New Zealand was once viewed as a world first market for global R&D companies, but not anymore. Many multi-national R&D companies say they have lost confidence in the approvals process for new trials and new products in New Zealand. They are looking at their future for operations and investment in New Zealand. In this article we hear from applicants directly about their experience.
“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow” - Albert Einstein.
In February 2025, the Agricultural and Horticultural Products Review recommendations offered a glimmer of hope that urgent regulatory change was on the way.
Six months on, hope for tomorrow has passed for some R&D businesses.
The recent decision by Bayer CropScience to exit its New Zealand crop protection field research station in Hastings after 64 years has shocked the primary sector, but reflects the reality - businesses need outcomes, not promises, to continue operating here.
Many multi-national R&D companies say they have lost confidence in the approvals process and point to their reducing applications for new products and new trials. Trial work essential to protect New Zealand unique needs by providing New Zealand risk context.
What are applicants saying?
Applicants are reporting the regulatory process is not getting easier. The registration rates of other OECD countries make a more compelling case.
Bayer, the world’s number one crop R&D company, shared their thoughts on exiting R&D in New Zealand, “the current operating environment and regulatory landscape in NZ make it challenging to justify the company’s time and the expense required to commence research projects that introduce pipeline products”.
Syngenta, the world’s number one biologicals R&D company comments, “It is disappointing that farmers and growers are going to lose access to good world leading technology”.
They have deliberately avoided registering new actives in New Zealand to control grass grub, fall armyworm, crown rot, fusarium and nematodes due to the delays. They have reaffirmed their commitment but say regulatory delays “must be fixed”.
Corteva, a world leader in modern chemistry and biologicals run their world class R&D facility in Omata, New Plymouth. They say “We believe that regulatory capacity constraint is impacting all innovative product companies. A number of other countries have already overtaken New Zealand and are now getting access earlier than New Zealand. As a result, farmers in these countries have faster access to the newest innovative chemistries and biological solutions, often several years before their New Zealand counterparts.”
Here since the 1960s, the Waireka site specialises in early-stage discovery and near release innovation. They estimate a 60-month New Zealand approval timeframe for one of their internationally award winning “Green” chemistry product. In 2020 a similar product was approved in just 15 months. Farmers have been using the product for seven years in Australia and eight years in USA, China, Korea and Chile.
World class R&D, in New Zealand. But our farmers and growers cannot access the benefit.
NZ Waireka Research Center is a world-class facility with a view. At 36 ha, it has 48 research blocks for both early-stage discovery and near-release crop protection products. Protected by five metre hedgerows from the legendary local Taranaki westerly, it hosts a passionate local team of scientists supporting world class research to support New Zealand and global crop protection
Sipcam, an Italian R&D company direct much of their global R&D budget to biologicals and soft chemistry – including products with direct relevance to NZ agriculture. They echo the voices of others.
“New Zealand was once recognised as among the most efficient regulators in the world where multinational development companies such as ours celebrated New Zealand achievement as a first registration territory. Unfortunately, when speaking with our global regulatory teams now, their view is New Zealand is seen to be competing to be the slowest country. The logjam had just got larger and larger over many years. It’s at the stage where it needs serious surgery.”
To hear many multinationals speaking out all at once reflects the reality of what’s at stake for the country. Despite long term science and investment commitment in New Zealand, they can no longer operate here successfully.
Regulatory reform isn’t just a concern for multinationals—it’s a shared priority across our diverse membership, from farmers and growers to R&D innovators, rural retailers and end users.
PGG Wrightson CEO Stephen Guerin says his organisation has enjoyed a long association with Bayer, trialling and helping develop new crop treatment programmes. “I think NZ must be concerned about this,” he says.
What does it take to invest in innovation?
R&D companies tell us that serious investment is needed to bring innovation to markets like New Zealand with high regulatory and R&D standards.
If we look at APHANZ’s largest crop protection R&D companies, they commit ~ US$3.8 billion annually to R&D. This is before any new product reaches the regulators - and more than New Zealand’s entire research budget.
This also excludes their R&D budgets for biologicals, precision, and digital technologies - these companies product portfolios are more than agrichemicals.
The dollars invested match the commitment to ensure any new products have improved environmental, safety profiles and do what they claim. There is no such thing as zero risk, but risk probability is significantly lowered after years of extensive testing rounds and millions of dollars.
These companies’ registration costs are increasing - almost doubled from the1990s.
In 2018 Phillips McDougall also estimated over $3 billion investment annually to improve crop product efficacy, safety and meet enhanced regulatory standards to provide nutritious, safe and affordable food.
What influences the decision to invest in New Zealand?
Time and certainty underpin the decision to register a product.
As the diagram shows, an R&D companies return on investment comes down to time certainty and efficiency in two windows - R&D and the regulatory queue. The greater the certainty and efficiency, the greater the investor confidence to sow seeds of innovation here.
Product life cycle
If a secure R&D base is established in a country, the higher the likelihood that country specific projects will be funded like replacement products for grass grub, vaccine strains for animal diseases impacting human health like Leptospirosis, Salmonella or Toxoplasma.
What are the benefits of new products?
R&D companies develop parent products (Stage 2) containing the new active ingredients that work in a new way. From parent products, generic products can be developed at a later stage (Stage 3), as more cost-effective options. Without access to parent products, the tap eventually turns off.
R&D companies commit significant investment to make parent products, the ones with improved environmental, resistance or productivity outcomes, and which generic products originate from later. If we lose these, the tap eventually turns off.
A specific focus on approving parent products (new active ingredients) has many benefits;
- They ensure a steady stream of new solutions as the older ones are phased out. Reassessments without replacements will lead to an empty toolkit.
- They are more modern products based on new active substances - prosperity technology to benefit all. Given the critical importance of food plants and animals, these need to be protected alongside human health and nature.
- They are vital for trade - to ensure a level field and agreements with trading partners.
To put that in perspective, New Zealand’s share of domestic produce exported is 95% for dairy, 90% for sheep meat, 86% for beef, 94% for wool, 96% for venison, 96% of kiwifruit, 72% of wine and 65% of all pip fruit.
Where are R&D companies at now?
R&D companies have signalled that New Zealand is not under active consideration for many of their pipeline products, including for grass grub and new solutions to support resistance management being deprioritised. New chemistry, biology, wider technology - and associated investment in local science, systems expertise, product stewardship and people are at stake.
This is slowing and stopping end-user access to products that improve environmental, trade and resistance outcomes and replace older, more hazardous chemistry.
Without these products, the primary sector impacts as shown below are clear.
The time to act is now
The agricultural sector is critical to our future, but we are a small market, with high investment costs to bring products to our shores. Other OECD countries are using safer, more effective, and less hazardous chemistry, bio products and other technology.
What’s at stake?
We must create an environment conducive to innovation, to clear the regulatory runway so innovation can land. New Zealand was once viewed as a world first market for these R&D companies, but not anymore.
Without urgent action now to improve the regulatory approval process, we risk falling further behind in agricultural innovation, jeopardising better environmental outcomes, export opportunities and sustainable practices.
______________________________
See related articles in this series
Read Why regulatory reform matters to power our primary sector : The voices that matter
Six months since the Ministry for Regulation’s review landed, the primary sector is still waiting for action on the ground. APHANZ has launched a powerful series spotlighting the voices that matter—farmers, applicants, and R&D innovators—on why fixing the approvals process is urgent, what’s at risk, and how we can clear the runway for the tools that drive productivity, sustainability, and growth.
Read One Voice: Clearing the runway for innovation to land
If agriculture and horticulture are the engines of New Zealand’s economy, then innovation is the fuel—and regulation is the runway that enables it to take flight. But there’s a blockage on the runway for New Zealand’s primary sector ambitions - access to new animal and plant health products.
Read The Farmer voice: Calls to modernise the toolkit
Farmers and growers across the country are increasingly frustrated by ongoing delays in accessing new agricultural and horticultural products. They are urging action to access a broad toolkit of innovative products to manage pests and fight diseases.
Comments are closed.