Originally posted on June 17, 2026 by The Western Producer.

As Canada’s agriculture sector faces mounting pressures, some experts are warning of another major challenge that is receiving far less attention — a growing shortage of agricultural policy and economics research capacity.

Despite the important role this type of work plays in supporting innovation, trade and long-term competitiveness, experts say policy and economics research has historically received far less support than applied agricultural science — and recent federal cuts are worsening the problem.

You can find all our coverage of the proposed Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada cuts here.

“There’s very little funding at a federal level to engage in specific agricultural economics research,” says Stuart Smyth, an agricultural economist with the University of Saskatchewan.

Public investment in agricultural research overall has declined in recent decades, falling from roughly $860 million in 2013 to $680 million in 2022. Earlier this year, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced plans to cut roughly 665 positions and close seven federal research facilities across the country.

Experts say policy and economics research was already underfunded before those reductions.

“Less and less of (ag policy research) is done in government today, and in fact, there’s just less and less done period, which is very problematic,” says Al Mussell, founder of Agri-Food Economic Systems, an independent Canadian agricultural economics and policy research organization.

Richard Gray, also an agricultural economist at the U of S, says the timing is particularly concerning given the scale of challenges facing the sector.

“If we’re going to increase productivity growth in the future and do it in a way that is sustainable from a food security, food safety point of view … all of those things require new policy.”

Mussell says the need for strong policy research is especially important right now as Canada navigates increasingly complex international trade relationships, including future negotiations involving the United States and Mexico.

“We’re looking at renewal of a trade agreement with the U.S. and Mexico. I think most people probably underestimate just how much work needs to go on in the background,” Mussell says. “They’re complex relationships … you have to cover a lot of different bases.”

Smyth says the lack of funding also limits the sector’s ability to generate the economic analysis needed to support evidence-based policymaking and regulation.

“Anytime I talk to policymakers, they say we need numbers,” he says. “‘If we did this, we could add an extra $200 million to the Canadian economy.’ How do we make that happen? We need consistent, better numbers.”

The historical impact of ag policy research

Experts say agricultural policy and economics research has quietly shaped many of the systems that underpin the competitiveness and stability of Canadian agriculture today.

Gray points to Canada’s business risk management framework, including crop insurance and AgriStability, as one example of economics research helping governments design programs that could support producers while remaining compliant with international trade rules.

On grain transportation, he says agricultural economists also played a major role in shaping what he believes is now one of the world’s most efficient grain handling and transportation systems.

“I think the system has resulted in a very efficient system with lots of investment,” he says.

Mussell points to the sector’s response to the BSE crisis in 2003 as another example of successful policy work helping contain economic damage within the cattle industry.

“I think BSE recovery is an underappreciated policy success,” he says. “[It] was still a very bad episode, obviously, but could have far worse.”

Despite this track record, Mussell says policy research often receives little public attention.

“I think it tends to get kind of taken for granted,” he says.

The funding disparity

Experts say policy and economics research does not attract the same level of funding as applied production science areas such as crop breeding, agrownomy and disease management.

Mussell says policy research can be a harder sell because, unlike research tied to labs, equipment or field trials, it is largely desk-based and focused on longer-term public benefits rather than immediate commercial returns.

Smyth says producer groups may also hesitate to fund policy research tied to trade access, regulation and long-term competitiveness because those areas are often viewed as government responsibilities or politically sensitive issues.

“Some farm organizations feel that they should not be involved in funding policy because they see that as the government’s responsibility,” Smyth says.

The structure of policy research can also create challenges. Unlike applied projects that may produce visible short-term results, policy analysis often requires years of lead time, graduate student recruitment and long-term data collection.

“There’s really no consistent pot of funding to incentivize this type of academic investigation,” Smyth says.

Risks of underfunding policy research

Experts warn that continued underfunding could weaken Canada’s ability to respond to trade disruptions, adapt regulations and remain globally competitive.

As one of the few countries capable of sustainably exporting significant food surpluses, Mussell says Canada holds an important strategic advantage — but only if it maintains the policy capacity needed to respond intelligently to complex challenges.

“I’d hate to think that we lost out because we weren’t smart enough to come up with the right solution,” he says. “But if you don’t have the capacity to do the policy research, then you run that risk.”

Gray says another concern is the gradual loss of trained personnel and institutional knowledge as economists retire and are not replaced.

“Within (AAFC), there’s been a mass reduction in the number of economists,” he says. “Trade economists became really scarce.”

That loss of expertise, he says, leaves fewer people available to evaluate trade disruptions and emerging policy challenges.

“We’re back to trying to figure out what is the impact of a Chinese embargo on Canadian rapeseed, and there’s not a lot of capacity within government or outside government to actually tackle those types of issues,” he says.

Rebuilding capacity

Despite these challenges, experts say rebuilding Canada’s agricultural policy research capacity is both possible and increasingly necessary.

Mussell argues policy research is fundamentally a public good and should remain a core government responsibility, though industry also has an important role to play.

“Should industry support policy research? Absolutely.”

Smyth believes one of the most effective solutions would be dedicated federal funding streams specifically designed to support long-term policy and economics research.

“If they came up with one pot of money and said, ‘we’re going to put up $10 million a year for five years,’ then I think we would see that taking on,” he says. “The easiest way to get academics to do things is to incentivize them with granting.”

Gray also points to earlier federal policy research networks that helped fund graduate students and strengthen connections between universities and government departments.

“That was a very powerful model that I would like to see come back,” he says.

Ultimately, Gray argues, the issue is not simply about academic research funding, but about whether Canada wants to maintain the long-term analytical capacity needed to adapt its agricultural systems to a rapidly changing world.