“No carrot, no stick”: Exploring premise identification programs across Canada

Abstract

Premises Identification (PID) programs in Canada assign unique identification numbers to locations where animals, such as livestock and poultry, are kept. These programs are provincial and territorial, with a purpose of supporting various animal disease outbreaks, natural disaster emergencies, and animal traceability. While most PID programs have been operating since early 2000s, there has been no study reporting on PID programs in Canada. This qualitative study explored PID programs across Canada through the perspectives of government-employed stakeholders to (1) describe PID programs in participating Canadian provinces and territories, and (2) identify the strengths and weaknesses across PID programs. Stakeholders from nine provinces and one territory (N = 22) participated in online one-on-one interviews or focus groups. Data were analyzed inductively using codebook thematic analysis. Findings suggest that PID programs must build trust with farmers through transparent communication of intended data usage, ideally through familiar social networks. Furthermore, compliance with PID appears to be stronger when there are robust cross-compliance measures in place that have proportional incentives and enforcement measures. Programs with increased capacity and resources were better equipped to maintain data quality, which was achieved by some programs by narrowing the eligibility criteria for PID around the species of interest. This study provides valuable insights for improving the effectiveness of PID programs in Canada. Future research should explore the perspectives of other stakeholders, such as farmers eligible for the program.

Highlights

• •Cross-compliance measures improve farmer compliance with Premises Identification programs in Canada.
• •Transparent communication about Premises Identification data use builds trust with producers.
• •Focusing program scope on province- or territory-specific priorities improves resource use and data quality.

1. Introduction

In Canada, Premises Identification (PID) programs are provincial and territorial programs that assign unique identification numbers to locations where animals, such as livestock and poultry, are kept [1]. These programs began as a voluntary initiative in the early 2000s to support responses to bovine spongiform encephalopathy outbreaks and serve as a pillar of Canada's National Agriculture and Food Traceability System [2]. Although PID programs are available in all ten provinces and one out of three territories in Canada (Fig. 1), only six provinces have mandated the program under their respective Animal Health Act [1]. In these provinces, individuals with at least one animal from the designated species list must provide basic information about their location, contact details, and their animals to register for a PID [3]. The purpose of PID programs have broadened to include support for various animal disease outbreaks and natural disaster emergencies.

Fig. 1.

A map display of the distribution and number of study participants (n). Red dots indicate the Canadian provinces and territories that had an established Premises Identification program to participate in this study [1].

PID programs have become increasingly relevant in Canada, given the growing number and complexity of environmental challenges and animal disease outbreaks. A notable example is the catastrophic rainfall that caused widespread flooding in the Sumas Prairie region of British Columbia (BC) in 2021, and again in 2025. The 2021 disaster resulted in deaths of thousands of farm animals [4], and an estimated $675 million in insured farming losses [5]. This flooding along with increases in severe, record-breaking wildfires in the past decade [6], and several waves of highly pathogenic avian influenza in domestic poultry [7], has laid bare the importance of robust emergency management and disease response programs that focus on animal and human health.

In BC, a broad range of species are required to be enrolled in the PID program. The program lists 24 eligible species, spanning livestock, poultry, bees, as well as animals that may be considered both companion animals and/or livestock, such as rabbits, chinchillas, and horses [8]. Despite this breadth, it remains unclear how the program supports farmers who keep only a small number of animals (referred to as smallholders in this paper), compared with those managing large herds or flocks (i.e., commercial farms). Following the significant 2021 Sumas flooding, a news article reported on the frustrations of farmers expressing that they received no advance warning of the event despite being enrolled in the PID program [9]. Additionally, a recent auditor general's report evaluated BC's PID program and reported that the current program lacked the information and ability to improve enrolment and maintain up-to-date, usable information on current registrants [10]. The challenges presented in British Columbia's PID program served as a catalyst for exploring PID programs across Canada and collectively gather perspectives on improving its effectiveness for supporting natural disasters and animal disease outbreaks.

While PID programs have been operating since early 2000s, there has yet to be a comprehensive study that examines PID programs, despite their potential to contribute positively to One Health issues. The objective of this qualitative study is to explore the current state of PID programs in Canada with a goal of identifying key challenges and suggest possible solutions on improving these programs to best address rising concerns involving natural disasters and animal disease outbreaks. Specifically, we aimed to gather perspectives of government-employed stakeholders in PID programs across Canada to (1) describe PID programs in participating Canadian provinces and territories, and (2) identify the strengths and weaknesses amongst different PID programs.

2. Methods

This study was approved by the University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (# H25–01853). Informed consent was required for participation.

2.1. Recruitment

The study team contacted the Chief Veterinary Officers (CVOs) of all Canadian provinces and territories using publicly available email addresses. The CVOs were informed about the purpose of the study and asked to assist with recruitment by identifying staff members that were knowledgeable about their provincial or territorial PID programs (i.e., stakeholders). These identified employees were then emailed information about the study, a consent form, and an invitation to participate in a 30-to-60-min one-on-one interview or focus group with their colleagues (two or more individuals). The emails also reiterated that participation in the study was entirely voluntary.

2.2. Interviews

Two researchers (SK and EB) conducted all interviews and focus groups online over Zoom. The focus groups allowed provinces with larger PID programs to participate with other members of their team, where information could be gathered in-depth from various perspectives. A semi-structured interview guide was created by the research team to facilitate the interviews (Supplementary Materials). The topics in the interview guide were developed by conducting a preliminary literature review to identify gaps in knowledge about PID programs, and through discussions with members of the BC PID team to understand key factors that may impact the effectiveness of their PID program. Based on this information-gathering process, the interview questions were designed to be broad and open-ended, capturing participants' perspectives on 1) the goals of the PID program, 2) the program's design (e.g., eligibility criteria, mandatory versus voluntary), 3) approaches for enrolment, 4) PID use in emergency and disease response, 5) perceived successes and challenges, and 6) suggestions for improvement of the program. All interviews were recorded by Zoom and the Zoom transcription service was used to transcribe the audio. Transcripts were reviewed by SK to ensure accuracy between audio recordings and transcripts.

2.3. Data analysis & rigour

The study team adopted a social constructivist worldview, which holds that individuals' perceptions are developed from their subjective experiences and social contexts [11]. Adopting this lens allowed the researchers to interpret participants' subjective views of their respective PID programs. This worldview also supports the use of broad, open-ended questions, which align with the exploratory nature of this study and the limited existing literature on PID programs. To analyze the data, two study members (SK and EB) with prior training and experience in qualitative data analysis coded the transcripts concurrently using Braun and Clarke's codebook thematic analysis [12]. Transcripts were imported into the NVivo software for coding. Both SK and EB reviewed the transcripts line-by-line to identify meaningful or significant quotes, which were labeled with descriptive keywords (i.e., codes). As more interviews were conducted, new codes were added, and existing codes were refined or merged to capture the new findings. Weekly coding discussions were held, during which codebooks were compared and refined to reach consensus between coders. Concept maps were also used to support the iterative process of merging and refining codes [13]. Themes were then developed by identifying the most significant findings. All reported quotes were anonymized and labeled by the province or territory of the participant, with any abbreviations indicated by […]. The written results section of the manuscript was shared with participants to allow for feedback and enhance rigour [14].

3. Results

3.1. Demographics

Nine provinces and one territory participated in the study (Fig. 1). New Brunswick did not participate due to lack of availability. Nunavut was excluded because it does not have an established PID program. Although the Northwest Territories indicated that a PID program may be in development, they did not participate due to lack of availability. In total, 22 individuals participated in this study; Interviews were conducted with individuals from five provinces (n = 5), and six focus groups (2 to 4 colleagues per group) were held across five provinces and one territory (n = 17). In one province, a focus group and a separate interview were conducted due to scheduling issues. These participants were government-employed stakeholders holding roles in PID, emergency management, and animal health programs. Positions varied from leadership, implementation and coordination, emergency response, animal health specialists, veterinarians, and data or technology roles.

Most participating PID programs began as voluntary and were made mandatory for any individual who kept at least one animal of the eligible species. However, enrolment in PID was still voluntary for three provinces, including Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, as well as the Yukon territory. Table 1 shows the eligible species for most programs consisted of any livestock (i.e., sheep, goats, cervids, horses), poultry (i.e., chickens, geese, ducks), and bees. However, Québec's program had the most limited eligibility criteria, which included only cattle, sheep, cervids, pigs, and goats. Some programs also included horticulture, such as Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Table 1.

Animal species required or eligible for Premises Identification (PID) programs across Canadian provinces and territories. Data for this table were compiled from the official government websites describing Premises Identification programs in each province and territory.

Species	British Columbia [3]	Alberta [27]	Saskatchewan [28]	Manitoba [29]	Ontario [30]	Québec [31]	Nova Scotia [32]	Prince Edward Island [33]	Yukon [34]	Newfoundland & Labrador [35]
Alpacas	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
Aquaculture species		✓			✓		✓	✓
Bees	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
Bison	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓
Buffalo					✓
Cattle (beef and dairy)	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Cervids (deer, elk, moose)	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓		✓
Chickens	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
Chinchillas, farmed	✓	✓	✓				✓	✓
Donkeys, Mules, Asses	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
Ducks	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
Elk	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓
Exotic or show birds	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Fox	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓		✓
Geese	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
Goats	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
Horses, Ponies	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
Llamas	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
Mink		✓	✓		✓		✓	✓		✓
Ostrich, Emu, Nandu, Ratites	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓
Peafowl	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓
Pheasants	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓
Pigs, Swine	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
Quail	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓
Rabbits	✓	✓ ⁎			✓		✓	✓	✓ ⁎	✓
Sheep	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Turkeys	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
Vicuna	✓				✓		✓	✓	✓
Water Buffalo	✓				✓
Wild boar	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓		✓
Fur-bearing animals		✓	✓		✓		✓	✓
Yaks	✓	✓							✓
Guinea fowl	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓
Doves	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓

^⁎Raised for meat.

3.2. Enforcement

Participants from all provinces that had mandatory PID programs (i.e., BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island), except Québec, reported that despite PID being mandated under their respective Animal Health Act, there were minimal to absent enforcement mechanisms for individuals that did not enrol in PID. The lack of penalty for non-compliance, as well as lack of perceived benefits by the farmers, played a role in the non-compliance with PID. As one participant from Alberta stated, “we have no carrot and no stick in our regulation”. Québec was the only province that reported some enforcement capabilities through penalties, such as written warnings followed by monetary fines, for non-compliance. These penalties were enforced by the agricultural inspectors that visited farms and made possible by the relatively focused scope of species that are under PID within their province.

“Normally it would start by a warning. Let's say, ‘you have to register, please contact Attestra to do so. […]’, and usually the inspectors, they would take a note on their report of inspection, and then they would do a follow-up maybe in one month or in two months, to see if the producer complied or no. But, in the end, if the producer [doesn't] want to comply, yes there are penalties associated with our legislation, with our regulation. There are some fines that are planned.” (Québec)

In addition to a lack of enforcement mechanisms, certain populations were perceived to be less likely to comply than others. Most participants cited relatively good compliance amongst commercial farms, however, almost all participants noted difficulty in engaging smallholder farmers or even understanding what percentage of this group was complying with PID. Some participants perceived that “[smallholders] don't necessarily look at themselves as a farm” (Prince Edward Island) and had difficulty engaging these groups.

“When it comes to the person who has two goats for example. If they're not registered with an industry association or partaking in industry events, it's really difficult to reach them. It takes time to get in front of them.” (Saskatchewan)

Within the smallholder population, some farmers were perceived to be non-compliant due to their skepticism towards government involvement. Participants described this challenge as “engaging the disengaged” (Manitoba), reflecting the difficulty in reaching and motivating these groups to comply.

3.3. Enrolment strategies

Participants cited several strategies used to improve enrolment in PID, including educational campaigns, collaboration with commodity groups or organizations, and using cross-compliance. For some provinces, “getting the messaging out” (Prince Edward Island) about PID was done through agricultural events, such as trade shows and county exhibitions, displaying information in feed stores, and using social media campaigns. These strategies aimed to educate eligible groups about the purpose of the program and were largely used by those with voluntary PID programs. Other provinces indicated that advertisement of the program was minimal, with information only available on the official government website. Overall, the impact of these strategies on PID enrolment were unclear or difficult to measure. However, one participant from Alberta recalled a targeted campaign for turkey owners and perceived it did not aid enrolment:

“So we did a little test with Alberta Turkey…we basically put together a message, and the Turkey Group told people in the newsletter that this would be coming out from PID, and if you didn't have a voicemail and an email address to please contact us, because we didn't have your complete contact information. And our return rate was zero.” (Alberta)

In contrast, forming strong collaborations and information sharing networks amongst industry groups or marketing boards (e.g., Alberta Pork, Provincial milk marketing boards) was perceived as a successful strategy for increasing enrolment. This strategy was utilized by a number of PID programs:

“[Our] regulations state that we would be sharing data with industry associations, so we've been able to get a lot of our commercial industry associations to just provide their producer information, and we have that updated in PID.”

(Manitoba)

However, industry or marketing groups often did not include smallholder farmers or those with a few backyard animals. Notably, a few participants indicated that some provincial industry organizations, such as Chicken Farmers of Ontario and Alberta Pork, had programs for backyard/hobby farms, and collaboration with those groups aided in enrolment amongst these species.

Provinces and territories observed better enrolment in PID when cross-compliance measures were introduced (Table 2). Cross-compliance required participation in the PID program to access certain programs and services in the province/territory, typically relevant to agriculture.

“The PID program is mandatory in Saskatchewan. If producers want to partake in any ministry programs and services, they have to have a PID number.”

(Saskatchewan)

Table 2.

Examples of cross-compliance measures requiring a Premises Identification (PID) number from farmers to access beneficial programs and services. The examples were compiled from responses provided by knowledgeable stakeholders representing nine Canadian provinces and one territory (N = 22).

Categories	Cross-Compliance Measures
Funding Programs	Agriculture funding
	Drought assistance
Agricultural Services	Business support
	Subsidized water testing
	Subsidized disease testing
Product Purchasing	Over-the-counter items with a drug identification number
	Chicks purchased from feed store
	Animal feed
Traceability	Declaring animal movements
	Animal identification tags
Licensure Requirement	Collaboration with industry and marketing boards
	Requirement under the Bee Act
Animal Services	Subsidized veterinary care
	Utilizing butcher or abattoir
	Selling meat products

Several cross-compliance strategies were used to require a PID number for access to funding programs, provincial services, purchase of agriculture products or animals, and more. Despite success in improving enrolment, some participants noted not wanting to burden private businesses (e.g., feed stores, butchers) with enforcement responsibilities. Furthermore, cross-compliance was not always a “silver bullet” and there were issues with individuals giving a false PID number:

“The convenience of being able to pick stuff up at your [local feed store] is kind of the [incentive] I guess, if you have a PID number and you tell them. But again, even with that… they don't actually validate the PID numbers, they just collect them. So if somebody was smart enough and went in and said, yeah, it's AA1234567, they wouldn't know any different, right?”

(Alberta)

3.4. Data usage

Overall, most provinces used PID data for response to emergencies (e.g., flood, fires, oil spills) and diseases (e.g., avian influenza, porcine epidemic diarrhea, Seneca Valley virus). Almost all provinces and territories responded to these threats by producing maps that served to identify infected/affected premises, disease control zones, and help with route planning during evacuations. Some provinces sent out notifications about emergencies or threats to their PID participants, whereas others shared information with relevant industry groups or marketing boards and allowed them to communicate with affected PID participants:

“We do send out notifications, we can pull everyone with poultry, so whether they're commercial or a smallholder, you know, we can send out an email notification to say, ‘be on the alert! [highly pathogenic avian influenza] is back’ […] and lead them to more data, if needed.”

(Alberta)

A few provinces indicated they had the ability to use PID information for other purposes such as research, wildlife management, funding program development, and municipal planning:

“Our consent statement also allows us to use the data in an aggregated form for project and program planning. So, various parts of our ministry ask us for it pretty routinely, when they're planning a new funding program or something. For example, if they're targeting a specific commodity for a specific issue with funding, they'll ask us for aggregated data, maybe per county or per region of the province kind of thing.”

(Ontario)

However, other provinces note that PID data usage was rather limited and strictly controlled by their respective legislation.

All provinces and territories interviewed indicated that their PID programs were linked to the Traceability National Information Portal. Some provinces worked with commercial marketing boards or industry groups to manage traceability of certain species provincially, by either providing PID information to these groups or vice versa. However, it was often unclear how PID data was being used to support specific traceability initiatives. A notable exception was Québec's PID program; a participant from Québec explained that their PID program is fully integrated with traceability, and a PID number is required for the movement of animals (cattle, sheep, pigs, and cervids) into and out of Québec, which allowed for targeted messages related to disease management:

“For dairy cattle, it was producers who we knew that imported cattle from the United States (US). We use the contact information in the PID […] to say “look, you imported cattle from the US, be aware that there is this situation happening right now (referring to avian influenza reported in US dairy cattle), so please contact us […] or please contact your veterinarian if you notice anything abnormal in your animals.”

(Québec)

Most participants noted a strong interest and some efforts made in having traceability initiatives be integrated or supported by their PID program.

3.5. Data quality

All participants cited that maintaining accurate PID data was a challenge, specifically having PID participants update their information on a regular basis. Participants noted that this was especially challenging in years where there was no emergency or disease outbreak and therefore PID was not top-of-mind. However, similar to improving enrolment, strong collaboration with industry groups and marketing boards and/or robust cross-compliance contributed to improved data quality.

“The main challenge is about keeping the data updated. People sign up once, then we rarely hear from any update if they stop […] raising one type of livestock, or take on […] a new livestock.”

(Yukon)

Some participants noted how laborious maintaining an up-to-date PID database can be, citing a lack of capacity and resources within their program to update and validate information:

“You have all these accounts come in, and you're like, yeah, this is great […] but we didn't have the staff to actually issue and validate the information.”

(Alberta)

A participant also highlighted that insufficient translation services posed a major challenge in engaging and maintaining accurate data on non-English speaking farmers:

“We have communities that would be highly immigrant and speak very little English, so we can't even involve them in investigations without a translator. So they're not entered in PID, because that's off their radar.”

(Manitoba)

However, some provinces overcame challenges with capacity by utilizing third-party organizations to contact PID participants and update their information over the phone on an annual or semi-annual basis. Notably, Québec was able to improve data quality by having other government agricultural inspectors (e.g., dairy inspectors) update information for PID while they performed their on-farm inspections.

3.6. Public opinion

Across provinces and territories, participants described public opinion towards PID programs as highly variable, with some noting strong buy-in driven by farmers' understanding of the importance of disease and emergency management, while others highlighted ongoing concerns from farmers surrounding transparency with data sharing and government overreach.

“I used to get calls from people, when I was entering the data. I know they would have concerns about the, like, ‘is my information going to [Canada Revenue Agency]?’ That kind of thing. Haven't heard a lot lately. But I think the adoption of traceability and other regulations involving PID is more concerning to producers, so we're just kind of part of the mix. But yeah, we just try to do our best to assure people that we won't share the information unless it falls under the regulation. And it's not shared[…]- the data isn't shared elsewhere.”

(Manitoba)

Notably, some participants found that integrating traceability into the PID program improved overall public participation, especially in the wake of recent disease outbreaks (e.g., avian influenza in dairy cattle), highlighting the importance of approaching PID with a One Health perspective. These participants emphasized the importance of education surrounding how the data was used and how it benefited farmers, as one participant stated: “…once they hear what traceability is all about, they're actually really on board with it.” (Newfoundland and Labrador).

Furthermore, Prince Edward Island had a unique opt-in system that allowed registrants to choose which organizations, outside of mandated organizations (e.g., Canadian Food Inspection Agency), they were willing to have their data shared with in the event of an emergency or disease outbreak, which appeared to enhance public trust:

“Part of our application process is that, who they consent to share information with… and then they can choose whatever organization, so some don't check off anything.”

(Prince Edward Island)

Interestingly, smaller provinces indicated that they had relatively good enrolment and compliance amongst both commercial and smallholder farms. Some cited having only one or two people managing the program as opposed to faceless government messaging, being known within the community, and generally knowing what farms exist within their province as factors that contributed to success with compliance in PID programs, even those that were voluntary:

“My reputation has actually gotten out amongst the producers because where we are small in numbers, I can do a lot to help them register. ”

(Newfoundland and Labrador)

4. Discussion

In this study, we interviewed stakeholders involved in maintaining PID programs across Canada to understand their perspectives of their province or territory's PID program. Overall, when all aspects of PID programs were considered, three key factors emerged that most heavily influenced the effectiveness of PID programs across Canada. Specifically, 1) program compliance, 2) farmer trust, and 3) program capacity. When these aspects of the program are considered and adequately supported, PID programs are positioned to function within their full potential.

4.1. Program compliance

Participants from most provinces and territories felt that non-compliance with the PID program was an issue, specifically due to a lack of program incentives and enforcement capabilities (i.e., no carrot, no stick). Many sought cross-compliance measures to indirectly enforce the program through access to agricultural programs and services. Similarly, other agricultural programs in Canada, US, and Europe have adopted cross-compliance measures with variable success [15], [16]. One Canadian study reviewing agricultural programs found that effective cross-compliance measures required adequate incentives that matched the effort needed to comply with the program, otherwise participation remained low [16]. Thus, cross-compliance measures need to be thoughtfully assessed and proportionate to the requirements of the program (i.e., sharing of personal information) to improve compliance.

Effective enforcement of PID may require efforts beyond cross-compliance. For example, a study from Switzerland found that although cross-compliance measures were designed to both incentivise (e.g., funding) and to enforce program requirements (e.g., fines for non-compliance), 28% of farms within the study were still found outside of compliance [15]. Additionally, a lack of knowledge regarding requirements was often linked to being outside of compliance, suggesting that despite robust cross-compliance, clear messaging regarding program requirements and the possibility for penalties is imperative for overall program participation and compliance [15].

Widespread challenges with engaging smallholder farmers may suggest that a different approach is needed to reach this population. For example, in an investigation of dairy farmers' perceptions of government involvement for disease management, many participants felt regulation was imposing, however, receiving disease information and mitigation options felt empowering [17]. Furthermore, interviews with backyard chicken farmers in BC found that many participants did not believe in disease management program and actively avoided contact with regulatory bodies [18]. Approaching smallholder farmers with a goal of supporting them may be more successful, however, further investigation is needed to better understand their perspectives on PID programs.

Prioritizing effective communication may also be needed to engage these hard to engage populations (i.e., smallholders). Social networks have been found to be highly influential in communication about farming practices and disease management amongst farming communities [17], [19]. As a result, engagement of smallholder populations could be improved by open communication about the benefits and supports offered by PID programs, ideally through social networks that smallholder farmers are involved with (e.g., hobby groups, social media). However, this may be a challenge amongst smallholder populations that do not engage in such groups. One study involving smallholder pig farmers noted that participants' lack of a formal communication or information network resulted in misinformation regarding pig health and contributed to poor biosecurity [20].

4.2. Farmer's trust

Overall, participating PID programs observed improved trust and public opinion regarding PID when intended data usage and data sharing agreements were transparent and clear to participants. One study investigating public opinion surrounding health data sharing found that those who ascribed a high degree of importance in trust of institutions also highly valued public involvement in decision-making pertaining to data sharing and access [21]. Furthermore, a European-based study that investigated the role of government trust and transparency regarding health policy reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, countries that had high public trust and were highly transparent regarding decisions and data saw low morbidity levels overall, likely from better buy-in from the public regarding recommended health measures [22]. Additionally, having power over data usage appeared to improve trust. In this study, Prince Edward Island's PID program included an opt-in feature detailing which organizations, outside of regulatory organizations (e.g., CFIA), farmers would consent to their data being shared with, and in turn felt that this improved overall trust and compliance with PID. This suggests that trust can be improved through data transparency and by empowering participants to give input over how their personal data is being used.

Interestingly, many of the smaller provinces and territories felt that they have relatively good public perception regarding their respective PID programs. Many attributed this to having one person who was the “face” of the PID program and was able to develop interpersonal relationships with farmers. This has been demonstrated before in previous work, where social capitol appeared to be the driving force of government trust [23]. A similar phenomenon was noted in a study of BC dairy producers, who indicated an overall lack of trust in government, but reported high trust in the provincial dairy inspector, who despite being a government employee had fostered individual relationships with the producers [17]. This advantage may only be possible in smaller provinces, given the fewer number of PID holders and staff managing the program. However, Québec has tied PID enforcement with agricultural inspectors, which may work to also improve trust by having a face linked to communication surrounding PID.

4.3. Program capacity

Participants frequently cited a lack of capacity as a contributing factor to challenges related to managing their respective PID programs, specifically regarding enrolment, updating information, and leveraging the data to its full potential. Some jurisdictions sought to address these challenges by utilizing third parties to offload data management or administrative duties. Others improved their capacity by limiting the scope of their PID program to species that were of priority concern to their province. Another strategy is to limit enrolment strategies to target groups that are at higher risk of disease outbreaks or emergencies. For example, Yukon incentivized farmers to participate in their PID program by requiring a PID number for access to subsidized veterinary services valued at $1000 (Table 2). In human medicine, similar incentives have been used to improve disease outcomes in high-risk populations, with evidence suggesting that prioritizing hard-to-reach groups through monetary incentives could be an effective method to improve coronary heart disease outcomes [24]. By focusing enrolment strategies (e.g., prioritizing poultry owners during peak avian influenza season), the capacity to execute costly incentives such as these may become more realistic and obtainable for provinces.

Focusing a PID program on a defined set of species and infectious diseases and zoonoses may enhance program capacity and increase the program's effectiveness. Evidence from traceability research has demonstrated that poor enrolment of just one species can render disease management efforts ineffective [25]. In contrast, Québec's limited scope in species has enabled a more robust traceability system that allowed for the identification of cattle that were imported from the US in the wake of the avian influenza outbreak in dairy cattle. Outside of these solutions, data-driven government programs could improve efficiency by reducing any possible redundancies or “soiling” with other similar programs, which in turn could improve capacity [26]. Practically, this may involve coordinating PID with provincial agriculture licensure or quota, land use zoning, agricultural inspections and/or animal health laboratory usage.

4.4. Limitations

A limitation of this study is the focus on the perceptions and experiences of stakeholders involved in managing and/or executing PID programs, rather than those individuals that are eligible for PID programs. Further investigation into the perspectives and experiences of farmers that are both enrolled or not enrolled in PID programs would likely provide additional insights into how the programs could be improved.

5. Conclusions

The effectiveness of PID programs across Canada may be improved by addressing concerns related to compliance, farmer trust, and program capacity. We recommend programs consider building trust with farmers through transparent communication of intended data usage, ideally through familiar social networks such as industry and hobby groups; have robust cross-compliance measures that have proportional incentives and/or enforcement measures; and seek to improve capacity and data quality/usage by focusing scope around species of interest, improving data management, and reducing redundancies across other organizations.

Studies in human

This study was performed in compliance with relevant laws, regulatory frameworks and guidelines where the research took place.

This study was approved by the University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (Approval No. H25–01853).

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Sherry Khoddami: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Erin Fraser: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Chelsea G. Himsworth: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Anya F. Smith: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Ellen Boyd: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation.

Informed consent and patient details

Written informed consent to take part in the study and to publish the article has been obtained from all participants or their legal representatives. The privacy rights of participants have been observed.

Funding

This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (QEUU – GR034043, 2024).

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material

Data availability

The data that has been used is confidential.