The Canadian federal programs OFCAF and ACT allocated about $1.2 billion between 2021 and 2028 and achieved high uptake: more than 11,400 producers adopted practices on nine million acres. Economists and audits warn that effective emissions reductions were not measured.
Two Canadian federal programs aimed at getting producers to adopt practices to manage climate change recorded high uptake: the On Farm Climate Action Fund (OFCAF) and the Agricultural Clean Technology (ACT) program together made about $1.2 billion available between 2021 and 2028.
OFCAF was initially funded for the 2022-2025 period with the goal of reducing emissions and encouraging carbon sequestration, but strong demand quickly led to funding for another three years; in total it amounts to $704 million. According to Agriculture Canada, more than 11,400 producers adopted best management practices during the first three years and "improved" nine million acres. The ACT program, for its part, has an adoption stream with direct contributions to producers and another for research and innovation; more than 535 producers received funds for technologies such as natural gas grain dryers, biomass boilers and solar panels.
The best management practices promoted by OFCAF cover nitrogen management, cover crops and rotational grazing. Lynda Nicol, executive director of the Manitoba Association of Watersheds (MAW), said the program worked because it included education, environmental sustainability and economic well-being. "It has been a real success story as far as the education and the adoption of the specific best management practices covered through OFCAF, but also an exploration of how to further those efforts through other programs," she said.
However, agricultural economists and audits warn that effective emissions reductions were not measured, even though that was the program's initial purpose. "We do know that practices are getting adopted, but what we don't know is whether additional emissions reductions actually took place, because the infrastructure for measuring those reductions was never set up," said Tristan Skolrud of the University of Saskatchewan. "It's not necessarily an oversight. It's just a very, very expensive thing to do."
The National Emissions Inventory Report calculates fertilizer emissions, for example, from the amount of nitrogen sold in a province multiplied by an emissions factor. "Using less nitrogen does show up, but changing the way it's applied... doesn't change the number," Skolrud explained. The most recent inventory report, published in April, indicates there is still limited evidence on how much enhanced efficiency fertilizers reduce emissions. In addition, producers often combine practices, but studies measure each one separately, and there is no consistent data over time on how many producers use each practice.
Agriculture Canada acknowledged the lack of measurement capacity. The Office of Audit and Evaluation recommended in 2024 to "refine performance measures of OFCAF to better reflect and assess the relationship building, knowledge gains and behaviour changes in the sector that result from OFCAF activities." A report from the Auditor General the same year found that Agriculture Canada lacked clear targets and a strategy to guide its climate change mitigation programs, and that results were poorly measured and not verified.
OFCAF was initially expected to permanently reduce emissions by 4.29 million tonnes, a figure that a year later was revised to 1.61 million. The Auditor General's report noted that Agriculture Canada proposed reducing fertilizer emissions by 3.5 million tonnes, of which 2.07 million were left unfunded. The government's target of cutting fertilizer emissions by 30% became a flashpoint in the debate between economics and the environment, and the plan to achieve it through voluntary agreements with producers never materialized.
Producer uptake was overwhelming. Some of the 13 third-party organizations in charge of delivering OFCAF had to close their application windows early or were oversubscribed.
Results Driven Agricultural Research (RDAR), in Alberta, received nearly $128 million to distribute over six years and had to pause its 2026 intake. In a June 3 statement, the organization said: "Producer response to this year's intake has been exceptionally strong. RDAR has received more than 900 applications for more than $21.2 million, far exceeding the $17.2 million available."
The Canadian Forage and Grassland Association (CFGA), which will have 500,000 acres in its program by the end of the year, received applications for double the money available for rotational grazing implementation.
Skolrud considered that the federal government's turn toward a message focused on productivity and competitiveness fits with climate programming. "When you talk to producers, regardless of what they think about mitigation, almost everyone supports adaptation because they see it on the farm," he said. "There are practices out there that will do everything. They will make operations more resilient and they will mitigate emissions without an associated decline in yield."
Cedric MacLeod, executive director of the CFGA, maintained that the original goals may have been to reduce emissions and drive carbon sequestration, but the outcome was broader. "Overall, the productivity and efficiency we've seen on the farm has been pretty extraordinary," he said. "When you look at the current administration's focus on growth, resilience and productivity, I think this type of program can easily be reframed within that context."
Both MacLeod and Nicol called for funding to continue. Both agreed that measurement has been a challenge, although Agriculture Canada implemented emissions factors and sequestration rates to obtain good estimates. "I think this is something that we can take as a learning to say: 'OK, let's get that figure out now so that when we move into the next round of programming, we've got that locked in,'" MacLeod said.
Nicol considered it critical that producers participate in the consultations for the next policy framework to communicate the value of OFCAF and its financial incentives. MAW's Prairie Watershed Climate Program will be fully exhausted by 2026-27, and the executive director expects the same for its final year. In fiscal year 2025-26, MAW distributed $12.5 million for the three best management practices to 1,101 approved applications and 1,831 individual projects: 64% corresponded to nitrogen management, 25% to rotational grazing and 11% to cover crops.
