This state is continuing a trend to cut back its support to the rural research, and this article demonstrates a trend that has been happening in all states DPI's and also the national scientific research organisiation for over 10 years now. There are rumours in aggy research circles that the state DPI will no longer perform the multiple roles of research, extension, and regulation within 5-10 years, and will only perform the role of a regulatory body (quarantine, chemical regulation etc). That will leave applied agricultural research largely in the hands of private industry (chemical co's and agribusiness consultants). Not quite the same thing as having an independent body carry out objective research with the best interests of society at heart.
So why should we care about this? Farmers are less than 1% of the population and put chemicals on our food and cause salinity through land clearing, right?
Farmers are a diverse mix of people – many are University educated, some are third generation on the land, some “seachangers” who have moved from the city in the hope of a different life, some are immigrants who started off as a farm hand and gradually started farming their own land. One thing that can be said of living in the country – you are generally isolated. Before farmers take up new ways of doing things, they need to first and foremost, have respect and trust for the person who is teaching or demonstrating it to them – ie ideally you need someone who has an objective & holistic approach and preferably has long-term research to back up what they are saying. And someone who is based not too far from you (face to face contact is important). Regulation and the uptake of new practices need to be backed up by objective research that is for the benefit of all, and that we can all see happening with our own eyes, not just read about in an article somewhere.
Can private industry provide this? Definitely not. Can industry levies fully fund this? Not enough $ to support the infrastructure (facilities etc) required, and many would argue that as the end benefits of agriculture are eaten by everyone, every day, so it shouldn’t only be farmers who pay.
Can Universities provide objective, long term research and extension to growers? Yes and no. They can be objective, but Unis are not necessarily stable as many research staff go wherever their funding contracts will take them. This means that in a short time, an exodus of staff to other research institutions can alter the skill base in a University Faculty significantly. In addition, Unis have to juggle research with their primary focus of teaching, are often based in the city, and aren’t traditionally good at research extension – this is a role that govt-funded organisations have traditionally filled. And let’s face it, practical research extension is learned on the job, and if we are lucky, experienced researchers who haven’t been tempted to take a package by now might be able to mentor younger researchers.
So what can be done? It is obvious that political parties don’t know how to market agricultural research to the masses, or to argue its benefits over issues that the city-centric 80% of voters think are important. They don’t know how to say to people that it is integral to their lives, and that farmers need to be helped to farm sustainably so that the land can be there for generations to come. Importing our food from other countries is not a sustainable option either. The views of political bodies (including farmers groups and political parties) only get reported when they are extreme or controversial. Somewhere in the middle is the balanced view of what is really happening – a whole range of things.
The funds available for agricultural research are increasingly available only as competitive grants. So initially, say we had 2 state DPI’s competing for the same field of research in 2 different geographic regions (say temperate and sub-tropical). With a limited pool of funding, the options are: fund both inadequately to do the project, or fund one organisation (that is not set up to be able to carry out research for the benefits of those outside its own region) fully. Gradually, our state DPI’s and SIRO are differentiating their skills so that they don’t compete with each other for funding. Result? Patchy skills bases around the country, no sharing of research because we are all competitors and govt departments move towards research areas that they think will look exciting to voters because that is where the money is. Where does that leave the back up for other govt functions such as quarantine, plant and animal health, food safety...?
I understand that all govt departments – state or national – need to justify themselves, re-evaluate themselves, and restructure from time to time to account for changes in society. But cut backs and the loss of older, more experienced researchers is slowly crippling the research community (or is it just that I'm realising how inept we all are?). The loss of positions without replacement is decreasing the critical mass of researchers in some areas – how can environmental scientists and agricultural scientists bounce ideas off each other if they aren’t co-located, yet supported by other scientists of the same discipline at the same time? In addition, the loss of research stations in the heart of where the end users of the research are based is decreasing the level of 2-way interaction between industry and research that is necessary. Let's face it - how often would farmers and scientists get together and chat unless they ran into each other on the street from time to time?
I'm wondering how much longer the cutting back can go on?
No comments:
Post a Comment