Evaluation of the Terrestrial Animal Health Program – Final report
Introduction
Evaluation objective
The evaluation examined if:
- the Terrestrial Animal Health Program (TAHP) was efficient
- the TAHP met its primary objective of mitigating the risks to Canada's animal resource base
Evaluation timing
The original period for conducting the evaluation was spring 2016 to autumn 2017. However, due to changes in evaluation priorities, the project halted for 1 year and restarted in winter 2018.
Approach to evaluation
The evaluation focused on 4 priority areas within the Agency's TAHP programming Footnote 1:
- surveillance
- data management
- emergency preparedness
- compensation
The evaluation covered the time period 2011 to 2016, with some updates from 2017 to 2019.
The evaluation's methodology is outlined in Annex A, with related risks and mitigation strategies presented in Annex B.
Description of the TAHP
The TAHP has 5 streams of activity that support the ultimate outcome of safe and accessible animal resource base:
- regulatory and policy analysis and development
- animal disease control and protecting animal welfare
- ensuring compliance and consistency
- certification, licensing, permitting, import and export
- stakeholder collaboration
The logic model in Annex C outlines the results of program activities and their outputs.
Summary of observations and recommendations
The evaluation resulted in 2 significant observations:
Observation 1
The TAHP's proactive processes support the CFIA mandate to mitigate risks related to Canada's animal resource base, with opportunities for improvement in surveillance and data integration.
Recommendation 1
The Agency should work with all relevant stakeholders to explore options to establish a collaborative and sustainable approach to delivering the animal health surveillance program, such as cost-sharing or in-kind contributions. The Agency should clearly document the processes it will use to a) complete this exploration, and b) document the results and conclusions, and next steps (if any).
Recommendation 2
The Agency should implement a Terrestrial Animal Health Program data management plan to regularly update, integrate and coordinate the systems used by the Program, including systems that share data, to the extent permitted by law, with external stakeholders.
Observation 2
The TAHP's reactive processes support the CFIA mandate to mitigate risks related to Canada's animal resource base.
Opportunities for improvements include:
- the description of roles and responsibilities related to new and emerging diseases
- the management of the compensation
Recommendation 3
The Agency should clarify, communicate and confirm a shared understanding of the roles and responsibilities for all internal and external stakeholders involved in responding to new and emerging diseases.
Recommendation 4
The Agency should assess the feasibility of including biosecurity measures in the eligibility criteria for compensation under the Health of Animals Act. The Agency should clearly document the processes it will use to a) complete this feasibility assessment, and b) document the results and conclusions, and next steps (if any).
Recommendation 5
The Agency should consult with all relevant stakeholders as it finalizes its draft compensation policy to ensure the policy is practical and appropriate. The Agency should clearly document the processes it will use to a) complete these consultations, and b) to document the results and conclusions, and next steps (if any).
Proactive processes – evidence 1
Animal disease preparedness regime
The CFIA animal disease preparedness regime undertakes many coordinated animal disease mitigation activities including:
- inspection
- surveillance
- permitting
- working with stakeholders
- creation and sharing of guidance
This is important because a comprehensive animal disease preparedness regime is the foundation for the mitigation of risks related to Canada's animal resource base.
Proactive processes – evidence 2
Surveillance sustainability
Factors contributing to an increase in new and emerging diseases are: climate change, globalization, modern farming practices and inappropriate use of antimicrobials.
Some government-industry collaboration related to surveillance exist, but surveillance for reportable diseases is funded primarily by the CFIA.
Improved collaboration for surveillance is required to maintain the capacity to conduct surveillance for increasingly frequent threats of new and emerging diseases.
Proactive processes – evidence 3
Coordination and integration of data systems
The TAHP uses many data systems for inspection, enforcement, emergency management, imports, exports, laboratory testing and reporting.
Some of the data systems are in need of updates and some are using different platforms that don't talk to each other.
Uncoordinated and un-integrated data collection is causing data quality challenges that affect the ability to access data easily and in a timely manner.
Reactive processes – evidence 1
Emergency preparedness and response
A 2018 Internal Audit of the CFIA's Mandated Emergency Management found that the Incident Command System (ICS) Manual and supporting documents described roles and responsibilities for CFIA, provincial and industry stakeholders. However, the documents weren't updated consistently. This lack of clarity could hinder a timely emergency response.
The CFIA is working to clarify the roles and responsibilities related to new and emerging diseases.
Reactive processes – evidence 2
Emergency preparedness and response
The CFIA's emergency preparedness and response plans are comprehensive and well aligned with the federal Emergency Management Act and related guidelines.
The CFIA's finance office confirmed an annual reserve of $5.8 million, which was only exceeded once between 2011 and 2016.
The CFIA is working with stakeholder groups to develop national standards, procedures and practices to help make sure awareness and information-sharing related to emergency response.
Reactive processes – evidence 3
Compensation
Producers generally report diseases, however, no CFIA policy on compensation exists and there is insufficient guidance for valuating compensation levels.
A policy is required to provide consistent program information, direction and guidance to CFIA staff, federal and provincial governments, and industry.
This lack of clarity could hinder a timely emergency response.
Reactive processes – evidence 4
Compensation
Biosecurity standards are required to ensure consistency in the protection against the spread of disease. When linked to compensation payments, such standards can show the public-private benefit they represent.
Compensation isn't linked to biosecurity standards for any industry sectors.
Conclusion
The evaluation found the TAHP's processes support the CFIA's mandate to mitigate risks related to Canada's animal resource base.
Opportunities for improvement in the areas of surveillance, data management, roles and responsibilities for new and emerging diseases and the eligibility criteria for compensation exist.
Annex A: Evaluation methodology
The evaluation examined the effectiveness and efficiency of the TAHP by:
- reviewing documentation and data from relevant information systems
- preparing working papers and summary reports on such topics as compensation; federal, provincial, territorial roles and responsibilities; other country animal health programming; and CFIA data systems
- conducting interviews with 55 program officials and 23 stakeholders from other federal organizations, provincial governments and industry
Annex B: Evaluation risks and mitigation strategies
| Risks | Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|
| Evaluation delay can limit timeliness of findings | The scope of the evaluation was reduced to a few key areas of the Terrestrial Animal Health Program, and Program officials were provided draft findings for verification of continued relevance of findings and conclusions. |
| Agency transformation | The CFIA's Transformation Agenda was considered throughout the evaluation, with greater emphasis placed on those areas that were expected to remain the same, and any lessons learned that could be identified for those areas being transformed. Lessons learned were shared with program managers throughout the evaluation process. |
| Interviewee representativeness | The evaluation design used a purposive sample, for example , interviewees were not randomly selected, rather the selection was based on their expertise. Furthermore, industry representatives were from associations, thus representing entire sectors, not companies or individual producers. |
Annex C: Animal Health and Zoonotics Program logic model (includes Terrestrial Animal Health Program plus Feed)
Description of Annex C: Animal Health and Zoonotics Program logic model
2.1.6 Logic model narrative
The Animal Health and Zoonotics Program comprises 5 streams of activities, encompassing 21 outputs and linking to 12 immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes. The Animal Health and Zoonotics Program logic model includes both the Terrestrial Animal Health Program and the feed program. Each activity stream, including respective inputs and outputs are described below, followed by a description of the various outcomes linked to them.
Inputs for the logic model include financial, staff resources, training and development.
Activity A: Regulatory/policy analysis and development – This stream includes the updating of relevant legislation and regulation (output A1), the development of policies (output A2) and programs (output A3) related to animal health, and the setting of standards for food animal producers, including standards around biosecurity (output A4). This stream also includes the development of various tools such as manuals of procedures and information technology systems ( for example the Automated Import Reference System (AIRS)) that guide the operations associated with the Animal Health and Zoonotics Program (output A5). Lastly, the CFIA undertakes risk assessments, which inform policy and program development, as well as the management of identified risks (output A6). Please note that activity A6 overlaps streams A (Regulatory / Policy analysis and development) & B (Activity B: Animal disease control / protecting animal welfare). These risk assessments focus on diseases known to have existed in Canada, or could be introduced to Canada, and which may affect animal health.
Activity B: Animal disease control / protecting animal welfare – This activity is where much of the work around surveillance and data analysis takes place in support of identifying and responding to potential and actual animal disease emergencies. Specifically, this activity consists of the surveillance networks (output B1), including animal traceability, the laboratory networks (output B2), and data analyses and their resulting reports, which include epidemiology, surveillance as well as post-outbreak surveillance (output B3). Another major aspect of this activity stream is the management and documentation of animal disease emergencies (output B4). Finally, although not exclusive to this activity stream, it includes risk assessments (output A6 – overlaps with activity stream B) and compensation payments (output B7) to producers when animals and/or feed must be destroyed as a means to control animal disease. Output B7 overlaps activity stream B (Animal disease control / protecting animal welfare) and C (Ensuring compliance and consistency). Output B8 (Samples collected & tested) overlaps streams B, C, D.
Activity C: Ensuring compliance and consistency – The activities as part of this stream are primarily focused on inspection and enforcement. As part of inspection activities samples are taken and tested which also inform streams B and D. The CFIA undertakes inspections (output C1) of animal producers to ensure they are compliant with the requirements and standards set out in regulations. If non-compliance is identified, the CFIA inspector can take a number of enforcement actions (output C2). Additionally, operational guidance and expertise (output C3) is developed or procured (in the case of third-party veterinarian accreditation) to conduct the inspections. As mentioned above output B7 overlaps activity stream B (Animal disease control / protecting animal welfare) and C (Ensuring compliance and consistency). Also, Output B8 (Samples collected & tested) overlaps streams B, C, D.
Activity D: Certification, licensing, permitting and import/export – This activity focuses on the certification of Canadian exporters and the permitting of imports against requirements (output D1), as well as the licensing of producers of food animals (output D2). This also includes the assurance that veterinarians conducting activities in the field are accredited. Additionally, within this activity stream pre-market assessments are conducted on feed and veterinary biologics to ensure they're safe for use for animal consumption and use (output D3). Also, output B8 (Samples collected & tested) overlaps streams B, C, D.
Activity E: Stakeholder collaboration – This fifth and final activity stream is one that pervades the Animal Health and Zoonotics Program Stakeholder consultation in the development of policies and programs and is important to ensure these programs reflect stakeholder concerns. The sharing of data and information (output E1) directly or through networks such as the Canadian Animal Health Surveillance Network is critical to being able to manage certain animal disease emergencies or other alert situations. Additionally, there is a need for the CFIA to collaborate with stakeholders, inside and outside of government, on an on-going basis, including during both emergency and non-emergency situations (output E2). CFIA's contributions to international standard setting is also included as part of this stream (output E3).
Expected outcomes
There are 12 outcomes influenced by the activities conducted in relation to Animal Health, of which 7 occur in the short term, 3 occur in the medium term and 2 that occur over a more lengthy term. These are briefly described below.
Immediate outcomes
- Awareness of risks to Canada's animal population and of regulatory and policy requirements – This immediate outcome encompasses risk assessments, which tend to inform the regulation and policy requirements needed to prepare, prevent and manage animal diseases and emergencies
- Preparedness to prevent, address and manage animal related disease and emergencies – This immediate outcome is linked closely to the previous immediate outcome (Awareness of risks to Canada's animal population and of regulatory and policy requirements). Inspection and surveillance go a long way to ensuring potential animal diseases are known, and so plans can be in place to address them should they arise in Canada's animal population
- Humane transport of animals – This immediate outcome relates to the transport and slaughter of animals. The CFIA enforces the requirements through inspection and surveillance. There is a link between the humane transport of animals and the safety of the food product derived from them
- Animal disease is monitored, controlled or eradicated – This immediate outcome is a direct result of the accumulation of activities undertaken by the CFIA with regard to animal health. Disease monitoring ensures the Agency can act quickly and effectively when an issue arises
- Animal movement is monitored – This immediate outcome is primarily an outcome of import/export certification as well as permit and licensing. The monitoring of animal movement allows the CFIA to prevent or more quickly address an animal disease emergency situation
- Violations are addressed – This immediate outcome concerns the activities in place to ensure compliance ultimately lead to fewer violations. This has bearing on both food safety and international trade issues
- Animals, animal products, feed and veterinary biologics are compliant with requirements/regulations – This immediate outcome is an ability of the CFIA to ensure the products used on food animals won't adversely affect the health of the animal or the consumer of the animal or its products is important to ensure food safety and international market access
Intermediate outcomes
The increasing of awareness, preparation, prevention and emergency management are all important activities that aim to ensure risks to Canada's food animals are mitigated. The mitigation of these risks helps to ensure the safety of Canadians as well as economic benefits via open market access and cost avoidance linked to animal disease outbreaks. The 3 intermediate outcomes (below) are each a direct result of the Animal Health measures put in place.
- Risks to the Canadian animal resource base are mitigated
- Risks to Canadians from the transmission of animal diseases to humans are minimized
- International markets are accessible to Canadian animals and their products
Ultimate outcome
Aligned with the departmental strategic outcome, as well as Government of Canada outcomes related to healthy Canadians, the ultimate outcomes to which CFIA's Animal Health and Zoonotics Program makes a contribution are:
- CFIA: A safe and accessible animal resource base (and food supply)
- Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Supporting and improving the competitiveness and adaptability of the agriculture, agri-food and agri-based product sector
- Date modified: