Text Descriptions for: Evaluation of Trade and Investment Activities

Figure 1: Trade and Investment (G&C) Project Approvals

2007–08: 11 projects approved for $7.23 million. Manitoba was $0.99 million, Saskatchewan was $0.06 million, Alberta was $0.73 million and British Columbia was $5.46 million;

2008–09: 12 projects approved for $13.35 million. Manitoba was $4.00 million, Saskatchewan was $0.07 million, Alberta was $1.92 million and British Columbia was $7.36 million;

2009–10: 22 projects approved for $13.63 million. Manitoba was $7.39 million, Saskatchewan was $1.68 million, Alberta was $1.33 million and British Columbia was $3.22 million;

20010–11: 10 projects approved for $3.54 million. Manitoba was $0.94 million, Saskatchewan was $1.62 million, Alberta was $0 million and British Columbia was $0.98 million;

2011–12: 11 projects approved for $2.61 million. Manitoba was $0.74 million, Saskatchewan was $0.46 million, Alberta was $0.15 million and British Columbia was $1.26 million;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 1)

Figure 2: How likely is it that the project would have gone ahead without assistance from WD?

53% of project recipients indicated a 0% likelihood of their projects going ahead;

34% of project recipients indicated a 25% likelihood of their projects going ahead;

8% of project recipients indicated a 50% likelihood of their projects going ahead;

0% of project recipients indicated a 75% likelihood of their projects going ahead;

5% of project recipients indicated a 100% likelihood of their projects going ahead;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 2)

What is the current status of the project?

33% of proponents that applied for funding but were not approved indicated that their projects were complete;

17% of proponents that applied for funding but were not approved indicated that their projects were underway;

17% of proponents that applied for funding but were not approved indicated that their projects were has not started yet;

17% of proponents that applied for funding but were not approved indicated that their projects were suspended (started but not completed);

50% of proponents that applied for funding but were not approved indicated that their projects were cancelled;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 3)

Figure 4: Perceived success of the project's achievement of its objectives

0% of project recipients provided a rating of 1;

3% of project recipients provided a rating of 2;

5% of project recipients provided a rating of 3;

42% of project recipients provided a rating of 4;

50% of project recipients provided a rating of 5;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 4)

Figure 5: To what extent have WD's activities in Trade and Investment been effective in generating this outcome?

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all, 3 is somewhat effective and 5 is very effective, respondents indicated their perception of outcomes in Trade and Investment.

For Encouraging or attracting investment:

15 WD Representatives provided a rating of 3.1;

10 Other Government representatives provided a rating of 3.2;

For increasing revenues:

13 WD Representatives provided a rating of 3.3;
7 Other Government representatives provided a rating of 3.1;

For increasing the ability of participating organizations to develop or expand into new export markets:

14 WD Representatives provided a rating of 3.4;
12 Other Government representatives provided a rating of 3.1;

For increasing export sales:

15 WD Representatives provided a rating of 3.4;
9 Other Government representatives provided a rating of 3.1;

For increasing awareness of trade opportunities or potential sources of investment:

14 WD Representatives provided a rating of 3.5;
10 Other Government representatives provided a rating of 3.4;

For developing new partnerships or networks:

17 WD Representatives provided a rating of 3.9;
11 Other Government representatives provided a rating of 3.7;

For increasing awareness of Western Canada in priority markets:

17 WD Representatives provided a rating of 3.6;
11 Provincial Representatives provided a rating of 4.2;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 5)

Figure 6: Did this project directly lead to other projects, investments or developments by your organization or other organization involved in this project?

70% responded yes to the question;

13% responded no;

10% responded no, but will;

7% responded not sure/don’t know;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 6)

Figure 7: Has the project had an impact on these outcomes?

For encouraging or attracting investment

71% of beneficiaries responded yes;
14% of beneficiaries responded no
14% of beneficiaries responded don’t know

For increasing revenues

79% of beneficiaries responded yes;
17% of beneficiaries responded no;
4% of beneficiaries responded don’t know;

For increasing export sales

81% of beneficiaries responded yes;
14% of beneficiaries responded no;
5% of beneficiaries responded don’t know;

For increasing the awareness of Western Canada in priority markets

83% of beneficiaries responded yes;
13% of beneficiaries responded no;
4% of beneficiaries responded don’t know;

For increasing your awareness of trade opportunities or potential sources of investment

84% of beneficiaries responded yes;
16% of beneficiaries responded no;
0% of beneficiaries responded don’t know;

For developing new partnerships or networks

88% of beneficiaries responded yes;
4% of beneficiaries responded no;
8% of beneficiaries responded don’t know;

For increasing the ability of your organization to develop or expand into new export markets

91% of beneficiaries responded yes;
9% of beneficiaries responded no;
0% of beneficiaries responded don’t know;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 7)

Figure 8: How satisfied are you with respect to the approval processes and the level and type of support and services provided to clients by WD?

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all satisfied, 3 is somewhat satisfied and 5 is very satisfied, respondents indicated their perception their satisfaction level

Proponents of projects that were not approved provided a rating of 2.1;

Project recipients provided a rating of 3.6

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 8)