Feds take initial steps to reverse chronic under investment in agri-food R&D

By Debbie Lawes

Is agriculture back on the federal government's science and technology radar? That's the hope of producers and academics who say they are guardedly optimistic over recent developments that indicate a renewed interest by Ottawa to invest more in agriculture and agri-food research.

Investing in agricultural R&D would seem like a no brainer. The sector accounts for about 8% of GDP and rivals the auto industry as one of the country's main economic drivers. Studies, including a 2007 one by the Canadian Agriculture Innovation Research Network, show that public investments in agricultural and food research generate a 30-50% return on investment.

Yet, in presentations to a Senate committee currently reviewing research and innovation in the agricultural sector, several industry groups expressed continued frustration that agriculture is not among the priorities identified in Canada's 2007 S&T Strategy. They note that public investments in agricultural research have declined year over year, resulting in fewer programs and scientists. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada will see its budget drop 10% over the next three years. The department has already lost 50% of its scientists over the past 20 years.

For comparison, Australia invested $1.61 billion in public agri-food research in 2010. In Canada, the federal and provincial governments spent $543 million combined.

Concerns over these chronic under investments were raised at the Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) in Calgary earlier this month. Rory McAlpine, VP government and industry relations at Maple Leaf Foods, lamented the loss of the Advanced Food and Materials Network of Centre of Excellence which was not renewed last year, as well as cuts to the SR&ED tax credit which he says will significantly increase the cost of R&D for Canadian food producers.

Dr Douglas Hedley, executive director, Canadian Faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, went even further, telling delegates that when it comes to Canada's research and innovation priorities, agriculture is a "four-letter word". As a result, he says scientists avoid using the word "agriculture" in grant applications to the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council. It's also influencing academic priorities.

"If public funding for agriculture research isn't there, that effects staffing choices at universities," he told RE$EARCH MONEY following his presentation. "When an agricultural entomologist retires, for example, they may decide to replace that person with an applied biologist. You end up moving people away from your basic innovation engine in your agriculture faculties."

No doubt, the industry is facing some daunting challenges: a shortage of new arable land, slowing increases in crop yields, climate change, growing public demand for environmentally sustainable farming practices, and a world population forecast to grow by 2.3 billion people by 2050.

What's needed, say producers and academics, is a three-way partnership between public institutions, private industry and producer funding agencies to leverage scarce dollars and better focus the research to deal with these challenges.

Feds release Growing Forward 2

Ottawa made an important step in this direction in September with the release of its Growing Forward 2 policy framework, which shifts some funding for farm income supports to new investments in research. The five-year agreement comes into effect next April when the initial Growing Forward initiative expires, and includes federal and provincial investments of more than $3 billion for innovation, competitiveness and market development, including a 50% increase in cost-shared initiatives. It's not clear at this point how much of that money will go towards R&D.

McAlpine says the new framework suggests "a fresh new commitment" to reverse declining R&D investments, but cautioned, "we've got a long way to go."

The government also created a national advisory body to advise on federal investment in agricultural R&D, including ways to facilitate greater government-industry-academia collaboration. Co-chaired by Travis Toews, past president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and Suzanne Vinet, federal DM agriculture, the 12-member Agri-Innovators' Committee includes representatives from industry producers, suppliers and government.

Dr Richard Gray, an agriculture policy expert at the Univ of Saskatchewan, told CSPC delegates that Canada needs a "grand plan" that creates a balanced and longer term commitment to public-private partnerships. Appearing before the Senate agricultural committee October 18, he called on the federal government to:

1. Create a 1% levy on all crop sales, ensuring more stable and longer term funding for private and public research;

2. Create a non-refundable, industry-controlled corporation (similar to what was done in Australia) that takes the check-off payments currently paid by grain producers and uses this money for industry-driven research, ideally with matching federal and provincial funding; and,

3. Support basic research, including an incentive for researchers to include pre-breeding and applied research within their portfolios.

As well, Gray said Canada's needs stronger intellectual property rights for non-genetically-modified crops and open-pollinated crops. This would enable plant breeders to collect royalties, which would create a monetary incentive to conduct research into economically important crops like wheat. Canadian public, private and producer sources currently invest about $20 million annually in wheat breeding, compared to $65 million for canola. Australia spends about $80 million annually on wheat research.

Gray said such changes would not only increase overall funding for agricultural research, it would also help build capacity within the private sector to invest in research and implement its results.

"The research councils want us to move into crop research, but there are no receptors," Gray told CSPC delegates. "Private companies are involved in a number of the smaller horticultural crops but we don't have a huge private- or producer-funded intake for the public research on a lot of crops. That's a real issue."

R$