Reform in haste, repent at leisure
OPINION: I have been writing about the demise of NZ agriculture research and extension for many years.
At least, that is the view of Sir Peter Gluckman, the former Science Advisor to the Prime Minister. In a speech, reported by Greg Hurrell from BusinessDesk, Sir Peter told the recent Life Sciences Summit that the current system was “inefficient and unattractive” and “New Zealand is beset with a grossly over-competitive and sub-optimally collaborative science system”. He added that, “The funding of long-term and large-scale projects had declined in favour of small, disconnected grants”.
Sir Peter was reacting to a recent report (2022) by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) setting out a new pathway for science in NZ. In his view, this recent attempt to reform the science sector was “a missed opportunity that has failed to grapple with the core problems of a grossly over-competitive system”.
Having written previously (2004) about New Zealand’s deformed science model, I agree enthusiastically with Sir Peter. But I suspect the problem is far deeper and perilous than suggested. The problem is particularly acute for agricultural research, which is already on its knees. The “death rattle” is “rattling”.
In its recent 2022 review, MBIE suggest or otherwise imply that we overspend on agricultural research. Try this:
“New Zealand spends a higher proportion of government expenditure on agricultural science and environmental science than any other country in the OECD, while significantly under-spending in health, social research, industrial production and technology, and energy. Increased investment in these areas is required to rebalance the overall portfolio”.
Given that NZ, unlike most other OECD countries, is largely dependent on agriculture for its “daily bread”, in my view it is entirely appropriate that research expenditure on agriculture is dominant relative to other sectors such as health, social and industrial research. I fear that this is a portend of MBIE’s intention to cut agriculture out of the public R & D pot altogether; I have heard of such rumblings.
Agricultural research will then be dependent on the small, over-subscribed short-term funding opportunities offered via Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) Sustainable Farming Fund (SFF) in collaboration with related industries.
However, it appears that this fund has been captured by political interests rather than focused on hard core research. I am alluding to their recent allocation of the best part of $76m on “research” on regenerative agriculture (RA).
Once again, Sir Peter has it is right when he suggests that the proposed reforms are focused on a “plethora of operational issues rather than looking strategically at the system as a whole.”
The reforms of the science sector began in 1992 with the introduction of the competitive, contestable, commercial CRI model, which was driven by the political dogma of the day. Various attempts have been made over the years to force this model to fit the needs of science and the role of science in society. One such attempt was made in 2006 and I offered my opinion accordingly. My conclusion then is still relevant today:
“There is evidence both empirical and theoretical showing that the science system is malfunctioning. It is predictable that the current problems will not be resolved by further tinkering with the current system. A new science management model is required, built on evidence- based and objective analysis of the needs of science in a modern society (for further reading go to dougedmeades.com/ publications).”
I wait and hope.
Doug Edmeades is managing director of agKnowledge Ltd, which offers independent scientific advice to farmers.
