1. Rothamsted Research (RRes) is the largest
institute in the UK conducting scientific research into agriculture
and the environment. The Institute employs approximately 300 scientists
(45 research groups) and each year has a postgraduate student
population of over 60 as well as a similar number of visiting
overseas scientists. Research income in 2008-09 is ca.
£30 million (including work at North Wyke Research which
is soon to be amalgamated into RRes); BBSRC is the primary sponsor
organisation now providing about 60% of the total funding through
a range of different modalities. The portfolio of the Institute
embraces arable and grassland production systems. Much of its
research is focused on, or relevant to, food security.
"To be recognised internationally as
a primary source of first-class scientific research and new knowledge
in response to stakeholder requirements for innovative policies,
products and practices to enhance the economic, environmental
and societal value of agricultural land."
3. The primary objectives of Rothamsted
Research are to advance scientific knowledge and understanding
to provide new opportunities for removing constraints on crop
(food, forage and non-food) production by enhancing resource use
efficiency (land, water, nutrients, non-renewable energy, labour
etc.). Its research integrates mathematics, physics, chemistry,
ecology and the crop sciences (including: genetics, pathology,
entomology and soil science) to contribute predictive understanding
and scientifically-sound options for the maintenance of economically
and environmentally sustainable systems of production.
4. Defra is a valued customer for RRes and
it sees the Department of one of its major stakeholders. However,
Defra has become increasingly less influential on strategic thinking
in RRes as its policies for investment in science have placed
emphasis on areas outside the RRes mission. The proportion of
the Institute's research funds derived from the Department has
more than halved from over 25% just five years ago. In 2002-03 the
Institute received £7.1 million for research in support
of Defra policy objectives; by 2008-09 the value of Defra
funded work has fallen to £3.2 million.
5. This response to questions posed by the
Inquiry is predicated on three straight-forward positions that
the Institute holds with regard to global food security, the UK's
own agricultural production and the role that the country can
and should play in advancing the capacity and capability to enhance
food production.
(i) For all the reasons summarised in the Inquiry
announcement there is no doubt that there is an urgent need to
scale up the quantity and nutritional quality of global food production;
there are few that will now deny this. RRes has clarity of purpose
in this context which we hope can be translated into government
policy. Novel agricultural products and practices must be all
about ensuring that wastage of water, essential nutrients and
energy is kept to a minimum when we set the context as a necessity
to elevate per hectare output (i.e. crop yields) and not increase
the environmental footprint of agriculture. This is the truly
"green" agenda for global food production that we should
all embrace and one that requires clear enunciation to and acceptance
by those who influence public opinion or are empowered to take
public and private investment decisions. Agricultural systems
that overtly set out to maximise productivity avoid the need to
cultivate more land with all the feed-back effects that will occur
in terms of likely elevated green house gas emissions due to:
oxidation of carbon currently sequestered in soil, removal of
carbon sinks and increases in emissions resulting from cropping
practices (Glendining et al., 2008). It is currently estimated
that land-use change, primarily deforestation, is responsible
for as much as 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is
not to mention likely impacts on biodiversity and water resources.
(ii) The primary objective of land use for agriculture
is the efficient conversion of solar energy into varied and valued
forms of chemical energy for utilisation by mankind. This encompasses
crops grown for food, fuel and fibre while some land is best used
to produce forage for animals as intermediates in the energy conversion
process. The energy conversion referred to above (i.e. the practice
of agriculture) involves manipulation and management of the interaction
between crop genotype and the environment (physical and biological).
The requirement to do this consistently and predictably, year
after year, also demands continuity of agro-ecosystem functions;
this captures the temporal and renewable concept of sustainability.
Maximising efficiency on the smallest necessary land area provides
options to use non-agricultural land to achieve other objectives
which should not be confounded with the requirement to produce
food and other agricultural products as efficiently as possible.
(iii) All nations, and particularly wealthy ones
in climatically advantaged regions (such as the UK), have global
obligations with regard to efficient, sustainable food production
and investment in enabling technology. The UK should be taking
a leadership position in Europe by propagating and championing
a forward looking policy which acknowledges this. Several of the
UK's primary crops (e.g. wheat, oilseed, rape and potatoes) are
also of great global importance; global demand is currently barely
met by supply. However, the UK contribution to global production
of these crops is small (less than 1%) while nevertheless providing
more or less self-sufficiency. These facts, coupled with the relative
wealth of the UK and its ability to access global markets (even
when prices rise) go a long way to explain why primary agricultural
production in the UK has been judged so unimportant by policy
makers. It also explains why the public have become complacent
about food availability or even hostile to the agricultural sector.
RRes hopes that the UK will rapidly rediscover the importance
of delivering on global obligations towards ensuring future food
security where it is still world-leading and has in the past been
catalytic through science and technology and its application.
RESPONSES TO
THE SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS
How robust is the current UK food system? What
are its main strengths and weaknesses?
6. The onset of the world crisis in food
security and volatility in commodity prices has brought about
a rapid shift in perspectives for agriculture in the UK and the
EU but movement in policy objectives has been slow. Policies in
the EU over the last two decades have focussed on mechanisms of
providing income to farmers for the management of land for purposes
other than efficient food production. At the same time, the EU
has introduced a regulatory framework surrounding agriculture
that tends to impede innovation and works against elevation of
productivity: for example, the proposals to remove access to valued
pesticides and the difficulties surrounding field experimentation
with GM crops. The changing circumstances and the need for scientific
delivery that will counter the complacency and misdirected approaches
of the last two decades are reflected in RRes research objectives.
7. Against this background, UK agriculture is
potentially robust. In 1994 England was 75% self-sufficient
in food production but this has been allowed to fall to 58% (RASE,
2008), through reduced investment (in skills and capital), a focus
on practices with questionable environmental benefits and reliance
on imports; this can be rectified with appropriate policies. Climate
change predictions suggest that north-west Europe, including the
UK, will be a key area for global food production in the mid-
to late-21st century, with fewer limitations on Net Primary Production
here than in other parts of the world (Baldocchi et al.,
2004). The UK can and should take note of this and play a lead,
catalytic role in elevating world food production. We have the
natural resources, skills, knowledge and motivation to do this,
including research capability. However, the latter have been severely
eroded. In 1970, the then Agricultural Research Council supported
a comprehensive network of over 20 sector-relevant research
institutes which underpinned the agricultural industry. Today
BBSRC has only four remaining institutes focused on agricultural
and food science; these remaining institutions are however demonstrably
internationally excellent in their respective spheres of operation.
8. Fluctuation in prices of inputs (energy, fertilisers
and feed) is a major contributor to the stability and security
of the food production sector. Without stable, secure and sufficient
locally-based primary production where safety and quality is high,
there is little incentive (given labour costs) for the large food
manufacturing sector to remain in situ. The arable sector
is probably less vulnerable than livestock sectors in this context
but the interconnectedness, mutual dependency and yet poor integration
of primary production, manufacturing and retailing represent a
genuine risk to long-term security.
How well placed is the UK to make the most of
its opportunities in responding to the challenge of increasing
global food production by 50% by 2030 and doubling it by
2050, while ensuring that such production is sustainable?
9. The UK is very well placed in terms of
its natural resources, such as soils, and skilled farmers, supported
by researchers and advisers. However, the average age of farmers
is in the late 50s, and that of researchers and advisers with
expertise in production agriculture is similar. This resource
of skills and knowledge will be lost unless appropriate policies
and funding for succession are rapidly introduced. For example,
the recent Royal Agricultural Society of England report by its
"Practice with Science Group" (RASE 2008) emphasised
problems of succession in soil and water management, but the problem
is much wider, embracing most areas of science informing on food
production. Defra has drawn attention to this problem with regard
to knowledge transfer capability in its own reviews of priorities.
10. Constraints on crop production are well understood:
radiant energy for photosynthesis (dependent on latitude), temperature
(dependent on latitude and altitude), water, plant nutrients (primarily
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium), pests (vertebrates and invertebrates),
diseases (bacteria, viruses and fungi) and weeds (other plants).
It might also be appropriate to add to this list the availability
of knowledge, expertise and technology alongside the obvious requirement
for enough suitable land. In broad terms, responses to the need
for greater production can involve the cultivation of more land
(or land-use change), the improved application of currently available
knowledge (which invariably requires significant investment in
capital and human resource) and the acquisition of new knowledge
translated into novel products and practices (taking account of
the complex interactions that often occur between key constraining
factors). All this pre-supposes a policy framework and drive in
the direction of elevated output. Of these options, the former
is least desirable but is the usual short-term response. The latter
two require positive longer-term commitment and action.
In particular, what are the challenges the UK
faces in relation to the following aspects of the supply side
of the food system?
Soil quality
11. Healthy, unpolluted soil is a pre-requisite
for sustainable food production. UK soils suffer from wind and
water erosion in some areas, which will cause irreversible (outside
of geological time) soil loss. Compaction and thus poor root growth
is also a risk, especially where large and heavy machinery is
regularly used, such as in sugar beet harvesting on wet soils
in winter. Physically damaged soil can be repaired but this takes
time during which productivity is sub-optimal. Concern over declining
organic matter levels has probably been overemphasised. The recent
NERC-led Countryside Survey (http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/)
and a re-analysis of Scottish National Soil Inventory data (Prof
Colin Campbell, Macaulay Institute, personal communication) contradict
the conclusions of the National Soils Resources Institute (Bellamy
et al., 2005) that the organic matter content of most UK
soils is declining. Even where organic matter levels are declining
or low, this can be rectified by changing practice: the Rothamsted-developed
KeySoil system (http://www.keysoil.com/home/)
has been proven in Defra-funded work under the Catchment Sensitive
Farming Scheme to enable farmers to rebuild soil organic matter
levels and assess the economic value of this. Thus, generally,
problems of soil quality exist but can be rectified.
12. Local soil pollution from toxic heavy metals
and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) is important. Research
suggests that the former reduce or even eliminate nitrogen fixing
rhizobia in soils. Such irreversible problems must be avoided.
Research is key to identifying such problems and providing the
means of avoidance. New molecular methods are revealing the diversity
and function of soil microorganisms. Such research is essential
for understanding what diversity, and thus what land management
practices, are needed to sustain healthy soil functions and productive
agriculture.
Water availability
13. Current climate change scenarios suggest
that water availability will be a critical limitation on food
production in the south east of England. Research at Rothamsted
and elsewhere is seeking to understand better the crop traits
that can contribute greater drought tolerance in crop plants to
support genetic improvement for this increasingly important characteristic.
Computer models are also being used to predict drought and wider
climate change impacts and appropriate land management strategies
to mitigate these. For the UK's major crops there needs to be
a nationally agreed and coordinated strategy for delivering genetic
improvement taking account of the future and traits such as water
and nutrient use efficiency as well as resistance to pest and
disease alongside elevated yield potential. Delivery of these
objectives requires effort on the time scale of decades and a
lead from the relevant government Department might be expected.
14. Crop modelling work (funded by Defra) (Semenov,
2008) indicates that unpredictable and increasingly frequent extreme
temperature events are likely to have a greater impact than water
deficits on the future ability to sustain predictably high wheat
yields in the UK. This suggests high temperature tolerance of
an important target in crop genetic improvement programmes.
The science base
15. Key areas of expertise in areas of research
relevant to food security, especially production agriculture,
have been allowed to decline. The UK now has a mere handful of
research institutes with a remit for agricultural research, including
food security, compared to over 20 institutes 30 years
ago. Defra funding for research in production agriculture has
all but ceased and BBSRC investment is mostly in "up-stream"
scientific understanding as distinct from practical application
and implementation. This has resulted in a crisis in succession
in areas of applied research such as agronomy, soil science, weed
science and plant pathology with a complete absence of expertise
in some areas. At the same time, the number of people in UK institutions
with direct experience of the needs from agricultural sciences
in the developing world is also very few. This makes it increasingly
hard for the UK to make practical impact from its otherwise strong
bioscience base. The science base needs to be reconfigured and
reconstructed to a considered plan if the UK is effectively to
contribute to resolving the issue of food security; the ad
hoc short term expediency of the past will not deliver a secure
future.
Provision of training
16. The drastic decline in research institutes
with expertise in agriculture and agronomy limits the provision
of training. At the same time there has been a similar contraction
in universities with departments of agriculture. Until very recently,
the agricultural industry was not considered positively by young
people as offering a fulfilled and worthwhile career. There is
some evidence that the forthcoming global crisis in food sufficiency
and its connectivity to other major challenges (such as climate
change and environmental degradation) has again begun to arouse
motivation and stimulate the interests of young minds. A marked
change of policy relating to training at all levels over the next
10-20 years is necessary if the UK is to have the expertise
necessary to ensure food security.
The way in which land is farmed and managed
17. The emphasis on delivering environmental
goods and services over the last 20 years has impacted on
the public perception of what land is for and greatly reduced
the research base for food production (see paragraph 4). Changing
the policy emphasis back towards production can be done quickly,
but providing the necessary research and advisory expertise will
take longer. Current advice and technical input to farmers from
the supply side of the industry (including distributors) and independent
advisers such as members of the Association of Independent Crop
Consultants is generally good. However, a new generation of scientifically
trained and technologically-aware extension specialists is needed
and the former strong connectivity between the research base and
practitioners in the industry needs to be built back.
What role should Defra play both in ensuring that
the strengths of the UK food system are maintained and in addressing
the weaknesses that have been identified? What leadership and
assistance should Defra provide to the food industry?
18. Since its creation, Defra has not convincingly
demonstrated real commitment to ensuring the health and well-being
of the food and agricultural industries of the UK. The Department's
policies have tended to respond to other drivers relating to regulation
and public perception. There is a real need to ensure sustainability
of agricultural ecosystems and to reduce both non-renewable inputs
and emissions. However, much emphasis has been paid to delivering
more superficial and cosmetic changes of unproven environmental
value. In addition, much of Defra's focus has been on elucidating
the ecological and environmental impacts of agriculture; studies
on how ecological processes impact on the productivity of agricultural
system should now receive much more emphasis. Actions designed
to rebuild the research base and target increased agricultural
productivity are needed. Tangible action on the ground and in
the form of a radically changed policy environment is needed rather
than more reviews, committees and workshops. Defra has to accept
shared responsibility with others such as BBSRC and the HE sector
for maintaining the research base as the Costigan (2006) report
recommended.
How well does Defra engage with other relevant
departments across Government, and with European and international
bodies, on food policy and the regulatory framework for the food
supply chain? Is there a coherent cross-Government food strategy?
19. Defra does appear to engage well on food
policy and regulatory issues but rarely appears to lead, particularly
with regard to food production. Effective dialogue with BBSRC
and NERC needs to be re-established so that a coherent policy
on food security, with agreed responsibilities for supporting
key expertise and long-term strategically important projects can
be established.
20. Defra is much less well provided internally
with relevant expertise in, for example, agricultural sciences.
In the past, MAFF had substantial numbers of officials who had
direct personal experience of the conduct of scientific research;
it would be interesting to ask the question about how many Defra
officials, who are engaged on the administration of research funding,
have actually had a career trajectory involving practical agricultural
research. The expectation is that the number is now very low which
would explain the Department's increasing use of consultants who
themselves are not often well connected with the mainstream of
research providers. There is a good case to be made for Defra
to operate review systems for research contracting which draw
on expertise in Research Councils and also to reconnect actively
with the UK research base.
What criteria should Defra use to monitor how
well the UK is doing in responding to the challenge of doubling
global food production by 2050 while ensuring that such production
is sustainable?
21. There are plenty of key indicators of
food production that Defra has investigated. RRes led a project
for Defra to assess how food and fibre indicators might be used
to assess soil quality: "Soil indicator robustness testing,
food and fibre". This project was reviewed recently. Although
focused on soil quality, four of the five robustness indicators
identified could equally well be used to monitor food (and fibre)
production: "Total above-ground biomass production",
"Net primary production", "Area occupied by winter
wheat; yield per unit area", "Yield for a number of
commodities in relation to a unit of input".
22. It is always going to be hard for a government
Department to ensure its policies keep pace with change and this
is particularly the case in the context of the EU's dominance
over agriculture and food. Events in 2007-08 showed that
changes on the ground in response to markets will happen faster
than policy and science can respond—although the latter,
appropriately resourced, will always provide options for response.
It could help if there was a better and more widely accepted definition
of what is meant by sustainability when it comes to food production;
it is expedient for different groups to place emphasis on different
aspects. Defra (with input from others) should be able to examine
critically all policies and incentives in terms of precise sustainability
criteria and seek more data where this is necessary. It would
then be appropriate to encourage uptake of products and practices
which are compatible with movement in the required direction by
modifying or reformulating policies, incentives and regulations.
There are clear options for increasing production (see paragraph
9) but there will always be trade-offs (win-win is not always
achievable) and little can be achieved without appropriately directed
investment. In the UK it should be possible, relatively easily,
with the right incentives to increase output by 50%. Beyond this
is likely to require major planning and investments relating use
of land and natural resources, application of new technologies
and detailed consideration about how the whole food chain is integrated
and managed.
REFERENCESBaldocchi,
D and Valentini, R (2004) Geographic and temporal variation of
carbon exchange by ecosystems and their sensitivity to environmental
perturbations. Ch 15, pp 295-315 (Colorplate 10) in "The
Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Humans, Climate,and the Natural
World", eds Christopher B. Field and Michael R. Raupach,
Island Press, Washington.
Costigan, G (2006) Research Council Institutes, Centres,
Surveys and Units: A Review of Governance Issues. Office of Science
and Technology.
Godwin. R et al (2008) The current status
of soil and water management in England. RASE "Practice with
Science Group".
Semenov MA (2008) Impacts of climate change on wheat
in England and Wales. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 10.1098/rsif.2008.0285.
