Grinding delays in New Zealand’s approval process for agrichemicals are prompting global companies to question if a viable market for new products still exists here.
It also has leaders in the agrichemical and primary sector warning that NZ is becoming a backwater for adopting new crop and animal treatments, leaving it unable to respond to changes in trading partners’ regulations on chemical use.
Their frustration has been reinforced by a recent independent report on the performance of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which is tasked with overseeing the approval of new agri-chem products.
Conducted by Australian firm Sapere, the report highlights how delays in getting approval for products has blown out to be almost three times longer than it was 10 years ago.
Getting a new product over the line now takes over three years, having taken 400 days in 2013. It includes spending more than 330 days in a “pre-application” queue.
In 2021-23 eight applications for new products took 1048 days, compared to 14 applications taking 402 days in 2014.
Dr Liz Shackleton, CEO for Animal & Plant Health NZ, said the decline has come only over the past decade, with NZ now falling far from being a world leader in balancing good regulatory practice alongside timely releases of new treatment technology.
She said she gets feedback on a weekly basis from companies saying it is no longer viable to bring a product here if waiting times remain this lengthy.
She said there also appears to be a preoccupation at the EPA with re-assessing existing, older type chemicals over new product assessment.
“There is four times more resources allocated to re-assessing existing substances, versus approving new substances.
“Typically, the EPA would have re-assessed two to three products a year. This past year they re-assessed 10.”
The Sapere report supports this, finding the EPA’s approval for new treatments has fallen from 47% of all decisions in 2013 to only 13% in 2023. That comes despite relatively steady demand over the 10 years from companies seeking new product approvals.
The decline also comes as a new generation of “biological” crop treatments are replacing many older synthetic chemicals globally.
“And we have members here asking ‘How have these treatments that have got through approval in bigger, more resourced markets still experiencing such a delay here?’”
Shackleton’s concerns are echoed by Foundation for Arable Research CEO Dr Alison Stewart.
She said she has spent the past decade trying to get greater awareness about what the delays mean for crop and pastoral farmers.
“One issue we have is the report clearly shows how the EPA is underfunded, receiving about $5 million a year.”
The Sapere report authors found that NZ’s EPA receives about a quarter of the funding that its Australian and United Kingdom equivalents get when allowing for the primary sector’s value to the economy.
Despite injecting a further $1m into the EPA in the last budget, the report highlights NZ is “well short”, and continuing funding failure brings escalating losses in innovation, primary sector productivity, and limits our ability to transition to “greener” chemicals including biologicals.
Stewart agrees with the report authors that simply increasing fees paid by companies seeking approval would not solve the funding problem.
“If we increase the fees it is going to potentially put off these large multinationals coming into a small market like NZ. It comes down to a bigger issue of government’s commitment to support and facilitate new products coming to NZ to improve agricultural productivity.
“If they are [committed to that], then they need to re-think the business model for the EPA.”
Shackleton said the agri-chem industry wants to work with the government to help expediate the country’s uptake of new treatment technology before NZ gets left any further behind.
One option is the “rule of 2” approach. This streamlines new product approval here when two large approved overseas countries have already approved a product for release in their own markets.
“We need to consider options. When you are trying to say you are a global innovator, and it is a five- to nine-year period for approval, then that is a real challenge.”
Dr Chris Hill, the Environmental Protection Authority’s general manager for hazardous substances and new organisms, makes no secret of the fact that constrained funding has slowed the agency’s work.
In a written response to Farmers Weekly questions, he acknowledged the EPA works in the context of limited funding and resourcing.
Despite industry concern over EPA delays, it also appears it is unlikely to be up for additional funding this Budget round.
Hill confirmed the EPA was not invited to bid for additional Budget funding this year.
“Inevitably, we have struggled to keep pace with the number of new applications. Funding constraints have made recruitment and retention of staff challenging,” he said.
The EPA did receive an additional $1.1 million in last year’s Budget and was moving to employ seven extra staff over two years, with three on board now.
Post-covid staff turnover of 25% had also resulted in a need to recruit and train new assessment staff.
Asked how much additional funding would be required to bring the EPA into line with Australia and Canada, he cited the Sapere report’s comparison.
This shows the NZ authority received only a quarter of the amount that the organisations in Australia and United Kingdom receive, when allowing for primary sector’s economic contribution.
A spokesperson for Minister for the Environment Penny Simmonds said the minister is seeking advice from her officials on this and will be investigating further.
“She will be able to make more fulsome comments on this in due course,” the spokesperson said.
