WORDS & IMAGES BY RICHARD RENNIE
Almost since the first settlers commenced pastoral farming in New Zealand, the science of farming and agriculture has grown around and alongside them.
Canterbury, as one of the first regions to be established and grow firmly on the sheep’s back, also welcomed the foundation of the School of Agriculture of Canterbury University College, back in 1880. This makes today’s Lincoln University the oldest agricultural teaching institute in the Southern Hemisphere.
Those first 56 students were the pioneers who built the reputation that followed for innovative, dynamic, and effective research that has helped turn the country into a successful growing nation, despite being thousands of miles from many of its customers.
They were innovations that kicked off with frozen meat shipments and span electric fences, rotary cowsheds, ryegrass hybrids and dual-purpose sheep. All have equipped the sector to leverage off New Zealand’s natural advantages of a maritime climate and multiple fertile soil types.
But today concern is rising within New Zealand’s agricultural and horticultural sector that this culture of innovative research and groundbreaking technology may be losing its momentum.
Loss of Challenge funding
Constant funding declines and uncertainty over Aotearoa’s future science direction is leaving scientists looking sideways at overseas options, or simply opting out and taking early retirement, along with their knowledge and wisdom.
This was brought into stark reality in the depths of this winter, with June 30 marking the official end of the funding period for the country’s 11 National Science Challenge funding pools.
Covering a wide variety of research areas such as better aging, high value nutrition and Our Land and Water, the challenges represented about $60 million a year of funding that came to an end, and with it the work streams and expertise these challenges had built up.
Funding from here on in remains uncertain while an enquiry into the future of New Zealand’s science funding continues under the leadership of Sir Peter Gluckman.
Meantime scientists in units directly related to improving agricultural value and output, including the high value nutrition challenge, have opted to continue on despite no certainty of funding between now and whatever recommendations Sir Peter’s group make on future funding.
High value nutrition director Joanne Todd said there was a real risk her unit would lose talented staff, and the decision by them to stay in the meantime highlighted their commitment to their research.
The unit, which received $80 million over its 10 years of funding, has been responsible for high-profile value-added success stories over its lifetime. That includes identifying the sleep-promoting properties of Zespri kiwifruit and proving the high nutrient profile of Torere Macadamia nuts from Gisborne.
She has called for interim funding for her and other challenge units to at least enable them to continue operations until new funding directions come from Sir Peter’s review.
This review has also been met with some caution by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton.
In his submission to the science advisory group, he acknowledged the need for change in funding processes, but he also cautioned against “reinventing the wheel” and focusing too much on bureaucratic reform as the review’s starting point.
Death by 1,000 cuts
Lincoln University professor of agricultural science Jon Hickford is concerned the review may only end up making changes around the edges, and risk not grasping the full implications of cuts already suffered by the sector over the years.
It also comes after a Budget that failed to deliver on any level for science, in fact slicing off $500 million from capital costs in science, innovation and tech portfolios over the coming five years.
This included a loss of $4.5 million a year from MPI’s sustainable land management and climate change research, just as the impact of climate change on farming is intensifying.
It came after earlier public sector cuts in April. But then Professor Hickford highlighted cuts the agri-science sector had already suffered, whilst many parts of the public sector had been busy growing their staff numbers.
AgResearch’s full time staff dropped from 722 to 666 between 2019 and 2023, while the axe also fell across NIWA science staff, and the Callaghan Innovation centre looked at a strategic reset with prospects 30 staff members could also go from there.
“The real concern with the latest science challenge funding ceasing, is where this leaves New Zealand internationally when it comes to its level of research and development funding,” he says.
New Zealand’s position on this is already perilously low on the OECD ladder, with 1.47% of GDP spent on R and D in 2022. That compares to 1.67% for Australia, and well below the OECD average of 2.73%. South Korea and Israel top the expenditure list at about 5% of GDP each. South Korea’s investment has been rising steadily throughout the 2000s, sitting over double what it was 20 years ago.
He pointed to the loss of the $90 million National Challenge funding pulling New Zealand down further, to about 1.37% of GDP.
Professor Hickford highlights a Treasury report done back in 2002 that valued the return on investment into agriculture over the years from 1927 to 2001 when the sector enjoyed a 1.8% increase per year in productivity. Estimates were the return on investment in domestic R and D was a massive 17% a year.
million from capital costs in science, innovation and tech portfolios over the coming five years.
This included a loss of $4.5 million a year from MPI’s sustainable land management and climate change research, just as the impact of climate change on farming is intensifying.
It came after earlier public sector cuts in April. But then Professor Hickford highlighted cuts the agri-science sector had already suffered, whilst many parts of the public sector had been busy growing their staff numbers.
AgResearch’s full time staff dropped from 722 to 666 between 2019 and 2023, while the axe also fell across NIWA science staff, and the Callaghan Innovation centre looked at a strategic reset with prospects 30 staff members could also go from there.
“The real concern with the latest science challenge funding ceasing, is where this leaves New Zealand internationally when it comes to its level of research and development funding,” he says.
New Zealand’s position on this is already perilously low on the OECD ladder, with 1.47% of GDP spent on R and D in 2022. That compares to 1.67% for Australia, and well below the OECD average of 2.73%. South Korea and Israel top the expenditure list at about 5% of GDP each. South Korea’s investment has been rising steadily throughout the 2000s, sitting over double what it was 20 years ago.
He pointed to the loss of the $90 million National Challenge funding pulling New Zealand down further, to about 1.37% of GDP.
Professor Hickford highlights a Treasury report done back in 2002 that valued the return on investment into agriculture over the years from 1927 to 2001 when the sector enjoyed a 1.8% increase per year in productivity. Estimates were the return on investment in domestic R and D was a massive 17% a year.
“Farmers and growers have proven they are good at adopting new processes to maintain productivity over the years, in a sector that has persistently outdone the rest of the economy.
“But my concern is a decline in research means growth will plateau. It comes at a time too when we are seeing a generation of skilled researchers retiring and a skills vacuum is emerging.”
He says universities are struggling to recruit domestic PhD students equipped with a stock standard B Ag Science degree. Given New Zealand’s pastoral farming systems are something shared with few other countries he says it can take years for overseas students to come to grips with the unique research challenges these systems present.
Call to save scientists
In July the NZ Herald underscored the cuts to date, with an article on a report that catalogued the losses as amounting to over 350 jobs across the small science sector.
Conducted by the Save Science Coalition the report also maintained that loss could go higher still. It has added to calls for government to re-commit to its undertaking to lift R&D investment to 2% of GDP, and urgently introduce funding to fill the gap left between now and a new funding pathway’s establishment.
New Zealand’s scientific community is nervously awaiting some short and medium-term direction from the government.
Dr Troy Baisden, co-president of the NZ Association of Scientists says he is not hopeful about replacement funding coming for the likes of Our Land and Water Challenge, one closely related to agricultural research outcomes.
“The pressure is on Sir Peter Gluckman leading two advisory groups which must make a case for the reforms to help us rebuild the mojo that drives investment and success across the science system and universities.
“The groups will need to provide vision and hope for science and tech to address our biggest challenges with effective strategies in areas such as primary industries and coping with climate change and hazards.
“Peer nations are investing more and more, and we should as well."
Back to Real Farmer