Canadian Agri-Food Research Coordination
By Terry Daynard, Executive Vice-President, OCPA

Research is a top priority of the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association. A review of agri-food research coordination is in progress in Ontario. However, most farmers – including farm leaders – have little understanding of how public agri-food research coordination works in Ontario and Canada. The following provides a brief overview.

Under the Canadian constitution agri-food research is a shared responsibility between federal and provincial governments with both playing direct roles. Ultimate authority for spending and program delivery in each province resides with both a federal and a provincial minister of agriculture and food. In practice, an assistant deputy minister (ADM) is responsible for research at both the federal and provincial level, with each having advisory structures to help guide the research to be done.

Ontario Agri-Food Research

There are two basic advisory structures at the provincial level, the Ontario Agri-Food Services Coordinating Committee (OASCC), and the Agri-Food Research Institute of Ontario (ARIO).

OASCC is, in fact, a hierarchy of committees based on both commodity needs and disciplines. Examples of the former include the Ontario Corn Committee, the Ontario Oil and Protein Seed Crops Committee, the Ontario Beef Committee, the Ontario Forage Crops Committee, etc. Each of these committees may have subcommittees to perform certain functions. Examples of discipline committees include the Ontario Weed Committee, the Ontario Crops Engineering Committee, the Ontario Soil Management Committee, the Ontario Crop Protection Committee and the Ontario Farm Management and Production Economics Committee.

These lowest-tier committees report to a second level of committees, also organized by either commodity type or discipline. These committees have names such as the Ontario Field Crops Research and Services Committee, the Ontario Animal Research and Services Committee, the Ontario Soil, Water and Air Research and Services Committee, the Ontario Pest Management Research and Services Committee, etc. There are eight committees at the second level.

Each committee meets annually (sometimes more often) to review research progress from the previous year, and to make recommendations on priorities for the upcoming year. Some committees at the lowest tier also have responsibilities for making recommendations to farmers and/or regulatory agencies (e.g., variety/hybrid registrations and recommendations, pesticide recommendations, etc.).

Second-tier committees make recommendations to the top-level Ontario Agricultural Services Coordinating Committee. Recommendations from OASCC, in turn, go to the ADMs for research for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), or to some other agency (e.g., another branch of government) if action is needed.

The OASCC system is under review, with the result likely to be a significant reduction in the number of committees and paperwork. However, the basic OASCC structure is likely to remain.

The ARIO is a group of individuals chosen by the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. ARIO serves as a special advisory committee to the provincial ADM for research. It normally reviews broad research programs every four years, and can perform other functions upon request by the ADM. Unlike OASCC, ARIO’s role tends to be more reactive than proactive.

The research contract between OMAFRA and the University of Guelph presents some unusual needs for coordination because almost all of the research is done by University of Guelph employees rather than civil servants. The university has a vice-president in charge of research, and six research coordinators. (Dr. Gord Surgeoner is the one responsible for plant agriculture research.) They play a role in allocating funds to individual researchers and ensuring that terms of the research contract with OMAFRA are met. Directors at the Ridgetown, Kemptville and Alfred campuses of the University of Guelph also help coordinate research at the college level. And finally, the ADM responsible for research has a staff to assist with coordination and communication. This system is still evolving, primarily because of the newness of the revamped relationship between OMAFRA and the University of Guelph.

The Ontario system is cumbersome, but seems to work reasonably well, especially when industry participants (including farm groups) have their homework done before they attend meetings and present an informed, consistent position on research needs. The flaws include the high administrative and resource costs, the lack of producer involvement at senior committee levels, and the ineffective nature of some committees (generally those which are organized by discipline rather than commodity area).

Federal Agri-Food Research

Unlike OMAFRA-funded research, most AAFC-sponsored research is done “in house” at its own research stations. At this level, there are several mechanisms for providing advice on research coordination.

One of these involves station advisory committees which exist for each AAFC research station. We believe these committees are generally very weak. They normally consist of members appointed by the station directors, meet just once a year, and have only a small influence on station activities. A more effective mechanism involves direct communication between station directors and research coalitions such as the Ontario Field Crops Research Coalition. We have found AAFC station directors in Ontario to be highly receptive and responsive to this type of communication.

The Canadian Agri-Food Research Council (CARC) is the most important national advisory body influencing agri-food research policy. It is funded by the Research Branch of AAFC, and has a small full-time staff in Ottawa. Its membership includes representatives from AAFC and each provincial government (only one for Atlantic Canada), a rep from universities with colleges of agricultural and/or veterinary medicine, representatives of a number of national organizations (such as the Canada Grains Council, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Forage Council, the Canadian Pork Council, the Agricultural Institute of Canada and the Canadian Horticultural Council), and chairs of four national “Canada committees.” The latter are the Canada Committees on Crops, Animals, Natural Resources, and Food; each of these committees meets at least once a year to formulate recommendations to go to CARC.

The four “Canada committees” are the apex of a series of national or regional committees, generally referred to as “expert committees.” For example, the Canada Committee on Crops includes representatives from each province (chosen by OMAFRA in the case of Ontario), “expert committees” on cereal and oilseed crops for both Eastern and Western Canada, and national “expert committees” for areas such as weed control, other crop pests, forages, crop engineering, etc. There are also industry reps on the Canada Committee on Crops, including OCPA which represents the Canada Grains Council. Each expert committee involves representation from various provinces; the producer representation is generally minimal on most of these committees.

CARC meets three times a year. Though it makes recommendations on research priorities (largely to AAFC, although it can make them to other federal or provincial agencies), it serves primarily as a vehicle for communication, and for raising the profile of agri-food research at the national level. AAFC is not bound by CARC recommendations, though the recommendations do have an influence on research at AAFC and within provinces and universities. CARC also maintains an inventory of agri-food research in Canada, and assists various sectors in developing national research and development strategies. For example, research strategies have been developed for dairy and pork, and one is now being developed for forages. More information on CARC can be found at the web site, www.carc-crac.ca .

In addition to the ADM for research in AAFC, there are two senior AAFC staff members responsible for coordinating research in Eastern Canada and Western Canada (AAFC station directors report to them), and several staffers who coordinate AAFC research at the commodity-type or discipline level. The Matching Investment Initiative (MII) of AAFC -- by which $28.8 million of AAFC funding is used to match industry money provided to fund specific research projects at AAFC stations -- has also played a major role in helping define research priorities within AAFC. The message: “If you want something to be an AAFC research priority, bring your cheque book.”

Generally, the federal system for setting research priorities is significantly more complex than at the provincial level. Probably this can’t be avoided, given that the federal system must attempt to amalgamate and coordinate all that comes from provincial committees, while also identifying those issues which are important nationally. It would appear that the role of producer organizations may be less prominent in national committees, though this is largely the fault of farmers themselves for not demanding more “say.” The MII program of AAFC has proven exceptionally useful in identifying project areas which really are of value to the agri-food industry, versus those which are of interest primarily to researchers themselves...or to individuals who “know who to talk to.”

Canada Grain Council Study

The Canada Grain Council has identified research as one of its top priorities, but has also noted the need for more industry input and better national coordination in setting Canadian research priorities for research on grains, oilseeds and pulse crops. The council is exploring the potential for a major review on grain, oilseed and pulse crop research in Canada, perhaps in cooperation with CARC. More details on this should be available in the coming months.

1