Paper AEBC 05/10
1. The AEBC’s consultation and information gathering
exercises on research agendas have identified a number of key drivers of
agricultural biotechnology research and thrown up a number of issues around the
processes through which research agendas are determined. This case study aims
to focus on one area of research in order to identify the important influences
on that field, and explore the implication of these drivers for the research
agenda.
2. Plant breeding was an area of research identified for
such a case study early on in the Commission’s thinking, and a number of
consultation respondents also highlighted some of the issues relevant to plant
breeding[1].
This has been a field where there have been significant changes in the
structure and nature of research over the past 50 years, and these can be
associated with changes in Government policy, technology developments, and
public views.
3. This study does not aim to provide a comprehensive
review of research in the field of plant breeding, but is based on desk
research using existing reports and academic papers, and discussions with a
range of plant breeders and academics in the field[2].
It draws heavily on, and endorses much of, the work of the BBSRC Crop science
review[3]
and the Defra commissioned project on future public research investment in crop
genetic improvement[4].
Summary
4. Plant breeding was
an area of research highlighted for a case study early on in the AEBC’s thinking
on agricultural biotechnology research agendas as it is an area where
significant changes to the research structure have occurred, both in the public
and private sectors.
5. This case study has looked at changes to the
structure and nature of plant breeding research in the UK, and the reasons
behind this. It is possible to see that all the drivers identified by the AEBC
in our broader information gathering[5]
have had an influence on the agenda.
6. Technological developments have made it possible for
significant advances to be made to the rate and nature of crop improvements.
However, in the UK this technological drive has been tempered by slow uptake of
new technology by industrial breeders, and negative public reaction to
biotechnologies.
7. Policy decisions to move out of near market research
in the 1980s, and the sale of PBI have catalysed a shift of plant breeding
research from the public to the private sector.
8. Plant breeding has also responded to shifts in
priorities in the farming industry partly driven by changing Government
agricultural and trade policies. However, with a large proportion of breeding
now in the private sector, market forces are having increasing influence on the
research agenda.
9. Although a number of positive changes have resulted
from these developments, this paper concludes that there is now a risk that
plant breeding research objectives will be overly focused on purely economic
goals, at the expense of social and environmental objectives. A role for
Government therefore emerges in providing research to fill any potential gaps,
as well as incentivising the market to encourage industry to undertake research
relevant to sustainability goals. The importance of engaging with the public
and stakeholders at an early stage of technology is also highlighted.
10. Plant breeding aims to improve crop performance
and/or quality through the development of new varieties. The origins of plant
breeding go back thousands of years to primitive farmers who selected the best
plants in one year to provide seed for their next crop. This selective breeding
allowed refinement of the natural evolutionary processes to produce plants more
suited to the needs of farmers and consumers.
11. It was not until the early 20th century
that enough was known to be able to select and manipulate plants in a more
scientific way. Today, a range of sophisticated, high investment technologies
are available, although in the UK these have not been widely taken up, and some
(especially genetic modification (GM)) have proved controversial.
12. Plant breeding research is a long-term activity.
Developing a new cereal variety can take around 7 to 12 years from the first
cross to the variety coming into the marketplace. It is even longer for some
other crops, such as potatoes and trees. As well as developing new varieties,
plant breeders also need to maintain the genetic purity of existing lines and
pre-commercial seed to maintain the quality and performance of each variety.
The cost of maintaining a typical (large) wheat-breeding programme is estimated
at £1.5 million per year.[6]
13. Plant breeding also relies on maintaining a diverse
gene pool on which to draw, and the first gene banks were created in the 19th
century. The applied work of breeders also draws on many aspects of basic
scientific research, including studies to help understand the ways in which
plants grow, use water or are affected by diseases, for example.
14. Until the 1960s, plant breeding was largely a public
sector activity in the UK, but today the majority of breeding is carried out by
a small number of private companies, many European owned, including farmers’
co-operatives like Limagrain[7].
15. There have been a number of changes to plant breeding
over the years and an attempt to identify some of the influencing factors
behind these is provided below.
16. Plant breeding has moved on significantly from that
carried out by early farmers. Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries’s rediscovery of
Mendel’s laws of inheritance, his development of mutation theory, and Watson
and Crick’s elucidation of the structure of DNA, leading rapidly to the
development of modern genetic technologies, provided two major advances in
genetics. These advances, along with increased understanding of pollination and
plant reproduction have provided breeders with a host of new technological
tools. Breeders now essentially aim to increase ‘genetic gain’ which can be
thought of as ‘selection intensity’ (i.e. degree of selection pressure/stress
placed on the plants during the selection process) divided by ‘time’. Therefore
techniques that increase intensity or reduce time taken are valuable to
breeders. These include protoplast fusion, embryo rescue and assisted pollination,
double haploid breeding, and the use of genomics, proteomics and genetic
modification.
17. Through the 1970s to the 1990s the large agrochemical
companies were keen to capitalise on the advances in biotechnology, especially
GM. Some invested heavily in their technology base and some also bought into
the seed market as a route to the technology. Plant breeding was one important
area of their portfolios that made use of the new technology.
18. In the public sector, there was also a ‘technology
push’ to complement the ‘technology pull’ from industry with an increasing
emphasis on biotechnology. This was reflected for example by the establishment
of the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council (BBSRC) from the
Agriculture and Food Research Council (and parts of the Science and Engineering
Research Council) in 1994.
19. Therefore, technology has been a significant driver
in research in plant breeding, especially for the large multinational
companies. However, in the UK today, it is evident that much plant breeding
still relies on conventional means with limited use of the new technologies.
20. Although there are few issues of societal concern
that are specific to plant breeding per se, there has been negative
public reaction in the UK and Europe to agricultural biotechnology involving GM
crops. This lack of public confidence in crop development is affected not only
by concerns about the technology itself, but also the ‘public to private’ shift
of research in this area, with many of the arguments against GM technologies
tied in with the issues around commercial influence and globalisation.
21. Public hostility, and its extreme manifestation in
the vandalisation of GM crop trials, for example, has affected the nature the
research carried out in UK public institutes, and companies’ decisions to
withdraw from research in the UK.
22. Plant breeding has changed over the years as the
agricultural industry itself has changed. Farmers are the customers of the
industry and therefore the industry is responsive to the changing pressures and
demands of agriculture. For example, the food shortages after the second world
war meant that agricultural research in the UK was focused on domestic
production and food security. Plant breeding contributed significantly
(along with greater mechanisation, agrochemical usage and other factors) to the
increases in agricultural productivity achieved over the last 50 years. For
example, from 1947-1992, wheat yields in the UK increased three-fold and around
half of this increase can be attributed to plant breeding[8].
23. By the 1970s and 1980s, the UK Government and
European agricultural subsidy-based policies had led to overproduction and food
surpluses, calling into question the need for research to increase production.
24. Through the 1980s and 1990s plant breeding was
affected by the UK Government’s shift away from ‘near-market’ research. In the
1980s the UK Government’s emphasis on value for money in public spending meant
that Government Department research moved away from applied work that benefited
the private sector directly. As a result, many assets were transferred from the
public to the private sector. Then in 1990, the Priorities Board for Research
and Development in Agriculture and Food recommended complete withdrawal from
near market agricultural research, representing around £30m of Ministry of
Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) budget. The ‘Realising our Potential’
White Paper followed in 1993 which placed a strong emphasis on wealth creation
through science.[9]
25. These changes had major implications for plant
breeding, which is essentially applied near-market research. The most
significant change in this respect was the sale in 1987 of the MAFF National
Seed Development Organisation and a large part of the AFRC Plant Breeding
Institute to Unilever, to create the Plant Breeding International Corporation
(PBIC).
26. In more recent years, Government policy for
agriculture has shifted towards an agenda of sustainability, encompassing
economic, social and environmental objectives. Government research is also
responding to wider societal concerns such as food safety. However, at the same
time farming has become a less profitable industry and farmers are increasingly
operating in a more competitive global market, under liberalised trade rules.
This means increasing pressures from international policy decisions such as the
enlargement of the EU, the ‘Everything but Arms’ Agreement and continuing
negotiations under the Doha trade talks.
27. We have found farmers, the seed industry and
therefore breeders are still largely focused on yield and quality, and ‘high
input-high output’ varieties. Given the lengthy breeding cycles it inevitably
takes time for any shift to more environmental goals to take effect.
28. There has been a significant shift in breeding from
the public to the private sector over approximately the last 50 years. The
majority of breeders in this country are registered with British Society of
Plant Breeders (BSPB), whose current membership suggests there are 52 breeding
organisations operating in the UK. Of these, only 3 are in the public sector.
29. In the public sector, breeding only really occurs in
a few institutes. The Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI) breeds potatoes,
kale and soft fruits such as raspberries and loganberries. The Institute of
Environmental and Grassland Research (IGER) breeds oats in a private-public
partnership with Semundo. It also breeds grasses and forage legumes to
‘finished variety’ where multiplication and commercialisation is carried out
through a partnership with Germinal Holdings. The John Innes Centre (JIC) has a
strong plant science base and although its work is mostly basic and strategic,
it has worked in partnership with breeding companies such as DuPont and
Syngenta in particular areas of science.[10]
East Malling Research (EMR)[11]breeds
fruit, hops, timber and woody ornamentals, and Horticulture Research
International[12] carries out
a large amount of work on vegetables, flowers and glasshouse crops (although
since its transfer to the University of Warwick we do not have up to date
information on this).
30. Defra also sponsors some plant breeding research and
in the period 2001/2-2003/4 spent around £18 million. This included some 104
projects[13], ranging
from basic research to more applied work, and work on the new crop genetic
improvement networks.[14]Crop
breeding is also mentioned as an important part of SEERAD’s new science
strategy programme ‘Profitable and sustainable agriculture – plants’.[15]
32. However, plant breeding is not highly profitable with
the total royalty values for all UK crops approximately EUR 50-55 million per
year[16].
The breeding industry is a small part of the food supply chain and value is
realised further down the chain. The UK market is small and the number of
breeders is decreasing. The industry has been affected by challenges such as
continued reduction in volume of certified seeds, reduction in average seeding
rate, farmers using farm saved seed, regulatory and legislation pressures, and
Europe’s negative reaction to GM technology.[17]
33. The agricultural levy bodies in the UK also play a
role in plant breeding, although their spend on research is fairly small – in
total around £8million in 2001/2 (a table showing breakdown of spend is in
Annex B). Additionally, they sponsor some work in collaboration with other
researchers - for example the Home Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA) has supported
the work of JIC thought a personal fellowship[18],
and the British Beet Research Organisation (BBRO) are developing links with the
multinational breeding companies to develop the new genetic traits from their
Broom’s Barn Research Station.[19]
34. It should be noted however that it is difficult to
discuss ‘plant breeding’ in general as there are many differences to the
structure of the industry depending on which crops are considered. For crops
which do not ‘travel’ well, the majority are still bred by UK based companies.
For example, in 2003-4, 97.7% of winter wheat and 99% of spring barley
certified seed sales were of varieties bred in the UK[20].
However, for oats there is only one breeder in the UK, and for oilseed rape
and sugar beet, the majority of breeders are based on the continent.[21]
Varieties are tested in the UK and companies work through seed agents based in
the UK (many of which are also arms of multinational companies). A table
showing the breeders of the main UK crops is shown in Annex C.
The case of the PBI
35. The shift from public to private sector plant
breeding activity in the UK is characterised by the history of the Plant
Breeding Institute (PBI). Its sale had a significant impact on plant breeding,
especially in cereals. PBI was established in 1912 as a Cambridge University
plant breeding institute by the Board of Agriculture. In 1954 a new PBI site
opened which was independent of the University. Public sector plant breeding
also took place in the Welsh Plant Breeding Station (grass and forage), the
National Vegetable Research Station (vegetables) and the Scottish Plant
Breeding Station (potatoes, forage and barley).[22]
36. It 1986, PBI received funding of around £3m in total, from the Ministry for Education and Science for fundamental
work, and from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for commissioned
breeding work and work allied to breeding. An additional £ 1.5 m financial
support for research projects came from various commercial firms (e.g. Imperial
Chemical Industries Limited, Dupont de Nemours International SA). The Institute
had a research staff of 166 in a total complement of 245 [23].
37. Plant varieties developed by PBI were distributed to
seed producers and merchants through the government-owned National Seed
Development Organisation (NSDO). They multiplied basic seed and collected
royalties on seed and around 70-80% of their income was dependent on varieties
from PBI.[24] PBI was
highly successful and dominated UK plant breeding in a number of crops -
approximately 90% of wheat grown in the UK was from varieties bred at PBI.[25]
38. As part of the emphasis on value for money, PBI was
one of the Government assets transferred to the private sector. In 1987 PBI was
sold with NSDO to Unilever. In 1990, the applied and basic scientists were
split, with the fundamental scientists moving to the John Innes site to form
the ‘Cambridge Laboratory’ whilst most of the applied scientists transferred to
the new PBIC.
39. In 1994 the Cambridge Laboratory was subsumed in the
creation of the JIC (along with the Nitrogen Fixing Institute and John Innes
Institute). Monsanto have since sold off several of the crop programmes to
other companies, and retain only a small oilseed rape programme which was based
at the original PBI.
40. There have also been a number of changes to the
structure of the plant breeding stations in the Devolved Administrations, with
the formation of the SCRI from the Scottish Plant Breeding Station and the
Scottish Horticultural Research Institute; and IGER from sites of the Welsh Plant
Breeding Station and the Institute of Grassland and Animal Production. However,
the privatisation model was not adopted in the same way, and in Scotland a
public-private partnership model was advocated. (For example SCRI established a
commercial arm Mylnefield Research Services Ltd[26].)
41. The current system has a number of strengths,
including that the industry is seen as leaner, more dynamic and flexible than
before, and breeders are more closely aligned with market demands. Wheat
breeders feel their industry has reached its natural, appropriate size.
Furthermore, some feel the PBR system has encouraged innovation through
increased competitiveness. PBR also ensures breeders have access to germplasm
of protected varieties as breeders rights do not extend to i) acts done
privately and for non-commercial purposes, ii) acts done for experimental
purposes, and iii) acts done for the purpose of breeding other varieties[27].
There is also a farmers privilege in the UK which allows farmers to save seeds
and only pay approximately 50% of the royalty.
42. However, many
of those we spoke to have highlighted a number of problems or potential future
problems with plant breeding research. With an understanding of the drivers of
the plant breeding agenda, and the changes in research structure that have
occurred, it is possible to suggest contributing factors behind these problems.
43. Many have suggested that there is now a split between
applied and basic research.[28] Many of those we spoke to considered that
PBI had benefited from the collocation of basic plant scientists and more
applied researchers before privatisation,[29]
and that the split of scientists when PBI was sold fragmented the research
base. However, others who worked at PBI at the time have suggested that in some
ways the basic and applied sciences were not well aligned even then, and much
of its commercial success was due to certain individuals who were keen to breed
commercial varieties of wheat[30].
44. Government science policy has focused public sector
responsibilities on fundamental science and strongly discouraged ‘near market’
work, leaving this to the private sector[31].
This means that not only do links need to be actively made between basic and
applied work, but also between the public and the private sectors. This poses
potential issues regarding the cultural, physical and institutional barriers
that may exist between scientists in the different sectors, which may have an
inhibitory influence on information sharing.
45. Furthermore, the research culture in the UK
encourages, and is traditionally strong on, fundamental science but is less good
at exploiting that knowledge[32].
Some have also suggested that the research evaluation systems (such as the RAE)
are not conducive to research of an applied nature[33].
Therefore, there may be inherent structural issues in the research system that
act as a barrier to technology transfer.
46. These factors may create a gap in research which
falls in between the public and private sectors. A report for Defra on future
public support for plant breeding[34]
suggested that there is a ‘middle ground’ of research that is not being carried
out in areas such as identifying sources of genetic variation for
sustainability traits, pre-breeding (material suitable for inclusion in
commercial programmes) and crop design (for some particular crops). This could
particularly hinder smaller companies as they cannot afford to support
long-term basic research programmes and are reluctant or unable to pick up some
new technologies due to the associated risks, costs and any public hostility[35].
47. Industry will of course seek opportunities to form
links with the public sector and build on areas of basic research where they
can see the benefits. End-users (in the private sector) who will benefit from
use of the research should also take some responsibility for pursuing research
to meet their aims as there are of course limits to what the public sector
could and should fund. This system seems to be working fairly effectively at
present – for example there are a number of LINK projects in place and new
Defra Genetic Improvement Networks (GINs) have been established.
48. However, there may be issues for crops where
commercial returns do not justify the scientific investment. Furthermore, the
major breakthroughs in research (e.g. semi dwarf varieties) have often come
from the public sector, and varieties such as maris piper potatoes were
developed by PBI and are still significant in today’s market. The wheat
breeders we spoke to acknowledge they are still reaping the benefits of the
work done at PBI (there have only been 2 breeding cycles in wheat since PBI was
privatised)[36]. Therefore
it seems there is a role for continued public sector investment in this area,
(although breeders would want to ensure this was done in such a way that the
public sector did not compete with industry, as was felt to be the case with
PBI.)
Fewer
breeding programmes
49. The worsening economic position of agriculture, increasing pressures on the industry, and a number of mergers and acquisitions have affected plant breeders. In the UK and Europe, public hostility to biotechnology has also had an effect and the number of breeders has decreased.
50. This has contributed to a risk of losing research
for the benefit of the UK. Plant breeding is increasingly concentrated in
the private sector, and many firms operating in the UK are based elsewhere in
Europe. This means that their breeding programmes cover a wide range of
countries and the needs of the UK may get marginalised as it is a relatively
small market with limited profit making potential[37].
This does not seem to be a significant problem at the moment, and breeding
crops on the continent is not necessarily a problem. Some crops ‘travel well’,
others cannot be bred in this country, and varieties are tested when entered
into the National Lists for the UK. However, some of those we have spoken to
raised concerns over specific crops (such as legumes and horticultural crops),
new varieties of which would be beneficial to UK growers but where research is
limited. There are also certain traits which would be particularly useful in a
UK environment, but are not being researched fully (such as drought resistance
in sugar beet, which may also have environmental advantages). In an extreme
scenario, it is possible to envisage that some crops will cease to be improved
for growing in the UK, or perhaps more likely, that crops that are less well
adapted to UK conditions will be sold in the UK.
51. As is to be expected, the private sector’s aims for
plant breeding are strongly aligned to commercial objectives, which has some
important implications.
52. Research on sustainability objectives is limited - The industry today cannot afford to undertake work
that has purely environmental or social benefits, if there is no economic
incentive and there is little market demand. This means an increasing risk of
divergence between the objectives of breeders and those of Government, which
are more environmental rather than production based. A lack of research into
potential new markets for crops with e.g. health and nutritional benefits has
also been highlighted.[38]
53. Potential ‘orphan crops’ – Industry tends to focus on the main commodity
crops, and the newer crops or minority crops (e.g. durum wheat, linseed) are
unlikely to be funded until there is a market for them[39].
There is also currently a lack of activity in the public sector. Such crops
could have potential environmental or social benefits e.g.non-food crop
development for energy or health purposes.
54. Potential lack of UK plant breeding research for
developing countries Many feel that
the private sector in the UK is not likely to focus on work that is directly
relevant to the needs of the developing countries as it unlikely to be highly
profitable. Others from industry point out that work is carried out in the
private sector towards these objectives.
55. The public sector in the UK also conducts limited
work in this area and it has been suggested that research into plant breeding
for developing countries has decreased over the years due to policy decisions
which focused more on UK needs[40].
There is currently a DFID plant breeding programme in Bangor which began in
earnest in 1990, but its future beyond 2006 is uncertain. The Science and
Technology select committee report[41]
recently highlighted that there were some general problems with science for
less developed countries (e.g. the lack of lead department and lack of
coordination) and these are undoubtedly also relevant to plant breeding. It has
also been suggested that more work needs to be done on identifying the needs of
developing countries.[42]
Some studies have noted that after the privatisation of PBI, there was a
decrease in willingness to collaborate with other breeders, especially in less
developed countries.[43] We have been
told that this is a matter of individual company policy, and some companies
share data freely.[44]
It should also be noted that there are a number of international organisations
conducting agricultural research for developing countries, such as CGIAR, and
UK support for this has recently increased significantly.
56. Greater focus on technologies that potentially
conflict with social objectives – It
will be in a company’s interests to pursue technologies that protect their
research investments and ensure long-term income. Development of such
technologies has often proved controversial, for example, Genetic Use
Restriction Technologies (GURTs) or ‘terminator technologies’ which have been criticised as
technologies which will disadvantage poor farmers. Conversely, there will be little impetus to develop
technologies that may have benefits for farmers and consumers, but show limited
profit-making potential for the breeders.
57. Due to Government policy decisions to pull out of
research in this area and the sale of PBI, several of those we spoke to expressed
a concern that there are now very few places to train plant breeders in the
public sector in the UK[45].
This is a serious issue for maintaining the scientific skills base in this
country, especially as there are some concerns that international breeding
companies may cease to meet the needs of the UK in the future (see paragraph 50
above).
58. Several of those we have spoken to have mentioned
that policy interventions on intellectual property (both at a national level through
the introduction of the Plant Variety and Seeds Act in 1964, and the
international UPOV convention) have had a significant impact on the industry.
59. Plant breeders rights (PBR) are used by both public
and private sector breeders, and some feel that, as with the patent system,
this may provide a push towards plant breeding in the private rather than
public sector. Some are wary that the system may inhibit information sharing,
especially due to commercial secrecy in the development stages of breeding. However,
as described previously, there is a ‘breeders exemption’ which ensures access
to genetic material once a variety is produced, without infringing the PBR. In
fact, BSPB feels that the legislative framework does not go far enough to
enable the holder of the PBR to police and enforce his intellectual property
rights effectively[46].
Others in the industry maintain that there is good exchange of germplasm and
this is recognised to be important by all in the market.
60. What is evident is that there are cultural
differences in the way the public and private sectors handle their IP, and this
can lead to frustration and a potential barrier to information sharing.
Concerns have also been expressed over the patenting of genes and gene
functions, although these issues are not specific to plant breeding, and
in-depth consideration of these is beyond the realms of this study.
Conclusions - Lessons
for future plant breeding research in the UK
Public
sector support for plant breeding research
61.
In
order for any public sector research to impact on farmers and consumers, it has
to go through the comparatively small plant breeding industry. A healthy
industry therefore is beneficial to farmers, consumers and ‘UK Plc’. Knowledge
transfer and the application of basic science done in the public sector will be
needed to achieve this.
62.
As
with most research, private returns to research will be low (due to e.g. the
risks involved, and the likelihood that others will benefit from their
investments). As a result the sector is likely to under-provide research[47].
The public sector therefore has a role in supporting the industry,
particularly with respect to providing the long-term underpinning plant
research required.
63.
There
also appears to be a re-emerging role for the public sector in the realms of
what is deemed to be ‘near market’. Defra is carrying out a number of plant
breeding projects that seem to be in this applied area, and the establishment
of their crop genetic improvement networks (GINs) are likely to be helpful in
moving towards this. Although it is too early to evaluate this, those in Defra
feel the GINs have catalysed a reappraisal of the roles and relationship of the
public and private sectors[48].
64.
For
crops where there is little or no market demand currently, but where it would
be environmentally or socially beneficial to encourage one, (for example for
new environmentally friendly varieties, energy crops, break crops), the public
sector will need to undertake research to a more commercially applicable stage, in addition to the fundamental
underpinning research. More holistic, process based (as opposed to
product-focused) research also needs to be conducted by public sector
organisations.
65.
The
research also needs to ensure it meet the needs of those smaller UK based companies whose interests may not be represented in the main
Government initiatives such as the LINK projects, and whose research needs are
likely to differ from those of large multinationals[49].
66. Lack of knowledge will affect both
demand and supply – if breeders are unaware of technical possibilities they
will not maximise these, and if farmers are unaware of performance
characteristics of new seed they will not adapt them.[50] The public sector therefore needs to share
its research as openly as possible, and facilitate uptake by the private
sector. This requires action to build on consultation with farmers and
breeders, knowledge transfer activities, collaborative ventures, information
sharing, and innovative ways of contracting research[51].
Government seems to have recognised this, with Defra[52],
SEERAD[53],
BBSRC[54]
and NIAB[55] proposing
action to support the plant breeding industry and address gaps in research.
67.
There
also seems to be potential for increased coordination and greater support in
the UK for research for developing countries.
68.
The
sale of PBI and the shift of research into the private sector has left a gap in
support and training for plant breeding scientists in the public sector.
Although this is part of a wider agricultural research problem, there is a
need to maintain the scientific base in plant breeding in the UK.
Incentivising
industry to work to more sustainable agriculture objectives
69.
With
a high proportion of research in the private sector, market forces will have an
important influence on research agendas, resulting in breeding for traits
primarily around increased yield and quality. This has benefits for farmers and
consumers in terms of improved agricultural outputs, but is likely to lead to
an under-emphasis on the environmental and social goals promoted by Government.
70.
The
first step in incentivising the plant breeding industry to work toward the
Government’s objectives is effective communication about the new
sustainability agenda and precisely what is required from breeders. Several
people we have spoken to in the industry feel that is it is unclear precisely
what is expected of them and lack confidence in a stable policy agenda. Given
the long timeframes involved in breeding, it is also important that communication
is held at an early stage of policy development to enable breeders to ‘catch
up’ with policy shifts.
71.
However,
simply communicating with industry and providing supporting research is
unlikely to be enough. For example, in France the links with industry are much
closer, but they are not helping to deliver plant breeding that meets
sustainability objectives. Several breeders we have spoken to also acknowledge
that there are certain traits that they know could have environmental or social
benefits, but cannot research themselves due to the costs and time required,
and the limited markets for the products.
72.
Therefore,
in addition to public sector support for research and knowledge transfer,
Government needs to influence the markets in order to create demand for
products that contribute towards sustainable agriculture objectives, and
therefore encourage the industry to generate these products. This could be done
through regulatory, fiscal or other means. In fact, this approach may be the
most effective method to persuade industry to meet Government’s social and
environmental goals. We endorse the recommendation of the report for Defra[56]
which states “Defra should continue to seek to reform the economic signals from
CAP, legislation, taxation etc to create the incentives for environmentally
beneficial genetic improvement.”
73.
One
additional way to influence this would be through the National Lists and also
through the Recommended Lists. This was affected by the policy decisions in the
1980s which ceased Government involvement in near market research, and
subsequently led to the withdrawal of involvement in the lists. There are now
discussions about a potential ‘green list’ but it is uncertain how much
influence this will have without significant refocus of the market. Traits such
as improved disease resistance are often correlated with decreases in yield so
farmers may chose higher yielding varieties and use chemical disease control.
There is therefore potential to influence the agro-chemical market in a similar
way to that described above. As noted in the section above, communication with
farmers, breeders and other parts of the food chain will be key to ensuring
this is effectively embedded.
74.
Related
to this is ensuring the regulatory and legislative framework does not
inappropriately hinder the industry and are not anticompetitive, although
detailed comment on this is beyond the realms of this study.
Addressing
science in society issues
75.
Technology
has undoubtedly been an important driver in plant breeding, especially when the
new biotechnologies were first developed and there was much activity in both
the public and private sectors to capitalise on them. This excitement around
technology however has been tempered by negative public reaction, to GM in
particular.
76.
This
has been useful in the sense that it has spurred more research into wider
questions such as environmental effects of various crops and encouraged
research in a broader framework that is not solely focused on technology as an
end in itself. However, the ‘backlash’ to technology could hamper progress in
plant breeding, which would not be beneficial for economic, social or
environmental goals. The BBSRC crop science review concluded that it was
necessary to restore public confidence in plant breeding through focusing on
public good objectives.[57]
However, in order to do this, it is important that the technology drive
works alongside, and towards the aspirations of society. Improved engagement of
the public and a diversity of stakeholders in the early stages of technology
development would help move towards this.
77.
It
should be noted that in developing these conclusions we have attempted to
reflect the different viewpoints and provide a balanced overview of the issues
as we see them. We have encountered a range of views, both positive and negative
on many of the issues covered in this paper, and feel that our conclusions
reflect these in a balanced way, whilst concentrating on practical suggestions
for the future.
ANNEX A
List of those who have
provided input to this study
All those listed were sent a draft
of this case study, to which they responded in writing, through a face-to-face
meeting or by telephone.
|
Organisation |
Individual |
|
Advanta Seeds UK |
Thomas Joliffe |
|
Biogemma Ltd.* |
Tina Barsby |
|
BBSRC |
Sophie Laurie, Brian
Harris |
|
British Beet Research
Organisation (BBRO) |
John Macleod |
|
British Society of Plant
Breeders |
Penny Maplestone |
|
CPB Twyford* |
Chris Tapsell |
|
Defra (science unit) |
Donal Murphy-Bokern,
Bruno Viegas, |
|
DFID (plant science
research programme, Bangor) |
John Whitcombe, David Harris |
|
FARM |
John Turner |
|
National Institute for
Agricultural Botany (NIAB) |
|
|
Nickerson* |
Bill Angus |
|
Oxford University Plant
Sciences Department |
Chris Leaver |
|
RAGT* |
Richard Summers |
|
Reading University Soil
Science |
Peter Gregory |
|
Scottish Crop Research
Institute |
Gavin Ramsey |
|
Warwick HRI |
Simon Bright |
* Denotes member of the British Wheat Breeders
ANNEX B
Table to show funding by the UK levy boards and related trust spending on the genetic improvement of UK-grown crops (£000 in FY2001/02).[58]
|
Crop |
Levy board/ funder |
Research, breeding, technology |
Germplasm development |
Variety trials and recommended lists |
Total |
|||
|
Apples and Pears |
APRC |
11 |
- |
2 |
13 |
|||
|
Cereals |
HGCA |
172 |
119 |
979 |
1270 |
|||
|
Oilseeds |
HGCA |
40 |
- |
205 |
245 |
|||
|
Hops |
NHA |
42 |
- |
- |
42 |
|||
|
“ |
EMTHR |
25 |
- |
- |
25 | |||