Aafc program management process

Information on the projects' progress was obtained through the project file review, operational data review, interviews and case studies. It was found that in spite of delays with some projects, and the short time frame since the program inception, the projects were beginning to achieve outputs and outcomes. The evaluation found that the program had produced its anticipated outputs including: scoping studies, technology transfer and research plans, formal and informal collaborative arrangements, papers, journal articles, presentations, information products and technical studies.

An examination of the files indicated that projects generally produced scoping studies, and technology transfer and research plans early in the research project development.

Most of the projects had information in the files on how their collaborations were progressing beyond the original proposals with the exception of two projects. With the 16 other projects, collaborations included working with universities, provincial and regional governments, AAFC scientists, producers and producer organizations, agrologists, industry, organizations, institutes and associations. In general, the types of collaborations included: research expertise, consultations and information sharing, communications and coordination with stakeholders, and field resources.

This included financial contributions such as salary dollars, professional services or equipment and materials and in-kind contributions such as professional time spent on projects, lab materials or equipment usage.

There were a few recipients that interacted with AAFC scientists during their projects Footnote 19 , but these collaborations were limited due to the funding design of the program. Recipients noted that due to the nature of the funding program Vote 10 funds only this scientific resource was not fully available and observed that this should be a consideration with future programming.

An important element of the AGGP was enhancing international communications and collaborations. The evaluation found that international collaborations were occurring with scientists and specialists from other countries such as the US, New Zealand, Australia, Scotland and Norway. In many cases, project researchers were attending international conferences and reporting on their findings.

The most common method for dissemination of research findings was through journal articles and conference proceedings posters and presentations. Canada's voluntary participation in the GRA is also an important mechanism for information sharing on GHG mitigation technologies and beneficial management practices. As the research results continue to emerge, continued membership in the GRA will help these outcomes to be transmitted to other GRA member countries.

As well, international collaborations could be enhanced, if AAFC scientists participate in this kind of programming down the road. The evaluation found that GHG Mitigation knowledge was being produced and disseminated. The project researchers were submitting their findings to a range of journals across the various disciplines; the majority reported targeting journals with high impact factors for their discipline, or journals of note for example, American Journal of Soil Science, Forestry Ecology Management and the Journal of Dairy Science.

In addition, other information products included: 2 book chapters, 38 technical reports, factsheets, newsletters and articles, 4 theses completed, 3 on-line courses e-learning platforms and 2 web-based educational videos. The focus is on both science and knowledge creation and on implementing technology knowledge transfer. The AGGP emphasizes that through the transmission of information and adoption, producers will be able to see the link between GHG emissions and their present agricultural practices, how this link relates to other agri-environmental issues, and how any action they take could affect their competitiveness.

The AGGP provides a significant basis of science, especially for Canada in international negotiations and reporting as it provides Canadian agriculture with Canadian studies that can back up Canadian agricultural production practices.

It was found that federal government funding provided credibility to the research and helped to facilitate the dissemination of research findings on an international level. The evaluation found that the AGGP was making progress towards achieving the two immediate outcomes:. The evaluation found that the AGGP was making progress towards achieving its immediate outcome of developing, verifying and validating new GHG mitigation information and technologies.

The file review indicated that there were about 30 new GHG mitigation tools, information and technologies being developed, verified and validated during the evaluation period. This was well above the initial target number of 5 indicated in the performance measurement targets of the Program.

Each project reported to be producing at least one tool or technology addressing a specific GHG issue. Some examples of information, tools and technologies developed, verified and validated were:. The evaluation found that the projects are achieving the immediate outcome of developing technology transfer methodologies and approaches targeted at farmers.

At the time of the evaluation, there were about 13 methodologies and approaches being developed, which was above the initial performance measurement target of 8.

Most project researchers were hesitant to state how successful their research had been at transferring technology to farmers as their research was currently underway.

The majority of those who did feel that their technology could be shared felt that they have had significant success in transferring their technology to farmers. The AGGP created the opportunity for additional components to be included in research projects allowing for secondary impacts of technologies that were being developed. This value-added position allowed for more robust research to be conducted and provided a more complete picture of the associated benefits of a BMP.

The way we have to approach it is from a production or integrated management perspective. The AGGP has provided us with the ability to layer in that component which we normally would not have had either the funding, the capacity, or the time to layer in This becomes part of the package.

We report out to industry as we normally would not have covered that. The evaluation found that project beneficiaries are making progress towards developing information and technologies for farmers and demonstrating new BMPs at field days, fairs and workshops. The file review indicated that during the evaluation period, approximately producers had attended sessions where the projects were demonstrated or communicated. This included information sessions with producers at meetings, conferences or farm exhibitions, and visits to web-sourced information on BMPs.

As well, during the evaluation period, over 60 producers participated in the research by volunteering their property as research sites.

The majority of project researchers had difficulty providing an exact figure for the number of farmers that they have reached via all methods of communication for example, field days, journal articles, newspaper articles, online portals. They were all able to provide estimates for the number of farmers participating in their field days. They indicated that the number of producers participating in field days ranged from 20 to , with the majority reporting just under 50 producers per field day.

The use of field demonstrations was reported as being successful as farmers could see the science in action. Through a review of the project performance reports, there were at least 12 BMPs demonstrated or under development identified.

This amount was in line with the performance measurement target for the program of For about half the projects, it was too early to identify BMPs.

Given the progress to date, it is anticipated that the program will surpass its target number of BMPs.

The hands-on approach was cited by the majority of project researchers as the best way of disseminating results to farmers, as farmers need to see the impact of the technology and realize its benefits prior to experimentation with or adoption of the technology. We are communicating with participating farmers on what they are doing but we are also doing work on their fields.

That has greater relevancy and authority to producers. Too often, we are only doing research on research sites and on research plots which producers cannot relate to quite as directly as they can when they see the results in producers' fields.

Scientifically conducting research in farmers' fields is a little bit of a challenge, as there are fewer controls in those situations, but we are undertaking these projects on producers' fields to give these technologies exposure and to engage these producers. The following benefits were mentioned by project researchers and program staff as relating to demonstrating technologies on farmers' fields:.

Project researchers reported a variety of communication strategies that demonstrated GHG mitigation information and technologies. Most of these strategies involved some level of in-person communication.

Many project researchers had begun to disseminate preliminary findings to farmers and farming communities. Information was made available to farmers through mass media, newspaper articles, websites, and industry newsletters. While governments and universities often have greater resources for conducting research, smaller organizations have other advantages.

The evaluation found that effective communication of research findings was influenced by the level of trust in the source of the information. Smaller organizations such as non-profit conservation organizations have a distinct advantage as they are in a position of trust to communicate directly with producers, whereas provincial governments and universities often require intermediaries partners to engage in their communication strategies.

This may be a consideration for communication plans in future programming. The AGGP's GHG mitigation research was reported to have the additional benefit of being perceived in the larger context of agricultural sustainability. The AGGP was reported by program staff to be providing policy makers with detailed GHG research within the context of Canadian agricultural production systems. The research was also noted to provide a credible source of information about Canadian agriculture's sustainability during trade negotiations.

We could also talk about our involvement with the GRA and how all of this work would not only support the industry or the applicants to the program - not only support our department or our government and our country, but our collaborators and allies around the globe. Most respondents indicated that even though the needs of the sector have not changed, the logistics have.

This, in turn, will allow Canadian products to be labelled as being sustainably produced and marketed. The main change is this emphasis on environmental sustainability and sustainability certification. The sector, the commodity groups, and the marketers are becoming more and more interested and concerned with being able to demonstrate or certify sustainability Now GHG mitigation or practices that minimize GHGs are seen, within the context of a whole suite of practices, to make agriculture more environmentally sustainable.

One of the unintended benefits of the program is that it will enable producers to develop BMPs and products which provide them with a strategic, marketing advantage in a competitive global economy. The evaluation found that it was too early to demonstrate whether there was a change in farmers' level of understanding and adoption of GHG mitigation technologies.

Project recipients reported that they believe that their research will have a positive impact on farmers' production, while at the same time mitigate GHG emissions. However, the actual impacts of the projects could not be measured since the research was ongoing. Project researchers speculated that impacts will be measurable five years after project completion. This kind of work does not really result in an impact right away. Adoption follows later and impact follows much later.

What comes out of the AGGP, we will not really know for another 10 years. The majority of project researchers reported that producers tended to follow up after the field days looking for more information on BMPs.

Nonetheless, it was noted that farmers may only adopt new techniques where it is economically beneficial or until a negative event occurs for example, drought, frost. A few respondents reported that producers were adopting technology and offering their fields as additional research sites, for example:. Farmers are interested in assessing silvopasture as a tool along with some of their other potential management tools… In the southern interior region of BC, there have been many queries for information as they are interested in assessing it as a tool Ranchers are interested in if they can institute this management practice themselves and conduct them on a 10 year license on Crown land under this model.

Farmers have also instituted this practice on their own lands. The project has raised the profile of the system. Adoption of GHG mitigation, BMPs and technologies could be enhanced if the economic rationale was made clearer to farmers.

Respondents also suggested improvements to the program's communication strategy to encourage BMP adoption. Suggestions ranged from further examination of the role the Internet can play in technology adoption, development of new communication strategies to raise awareness, and more collaboration with other researchers and research teams. In general, the uptake of new agricultural BMPs was reported to take extended periods of time, depending on the complexity of the technology and cost of adoption, well after research funds provided by the AGGP have been used.

Providing a comparison, project researchers observed that tillage practices in the prairies took a decade to change between their initial introduction and wide adoption. On these relatively short term projects, it is the lasting effect of the communication strategy after the termination of the project that determines the project's impact. Recipients and program staff also indicated that once the research projects have been completed, a third party for example, producer group could communicate and champion BMPs more effectively to facilitate adoption.

If the program gets renewed, I think that is one of the streamlining things that could happen. The cost-shared environment program is a tool that has a track record and I think that cost-sharing BMP type programming should probably be the vehicle to roll out BMPs and there should be a linkage between programs like AGGP that are developing BMPs, and use the cost-shared vehicle to put it on the ground. The AGGP program will likely achieve some of its long-term outcomes.

It is anticipated that most research will be completed and the BMPs will be developed to a level that is consistent with, or beyond, program expectations. Basic questions remain such as the actual value of each BMP, and the motivation that will make producers adopt them. Scientists are well aware that for BMPs to be adopted by producers there needs to be an economic upside for producers. Actual adoption of BMPs by farmers within their jurisdictions is an outcome which will have to be revisited to fully determine the level of success.

Several issues were identified by AAFC staff and recipients that had an impact on economy and efficiency. These included: proposal application processes, program duration and timing, claim processes, collaboration and STB and PB communications. Proposals for the AGGP were screened and rated according to set criteria and program requirements.

Footnote 21 AAFC subject matter experts outside of the AGGP participated in the evaluation of proposals to ensure that proposals strongly rooted in science with the greatest chance for success were selected. The selection process was based on scientific capacity and criteria of these projects. Different projects had different angles that made it intriguing We were looking at the ability to discover science, how do we develop it, and then how to deliver it to producers.

There is also a determinant direct aspect of it. While we had science, we also had to be cognisant that there also had to be a tie back to the land and be able to get to the producer.

Sixty-eight proposals were screened in and rated. Of the 68 funding proposals rated, 19 proposals were approved and 18 of these proposals completed the process and resulted in a signed Contribution Agreement CA. All projects were multi-year. A review of the rating data indicated that a great deal of time and effort was involved in approving and rejecting proposal applications which impacted on the economy and efficiency of the program. Creating and implementing a risk analysis assessment to be completed during the Pre-Project phase which will be used in recommending governance requirements to PRC for approval.

SSC engagement touch points. Recommendation 4 — It is recommended that the ADM, ISB enhance the current governance and approval framework, to ensure measurable benefits are defined and approved by Project Sponsors during project initiation and planning phases, including defining the anticipated return on investment for each project.

Mechanisms should be established to ensure Project Sponsors have considered the ongoing tracking and reporting of longer-term benefits after project completion. Furthermore, additional measures should be implemented to ensure project close out is completed in a more timely fashion. Including in ISB, DG performance agreements a commitment that project closeout reports will be provided for approval to IPC within two months of the completion of the Execution phase.

Modifying the project close-out report to include a section that will identify for the IPC forward agenda when post project benefits realization will be measured and reported on by the Project Sponsor. Audit of Information Technology Project Management. Report a problem on this page Please select all that apply: A link, button or video is not working. It has a spelling mistake. Information is missing. Information is outdated or wrong. Login error when trying to access an account e.

AAFC recognizes that not all projects will fit perfectly into one code. If this is the case for your project, select the code that that best defines the overall intent of your project, or the code that best defines the activity with the highest dollar value. Select any of the following groups who will directly benefit from the intent of this project's activities.

AAFC is committed to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities OLMCs , supporting and assisting their development, and promoting the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society. If approved, would your project activities reach an audience of both English-speaking and French-speaking individuals or groups? These communities are often represented by provincial and regional organizations.

If approved, would your project activities specifically target an official language minority community French-speaking people outside Quebec or English-speaking people in Quebec? When it is determined that projects under this program involve activities related to the development and transfer of knowledge and may have an impact on OLMCs or promote the use of English and French, AAFC will include appropriate linguistic commitments in agreements with your organization and ensure that additional expenses incurred as a result of these commitments are considered eligible for contribution funding.

If funded, your organization may be required to publicly acknowledge AAFC's support for the project. In these cases, the department may request that such acknowledgments include text in both official languages. In addition to the application form, other documents are required as part of a complete application package.

The application form includes a checklist in the Project Information tab to track required documentation. Your application cannot be considered until the documentation listed below is attached to this form or submitted directly to AAFC. An incomplete package will not be processed until all documents are received. Further details on required attachments are included in the Additional documents section.

The work plan is part of the application form. In the work plan, you should include key milestones and indicate how you intend to measure performance and report on results. The work plan will be assessed to determine if activities have been clearly planned and described, and if they are aligned with the project's goals, objectives and purpose.

Provide a short name for the activity that clearly indicates what it is. Provide a description of the activity which clearly outlines the activity that you would like to undertake. Your goal is to help the reviewers visualize what you want to do, so be specific.

Keep in mind to answer the following questions who, what, where, when, why, how. For each activity, use the list of results in the drop-down list to select the goal you want to achieve from having undertaken the activity:. For each activity in your work plan, please select the activity type from the list below which best describes what you will be undertaking:. Provide the measures for each of the expected results that apply for each individual activity that you plan on undertaking.

Enter a numeric value for each expected result that applies. If approved for funding, eligible project costs will normally be shared between you and AAFC you as follows:.

Your portion of the cost-share can be comprised of both cash contributions and in-kind contributions. Specifically, a cash contribution is an expenditure for an eligible project cost incurred by your organization, or another project participant. For example, you have an employee with the specific skill set necessary to undertake a direct project activity or activities.

You will assign this employee to this project on a full or part-time basis. You will be claiming the hours this person works directly towards this project. AAFC will only reimburse cash contributions for eligible project costs that are incurred and paid for by your organization. A cash contribution made by another project participant should be reported as part of your sources of funding, and must be an eligible project cost. In-kind means the fair market value attributed for goods and the fair value attributed for services that are contributed to this project and require no outlay of cash during the term of the CA by you or a contributor.

This can be a contribution of materials, goods, services or time to which a dollar value can be attributed, that would otherwise be purchased and paid for by the organization to achieve the Project results, if not provided by an industry partner for example, providing technical expertise at no cost, or providing free access to equipment, an industry partner has a large boardroom in their office that could be beneficial to your project. Rather than you renting a boardroom at a conference center, they agree to loan it to you for free.

In-kind contributions must be relevant and central to the activities and objectives of the CA. These costs must be eligible under the CA and must be recorded at a fair value. In-kind contributions should be reported as part of your sources of funding, but they will not be reimbursed by AAFC.

The AgriCommunication Program reserves the right to make the final determination of the eligibility and value of in-kind contributions, to disallow expenditures, and reduce the funds. To avoid a situation where in-kind contributions may later be deemed ineligible or incorrectly valued, applicants are advised to contact AAFC program staff early in the process to confirm the eligibility and valuation of an in-kind contribution.

Note: Any costs incurred before AAFC deems your application complete or after March 31, are ineligible for reimbursement , nor will they be considered as part of an applicant's cost-share. After selecting the Eligible cost items tab, activities entered in the Work plan will be visible. The name of the activity that is visible is the name of the activity that was entered in the work plan and has been carried over to this tab.

To view the areas to input, select the Details button. At any time, you can see all of the information you have entered for all of the activities by selecting the [Show all details] button.

Similarly, to just see a list of cost items, select the [Hide all details] button. The activity start date the date that the individual activity will start. The activity end date the date that the individual activity will finish will be carried over from the work plan. For example, if your activity was "Develop new information, tools, resources, publications" this is where you would individually identify:.

Use unique cost item names and descriptions so they are different than the cost category name. For example, if you are asking for funding for Travel, specify the types of flights and destinations, "two economy flights Brandon — Ottawa, return. If there is more than one cost category, or more than one cost item within each cost category, you would replicate the name of the cost item for each of the cost category entries under the "sub-activity" so that reviewers are able to determine the cost break-down of each sub-activity.

Within the description box, provide a breakdown of the cost item s so that reviewers are able to determine what the individual cost components are, and be able to determine the reasonableness of the proposed budget. For example, if your cost category is 'Travel', this is where you would identify the per diem and transportation cost breakdowns, or if you plan on claiming actuals, the meals, accommodations and transportation cost breakdowns.

Explain how your project costs are estimated. This can be done by providing, who, what, where, when, why, how and for how long. From the drop-down list, select the cost category as described below for each particular budget item:. Any costs incurred before AAFC deems your application complete or after March 31, are ineligible for reimbursement, nor will they be considered as part of an applicant's cost-share.

AAFC may allow eligible costs to be incurred after a complete funding proposal has been received by the Program, but prior to the signing of a CA if AAFC deems this necessary for the achievement of objectives under the project and if such costs are reasonable and required to carry out the eligible activities to which they relate. In these cases, costs cannot be reimbursed until a signed CA between your organization and AAFC is in place, therefore these incurred costs are done solely at your risk without obligation of payment by AAFC.

The date of the receipt of a complete application or the proposed start date of the project, whichever is later, would be the "effective date. You should not consider an application as submitted to the program until you receive the acknowledgement notice.

The following information demonstrates the eligible costs under the program and any limitations or instructions you need to know to help you complete your budget. Salaries and benefits paid to or on behalf of staff to execute activities outlined in the project work plan.