House of Lords - Innovation in EU agriculture

Innovation in EU agriculture - European Union Committee Contents

CHAPTER 4: Agricultural research and innovation

"... we need to develop sustainability in relation to the kind of pressures we know are going to happen on a worldwide basis. We are looking at 2050 and saying that this is a time when we know our agricultural output will have to have reached a level that is probably 70-100% greater than it is right now, on a worldwide basis. If we were to use only conventional approaches now, we would have a lot of problems with sustainability … The sorts of things that we believe are very important are to integrate the scientific knowledge that has been generated from a lot of diverse areas."

Professor Maurice Moloney, Chief Executive, Rothamsted Research[60]

50. The Royal Society report on "Reaping the Benefits" made it clear that the key objective for agriculture in the first half of the current century was to achieve sustainable intensification. Output has to be increased significantly, as the world's population rises from 7 to up to 9 billion by 2050. Sustainable intensification requires that, as output increases, resource inputs into agriculture per unit area of land are held steady or reduced. This applies to water, oil and derivative products, and fertilisers. All are finite resources, and cutting back on the consumption of oil and fertiliser will be important to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Waste in food systems must be reduced (see paragraphs 20-23), and dietary choices in more prosperous societies steered towards less resource-intensive products; but there will be an inescapable demand for more food.

51. Past developments in innovative technologies are already helping farmers move in this direction. Precision farming is an example, allowing tractors or sprayers fitted with GPS technology to make significant savings in the use of fuel, fertiliser and chemicals (see Chapter 3).

52. Innovative research also underpins commercial success. In evidence which we received about the Dutch Agricultural Innovation System (DAISY), we were given the example of the so-called "Wasserbomben" (water bombs) affair in the early 1990s, when there was a crisis in the market for Dutch tomatoes in Germany as consumers reacted against products that had been bred for colour and texture, but not for taste. Through combined working between research institutes, breeders and distributors in the Netherlands, cherry tomatoes were developed and launched on the market. "When you buy those small tomatoes in a shop, you do not see the huge knowledge behind them—knowledge about breeding, logistics, disease management, product development and marketing. A whole chain of innovative concepts lies behind the cherry tomato."[61]

RESEARCH IN THE UK

53. We discuss the EU approach to research later in this chapter. In the UK, the quality of basic agricultural research continues to be of very high quality. Professor Douglas Kell, Chief Executive Officer of the Biotechnology and Biological Research Council (BBSRC), said that the BBSRC spends around £470 million a year on research in biotechnology and biological sciences; and that the UK is number one in the world in biology, and this includes "eminence in farming".[62] This view was echoed by other witnesses. Professor Moloney described the research efforts being taken forward by the John Innes Centre (JIC) and Rothamsted Research as a "powerhouse of discovery";[63] he said that the UK had world leadership in aspects of genetics and genomics, and that it could build on this by working on bio-informatics, on photosynthesis and the use of nutrients and water in crops.[64] Both Professor Moloney and Professor Godfray[65] said that there was a need to boost soil science which had been neglected in recent decades.

BOX 5

Research categories

Research has traditionally been split into two categories—basic, and applied. More recently, understanding of research has included a third category, translational research.

Basic (or fundamental) research: experimental or theoretical work done to generate new knowledge in a particular discipline, without any specific application in view.

Applied research: also original investigation done to acquire new knowledge, but directed primarily towards a specific practical aim.

Translational research: both basic and applied research is typically taken forward within single disciplines within the research community. Translational research is characterised by multi-disciplinary approaches, and by interaction between academic research and industry practice.

54. Conversely, Professor Moloney said that, alongside the closure in recent years of 11 agricultural research institutes, a gap had opened up in translational research.[66] Several other witnesses commented on this problem.[67] We received detailed evidence from Professor David Leaver, Professor Emeritus at the Royal Agricultural College.[68] Professor Leaver talked of the research pipeline, which ensured that innovation flowed from the laboratory to the farm, and information from agricultural practice was transmitted back to researchers. He described the current position in medical research, where applied research supported by public charity funding connected to pharmaceutical companies and was put into practical use, and contrasted that with agricultural research: "We have this gap in the middle where applied research could at one end be taking from the basic science of the research push, but could also be looking at things happening on farms and the way that things are developing."[69] Professor Peter Lillford, Visiting Professor, Department of Biology, University of York, told us that the UK had "nowhere near enough" transfer of innovation knowledge, and, with the UK's competitive position in mind, he added a warning that "other states in Europe do".[70]

55. Professor Oldham agreed that the research culture of UK universities contained no strong incentives to encourage translational research. The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which was the basis for decisions on funding university research, steered researchers towards high-impact papers to be assessed by other scientists: "We have created a culture where we have some absolutely brilliant science going on … in its own world, and it's being assessed by other researchers in terms of quality, but the value of that, in terms of translation value into practice, is diminished."[71] He voiced the hope, however, that the move over the next couple of years from the RAE to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) would strengthen the recognition of practical impact within the research culture.[72]

56. Professor Kell also told us that the BBSRC had a new and specific policy to encourage knowledge exchange and commercialisation; that the Council supported Industrial Partnership Awards, bringing together researchers and industrial partners from the outset; and that it had recently initiated the Advanced Training Partnerships, to support training through collaborations between user groups and research providers.[73]

57. We attach great importance to maintaining and strengthening the UK's base for agricultural research, through the funding provided by the Government and the BBSRC in particular. We have a particular concern about the decline in UK research into soil science; if recruitment into the discipline does not improve, the UK risks losing that capability. We consider that sustainable intensification of agriculture must be a determining feature of agriculture's future and of innovation within the industry; we urge those with national funding responsibility to prioritise support for further work on nutrient efficiency, water efficiency, genomics and soil science, as key elements of the UK's approach to sustainable intensification.

58. There is a wide consensus that the potential practical impact of much research is being missed because of gaps in the research pipeline. Mr Paice told us that in 2010 the UK Government published a food research and innovation strategy, providing a "coherent framework to support and enhance the research capability and the translation of its research into use".[74] Given the concerns expressed to us by witnesses such as Professor Leaver and Professor Lillford, we are concerned that this is inadequate. We consider that the Government, and those with funding responsibilities, must look more urgently at how research aimed at translating scientific findings into practice can be revived and enhanced, building on initiatives already under way.

59. It is self-evident that research will be carried out only if there are researchers to do it. The evidence that we heard from Professor Giles Oldroyd, JIC, highlighted the fact that the teaching of feeder subjects at A-level tended to be of such poor quality that students saw plant sciences as "rather old-fashioned" and took the view that "the future is all in the medical sciences".[75] Professor Oldroyd commented that there was a growing recognition that agricultural science was important, given its role in meeting the challenges posed by a growing world population, but more needed to be done to attract students into relevant undergraduate courses.[76]

60. We agree that, at school level, the attraction of agriculture and plant science as areas of study and as a profession can be enhanced by emphasising their relevance to climate change and food security. The same message would be reinforced by re-orientating agricultural teaching in universities towards the future needs of sustainable intensification of agriculture, both as regards recruitment of researchers and education of farmers.[77] Lifelong learning among the agricultural community, food processors and retailers might be another helpful avenue to explore in terms of education as agricultural innovation is linked strongly to building the capacities of the workforce.

61. When we put this concern to Mr Paice, he agreed that there was a need to make the food and farming industry an attractive industry, but saw the Government's role as to ensure that the industry could "deliver a satisfactory income and terms and conditions ..."[78] We see this as necessary, but not sufficient. We recommend that the Government, with other key educational bodies, should review the content and presentation of agricultural studies and plant science from school level, through further and higher education, to adult re-training programmes: studying agriculture should be seen as a frontline activity of central importance to ensure that its relevance to the challenges of food security and sustainable intensification is clear.

RESEARCH IN THE EU—THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

62. The EU's Framework Programme for Research is the world's largest research programme. The current Programme (FP7) has a budget of €53.2 bn for the period from 2007 to 2013. Within FP7, the Cooperation programme (representing two-thirds of the overall budget) fosters collaborative research across Europe and other partner countries through projects by transnational consortia of industry and academia. Research is carried out in ten key thematic areas;[79] funding of €1.9 bn is earmarked for the area of food, agriculture and biotechnology. It is notable that, while just under 2% of the EU research budget is allocated to agricultural research, the CAP itself currently accounts for just over 40% of the EU's total budget.

63. We heard support for FP7 from some of our witnesses. For the CLA, Professor Buckwell commented that it was important collaborative international research of high quality.[80] Professor Kell said that there was a "complementarity" between research funding by the EU and by Member States nationally, and that Europe has been in the lead in promoting the concept of the "knowledge-based bio-economy".[81]

64. Conversely, Professor Oldroyd was critical of much of the procedure attached to FP7 funding, citing "endless reporting, endless auditing … an incredibly bureaucratic process" which also lacked the flexibility to adjust to changing priorities.[82] Dr Tina Barsby, NIAB, made similar comments on the bureaucratic aspects of FP7 funding.[83]

65. Against this background, we were interested to hear from Madame Marion Guillou, CEO of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), and Professor Kell about the research Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on agriculture, food security and climate change, which their respective organisations (INRA and BBSRC) are leading. Madame Guillou explained that the impetus for this research project had come from discussions in 2008 under the French Presidency of the EU, and that the work was being taken forward outside FP7, with the participation of 20 countries within and outside the EU, and with the knowledge, though not direction, of the European Commission. During 2011, work would be done on the risk assessment of climate change for European agriculture.[84]

66. We consider this a very important research project; and its emergence and implementation after the setting of FP7 funding for the period 2007-2013 highlights the lack of flexibility inherent in the EU's approach to allocating funding and priorities for its major research programme. While we acknowledge the progress made by the EU's ERA-NET co-operation scheme (see Box 6), we are also clear that other projects encouraging collaboration between EU Member States have proved successful. We recommend that the Commission should play a full role in encouraging such collaboration, and should consider including possible financing under the next Framework Programme, in addition to the existing ERA-NET co-operation scheme.

67. We discussed these issues with Ms Patricia Reilly, agriculture adviser in the cabinet of Research and Innovation Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn, and Ms Maive Rute, Director, Biotechnologies, Agriculture and Food, Research and Innovation Directorate-General. Ms Reilly said that the Commissioner and her officials were aware of the bureaucratic burden attached to applications for funding; the Commissioner was "determined to put in place a simplified system that allows researchers to get out of the office and back to their labs ..."[85] Ms Reilly also referred to the consultation which was under way ahead of decisions on the next Framework Programme, which reflected an intention to simplify and rationalise the EU's approach to research funding. We strongly welcome the Commission's acknowledgement of the need to make research funding less bureaucratic; we consider that the UK Government should support this intention; and we urge the Commission to make rapid progress with the reforms which it has outlined.

68. We also consider that the EU's future Research Framework Programme should be organised more flexibly and in response to tackling grand challenges, rather than following the current approach which tends to brigade research according to rigid themes. Such a re-orientation would allow it to respond more effectively to the particular challenges of climate change and food security, to which increased agricultural and agricultural ecosystems research can play a key role. We return to this issue at the end of this chapter.

RESEARCH IN THE EU—NETWORKS

69. Several of our witnesses spoke positively about the impetus to co-operation among researchers in different countries which the EU provided, both through the mechanisms of the Framework Programme and also outside them. Madame Guillou, said that the Framework Programmes had promoted networks between research teams throughout Europe.[86] Professor Oldroyd said that collaboration through the ERA-NET scheme had proved very successful and adaptable.[87] For DG Research and Innovation, Ms Rute made the same point, and said that EU research co-ordination helped create stronger co-ordination within some Member States, and had also raised the scientific level of research in them.[88]

BOX 6

ERA-NET—networking of research programmes in the European Research Area

The objective of the ERA-NET scheme is to develop and strengthen the coordination of national and regional research programmes. It allows those implementing public research programmes to coordinate their activities, for example, by mutually supporting joint calls for trans-national proposals. In some cases, additional EU financial support may be available to facilitate joint calls for proposals.

70. Professor Oldham, SAC, also commented that EU research funding had been very useful in encouraging networks across Europe. His own institute worked with a number of other research institutions, technology platforms and elements of industry in a grouping called the Animal Task Force (see Box 7), to share views on the priorities for livestock science research.[89] We took evidence jointly from Professor Oldham and his SAC colleague, Professor Geoff Simm; from Dr Paul Vriesekoop, of Wageningen URC in the Netherlands; and from Dr John Williams, of INRA in France. A common commitment among the participating organisations was the wish to strengthen links between researchers and industry, and to see research outcomes translated into practice.[90] Reflecting their experience, Dr Vriesekoop thought that it would be beneficial to the EU if Member States put more effort into pooling their research resources to bring institutions together to work on the same projects: "I see it coming up now, but it can be done much better, much more and much more efficiently in total. Across Europe, a lot of research is being duplicated ..."[91]

BOX 7

Animal Task Force

The Animal Task Force (ATF) was initiated in 2008-09 by INRA, SAC, Wageningen URC and the University of Bonn, in Germany. In 2010, it was expanded to include Teagasc, Ireland's Agriculture and Food Development Authority; MTT, in Finland; the University of Aarhus, in Denmark; and the University of Uppsala, in Sweden.

The ATF's mission is to develop a network for providing opinions and outlooks on animal research and implementation, and the knowledge needed for tomorrow's technologies and systems; to support and strengthen the work of the European Technology Platforms on breeding, feeding, health etc including especially cross cutting issues; to communicate with relevant authorities and actors; to mobilise resources for animal research and innovation; and to promote knowledge exchange between research base and end users.

71. The same concern was expressed to us by Ms Marie Francis, Chair of the InCrops Enterprise Hub, and Dr John French, Managing Director, InCrops, a UK organisation established to promote the commercial exploitation of research into innovative crop uses. Dr French said that many countries in the EU were tackling issues related to agriculture and technology in isolation from each other, and InCrops saw the need to put in place a structure that would provide better links between Member States in relation to technology transfer and translation.[92] Dr French and his colleagues have subsequently submitted their proposals for a European Innovation Network for Agriculture (reprinted at Appendix 6 to this report); we commend this submission, for its analysis of the issues to be tackled, and for its blueprint for a structure to do so. We refer to InCrops' submission again in our consideration of the Commission's proposal for a European Innovation Partnership on agriculture (see paragraph 73 below).

72. We note that start-up finance for InCrops' activities was in part received from the East of England Regional Development Agency (RDA), which provided matching funding for support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), an obvious potential source of support for such a network. This illustrates the important role of the public sector in providing incentives to encourage private sector investment in research; EU funding (ERDF) has been used to support innovative agricultural projects in the UK. In June 2010, the Government confirmed its intention to abolish the RDAs. We urge the Government to ensure that, with the abolition of the RDAs, successor arrangements enable ERDF support to be accessed easily, and without interruption, by appropriate projects in the UK.[93]

EUROPEAN INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

73. In June 2010, the European Council adopted the Europe 2020 Strategy, to which innovation is central. In October of the same year, the Commission published a Communication on the Innovation Union,[94] which is one of the flagship initiatives for Europe 2020. A key element of the Innovation Union is the concept of European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs). Box 8 sets out the detail of the Innovation Union; it is clear that only effective co-ordination can make these objectives achievable. At Appendix 5 we print a copy of a reply from the European Commission to a series of questions which we raised about the agriculture EIP.

BOX 8

Innovation Union

The European Commission's Communication of October 2010 saw the biggest challenge for the EU and its Member States as the need to adopt a much more strategic approach to innovation. It set out ten actions to achieve the Innovation Union:

(1) continued investment in education, R&D, innovation and ICTs in times of fiscal constraints

(2) reforms to get more value for money and tackle fragmentation from research and innovation systems

(3) modernising education systems at all levels

(4) enabling researchers and innovators to cooperate across the EU as easily as within national borders

(5) simplifying access to EU programmes and enhancing their leverage effect on private sector investment

(6) getting more innovation out of research, by enhancing cooperation between science and business

(7) removing the remaining barriers for entrepreneurs to bring "ideas to market"

(8) "European Innovation Partnerships should be launched to accelerate research, development and market deployment of innovations to tackle major societal challenges, pool expertise and resources and boost the competitiveness of EU industry ..."

(9) exploiting strengths in design and creativity better

(10)working better with international partners

74. A recurrent theme of our inquiry has been the need to make connections between the different groups concerned with innovation in agriculture: for example, between researchers on the one hand and farmers on the other; or between research institutes in different parts of the EU that are duplicating work done elsewhere. Professor Kell said that a large part of tackling the need to promote innovation was "to bring together all of the multiple funders and users to help the innovation chain, because keeping people separate in silos inhibits this ..."[95] The Commission's reply states that the EIP "would mobilise and bring together all actors around a common target—from those conducting basic and applied research, all the way to the final user like farmers and businesses, including every step in between".

75. However, connections need to be made within organisations, as well as between them. In our March 2010 report on adapting EU agriculture to climate change, we noted that the separate Directorates-General of the Commission responsible for agriculture, and for the environment, were working together on climate change issues; and that the appointment of a new Climate Action Commissioner was intended to ensure better integration of climate change adaptation into EU policies.

76. There is the same need to overcome long-standing organisational fragmentation of policy responsibility in relation to innovation in EU agriculture. For DG Agriculture, Mr Häusler said that, although a decade ago there had been a research branch in the CAP structure, it had been superseded by the creation of a Research DG, and that the level of agricultural research supported by the EU had declined. The launch of the agriculture EIP was meant to reverse this decline.[96] Mr Häusler's reference to the co-operation between his Directorate-General and the Research DG was echoed by Ms Reilly, who set it in the context of President Barroso's encouragement to the present Commissioners "to work horizontally, to co-operate on their own dossiers, and to try to take a helicopter view of the societal challenges that we face, as opposed to everyone working in their own silos."[97] We say more about co-operation within the Commission in paragraph 152.

77. We heard support for the agriculture EIP from some of our witnesses. Mr de Castro, Chair of the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament, commented that agriculture was "at the centre of an Innovation Union and the new global challenge".[98] Professor Oldham and Dr Vriesekoop saw considerable potential in the EIP concept, while stressing the need to implement the concept in a meaningful and inclusive manner; Professor Oldham raised the possibility that the EIP approach might be used to modify CAP expenditure so that it stimulated innovation more effectively.[99]

78. We are clear about the need to reinforce EU support for research into agricultural innovation, and this requires not only that funding be maintained and properly focused, but also that research priorities are determined on the basis of co-operation among research centres across the EU, and between those centres and other key players, from the farming sector and the agri-food system more widely. We understand these to be the intentions underlying the proposed agriculture EIP. We support the idea of a European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on agricultural productivity and sustainability, but only on the understanding that it will be founded on effective, action-based co-operation, including between the different Directorates-General of the Commission. EU agriculture will not be sufficiently helped to tackle the challenges ahead if the policy framework is weakened by a lack of cohesion within the Commission. For the UK Government, Mr Paice commented that it was still "very early days" for the agriculture EIP. While this is true, we are clear that the Government must work closely with the Commission and other Member States to clarify and guide the EIP proposals.

79. We draw attention to InCrops' submission on a European Innovation Network for Agriculture (see Appendix 6). In particular, we highlight the call in that submission for a network initiative to follow a twin-track approach: "EU networking and transnational delivery", to be based on the sort of partnership arrangements envisaged in the EIP; but also "innovation delivery to the agricultural sector", ensuring that innovative knowledge generated across the EU is conveyed to farm business "to ensure that local delivery of support, whilst respecting local traditions and systems, draws on the expertise in all member states". We add that it will be important that measures are devised and publicised for guiding and monitoring the impact of the proposed agriculture EIP: these should include not simply organisational and reporting milestones, but metrics of the take-up and application of innovative practices by the farming sector across the EU. We recommend that the Commission follow a "twin-track approach" (EU networking, local delivery) in taking forward the agriculture EIP; and that it develops metrics and identifies clear targets, so that the progress of the EIP is measured against those targets and is regularly reviewed.

THE NEED FOR A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO RESEARCH INTO AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION

80. We agree with the view which was held by most, if not all, of our witnesses about the centrality of agriculture to the EU's ability to confront the challenges of food security. This was well expressed by Mr Häusler: "In every crisis there is a chance, and now there is a chance for agriculture. The big debate that we will have in the coming months, in the College[100] and later outside it, is about bringing agriculture and the agricultural economy back into the centre of political debate. It is not a debate about a specialist agricultural minister in a little corner discussing the price of milk, but a strategic debate about the future of the continent".[101] We welcome the fact that greater prominence is being given to agriculture in the deliberations of the European Commission, and we urge that it should be given a similar priority in political debate in the UK.

81. This strategic debate requires a strategic approach to the next research framework programme, responding to grand societal challenges. The EU's research efforts need to take particular account of the challenges of mitigating, and adapting to, climate change, of utilising natural resources (water, soil) more effectively and of responding to the linked challenge of global food security. Innovation-related links need to be made between agricultural research and other areas, such as manufacturing and transport. By doing so, the case can be made that investing in European agricultural R&D is fundamental to raising Europe's agricultural, and overall economic, competitiveness.

82. Research must be framed to respond to the characteristics of the agri-food system as a whole, and there is a need for further interdisciplinary work between natural science and social science, bringing the insights of the latter to bear, for example, on consumer demand for food and on behaviour change.[102] The relevance of social science was set out for us in evidence from Madame Guillou,[103] and from Mr Tim Smith, Chief Executive of the Food Standards Agency.[104] We consider that a more strategic approach to agricultural research is required. Agricultural research must be seen as an integral part of agricultural and food policy—in particular, if the CAP demands more from farmers in terms of tackling climate change, the research agenda needs to respond accordingly. Defra has taken steps to build up the social science contribution to its research base.[105] We call for a strengthening of interdisciplinary work, bringing natural and social scientists together to work on food security.

83. Agricultural innovation must be central to both national research priorities and to EU research priorities: we welcome the evidence that we have received from the European Commission that agriculture has a central role in the EU's Innovation Union agenda and will be given increased prominence in the future Framework Programme. We regard it as unacceptable that agricultural research funding at the EU level is under €2 bn over seven years, while the agricultural policy budget is around €400 bn. Increased funding for agriculture under the Research Programme, through the suggested grand challenges approach, should be supported financially by reducing the proportion of the EU budget devoted to supporting the Common Agricultural Policy. Within the remaining, and still substantial, agricultural budget, funds should be partially re-allocated towards innovation under the Rural Development Fund.

60 Q 112 Back

61 Evidence from Mr Peter Keet, Senior Policy Officer, Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation: Q 595 Back

62 Q 416 Back

63 Q 116 Back

64 Q 108 Back

65 Q 644 Back

66 Q 116 Back

67 For example: Dr Mike Storey, AHDB, Q 56; Professor Giles Oldroyd, JIC, Q 93; Professor Allan Buckwell, CLA, Q 163; Mr Tony Pexton, Dr Tina Barsby, NIAB, Q 285 Back

68 In November 2010, Professor Leaver produced a report on "Support for Agricultural R&D", for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture. A copy can be seen at: http://www.appg-agscience.org.uk/linkedfiles/APPGSTA%20-%20David%20Leaver%20report%20Nov%202010.pdf Back

69 Q 305 Back

70 Q 446 Back

71 Q 339 Back