Evaluation of the Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program (PAA Sub- Activity 2. Table of Contents. Acronyms. AFMTCAlternative Fuels Mixture Tax Credit. ADMAssistant Deputy Minister. BDCBusiness Development Bank of Canada. CAContribution Agreement. CAAClean Air Agenda. CEAACanadian Environmental Assessment Agency. CFSCanadian Forest Service. DFAITDepartment of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. DGDirector General. DMDeputy Minister. DPRDepartmental Performance Report. EAEnvironmental Assessment. EACEvaluation Advisory Committee. EAPEconomic Action Plan. ECEnvironment Canada. EISEnvironmental Impact Statement. Home / Industry News / Fibrek mill in Quebec to receive $6M from Canadian Pulp and Paper Green Transformation. Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program.FAOFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FIPPFarm Income Payment Program. FPACForest Products Association of Canada. FTEFull- time Equivalent. GDPGross Domestic Product. Go. CGovernment of Canada. IFITInvestments in Forest Industry Transformation. MOUMemorandum of Understanding. NRCan. Natural Resources Canada. O& MOperating and Maintenance. PAAProgram Activity Architecture. PPGTPPulp and Paper Green Transformation Program. R& DResearch and Development. RBAFRisk- Based Audit Framework. RMAFResults- Based Management and Accountability Framework. ROIReturn on Investment. SADIStrategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative. SLASoftwood Lumber Agreement. PULP AND PAPER GREEN TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM. Canada determined that the Canadian pulp and paper industry would benefit from targeted capital investments. Port Alberni energy generation set to get. Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program. Paper Green Transformation Program - report on. AV Cell receives funding for biogas production. SEDStrategic Evaluation Division. TBSTreasury Board of Canada Secretariat. TPRCTransfer Payment Review Committee. Its objective was to improve the environmental performance of Canada. The Program assisted Canadian pulp and paper companies in making capital investments that would improve facility environmental performance, by providing a $0. January 1, 2. 00. December 3. 1, 2. The evaluation covered the period from 2. Given that the Program ended on March 3. Program, as well as to identify best practices and lessons learned that can be of value for other initiatives within NRCan. The Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program. Under the program, eligible Canadian pulp and paper companies could earn credits at a rate of $0.16 per litre. Canadian pulp and paper mills have already. TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM. The objective of the Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program. Improved environmental performance at Canadian pulp and paper. Improvements in mill performance. Canadian pulp and paper mills have. Through its Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program. The evaluation addressed the five core evaluation issues defined by the Treasury Board Secretariat in the Directive on the Evaluation Function, effective April 2. Under relevance, the evaluation issues are: Continued need for Program; Alignment with government priorities; and Alignment with federal roles and responsibilities. Under performance, the evaluation issues are Achievement of expected outcomes; and Demonstration of efficiency and economy. The evaluation was designed to draw on various sources of data to ensure that the combined lines of evidence resulted in an in- depth and comprehensive analysis. The four methods used to collect and analyze evidence were 1) a document file and data review; 2) stakeholder interviews (3. N = 1. 15); and 4) three case studies on Program planning, management and delivery. Evaluation Findings. Relevance. Continued need for Program: The Program addressed demonstrable needs in an evolving global market environment by providing access to capital financing directed towards projects that would improve environmental performance of the pulp and paper industry and thereby strengthen economic viability when access to capital was severely constricted. The evaluation found that in the years leading up to Program implementation, there was a limited ability for companies to make critical environmental upgrades due to declining industry revenues the global economic recession and other competitive pressures. Alignment with government priorities: The PPGTP was consistent with both federal government priorities and NRCan strategic objectives. Federal priorities over the evaluation period consistently displayed a commitment to developing the forest industry, as reflected in Speeches from the Throne, the Clean Air Agenda (CAA) and the Economic Action Plan (EAP). The PPGTP was also aligned with NRCan goals as outlined in the Program Activity Architecture (PAA) (from 2. Strategic Objective #2, Environmental Responsibility. Alignment with federal roles and responsibilities: The evaluation found that the Program was strongly aligned with federal roles and responsibilities, especially for issues concerning international trade where the Go. C has a clear constitutional responsibility. The federal government played a legitimate, appropriate and necessary role in protecting Canadian market interests by creating a targeted pulp and paper program that promoted the sustainability of the forest sector. Contribution Agreements (CAs) were found to be an appropriate mechanism to deliver PPGTP funds and to hold industrial recipients accountable for environmental outcomes. Performance. Achievement of expected outcomes: Evidence demonstrated that the PPGTP achieved its intended outcomes to a great extent. All eligible pulp and paper mills (a total of 2. N = 1. 02). The Program also had a large and well- organized record of outreach activities spanning its entire lifecycle, such as presentations, workshops, webinars, official press releases and/or media events, as well as dissemination of clear guidelines and information on the CFS website. The PPGTP exceeded its energy savings and energy production targets: Energy savings of 8. GJ/yr) were achieved, double the target of 4. Energy production of approximately 2. MWh/yr) was achieved, about 0. As well, environmental improvements were noted for air emissions, water use and chemical waste. The evaluation found that the PPGTP contributed to the environmental sustainability of the pulp and paper industry. For example, PPGTP projects collectively contributed to reducing the industry. This accounted for as much as 4. Canadian pulp and paper industry consumption (which is about 3. Footnote 1 The Program also generated positive commercial impacts for participating companies as the dollars generated or saved by the participating mills would constitute a net income after four years. For the industry as a whole, the one- time investment of $1 billion would be fully recovered after four years with a total (for all projects combined) yearly return on investment (ROI) of about $3. Footnote 2 The evaluation independently confirms the findings of the internal PPGTP Report on Results with minor differences accounted for in the timeframe of the available information. Given that benefits from capital investments generally accrue over the long term, those improvements are expected to continue into the future. In fact, in an open- ended question, some industry interviewees at the executive level indicated that the PPGTP generated interest in completing other projects to improve environmental performance. As well, when asked to identify contributors to the longer- term environmental and commercial sustainability of their organization in another open- ended question, 7% of survey respondents named the PPGTP specifically. The evaluation identified a number of facilitators enabling the achievement of Program outcomes, including clear political will and senior- level support; diverse in- house expertise; and an eligibility- based, 1. Retroactive payments were also permitted in order to reflect the economic realities of the industry and respect condensed Program timelines. The main challenge for project execution and delivery, however, was the Program. The length of the project review process (including the environmental assessments) was perceived as a secondary challenge. Two main positive unintended outcomes were observed as a result of this Program: 1) internal capacity building at CFS; and 2) relationship building between CFS and the pulp and paper industry stakeholders. Additionally, documentary and survey evidence showed signs of some ancillary benefits, such as job creation and increased competitiveness. Demonstration of efficiency and economy: The Program efficiently managed its resources and activities. Several insightful management and operational procedures. Planned expenditures were in line with actual spending and program operating costs (as a percentage of actual total program funding) averaged 2. Footnote 3 The operating cost ratio, staff size, and service standards for PPGTP were comparable to similar initiatives (e. Industry Canada. However, by the end of the Program, timelines were met and industry and other stakeholders contributed more than $2. PPGTP projects, totalling $1. Footnote 4. External stakeholders suggested there were opportunities for administrative improvement regarding clearer reporting templates and flexibility around funding release. A lack of full- time resources or budget allocated for Program activities after March 3. Department to conduct closing activities. Performance information has been collected and used since the implementation of the Program. However, the evaluation found that there was a lack of clarity surrounding how the post- Program data reported by the project proponents would be used, either for future reporting or to provide information on the longer- term outcomes and impacts of the Program. Interview and survey data indicated that without PPGTP funding, about half of the projects were not likely to have proceeded, and the environmental benefits associated with the Program would not have been realized. Those that would have proceeded without PPGTP funding would likely have been carried out over a longer timeframe or with a reduced scope, and it is possible that the environmental benefits would not have been realized in the evaluation period. Based on interviews, documents and case studies, the evaluation identified four lessons learned that NRCan could consider in developing initiatives of similar size and scope. New programs are advantaged by the flexibility to build on existing strengths and avoid outdated /old practices that create constraints. A combination of external factors/needs and strong political resolve may favour Program creation and implementation. Program delivery is facilitated by a) clearly defined roles within a committee or team- based governance structure and b) the opportunity for stakeholder consultation during the early planning stages. Program efficiency is clearly influenced by key management and operational decisions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |