitude of innovative and creative tools, lessons learned and best practices represents a valuable repository of knowledge for industry partners and their membership, including smaller organizations who could benefit from these resources. Evaluation evidence demonstrates that maintaining ongoing engagement with project stakeholders would help to leverage knowledge transfer across the sector.

Ultimate outcome: Implementing tools and/or strategies

Nearly 87% of the 15 CASPP projects with completed final performance reports resulted in at least one tool and/or strategy being implemented by the sector to adapt to changing circumstances and/or respond to urgent/critical issues. These results exceeded the Program’s target of 60%. Evaluation evidence indicates that the implementation of tools and strategies has increased the sector’s preparedness for changing circumstances and response to critical issues. Moreover, the long-term tracking study conducted for the previous iteration demonstrates that funded projects result in positive outputs or outcomes that benefit the sector, including R&D investment and product development, increased productivity and improved quality of products.

Supporting growth of the Canadian agriculture sector

Overall economic growth in the agricultural sector is a shared goal among several programs within AAFC and is influenced by many external factors. The evaluation found that most economic growth targets for the agriculture and agri-food sector were met over the evaluation reference period.

Specifically:

• The agriculture and agri-food sector generated $143.8 billion (7%) of Canada’s gross domestic product in 2022.
• In 2022, farm market receipts (farmer’s revenues from the sale of agricultural commodities) were a record high at $87.7 billion.
• The value of Canadian agriculture and agri-food exports has exceeded the departmental target of $75 billion by December 2025.
• Average annual growth rate for agriculture and agri-food products sold has exceeded the departmental target of 4.5% increasing from 2.8% in 2019-20 to 6.0% in 2021-22.

This evidence suggests that CASPP may indirectly contribute to the Canadian agricultural sector’s economic growth by supporting the implementation of new innovative tools and strategies which help to increase agricultural output and productivity.

7.0 Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions

CASPP addresses a need in the agricultural sector by funding projects aligned with AAFC’s strategic policy priorities, most notably unforeseen urgent issues affecting the sector. Program objectives are well-aligned with departmental and federal government priorities, and CASPP funding is complementary to other government programs with similar objectives. CASPP’s flexible design and broad eligibility criteria supports Canada’s agricultural sector to seize opportunities and develop technologies that address relevant national priorities. The Program is administered efficiently and is achieving its outcomes. To further strengthen the Program, the evaluation identified 4 areas for improvement.

First, the Program’s Emerging Issues priority area may not be designed appropriately to support its intended objectives as frequent amendments to the terms and conditions were required to support this priority area. Review of the terms and conditions should be undertaken by the Program to ensure they meet AAFC’s policy objectives.

Second, the quality of CASPP’s performance data can be enhanced by revising indicators in ways that improve measurement accuracy and better reflect intended outcomes. A standardized approach for tracking projects 1 to 2 years after completion would ensure the Program has long-term outcome data available for monitoring purposes.

Third, there is an opportunity to better understand the degree to which underrepresented and marginalized groups are accessing and benefiting from the Program. CASPP could accomplish this by adding a Gender-based Analysis Plus indicator to the Performance Information Profile and capturing project impacts on underrepresented and marginalized groups within performance reports.

Finally, CASPP recipients indicated that projects helped them identify and adapt to future challenges and opportunities for the sector. Despite gathering a vast amount of knowledge through project outputs, information sharing between stakeholders is underutilized and opportunities exist to better mobilize knowledge from lessons learned and best practices on projects with sector stakeholders.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch, working with the Assistant Deputy Minister Strategic Policy Branch, should review the policy priorities of the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program and the associated terms and conditions.

Recommendation 2: The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch should review the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program’s performance indicators to ensure that they are clearly defined, relevant and measurable.

Recommendation 3: The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch should conduct analysis of the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program based on Gender-based Analysis Plus principles.

Recommendation 4: The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch, working with the Assistant Deputy Minister Public Affairs Branch, should consider how to leverage best practices and success stories reported by individual recipients and assess options for sharing information with internal and external stakeholders.

Annex A: CASPP evaluation methodology

Document review

The document review assessed Program relevance, design, delivery and effectiveness. A broad range of document types were analyzed over the reference period (2019-2023), including House of Commons transcripts, AAFC policies, mandates and commitments and Government of Canada policy documents, such as Speeches from the Throne and fiscal updates. An environmental scan of media articles was conducted through the Public Affairs Branch which included articles from national or provincial news outlets, agriculture interest outlets and AAFC news and press releases. Several program documents were also reviewed, including applicant guides, previous evaluation reports, international material and program guidelines.

Literature review

The evaluation analyzed and synthesized information from peer-reviewed journals, strategic plans from national agriculture organizations and grey literature. Literature was sourced from Google Scholar and internet searches using the following search areas: innovation, adaptation, CASPP priority areas and agriculture strategic plans.

Database review

A database review was conducted to support the assessment of program delivery, efficiency and effectiveness. The database review included data for all projects submitted between 2019 and 2023. Most of the analysis conducted examined data for all funded CASPP projects with signed contribution agreements from the Program’s database.

Project file review

A project file review was conducted to support the assessment of program relevance and effectiveness. The review provides an analysis of documents contained in all CASPP project files between 2019-2023. Analysis included each project’s application information, budget and technical assessment information and data from annual and final performance reports, where available. All raw data included in the project file review was catalogued and organized using a standardized data collection tool and qualitative coding framework.

Key informant interviews

Key informant interviews gathered insights from program stakeholders on the relevance, design, delivery and effectiveness of CASPP. A total of 18 interviews were conducted between June and August 2023. Recipients were pre-selected for interviews based on their project’s priority area, funding amount, accessibility, recall bias and GBA Plus.

Limitations

Limitation	Mitigation strategy	Impact
Response bias: Key informants who participated in the evaluation may have a vested interest in the continuation of programming.	The evaluation included interviews with informants who had little to no vested interest in the Program, such as external subject matter experts/academics. Data was triangulated across multiple lines of evidence.	Low
Data limitation: Evidence did not include performance data from 2023-2024 projects. Results for indicator performance are not complete as projects are ongoing.	This limitation has been noted in the report. Performance reports for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 were used to address the evaluation questions when available.	Low
Data limitation: Due to the timing of the evaluation, performance data for 2022-2023 was not available included in the Program’s database.	The evaluation team collected data by hand using available performance reports. Quality assurance was done to ensure data was reported accurately throughout the evaluation reference period (2019-2023).	Low

Annex B: CASPP Logic model

Activities

Recipients

• Recipients undertake national or sector-wide projects that help industry address emerging issues and capitalize on opportunities

Program management

• Assess and fund national or sector-wide projects to seize opportunities, respond to new and emerging issues, or pilot solutions to new and ongoing issues
• Sector priorities and new and emerging issues are identified

Outputs

Recipients

• Workplans, annual progress reports and annual performance reports

Program management

• Signed and fulfilled Contribution Agreements
• AAFC financial investments
• Ongoing communication with industry

Immediate outcomes

• Tools and strategies to adapt to changing circumstances and/or respond to urgent and/or critical issues are developed by program recipients
• Sector engagement and collaboration including establishing partnerships occurs
• Industry/partner funding is leveraged

Intermediate outcomes

• Knowledge of systems, techniques, processes or practices to address obstacles faced by the agriculture sector is increased
• Systematic, ongoing collaboration/information sharing among sector groups occurs

Ultimate outcomes

• Tools and strategies to adapt to changing circumstances and /or respond to urgent and/or critical issues are implemented by the sector
• Nature and number of positive economic, environmental and social impacts for the sector.

Annex C: Management response and action plan

Recommendation	Management response and action plan (MRAP)	Target date	Responsible leads
1. The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch, working with the Assistant Deputy Minister Strategic Policy Branch, should review the policy priorities of the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program and the associated terms and conditions.	Agree with recommendation. Programs Branch will work collaboratively with Strategic Policy Branch to review the policy priorities of the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program and the associated terms and conditions, to ensure the program is positioned to effectively address emerging needs of government and the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-food sector.	March 2025	Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch Director General, Programs Branch, Service and Program Excellence Directorate Director General, Strategic Policy Branch, Policy, Planning and Integration Directorate
2. The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch should review the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program’s performance indicators to ensure that they are clearly defined, relevant and measurable.	Agree with recommendation. Programs Branch recognizes the importance of effective and measurable performance indicators. In alignment with the review of the terms and conditions and program renewal, Programs Branch will work to review and revise the performance indicators in the CASPP Performance Information Profile.	March 2025	Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch Director General, Programs Branch, Innovation Programs Directorate Director General, Programs Branch, Service and Program Excellence Directorate
3. The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch should conduct analysis of the Canadian Agricultural Strategic Priorities Program based on Gender-based Analysis Plus principles.	Agree with recommendation. As part of the planned process for review of the CASPP Terms and Conditions, GBA Plus Analysis will be conducted for the CASPP. This GBA Plus Analysis will inform revisions to the program application form and adjustments to the data collection approach.	March 2025	Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch Director General, Programs Branch, Service and Program Excellence Directorate
4. The Assistant Deputy Minister Programs Branch, working with the Assistant Deputy Minister Public Affairs Branch, should consider how to leverage best practices and success stories reported by individual recipients and assess options for sharing information with internal and external stakeholders.	Agree with recommendation. Programs Branch and Public Affairs Branch will work together to determine the most appropriate means of communicating program and recipient best practices and successes. A communications plan will be developed with tactics for sharing information and highlighting the results of CASPP projects with relevant internal and external stakeholders.	March 2025	Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Affairs Branch Director General, Programs Branch, Service and Program Excellence Directorate