Media releases

• Proven performance trumps cost in agriculture tech adoption, NCO research suggests

  Friday, December 10, 2021 | By Brock University

  MEDIA RELEASE: 9 December 2021 – R0132

  When Ontario farmers consider introducing new technologies into their operations, there’s a laundry list of factors in addition to cost that go into determining whether they’re a fit.

  Although the inclusion of innovation can be seen as a significant investment, cost is often outweighed by performance when results are proven and make sense for the operation in question, new research by Brock University’s Niagara Community Observatory (NCO) says.

  The NCO’s latest policy brief, presented during a virtual event Wednesday, Dec. 8, examines the barriers and drivers to adoption of automation and robotics in Ontario’s agriculture sector. The research combines analysis of survey data from Ontario farms with that of in-depth interviews conducted with farmers and agriculture innovation stakeholders.

  The paper was authored by Amy Lemay, NCO Research Fellow and Adjunct Professor in Brock’s Environmental Sustainability Research Centre; Charles Conteh, Professor of Public Policy and Management in the Department of Political Science and NCO Director; and Jeff Boggs, Associate Professor of Geography and Tourism Studies and NCO Interim Director.

  The brief is the NCO’s latest agriculture innovation policy research, funded through the federal-provincial Canadian Agricultural Partnership.

  Its findings suggest that widespread adoption of automation and robotics technologies in the agriculture sector is dependent on:

  • Technologies that provide solutions to real problems.
  • Technologies with proven and validated performance and benefits.
  • Equipment suppliers with local and reliable service, maintenance and technical support.
  • Governance frameworks for data that protect privacy and security.
  • Policies and programs that incentivize early adopters and smaller farms.

  “Our results suggest that any perceived failures on the part of farmers to adopt automation and robotics technologies are not because they’re inherently slow adopters due to their overly risk-adverse or conservative nature, rather we’re seeing that farmers are making objectively rational decisions,” Lemay says. “Farmers are showing a reluctance to adopt technologies with unproven performance or profitability from suppliers with uncertain futures who have weak connections to or understanding of the agriculture sector.”

  Lemay says the team’s research found that “for most farmers, performance was more important than cost or ease of use when they were choosing a technology.”

  But challenges for adoption arose when it came to technologies that had yet to tangibly demonstrate promised benefits, as well as those unable to provide local, reliable access to service, parts and maintenance over the long term, given that many technologies are imported from multinational manufacturers based outside of Canada.

  To address these concerns, Lemay says it may be necessary for researchers and technology solution providers to build collaborations with established, local farm equipment distributors and retailers to bring new technologies to market.

  “Our findings point to the need for reconsidering, rethinking and revisiting how adoption of agri-food innovations is supported and promoted in the province,” Conteh says. “We want to generate solutions for accelerating technology transfer and adoption. While empirically our focus is on Ontario, our findings hold implications for all of Canada.”

  The next phase of the study, which is now underway, has researchers interviewing stakeholders from Canadian ‘superclusters’ — NGen in Hamilton and Protein Industries Canada in Saskatoon — to gain a broader understanding of the drivers and barriers to the adoption of technologies, Lemay says.

  The final phase, to take place this winter, will include a series of focus groups that will bring together agri-food stakeholders from industry, government and academia to identify policy and government recommendations for supporting and promoting the adoption of automation and robotics technologies.

  Following Wednesday’s brief presentation, a panel discussion was held featuring industry stakeholders: Kathryn Carter, Tender Fruit and Grape Specialist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; Hussam Haroun, Director, Automation, Vineland Research and Innovation Centre; and Rodney Bierhuizen, Co-owner, Sunrise Greenhouses.

  The Niagara Community Observatory’s latest brief, “Growing Agri-Innovation: Investigating the barriers and drivers to the adoption of automation and robotics in Ontario’s agriculture sector,” is available on the NCO website.

  For more information or for assistance arranging interviews:

  * Dan Dakin, Manager Communications and Media Relations, Brock University [email protected] or 905-347-1970

  – 30 –

  Categories: Media releases

• Brock experts question value of Olympic boycott

  Wednesday, December 08, 2021 | By Brock University

  MEDIA RELEASE: 8 December 2021 – R0131

  Canada has joined the growing list of countries taking part in a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing as a result of human rights issues. But a number of Brock University experts are questioning if it’s the right move.

  Under the boycott, no diplomatic staff or government officials will attend the Games, but Canadian athletes will still be allowed to compete.

  Assistant Professor of Political Science Liam Midzain-Gobin says the complicated status of Canada’s current relationship with China could make the goal of a boycott more ambiguous.

  “It is hard to see what Canada will gain from participating in a boycott or what that move will actually achieve,” he says. “In part, that is because it isn’t clear what Canada wants out of its relationship with China. Without knowing that, we can’t evaluate whether or not a boycott might help us achieve those goals.”

  Midzain-Gobin also noted that historically, boycotts are not a guarantee.

  “Previous boycotts and calls for boycotts have a mixed record of success. Sustained, specific boycotts (such as those against apartheid in South Africa) can be effective as one part of a broader set of actions, but it isn’t clear that there is such an organized plan from allies such as Australia or the U.S.,” he says. “If Canada doesn’t have that either, then we need to ask whether we think we can actually achieve any of the movement’s goals.”

  While Midzain-Gobin focused on political ramifications, Assistant Professor of Sport Management Taylor McKee says the move will also impact athletes directly.

  “Even an articulate, pointed diplomatic boycott places athletes in the unenviable position of having to publicly contradict the elected officials of the very country they are representing on the international stage,” he says. “Athletes are asked to represent Canada, but are not privy to or responsible for diplomatic negotiations between states and are therefore uniquely vulnerable as representatives of political states.”

  As the Games approach, McKee says the boycott could effectively silence the very people it aims to celebrate.

  “The notion of a diplomatic boycott that includes sending Canadian athletes supposes the erroneous assumption that athletes hold no political value and that the Games themselves, and by extension the athletes that compete in them, are free of the influence of politics,” he says. “Questions about boycotts render them unable to voice concerns about the Chinese state without appearing hypocritical.”

  Instead of zeroing in on the boycott, Assistant Professor of Sport Management Michele Donnelly says the focus of organizers should be on the protection of athletes and their ability to speak freely.

  “Athletes need to be guaranteed that they will be safe and free to promote human rights — both in China and globally — at the Games,” she says. “This includes in interviews with media outlets, social media posts and through other forms of display. Notably, the International Olympic Committee’s Rule 50 already severely limits what athletes can say, do or wear in official Olympic spaces; the Chinese government is not the only concern in terms of restrictions on athletes and other Olympic participants.”

  With a diplomatic boycott already being employed, McKee cautioned against considering a full boycott of the Games as well.

  “The potential impact of such action would be much greater, but only if the Government of Canada was willing, and able, to make a boycott a part of larger actions to bring about change,” he says. “Otherwise, using athletes solely as political capital while remaining unwilling to confront China directly risks incurring widespread backlash.”

  Donnelly says greater impact could be achieved if action was taken by financial backers of the Games.

  “A boycott by Olympic sponsors, broadcasters and governments would have a more significant impact on the host country,” she says. “It would also send a message to the International Olympic Committee that it is unacceptable to award the Games to countries that do not meet the values of the Olympic Charter. Though, it is not clear that the IOC often lives up to those values itself.”

  While a full boycott could more effectively highlight human rights abuses, Midzain-Gobin believes Canada must also look inwardly when it comes to issues of human rights.

  “Canada’s own position is a difficult one,” he says. “In February, we saw a vote in Parliament to recognize a genocide by China against Uighur Muslims and call for a change in venue for the Games. Part of that was calls for Canada to step in as host, which overlooked that two separate national inquiries (the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people), along with many international bodies, found Canada to have committed, and be committing, genocide against Indigenous Peoples here.

  “Overlooking that and calling for us to host shows a lack of awareness of the need to address the systemic causes of that genocide and, ultimately, helps keep that same system intact.”

  Assistant Professor of Political Science Liam Midzain-Gobin, Assistant Professor of Sport Management Taylor McKee and Assistant Professor of Sport Management Michele Donnelly are all available for media interviews.

  For more information or for assistance arranging interviews:

  * Dan Dakin, Manager Communications and Media Relations, Brock University [email protected] or 905-347-1970

  – 30 –

  Categories: Media releases