When grassroots research leaves those roots behind

AgResearch’s attempts to slash staff in the deep south has led to a vote of no confidence in the board and executive by some farmers.

AgResearch, the government-owned Crown Research Institute (CRI) for scientific research and development in the pastoral sector, last year announced its $100 million plan to shift staff from its Invermay centre near Dunedin to its Lincoln university campus near Christchurch.

The move is part of AgResearch’s Future Footprint proposal, which will entail the relocation of about 280 roles over the next three to four years.

Unlike a similar move to relocate AgResearch staff from its Hamilton to Palmerston North campuses to create similar “innovation hubs,” the relocation has not gone down well with affected farmers.

Following a meeting with AgResearch in Gore on March 12, the Southern Texel [sheep] Breeders Association motioned a vote of “no confidence” in the board and executive of AgResearch.

“The vote of no confidence was brought about by their conduct, their lack of consultation and lack of consideration of counter presentations, including those at the Gore meeting,” says Southern Texel Breeders Association chairman Hugh Gardyne.

Mr Gardyne says that if the government’s objective to double agricultural production by 2025 is to be realised, it is imperative to drive the increase through applied ‘fit for purpose’ science and research.

The association – which claims it has support from Otago and Southland regional councils, as well as other sheep breeding groups and the Deer Farmers Association – says AgResearch’s Lincoln centre should become the hub for arable, horticulture, dairy and irrigation research, while Invermay should be the hub for sheep, beef and deer research.

“The potential loss of scientists and support staff seems to be currently underestimated, but will likely be significant, with quantifiable lag-time getting back up to speed in the knowledge pool,” says Mr Gardyne, a former provincial president of Southland Federated Farmers.

Since the staff relocations were announced 12 months ago, AgResearch have been regularly accused on doing little to consult with its farmer stakeholders.

The New Zealand pastoral sector generates export revenues in excess of $18 billion per year. While research and development is key to its expansion, AgResearch’s plan to “reinvest” $100 million to “create modern facilities that are functional, adaptable and fit for modern science,” has left many stakeholders questioning the judiciousness of the plan.

Former AgResearch scientist George Davis is one such critic of the relocations. On the ‘Save Invermay’ website, he has set out several reasons as to why the Invermay campus should be expanded – not downgraded.

“Invermay campus does not require modernisation – new buildings costing $17 million were opened only five years ago and have never been fully occupied. It is an outrage to spend $100 million replicating facilities elsewhere,” Mr Davis says.

“There is ample scope for future growth at Invermay with currently less than half the available office space occupied by AgResearch staff.”

Mr Davis also says the relocation will cause a large number of skilled staff to be lost if asked to transfer to Lincoln University.

“When AgResearch’s Wallaceville campus [in Upper Hutt] closed in 2008, less than one-third of the staff who were requested to move to Invermay accepted the offer. Half of those who did transfer were made redundant in 2013.

“Invermay, with its large flocks of sheep and herds of deer, has a highly regarded international reputation and leading scientists have had many productive international collaborations.

“Many scientists have been attracted from overseas because of the large animal resource and excellent facilities available.”

Mr Davis cites the long history of collaboration between Invermay and Otago University as another reason against the relocation of staff.

He also says that if the proposed staff transfer is proceeded with, the complete closure of the centre will almost certainly soon follow. This, he says, is because with only 30 staff proposed for Invermay, there will be a strong case for closure due to the high overhead cost in accommodating a small group on a large campus.

However, following the meeting in Gore, AgResearch said its Future Footprint proposals – on which the relocations are centred – will position the organisation for the long term to deliver better science, more effectively, to farmers, the pastoral sector and the New Zealand economy.

“Regarding our campus reinvestment plans, we understand the concerns of Southland and Otago farmers, and it was an opportunity to reinforce the fact we are not closing Invermay – in fact we’d like to increase the numbers of staff there who are dealing with on farm and regional environment issues,” AgResearch Chief Executive Dr Tom Richardson said in a statement.

“Future Footprint will see us maximising the use of our facilities and specialist infrastructure to achieve better returns for AgResearch, our clients and the pastoral sector.”

Yet, according to Hugh Gardyne, AgResearch’s Future Footprint proposal outlines the “Kotters 8 Steps Process of Leading Change,” and also “the William Bridges transition Model” that is adapted for the AgResearch context.

“The change management report specifically recommends to AgResearch that the Animal Genetics and Genomnz teams are co-located at Invermay.

 “AgResearch’s adherence to the processes and model for change, without acknowledging its social responsibility to staff, is a great concern, and contradicts its own Statement of Corporate Intent,” Mr Gardyne says.    

The Future Footprints Proposal by AgResearch has also been the subject of columns in the National Business Review by Waikato University Agribusiness Professor Jacqueline Rowarth.

“The vote of no confidence in AgResearch Future Footprint plan by New Zealand farmers shows the difficulty of getting a message through to the decision-makers,” Prof Rowarth says.

“The famers are right to be trying to raise the profile of the AgResearch mov, and could be activating their levy bodies [ Beef & Lamb and Deer Industry New Zealand] to be more vocal.

“The levy bodies could then explain to ministers how bad the proposed move is for the whole country; not just individual sites, cities or groups of farmers but for New Zealand Inc.  

Prof Rowarth says the negatives of Invermay’s staff relocation will be in recruitment to science, innovation in agriculture and adaptation in the regions.

“The Footprint Plan is based on achieving long-term gain, but there are no guarantees – and the short-term pain is extremely damaging and hugely time-consuming.”