The fortunes of all those within the Irish agrifood sector are closely interlinked and interdependent. Therefore, it is important that we occasionally lift our heads up to look at the bigger picture to see what is going on and how well the sector is performing.

This was part of the purpose of the recent work on innovation with which I was involved. To simplify, it is fair to say that what we found was an agrifood system that was working reasonably well (Ireland was fifth in Europe in terms of innovativeness based on a range of indicators) but, in the words of every school report, “could do better”.

Two of the areas that could be improved were the link between science and industry and collaboration across the supply chain.

Something I have noticed as a major contrast to the situation in the UK is that not only is there strong support for the sector overall from the Government and its agencies, but there is also a high level of support for science and technology in the agriculture and food sectors in Ireland as well.

The challenge is to turn this into products and processes that have a direct impact on the economics of food production and, of course, to make sure this benefit is felt by all those in the sector. It is fair to argue that this is where Ireland is struggling (particularly in developing new products).

There is a strong perception that part of the problem is the effectiveness of the academia-industry links and a lack of collaboration in particular.

High-level activity

While recognising that considerable high-level activity is going on within the third-level sector, there is a need for a greater focus on knowledge and technology transfer to industry. It may be argued that, as with the situation in the Netherlands, engagement should be the norm and not the exception.

However, collaboration is a two-way street. Researchers need to be looking out to industry (and should be incentivised to do so) but those in industry need to be able to seek out and use this expertise.

Often, we hear that industry lacks “absorptive capacity” – the ability to utilise the publicly funded research that is being generated.

If businesses are serious about innovation, they need to be investing more in research and development (Irish companies lag behind many other countries in this respect) either individually or collectively.

At the very least, companies need to be employing research-trained postgraduates who have the capacity to assimilate the latest research and, if correctly trained, apply it to the needs of the company/business.

Academic researchers need to be connected to industry to make sure that the questions they are trying to address are relevant, as opposed to scientifically interesting, while at the same time, industry needs to link into research to know what may be possible.

There are, of course, many good examples of good industry-academia links, but it does appear to be rather ad-hoc and down to chance rather than systematic.

If we can get this linkage working properly, we can begin to maximise our returns from investment in science and technology to the benefit of all those in the sector.

The second area is the more contentious issue of the functioning of supply chains in Ireland. Our findings showed that there is a strong perception that a lack of collaboration across supply chains hinders innovation and that this needs to be addressed.

However, watching the current beef saga unfold in the pages of the Irish Farmers Journal, it is hard to envisage within this environment of mistrust how successful collaboration and innovation will occur.

My calls for greater openness and transparency between producers and processors, for example, appear increasingly naïve at best.

However, I would still argue that the evidence supports the proposition that the best-performing supply chains are those where there is trust built upon good communication and fair distribution of rewards.

In the report, we argue that industry forums, facilitated by the Government, in which all players in the supply chain can undertake full and frank discussions in the spirit of openness, can begin to create transparency, which in turn can lead to trust and a stronger incentive for collaboration. In the beef sector, for example, this could build on the forum that has been established as a result of the current difficulties in the sector.

Overall, we should not be too pessimistic though. Those involved in the Irish agrifood sector are rightly proud of its achievements and, as our report showed, in places it can certainly be described as world leading and in others world class.

Ireland, as a small country, is able to co-ordinate activity more easily than many other countries and there are great examples of this, as shown by Animal Health Ireland and the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation.

Of course, they benefit from having well defined aims from which those involved can see economic benefits emerging.

However, they also show it is not about large financial investments, but that targeted initiatives can yield innovation that can be adopted and absorbed by the key stakeholders.

Perhaps the final thought that I was left with after finishing the report was that it is really about people and it is people and their relationships with others that make things happen or not.

Therefore, crucial to Ireland is that all those involved in the system, but particularly those in leadership positions at all levels and across all sectors, need to be more open to the benefits of co-operation, collaboration and partnerships for innovation.