Opinion
By Elisabeta Lika and Tyler McCann
In a week when the Prime Minister said that a country that cannot feed itself has few options, it was tough to see Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) cut staff, close research centres, and shrink R&D spending.
Public R&D is often the unsung hero of the adaptation and innovation that keeps Canada feeding itself and the world. It is also critical to help farmers produce more with less. Now the question is whether the government can work with the sector to make changes so that the R&D system can produce more with less, too.
While the November budget unveiled the value of the cuts, the apparent depth of the cuts to research caught many off guard. The cuts to people, labs and decades-long collaborations will be felt across the sector. The grief, anger, and anxiety are understandable. However, that energy needs to quickly turn to a focus on the future and mitigating the impact on agricultural R&D in Canada.
The reality is that the R&D and innovation system, and AAFC’s R&D activities, have been under pressure for years. For many, the system has become increasingly disconnected from the sector's success. AAFC has been able to shrink its investment over decades with little pushback or concern. The department faced a choice: spread scarce dollars thinly or consolidate and renew.
It appears the department has chosen the second option. At least they have chosen to consolidate, hopefully they also choose to renew. Cuts and job losses are always painful, but what the department does next will determine how much of that pain is felt outside the department.
The closures highlight the fragility of Canadian agricultural research. The system depends heavily on government as a funder and performer of R&D. As the private sector pulled back, public funding remained flat or declined. Tight budgets have meant no resilience and an inevitable push towards contraction. Consolidating research centres does not solve the problem of fragility; it simply brings it into clearer focus.
Those in the agricultural innovation system are keenly aware of the pressures it faces. They know that it cannot deliver the outcomes the sector needs without reform. They want to eliminate duplication, break down silos and barriers to cooperation and to drive more focus on outcomes. Many have been waiting for the government to talk change, too.
AAFC’s decision to shrink its research investment is, at least in part, a signal of the government’s willingness to change. The November Budget committed “to reduce certain science activities where a more streamlined approach can be taken, or where capacity exists elsewhere.” The Deputy Minister’s letter framed the changes as part of the need to keep spending sustainable and to align activities with AAFC’s core mandate.
It is too early to tell if it is the change the system needs; there are too many unanswered questions. What is AAFC’s role in the future, how does it want to fund and perform research, how will it partner with others in the system? What is the future of the research that will no longer be done at AAFC?
These are not questions that AAFC should answer alone. AAFC developed its strategic plan for science largely in isolation. It made decisions about what to cut on its own. It should make decisions about its future with others.
That future needs three things.
The first is the need for more transparency and accountability. What drove the recent decisions, and what is the department’s plan for its future? Are the cuts part of a broader change in the role AAFC plays, or simply a way to manage short-term financial pressures? What else is AAFC willing to change?
The second is the need to embrace partnership. Too many researchers outside the department have stories about how hard it is to work with AAFC. Too many are unsure of how AAFC sets priorities. Partnerships are a two-way street, though, and the sector has not always been good at articulating its plans and priorities. All of that needs to change. Things need to change so that everyone can work together towards more impactful outcomes.
Finally, there is a need to focus on the future. Asking to reverse cuts is neither constructive nor the ideal outcome. Efforts need to be made to better focus and leverage AAFC’s remaining research investment, and the changes needed to build the 21st-century agriculture innovation system that Canadian agriculture and food need. Making innovation a real priority for the next policy framework would be a good step forward.
AAFC’s cuts were a shock, and they will have real impacts on people and the sector. The impact will be worse if this is not a starting point for more meaningful change. AAFC needs to renew its approach to science. It needed to consolidate its footprint. It is unfortunate that public investments have been cut, but governments, like farmers, can do more with less. But AAFC should not be making these changes in isolation. AAFC is a leader and a partner; the future of Canada’s ag R&D needs it to embrace its role as one.
— Elisabeta Lika is a Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI) research associate and Tyler McCann is managing director of CAPI
