Effective research at risk from cuts

Press, 22 July 1988, Page 14

Effective research at risk from cuts

Dairy research was in danger of becoming ineffective and- insulated from farmers, according to the manager of the animal research groups at the Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Mr Ken Jury. He told the Large Herds Conference at Methven that the Government’s user pays policies could see research resources working on a majority of projects hand in hand with commercial interests or targeted towards commercial gain.

A solution to the problem of funding applied research had to be found if key research units were to survive effectively. “How can I be expected to retain the best staff if they see their time frittered away on product testing and other commercial work that is of no challenge to them as scientists, and particularly if their well established relationships , with the dairy industry are compromised,” he said. A research partnership needed to be established between the dairy industry and researchers if information relevant to farmers was still to be passed on. Before 1985, research was fully funded by the Government. In the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the main criteria for deciding which research was given priority for funding was based on the programmes’ ability to influence export income.

In 1986, the Government began progressive cuts staged over five years in its support for agricultural research. Mr Jury said his groups’ funding in 1990 was likely to be 60 per cent of the 1985 level. The user pays system was started when the funding cuts began. Charging at first posed some difficulties for scientists and clients. The free flow of information

and support from science to the industry and its servicing groups was a tradition that was hard to break, said Mr Jury. Although user pays charging had had some positive impact on research, scientists now had to devote a disproportionate amount of their time to seeking external funds. This had a major effect on their effectiveness as researchers. Government funds this year would only pay for overheads such as salaries, rates, and power. Money to run research farms, week-end overtime for milking cows, and “a hundred and one other things” would have to come from other sources.

“With a further 15 per cent cut in funding over the next two years, you can see that we have some problems.”

Researchers, however, could not expect to escape from Government cost cutting and would also have to feel the pain of the restructuring of the agricultural sector, he said.

A major part of MAFTech researcher’s strategy had been to identify and exploit opportunities for contract, research but there was no long-term certainty in support from this source. MAFTech had therefore promoted continuing relationships with commercial firms, particularly multinationals.

Because priority had to be given to the commercial work which produced dollars, research into bloat and dairy grass species comparisons would be cut next season. "Increasingly, our longer term planning for use of our resources commits them to work from which there will be no direct information flow to you as farmers. “Research that we invest in is now chosen because of its longer-term potential commercial re-

turn. Since that is unlikely to come directly from you as individual farmers, it means that another part of our research programme, like the commercial work, is producing information and technology that we have to protect.

“The free flow between research, adviser and farmer is being strangled,” he said. The option of not doing any research at all would be examined each season. About 70 staff in MAFTech North were recently selected to leave, either through retirement or by severance. There had been an almost 30 per cent reduction in staff in animal research at Ruakura in the last five years. Part of the Government’s policy on expenditure had been to “cut out the fact” but staff cuts at Ruakura had also “weakened the muscles and sinews.”

"Our research capacity, so dependant on staffing, on top quality motivated people has been severely dented.”

The former co-opera-tion between Ruakura and the Dairy Board’s Liverstock Improvement Division has had the barrier of user pays placed firmly in its path.

“The commitment of Ruakura staff to your industry has meant there has only been a gradual closing of the door to cooperation. In fact, we have probably been too slow to react to user pays. The door will, in future, be firmly closed as we have to protect our commercial interests,” Mr Jury said. Applied research was consequently at risk.

“The Government expects the agricultural and horticultural industry to fund, at least partly, research which relates directly to farmers. Unfortunately it hasn’t negotiated that.”