RECENT INITIATIVES IN PRIMARY PRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

Over the last ten days there have been a number of significant events that will, I believe, have a significant impact on New Zealand Science and in particular, on the membership of your Society. These have been the launch of the Foundation for Sheep Production Research, the launch of the RS&T 2010 Strategy and the growing evidence of alignment of science organisations to address issues of sustainability and environment.(1) SHEEP RESEARCH FOUNDATION
The initiative taken by the sheep industry to establish a Sheep Research Foundation will be pivotal to the industry's survival - and the research base that supports it. At one minute to midnight this industry has convinced those charged with overseeing science priority-setting that there is a case for continued sheep production research.

Less than a year ago, the future looked bleak for the industry and AgResearch was faced over the next five years with a massive down-sizing in its sheep industry research. It would have meant the closure of Invermay and, much more seriously, the disbanding of a unique skill base that never would never have been able to be reassembled.

The sheep industry has done much more than simply put up $5 million over the next two years. It has shown a commitment in its thinking that has gone back to first principles. It has asked what research is needed and defined the role of industry in providing it. In doing so an advisory board has been established to take over the direction of sheep-related research.

I am relieved that the industry has now taken the wheel because sheep production is a pointless investment for the Government unless those who benefit from the research drive it.

Finally the whole process has made the outlook for sheep research unique. The industry strategy is closely aligned to public policy and this has resulted in exceptional clarity of purpose. With such industry commitment and contribution, formerly difficult issues such as the development of FRST research strategies will hereafter be predictable, simplified and comprehensible.

(2) RS&T 2010
Last week also saw the launch of the RS&T 2010 Strategy. This represents the most significant, long-term commitment ever made by a New Zealand government to research, science and technology. It comes after nearly a decade of reform in the New Zealand science system. It has only been made possible by strong economic growth and sends a very important signal about the Government's priorities as we head into the 21st century. Most significantly the Government has made a commitment to increase public investment in science to 0.8% of GDP by 2010. Indeed, based on current projections Government investment in science is planned to grow by $800 million over the next 14 years.

In very simple terms this strategy is about a major public investment in the knowledge base of the economy - not just for the economic benefits that will accrue but for the wider social and environmental benefits as well. It is notable that no other developed country is currently in a position to make the long-term commitments we are undertaking. Most OECD countries are in deficit and are slashing their research budgets. Shrinking overseas science means there will be a lot of first-class scientists interested in coming here at the very time that we are expanding our science base. It's likely to include New Zealanders who left during the bad times. We've tended to export a lot of very bright people. There's a real chance that the flow will be the other way for once.

The Strategy indicates to all that science is a long-term business - it can't be run on a stop-start basis. I think this strategy gives New Zealand research - and the wider community that benefits from it - its best chance in years.

(3) THE STATE OF NEW ZEALAND'S ENVIRONMENT
Environmentally New Zealand is relatively untrammelled; however on a per capita basis there is no doubt that New Zealanders have despoiled this country to an extent equal to anywhere else.

New Zealand has somewhat belatedly recognised the extent to which land, air and water use in New Zealand over the past 150 years has led to severe environmental degradation.

Despite the recent best efforts of many responsible land owners and users of these resources, we still have a legacy of significant and sometimes severe environmental problems. This sad list includes soil erosion and compaction; topsoil removal; sedimentation of streams; loss of wetlands, wildlife habitats and species; and pollution of surface and ground water.

Currently we are also grappling with serious weed pest and disease issues and, given the increased volume in trade and tourism, we remain constantly threatened by the prospect of further inadvertent introductions.

These environmental problems will be exacerbated through further intensification of land and water use due to increasing competition for available natural resources.

Closely linked to these environmental considerations, and of significance to your Society, there are significant production and trade issues:

In spite of environmental difficulties New Zealand's economy remains massively dependent on its strong agricultural base. More than two-thirds of its land area is used for agriculture or forestry. This accounts for 69% of total exports, worth over $13 billion a year. Ensuring that the land is managed sustainably is therefore important to all New Zealanders.

New Zealand has been a strong supporter of liberalisation of international trade through successive GATT rounds. That is why our support for free trade must always be tempered with a commitment to ensuring that all countries, including New Zealand, retain the right to ensure the level of environmental protection, both locally and globally, that their citizens demand.

New Zealand makes strong statements about its environmental status. Our reputation for "quality products from a quality environment" depends on environmentally sustainable land use practices. Sound land management is, increasingly, recognised as offering a competitive advantage in such things as eco-labelling. This is a particularly important conclusion where we have to compete internationally with other producers of similar products.

Measurable quality to meet market-driven environmental specifications is the name of the game. We are not far away from individual farmers being direct suppliers to firms like Marks and Spencer (via their processing) and embracing their quality management system as a condition of supply.

While GATT has many advantages, New Zealand must maintain access to international markets for its goods. We are acutely aware that trade barriers that can be erected against our exports, may be justified on entirely spurious grounds; environmental degradation is likely to be a reason for refusing to accept our products. We have to be in a position to be able to fend these challenges off.

Similarly, visitors to New Zealand will not be favourably influenced by the rather degraded physical appearance of parts of this country. It is important that agricultural areas conform to the image that New Zealand projects to its trading partners.

As a consequence, the Government has promoted a number of measures that reflect its desire to see further investment in the environment/sustainability. These include:

-the Resource Management Act 1991
-the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
-the Environment 2010 Strategy.
-the $110 million Green Package,
-the Sustainable Land Management Strategy,

Linked to this it is planned over the next few years to increase the PGSF funding for the environment by $15 million. Also linked to these initiatives is a battery of international agreements agreed to by New Zealand.

(4) ALIGNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND'S SCIENCE CAPABILITY TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
It is against this background of international signals and New Zealand Government initiatives that I am pleased to note that science is reorganising its capabilities towards environmental and sustainability research. Such a development allows better alignment of the impressive skill bases across the CRIs and Universities and in doing so maximise the value of this country's expenditure on environmental research.

Within the agricultural context at least, I have been told that the relatively simple ecosystems that characterise New Zealand agriculture have allowed its scientists to quantify, predict and manage ecological processes. Recruitment of such understanding beyond agriculture should facilitate the development of environmental solutions across the range of ecosystems found in New Zealand - both modified and indigenous. In this way we should be able to conserve the nation's ecological resources, reduce pollution in agri-ecosystems and ameliorate impacts on the broader environment.

I hope that the increasing funding levels discussed in RS&T 2010 will give science groups added confidence to form new collaborative ventures.

(5) THE OUTLOOK FOR SCIENCE
Apart from recognition by Government of the cultural value of science, there is another very good reason to invest further in science and technology. People have access to more knowledge - the Internet is a good example of how - and as a result some are becoming far better informed. At the same time many others are simply in the position of knowing a bit about more things.

This effect goes further; not only are people more widely informed, albeit often shallowly, but they have developed a strong awareness of their `rights'. They are now far more demanding of justification for government decisions. Coupled with this is a now almost paranoid concern about infinitesimal small risk; fifty if not thirty odd years ago the idea of minute risk was lost in the big issues like, polio, whooping cough, polio, scarlet fever and other now strangely remote sounding problems. There were also no seat belts and planes were relatively feeble.

Finally there is no doubt that modern life demands increasing confrontation with difficult to understand technologies; driven by the need to ‘trust' experts, people tend to fret and want assurances. Recently for example, we have seen concerns about modified low-lead petrol, emissions from computers, the effects of microwave transmitters and ongoing concern about pesticides.

The combination of an informed or at least aware public, strong views on individual rights, aversion to risk and the increasingly technological nature of our existence is putting enormous demands on governments. Decisions must now be based on scientific analysis; questions can no longer be fobbed off using intuition or dogma. Such demand for government to give informed assurances must depend on an available and accessible science cadre.

These trends are likely to intensify in the future and are bound to impact on the future of science. This is in part why government is increasing its investment in science.

In the short-term however, I believe that there are dangers for science and all that has been achieved. The issue of science funding holds very little, if any sway, in the electorates. My Ministry colleagues and I have therefore had to convince people that science is worth investing in for the good of the country.

There is now a distinct danger that if a more free-spending MMP government is installed it will see the projected annual increases in science funding as fair source of additional revenue. Such funding could be diverted to more populist causes with little political fall-out.

The New Zealand Institute of Agricultural Science has an important role to play in seeing that there is a widespread public understanding of the importance of science.