Response to the DEFRA Consultation on Evidence and Innovation Strategy 2005-2008

Submitted on behalf of IFR by
Dr Nick Walton

January 2006

Information on the consultation can be found at: www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/ei-strategy/index.htm

The response below follows the layout of question’s in Defra’s Consultation Document

a) Defra’s approach to evidence and innovation

Q.i) Please comment on our approach to identifying Defra’s evidence and innovation needs in relation to our Strategic Outcomes, as set out in paragraphs 9-17 and the associated figures.

The intentions and broad mechanisms appear very appropriate, although much will depend upon the implementation processes, which are not elaborated here. It is therefore difficult to comment in detail beyond applauding the aspirations laid out in this section.

The gathering and assessment of evidence is obviously essential both in establishing policies and in monitoring and assessing the outcomes and effectiveness of those policies. The issue of innovation is more complex, since there is scope for innovation in all aspects of function, including policy initiation, evidence gathering and implementation. It is important that Defra adopts a pro-active approach to innovation, particularly in policy initiation, although the statement in para. 12 that “innovation is an unpredictable and dynamic process mostly outside our control” might be taken to suggest a reactive stance.

In this context, European Technology Platforms [ETPs], mentioned later, are public/private partnerships with the explicit aim of stimulating innovation.

Q. ii) Please comment on the implications of the generic changes in our needs and approach suggested in paragraph 17.

The need to include and incorporate people’s attitudes and preferences on policy issues, and understand their likely response, is a recurring theme in many recently developed strategy documents. This presumably reflects, and attempts to deal with, the considerable influence public opinion/perception (whether formulated by an individual or shaped by pressure groups and organisations) can have on levels of confidence and trust, acceptance of policy goals and subsequent compliance. The aim is laudable but relies heavily on the development of communication, involvement and public consultation strategies, accompanied by monitoring of effectiveness. This consultation document (nearly 200 pages of close-typed, complex material, referring to a large number of other documents and posing nearly 200 questions) provides an example of where genuine, public-wide involvement is not really facilitated. Perhaps, if ‘analysis of evidence and innovation’ has already indicated this requirement, a more appropriate consultation will take place in the future.

The remaining intentions, to improve and extend multi-disciplinary analysis and assessment, improve evaluation, broaden expertise etc. are also often stated in strategy documents of this type. However, if one delves deeper, it is often the case that sub-disciplinarity is confused with multi-disciplinarity, such that evaluations and assessments are carried out by boards/committees/groups composed of individuals in the same broad field but with expertise in a variety of sub-disciplines. There is a risk that this results in poorly-informed initiatives and policies and lack of innovation in strategy design and implementation. It is therefore extremely important for Defra to define ‘multidisciplinary’ and ‘broad expertise’ at the outset to ensure that these requirements are met. It is obviously very important that in its policy development Defra anticipates all potentially significant social, environmental, practical and economic implications and then formulates its expert advisory panels appropriately.

b) Facilitating better joint working

The questions posed in this section are directed at, and best answered by, other funding agencies.

c) Links with Defra’s delivery bodies and statutory agencies

Q. i) What do you see as the key issues, barriers and opportunities for improved joint working between core Defra and delivery bodies on research and other evidence and innovation activities? This could include, for example, independence of formal advice to Government, commissioning arrangements, management of research and development (R&D) budgets etc.

The only real barrier is the commitment of these bodies to work together [this is not a problem confined to the UK alone]. R&D commissioning, management and reporting arrangements can be tailored to need – ensuring both quality and innovation goals are adhered to in the process. Funding bodies can retain independence, both in terms of project funding and level of formal advice given, whilst still engaging in discussion and joint strategy formulation; and they can commit funds to, and work cooperatively with, a larger consortium that funds joint initiatives where this is the most sensible, appropriate and cost-effective course of action. Some research review panels already include members (or observers) from other research funding bodies to shape research projects and identify joint funding opportunities – this should be made obligatory.

Q. ii) Do you agree that we should aim to produce in the future a combined evidence and innovation strategy for the Defra family? How do you see this being developed? What might be the advantages and disadvantages?

One of the major criticisms has been the lack of integration between members of the Defra ‘family’ and other organisations with responsibilities in overlapping areas. Whatever the perceived, or real, difficulties of producing combined evidence and innovation strategies, it is obviously key to the ambitions laid out in this consultation document. As stated, Defra resource for research is limited and efficient use of funds is paramount; broader expertise and consultation need to be brought to bear in decision making and policy development; and research results, evidence and intelligence need to be disseminated to, and exploited by, all appropriate ‘family’ end-users. The advantages of a greater degree of collaboration and cooperation far outweigh the possible disadvantage of more time and effort being required to ensure good communication and reach consensus. Individuals in each department/organisation should be (and hopefully already are) given responsibility to liaise in person with colleagues in other ‘family’ units to ensure lines of communication remain open.

d) Relations with the Research Councils, academia, business and the voluntary sector

Q. i) Should Defra seek to develop some criteria with the Research Councils (and wider academia) and with business to define the boundaries of Defra’s research funding so that we can efficiently address evidence and innovation needs throughout the policy cycle? What might such criteria include?

With limited resource, it is particularly important for relevant organisations to define boundaries and work cooperatively with others to ensure that UK fundamental, social and economic research needs are met as far as possible. It is also crucial that Defra’a limited resources are not used to duplicate research ongoing elsewhere in Europe. The trans-national communication activities developed around the Mirror Groups of ETPs such as Food for Life. Plants for the Future and Forestry should result in greater information exchange between national funding bodies and would also provide added value to Defra by enabling data from different national projects to be combined/compared if common methodologies are used. As far as Defra itself is concerned, it should ensure that the research it commissions delivers good-quality, timely evidence to inform or support policy. It would seem appropriate therefore that Defra research is defined tightly and not allowed to wander into the ‘wish list’ zone, or be unduly influenced by the research bias of advisors. Supplying the evidence-base for policy relating to current and predicted problems is a priority. To maximise delivery for money spent, it is also important to monitor milestone delivery, to include break points in research projects and generally to improve project management to facilitate desired deliverables. The development of these criteria might be assisted by knowledge of best practice in other EU MS [obtained through ERA-Nets and ETP activities]

Given this primary focus and in view of the very wide, cross-disciplinary nature of Defra’s remit and responsibilities, the development of appropriate joint initiatives with the Research Councils, and with other departments and agencies (notably the Food Standards Agency), to ensure that longer-term, more fundamental research is conducted is absolutely essential. Once again, the targeting of such long-term [and hence expensive] research should be done against a background of knowledge of the research strategies and priorities of other nationally-funded activities in Europe [especially France, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark]

Q. ii) What strategic areas of science and other forms of knowledge does Defra need to maintain itself within the UK, via partnership with the UK science and engineering base or otherwise?

It is very important that the existing analytical capabilities relating to food and to the environment, including for example the Central Science Laboratory, are properly resourced and maintained. It is critical that the UK maintains the interdisciplinary resources to respond to further unexpected developments or crises in the agri-food sector and to medium- and long-term challenges, most notably climate change. These resources need not, of course, be under the management of Defra (they may, for example, be under Research Council management), but there need to be well-developed mechanisms to ensure that Defra has a pro-active input in ensuring their long-term future and stability. With capital and infrastructure costs of research increasing, Defra should consider the cost benefits of exploiting existing European infrastructures and networks and consortia active in FP6 and FP7.

e) Engaging with Other Government Departments and the Devolved Administrations

Q. i) What is the scope for better cross-departmental evidence and innovation activities? How does our analysis help engage other departments and the devolved administrations?

In theory, there is considerable scope for better cross–departmental activity but no doubt there are several fairly high barriers to this working in practice. A Cross-Departmental ‘Evidence and Exploitation Unit’ would seem appropriate (staffed by existing personnel), whose role it would be to facilitate engagement in joint activities, debate, strategies, use of evidence and exploitation, joint reports and dissemination. Please see also the comments under dii) above.

f) International co-ordination and influencing

Q. i) In the different Strategic Outcome areas, where should Defra put the overall balance of effort in its Evidence and Innovation Strategy between engaging at the international level and the domestic level?

In respect of sustainable farming and food, a number of relevant European Technology Platforms have been established to bring together stakeholder communities so as to promote and support innovation in the agro-food chain. These include Food for Life [which has Professor David White on its Board, and has a theme on Sustainable Food Production], Plants for the Future, Global Animal Health and Forestry; there is already good co-operation between the first two ETPs since both focus on production of safe and affordable food. All ETPs include a Mirror Group within which [amongst others] national funding bodies will be represented. Funding for implementing the Strategic Research Agendas of these ETPs is envisaged to come from national and regional [FP7] programmes [theme 2 [Food, Biotechnology and Agriculture] of the Co-operation pillar includes sustainable production of food and non-food products and the final work programme will be developed with inputs from ETPs; theme 6 [Environment] of Co-operation addresses sustainable management of resources], industry and the private sector. The priorities of the SRAs will be reflected in the individual Work Programmes of FP7. Defra should thus be represented on all relevant Mirror Groups [it has already indicated its commitment to ETP Food for Life (Dr C. Goodacre)], so as to best be able to shape international activities and to identify particular areas where national inputs are especially needed. ETPs are public/private partnerships with funding for their agreed Strategic Research Agendas envisaged to come from regional and national funding bodies, industry and private capital [including the European Investment Bank].

The ERA-NET scheme, introduced in FP6, will be extended within FP7 [subject to available funding]; this scheme brings together national funding bodies so as to share best practice, agree common standards and, in the long term, open up nationally-funded activities. Active participation by Defra within existing and new ERA-NETs will enable duplication of effort to be avoided and synergies between nationally-funded projects to be optimised, thereby increasing the value for money at the national level. ERA-NETS are seen as one cost-effective means of linking ETPs to stakeholders at the national level.

Q. ii) What issues, opportunities and barriers do you see as especially relevant to Defra in developing evidence and innovation internationally in support of its sustainable development and environmental leadership goals?

The European research community has been brought together through participation in FP projects. Despite the emergence of ERA-NETs, the links between national funding organisations have not yet developed so strongly; however, this will be a long-term process. Defra could effectively exploit the networks developed by the European research community to accelerate the development of its own European networks. It should, however, not be forgotten that a significant expertise base resides outside the UK, and so contacts with countries having a strong agro-food base [Australia, New Zealand] should be a priority [A recent visit to the UK by a group of NZ academics and industrialists with interests across the food chain resulted in agreement on an FP6 SSA proposal to link EU and NZ researchers. ETP Food for Life recognises NZ as a country with a very strong record of food chain innovation and will establish links to capture best practice [which may have to be modified for promotion in Europe]. Links with the emerging economies of China, and India, where much primary production is likely to shift over the next 10-20 years, is also important. It is difficult to predict what “European agro-food” will be like in the medium- to long term, and ETP Food for Life has included Scenario Studies within its SRA. Defra should ensure that the topics prioritised for such study have relevance to the UK situation.

g) Our consultation processes

Q. i) How do you consider we could improve our consultation processes on our strategies for science, innovation and other forms of knowledge?

This consultation is a hefty tome with a huge number of questions tailored to meet the needs of all stakeholders. In future, several, smaller, targeted consultations may improve the quality, quantity and utility of responses, particularly from businesses and generalists. Exchange of [non-sensitive] information with other EU Member States would be beneficial. Many issues would be common, and not all countries have all the necessary knowledge and experience.

20. Sustainable Farming and Food

How should Defra take forward its E&I needs?

Q.20.i Where are there missing areas of E&I need (e.g. key areas of uncertainty; opportunities for innovation) or erroneous ones (lines of argument which are untested or untenable)?

The areas and objectives presented in Fig. 20 appear comprehensive, but further detail (addressed perhaps in smaller, targeted consultations, as suggested under g) above) is needed to make critical judgements.

Q.20.ii Where should the emphasis of E&I investment by Defra be put (including sun-setting1)?

In our view, the emphasis should begin to reflect a potential, longer-term scenario [see comment [under f, above] about ETP Scenario Studies] in which the UK faces increasing difficulty in securing food supplies (and energy) at low prices on the international market. The challenge will be to produce increased amounts of high-quality food, against stringent cost limitations, without compromising standards of environmental maintenance and protection and potentially in the face of significant climate change.

Q.20.iii How should we approach gaps where Defra has no current mechanism or intelligent customer capability (e.g. policy piloting; social science capability)?

This requires appropriate collaboration and discussion with ESRC and academic research groups, with a view to setting up new initiatives and jointly-funded projects.

Q.20.iv Where are there opportunities for greater co-ordination/collaboration/partnership with others to share and develop evidence? Where does this work best at the moment, and where are the best examples that we should look to?

We believe that the scope for partnerships with the Research Councils and with FSA has yet to be fully explored. There is a need for long-term planning to ensure that the potential challenge outlined above (Q.20ii) can be anticipated and addressed.

Q.20.v Are there specific E&I needs relating to sustainable food and farming that should be addressed as a matter of priority? Please list up to a maximum of 10 E&I needs.

Fig. 20 appears comprehensive in this regard.

Q.20.vi Do you have any other comments on how Defra could improve its Evidence and Innovation Strategy?

No further comment