AFBI ‘being pulled in three directions’ as review calls for major rethink of Northern Ireland science body

Northern Ireland’s main agri-food science organisation is facing growing pressure to redefine its future after an independent review concluded the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) is being “pulled in three directions”, lacks a clear strategic identity and may ultimately require significant structural reform.

The wide-ranging review, commissioned by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), examined AFBI’s effectiveness, governance, accountability and efficiency, and explored options ranging from splitting the organisation into separate research and diagnostic bodies to removing its research role altogether.

While DAERA Minister Andrew Muir has ruled out major restructuring for now, the report raises fundamental questions about how Northern Ireland’s scientific testing, research and advisory services should be organised in the years ahead, particularly as the region grapples with climate change, biodiversity loss, food security, animal health threats and environmental pressures.

Review finds uncertainty over what AFBI is meant to be

AFBI was established in 2006 under the Agriculture (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 and today employs hundreds of scientists, researchers, technical specialists and support staff across a broad range of disciplines.

Its work includes animal and plant health surveillance, laboratory testing, environmental monitoring, fisheries science, food safety research, emergency disease response, scientific advice and research programmes supporting government policy and the agri-food sector.

However, the independent review found there is no shared understanding among stakeholders about AFBI’s primary purpose.

In one of the report’s most striking conclusions, reviewers stated:

“It is not clear which of the following can describe AFBI:

• An ALB of DAERA providing statutory testing etc to ensure compliance with legislation.

• A Scientific Advisor to DAERA and wider NI plc.

• A Scientific Research organisation.

“As a consequence, the organisation is being pulled in three directions and there is a lack of vision, direction and leadership.”

The report repeatedly highlights concerns that AFBI’s remit has become increasingly broad, spanning animal health, livestock systems, environmental protection, fisheries, crops, food safety, laboratory diagnostics and wider scientific research.

Reviewers questioned whether such a diverse range of responsibilities can realistically be delivered effectively within a single organisation.

Major restructuring options were actively explored

One of the most significant findings is that consultants did not simply assess AFBI’s current performance; they also considered multiple alternative futures for the organisation.

Among the options examined were:

• Maintaining the current model.

• Splitting AFBI into separate diagnostic and research organisations.

• Creating an independent research and innovation institute capable of becoming largely self-financing.

• Merging research functions with Queen’s University Belfast or Ulster University.

• Retaining only diagnostic and testing functions while procuring research externally.

• Creating a specialist animal health organisation focused solely on disease surveillance, testing, research and emergency response.

The review concluded there remains a clear need for the functions AFBI currently performs but stated that “consideration should be given to the merger or re-imagination of these functions into other forms”.

Reviewers argued there is a “unique opportunity to do things differently” and suggested a future model could be better aligned to emerging societal challenges, including environmental sustainability, climate resilience, food production and the increasingly important “One Health” approach linking human, animal and environmental wellbeing.

Tensions between DAERA and AFBI emerge as recurring theme

A central thread running throughout the 160-page report is the relationship between AFBI and its sponsoring department.

The review found significant differences in how DAERA and AFBI view the organisation’s role, responsibilities and future direction.

Particular concern centred on the Department’s evolving science commissioning model, which reviewers said has become a source of “significant tension” between the two organisations.

The report also identifies ongoing interpersonal tensions at senior levels and describes the wider relationship as “paternalistic/governance heavy”.

Consultants concluded AFBI appears to enjoy less operational autonomy than might normally be expected of a non-departmental public body, with “considerable control” exercised by DAERA through governance arrangements, funding mechanisms and commissioning processes.

The report suggests these issues have contributed to a culture in which management attention is increasingly focused on bureaucracy and process rather than scientific delivery and innovation.

Scientific commissioning system branded inefficient

One of the strongest criticisms within the review relates to the Assigned Work Programme (AWP), the mechanism through which DAERA commissions scientific services from AFBI.

The review found widespread dissatisfaction with the current system among both DAERA and AFBI stakeholders.

Consultants described the process as:

“Highly bureaucratic, resource intensive, hugely inefficient.”

The report argues the existing approach lacks strategic direction, consumes excessive resources and fails to provide an effective framework for identifying and meeting Northern Ireland’s long-term scientific needs.

Reviewers ultimately concluded that the commissioning model requires fundamental reform and called on DAERA to urgently review how scientific services are planned, commissioned, monitored and evaluated.

Questions over impact, performance and value for money

Although the review recognises AFBI’s importance to Northern Ireland’s economy, agriculture and public services, it also raises questions about how the organisation measures and demonstrates success.

Consultants found much of the evidence used to assess AFBI’s impact was generated internally and lacked independent validation.

While acknowledging that AFBI undoubtedly contributes social, environmental and economic value, the report states the extent of that impact remains difficult to quantify without external assessment.

The review also highlights recurring concerns raised by stakeholders about the cost of scientific services and whether the organisation is delivering optimum value for money.

Performance management attracted criticism too.

While AFBI has annual key performance indicators, reviewers found they frequently change from year to year, making long-term performance assessment difficult.

More notably, the report concluded the targets themselves often lack ambition and create an impression that the organisation is “aiming too low”.

Workforce and technology challenges remain

The report identifies a series of operational pressures that could affect AFBI’s future effectiveness.

At the time of the review, AFBI employed approximately 677 full-time equivalent staff and had reduced employee attrition from 17% to around 10%.

Staff engagement stood at 56%, broadly comparable with wider public-sector averages, although scores relating to leadership and managing change were significantly lower.

The review also highlights long-standing challenges around digital infrastructure.

While AFBI has begun modernising key systems and developing new digital strategies, consultants concluded the organisation’s technology estate has suffered from years of underinvestment.

The report states that ICT development has been characterised by “under investment and a systemic lack of modernisation”, warning that further progress will require sustained investment.

Minister rejects structural overhaul — for now

The review was completed and submitted to DAERA in February 2025 but publication was delayed following issues that subsequently emerged within AFBI and were later referenced by Minister Andrew Muir during an Assembly statement on 14 April 2026.

That statement can be viewed at:

https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/news/statement-agri-food-and-biosciences-institute

Publishing the Department’s formal response to the review, the Minister said AFBI remains a critical partner in delivering scientific evidence, research and expertise to government.

“The publication of the Departmental Response to the AFBI review is very timely as we work together to deliver a thriving, resilient and environmentally sustainable future for agri-food, protect animal and plant health, tackle climate change and improve water and air quality – all of which contribute towards supporting the One Health approach,” he said.

“The very nature of this policy landscape means AFBI is a key partner in this work with robust data, science and evidence critical, built upon high standards of professionalism, research integrity, data management, and technical proficiency.”

The Minister said both DAERA and AFBI would work collaboratively to implement recommendations aimed at improving governance, accountability, partnership working, organisational performance and public confidence.

However, despite the review’s exploration of alternative structures, he confirmed he would not pursue wholesale organisational change at this stage.

“Having considered options for the delivery of AFBI functions and services in the review and the disruption associated with wholesale structural change, I have decided not to progress this recommendation at this time. Work will instead focus on implementing the recommendations from the review,” he said.

A warning that the current model may not be sustainable

Despite acknowledging AFBI’s achievements since its creation in 2006 and recognising it as an important delivery partner for government, the review’s overall message is that the organisation cannot continue unchanged indefinitely.

Reviewers concluded AFBI contains significant scientific expertise and has developed centres of excellence in a number of areas, but warned that its current delivery model is struggling to keep pace with rapidly changing policy, environmental and economic demands.

The report argues that clearer strategic direction, stronger partnership working, better performance measurement, modernised systems and a more coherent organisational identity will be essential if AFBI is to maximise its contribution in the years ahead.

In its final assessment, the review delivers a stark conclusion that is likely to shape future debate around the organisation.

“The world has changed and is changing at a frenetic pace, and the current AFBI delivery model which has until recently served reasonably well, now appears to be out of sync with wider society, Departmental and Government needs.

“The time is right for change… that time is now.”