STRATEGIC SCIENCE ADVISORY PANEL
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 15 & 16 JANUARY 2007 AT HOLIDAY INN AND MANSION HOUSE, EDINBURGH ZOO, EDINBURGH
Those present were:
Chair: Professor Janet Sprent
Members: Professor Chris Pollock, Mr Iain Duncan Millar, Dr Jeremy Wilson, Dr James Robb, Professor Mark Shucksmith
Observers: Dr Alf Game, BBSRC; Dr Steven Hill, Defra; Professor David Gani, SFC, Dr Sue Popple, Defra, Dr Faith Culshaw, NERC
Secretariat: Dr Linda Saunderson, Ms Jean Gilchrist, Mr Douglas Brown
Apologies:, Professor Peter Holmes, Professor Joe Brownlie, Dr Susan Walker
SEERAD:
Professor Maggie Gill (CSA), Dr Liam Kelly, Dr Helen Jones
15 January only: Mrs Joanna Drewitt
16 January only: Dr Colette Backwell, Dr Rosi Waterhouse, Cornelius Chikwama, Dr Nick Ambrose, Dr John Fowbert
15 January 2007
Welcome
1. Janet Sprent, standing in as Chair for Peter Holmes, welcomed everyone to the fourth meeting of the Strategic Science Advisory Panel (SSAP) in particular, Dr Sue Popple from Defra, who would present Defra's current and future research needs in the area of Sustainable Agriculture. She also welcomed Dr Liam Kelly and Mr Douglas Brown who had both recently joined the Science and Analysis Group in SEERAD.
Item 1: Minutes of Meeting 21 September and Matters Arising
2. Two amendments to the minutes were tabled. The Secretariat agreed to provide a definition of the differing meaning of science and research. The minutes were accepted as an accurate record of the meeting.
3. Programme Assessment Exercise (PAE). Dr Saunderson explained that the process for the consultation on the next strategy (2011) needs to be agreed before finalising the PAE procedures. This has resulted in a delay in issuing the PAE consultation paper and in the PAE process and it will not therefore coincide with the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) process. SEERAD are currently considering the criteria and activities to be assessed.
4. The CSA advised that SEERAD are aiming to have the outline framework for the 2011 strategy approved by Ministers by end of March 2008. She explained the current research funding feeds into only 3 of the 10 SEERAD high level 'outcomes' and suggested that science could have a greater application across the Department's current interests. She suggested that SEERAD funded research should in the future be commissioned under the 3 Cross Cutting Themes (CCTs) of sustainable development, climate change and biodiversity to align more closely with policy priorities.
5. A series of meetings with various stakeholders will take place over the next few months which will assist SEERAD in building the framework for the next research strategy. The CSA suggested that the aim is for this framework to be discussed at the proposed SSAP Open meeting in September. Secretariat agreed to provide an outline timetable for the strategy consultation.
6. Analysis of SEERAD's policy priorities. The CSA advised this is being taken forward through a series of meetings with policy divisions to discuss their future needs.
7. Pooling Initiatives This item will be taken forward at the next meeting
8. ERFF Mapping Exercise. No information yet available
Item 2: Minutes of 24 October 2006 Science Strategy Meeting and Matters Arising
9. Members felt this had been a very useful meeting. It was agreed the outcomes from this meeting and member affiliations should be included within the SSAP Annual Report. An amendment to Paragraph 4 was also agreed
SSAP Response to Science Strategy Consultation
10. Members noted their approval of the SSAP response to the Science Strategy Consultation. Dr Saunderson advised that if the Panel had continuing issues they wished to raise on the science strategy this could be done either by correspondence or through Peter Holmes, Maggie Gill or David Gani who are all members of the Stakeholder Group.
11. Members advised that it is important for the Science and Innovation Strategy for Scotland to be consistent with developments in science generally in the UK. Currently there is much discussion at UK level about the successor mechanism for research quality assessment post RAE 2008 and Scotland needs to be fully engaged in this debate. David Gani agreed to provide a paper on the background to the issues surrounding the review of the RAE peer review system for the next meeting.
Item 3: Biodiversity Research
Cladistics Paper
12. Chris Pollock explained the context of his paper on Cladistics. This work is of a fundamental and strategic nature but can be a very powerful tool to study population changes and therefore potentially to provide sensible and cost effective measures of biodiversity change in future. Although this type of work currently requires underpinning funding to develop the science and its understanding, in time it will be relevant to more practical and applied work. It is an example of where basic work needs to be supported to meet future needs. Members recognised that this is an area of work where co-ordination across a number of UK funders is required to ensure progress is made
13. NERC advised they have recently invested in this research with a wealth of capacity being built up. Although this 'blue skies' research was not an area SEERAD would normally consider funding, the CSA advised that if SSAP members considered this type of research to be of priority then SEERAD could add a small amount of funding into a collaborative 'pot'. Members thought the main consideration for funding this type of research was to identify where its application would be of policy relevance to SEERAD.
Predicted Global Changes and Opportunities for Research
14. James Robb spoke to his paper which he explained was to highlight the need to ensure maximum return from the available land to ensure a sufficient food supply for the world's ever increasing population. Members highlighted the need to ensure an adequate food supply with options such as GM crops available to increase production and also the need for an interdisciplinary approach to this with an informed evidence base using a 'scenario' and modelling approach.
Review and Outcomes from Biodiversity Research
15. Members requested clarification on how this paper would feed into SEERAD and how it would translate into aims and objectives for the MRPs. The CSA advised the Panel of the proposed development of the framework for the 2011 research strategy. This review and conclusions paper on Biodiversity would be one of the many sources of advice and information feeding into the consultation process on the strategy taking place over the coming months.
16. Members discussed the Biodiversity conclusions paper and whether sufficient information was included. They suggested including more information from the summary of the discussion on Biodiversity as recorded in the minutes of the meeting or cross referencing to the minutes. Members asked the Secretariat to consider these suggestions and circulate an updated version of the paper to members for further comment
Item 4: SEERAD Research Strategy 2005-2010
17. Dr Saunderson gave an update on progress of the Environment and Health Programme and advised that around 3 to 4 contracts were likely to be awarded under the Environment and Health Programme. She also referred to the Commissioning of the Research Programmes, the Programme Assessment Exercise and Development of the next Strategy as set out in paper SSAP 2007/36.
Item 5: Towards the Next Strategy
SEERAD Second Annual Report
18. Dr Saunderson noted that this report provided an update on the progress made by the Science and Analysis Group on the implementation of the research strategy. Two amendments to the report were noted (para 9 and Annex 2). A list of acronyms will also be provided at Annex 2. Dr Saunderson confirmed that the target on end users (para 14) was not being met. The CSA advised the Gateway project, provided with funding from SEERAD would provide a forum for publicising SEERAD funded research.
SSAP Draft Annual Report
19. Dr Saunderson explained the SSAP draft Annual report had been prepared to provide an update on the first year's proceedings of the Panel and a summary of the outputs from the 4 meetings held during 2006.
20. It was agreed the report should include the outcomes from the Science Strategy meeting held in October, members affiliations, highlight future challenges and to include a note on the development of the framework of the next strategy. The Biodiversity Conclusions paper would be reviewed as noted at para 16 above. After some discussion it was agreed the Animal Health and Welfare Conclusions paper was sufficiently robust and complete as it stood.
RCUK Funding
21. The CSA outlined the background to the changes to RCUK funding and the withdrawal of eligibility of the SABRIs and SAC to apply for this funding. She explained the SEERAD research strategy had been drawn up on the assumption that RCUK funding would continue to be available to the MRPs. The Scottish Executive had taken a robust stance on this decision and had corresponded at various levels within Government to register concern at the RCUK decision
22. The CSA explained that Full Economic Costing had increased research costs with a corresponding decrease in the volume of research being undertaken unless additional funding is made available by Treasury. It was difficult to predict the future of collaborative funding.
23. BBSRC confirmed that the RCUK decision was taken at a high level and was about the principle of allocating government funding and was not specifically targeted at the Institutes.
24. Professor Pollock noted a conflict of interest as a BBSRC employee. He did not contribute to this discussion.
16 JANUARY 2007
Item 6: Sustainable Agriculture
25. The Chair welcomed everyone to the second day of the meeting, in particular Dr Colette Backwell, Cornilius Chikwama and Dr Rosi Waterhouse, from SEERAD. She noted the purpose of the discussion was to consider the research capability which will be required in future to ensure that Scotland has a sustainable land use sector.
26. Dr Backwell spoke to paper SSAP 2007/41 and explained it had been prepared as a first draft of a forward look which set the background to the policy drivers which may have an impact in the future and set out and assessed various scenarios on the effect on agriculture. Her presentation focussed on the perspectives on the future of Scottish Agriculture and outlined the background to the major factors affecting agricultural reforms since the late 1990's (a copy of the presentation is available at www.scotland.gov.uk/srg).
27. Her presentation provided some key facts on Scottish Agriculture including economics, employment statistics, and its contribution to the wider economy and rural development. Dr Backwell explained there were a number of economic models outlining various scenarios on the effect on agriculture and discussed the FAPRI (Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute) projections on industry responses to policy changes and the possible effect on the dairy and beef sectors of the agriculture industry.
28. Dr Backwell also discussed the analytical framework highlighting the effect of various scenarios on the agriculture industry and some of the external influences which pose challenges for the future.
29. The CSA thanked Dr Backwell for her interesting presentation which had set the scene regarding policy drivers and horizon scanning. She asked members to consider the impact if research was to be commissioned through Cross Cutting Themes rather than programmes of research, what issues should be highlighted or changed dramatically, and what strategic research they felt should be underpinned, particularly in areas such as LFA (Less Favoured Area) land, plants, soils, livestock and food processing.
30. Members discussed the subsidy system which was historically designed to produce a cheap and plentiful food supply compared to the recently introduced single farm payment system and considered potential scenarios for payment in the future.
31. Members commented that no farm in less favoured areas would be viable without government support, but noted that such payments also benefited the rural communities and not just the recipients.
32. Members discussed the need for research in land use generally and agriculture in particular to take a much more systems based approach. There are often difficulties in balancing the best environmental outcomes with the most socially and economically advantageous systems. The need is to understand and articulate what the trade offs need to be to ensure minimal damage for maximal gain for the people, the land and the wider environment. There is no single solution to the challenges land users face, the only way forward is through compromise. The panel were of the opinion that research could do much to inform and support land users in making such decisions and suggested that SEERAD are well placed to fund such multidisciplinary and multifaceted research.
33. The CSA accepted the need for multi-functional systems and agreed there was a need to look at this, not just from the producers' angle, but that of advice to policy i.e. options to policy for support scenarios in the future. Researchers can present the systems options but it is farmers/land users who select the appropriate system for their particular conditions.
34. The CSA then asked whether the Panel thought plant sciences should be contributing to the research in sustainable agriculture? Members advised that there are some excellent plant science and plant scientists doing research in Scotland. But the need is for an understanding of the economics and supply/demand aspects of the decision about which crops should be grown in Scotland. The choice of traditional over novel/niche/biofuel crops and the uses for agricultural products (food, industrial processing, environmental) depends on the demand and the economics. One suggestion was the need to look again at home grown 'protein' crops such as lupins as the global supply of feed crops changes.
35. Members also noted that social issues may influence the type and location for growing crops. Tourism and environmental (e.g. biodiversity) concerns can come into play with issues such as large tracts of monoculture or with the growing of GM products. Members suggested that farmers need to have the information with which to determine the most efficient crop for their particular situation at any particular time Members felt it would also be particularly useful to look at the overall carbon balance of systems in Scotland.
36. BBSRC advised of the increase in research being undertaken by them on the development of high value products and designer or novel crops. Members discussed the social and economic issues surrounding the use of GM crops and suggested that more general education on this issue was needed before they would become generally accepted in the UK - even for biofuel crops.
37. The CSA asked members to consider whether SEERAD should continue to fund research on food, nutrition and health issues which does not currently fit explicitly within the SEERAD outcomes. She confirmed that the policy basis for research in this area would come mainly from the Health Department rather than from SEERAD although the Agriculture Strategy had highlighted the need for niche products and farm diversification. The food aspect of Programme 4 could be important to SEERAD and there could be support for research in this area if the need was justified.
38. Members suggested SEERAD would need to consider the extent of their role in nutritional enhancement of foods as a marketing/public good activity (e.g. omega 3 in eggs). Members thought this may be primarily for industry but felt that SEERAD may have a role in identifying potentially valuable products for the industry.
BBSRC Presentation
39. Alf Game presented an overview on BBSRC's research needs for Sustainable Agriculture and outlined the organisation's position in this area of research. BBSRC's emphasis on research needs has changed over the last few years moving from production to sustainability.
40. Much of the research on sustainable agriculture is delivered through the BBSRC institutes with BBSRC the main funder. Because of this BBSRC have to be much clearer about the health of the research base and its future. They intend to support research at a more interdisciplinary and coordinated scale which will happen across all life sciences. This will include a new programme on bioenergy and biofuels. There will be a greater involvement of social scientists and a greater involvement of scientists traditionally part of the NERC community.
41. BBSRC are keen to develop closer links across the UK research community to create added value and critical mass by combining expertise and resources, similar to SCRI's inclusion in the MONOGRAM programme. Generally, there will also be a need to address longer term issues such as the retention of resource and staff. BBSRC confirmed they fund little research in the areas of forestry or aquaculture/fisheries.
NERC Presentation
42. Faith Culshaw presented NERC's current strategy on sustainable agriculture (copy of presentation available on www.scotland.gov.uk/srg) and spoke to paper SSAP 2207/43. She explained that this comes under their sustainable economy structure and that NERC does not directly support research on agricultural production. She discussed the research being funded by NERC in the area of relevance to agriculture, those being funded in partnership with BBSRC and ESRC and those being supported through CEH which included the Countryside survey and Buzz/Big Bee projects.
43. She explained that NERC's next strategy, which will be launched in September 2007, would be developed under seven science themes of which two are cross-cutting. NERC's "Living with Environmental Change" Initiative focuses on ecosystem services in the future and describes the main policy drivers of the strategy.
44. Members commented on the fairly substantial extent of the NERC programme and asked how it would be managed and whether it would be in responsive mode. Members also asked about the boundaries between responsive mode and strategic research in this initiative and asked whether this marked a big step change. They expressed concern about the level of funding needed to support this
45. Dr Culshaw explained that this initiative would include some existing and some new work. She also confirmed that there might be some bigger (programme type) grants and that NERC were bidding for additional funding within SR2007 to fund this work.
46. Members were interested to know how the two NERC cross-cutting themes would work. NERC confirmed that the delivery mechanisms had not yet been finalised.
Defra Presentation
47. Sue Popple presented Defra's research on Sustainable Agriculture (available at www.scotland.gov.uk/srg) and spoke to SSAP Paper 2007/44. She discussed how Defra were moving forward with their 5 programmes of research in the area of Sustainable Agriculture with a move away from commodity based programmes. She discussed D era's vision for farming in 2020; and the 5 research programmes aimed at developing this vision which includes Agriculture and Climate Change; Water Quality and Food Use; Food Chain meeting Consumer Needs; Sustainable Farming Systems and Biodiversity; and Plant Health. Environmental issues are of high priority and Defra's vision is for a competitive industry which will deliver environmental needs in an economically sustainable manner
Report from Sustainable Farming and Food Research Priorities Group
48. Chris Pollock gave an oral update on this second report (link to report provided on agenda) from the Research Priorities Group. He explained that it focussed on four key issues including Engagement with funders of farming and food research, likely uptake of research priorities, coordination of research funders and recommendations for the future. The report recommended that funders should actively collaborate, socio-economics should be embedded in sustainable farming and there should be an analysis of the skills and facilities required to deliver the research priorities. The report also recommended that a stakeholder consultation be carried out periodically, with the next consultation proposed for 2009.
Outcomes of HEFCE and BBSRC Consultancies on Land-based studies (LBSR) and Research Facilities
49. The CSA explained that the LBSR had been commissioned by HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) to consider a range of subjects and that she had been appointed as chair of an advisory group, which also included Chris Pollock. She advised that Consultants were due to report shortly to the Advisory Group.
50. The CSA hoped the findings from this study would help to inform the future discussions of SSAP in identifying the research needed in the future and how much of that resource SEERAD should fund. She agreed to provide a summary of this work once it became available (probably end March).
51. She confirmed the review is looking at the courses available across the country rather than those available at individual institutes and landscape and environment would be included. It covered rural but not urban studies. The Group looked at which courses are considered to be fulfilling a strategic need and those which might be vulnerable.
52. BBSRC and HEFCE are about to initiate a UK-wide study of research facilities used vs. future requirements for the land-based sector.
53. Members noted that the facilities review was timely and should identify facilities in institutes that could be accessed by university researchers. Consideration would need to be given to the funding required for maintaining the facilities when they are not being actively used for research.
54. Alf Game and the CSA confirmed the facilities study would cover the UK (including SAC) but the HEFCE review covered only England.
General Discussion
55. Members asked whether agri-environment schemes were meeting their objectives. Defra mentioned the Observatory programme and noted that many schemes had not been in place long enough to show consistent change. Mark Shucksmith advised that across Europe they were quite effective, but not in areas where agriculture was more intensive (lowland areas). In these areas regulation might be more effective. In the lowlands, the financial incentive from a scheme wouldn't always be sufficient to offset the financial loss.
56. Mark Shucksmith commented that sustainable agriculture tends to be constructed around farming issues, ignoring economic and social sustainability and suggested this area should be a research priority. Phrasing the questions will be important; too often a narrow interpretation constrains the outputs of the research. There is a need to flag up rural sustainability issues as an important focus for future policy to include agriculture as a contributor but not the leader in setting the policy. Issues such as how people are going to earn a living in remote rural areas, competition, fair treatment and social justice, are all drivers of change that need to be understood.
57. The CSA noted that some work on succession planning in farming could be included within the current strategy under Programme 3 and that some livestock issues discussed earlier are part of Programme 3 rather than Programme 2.
58. Members felt there were challenges in trying to get scientists from different fields to work closer together and thought it important to look at all 'three legs' of sustainability to genuinely develop sustainable agriculture. The CSA pointed out that SEERAD was able to have a broader remit than other funders in the area of sustainable agriculture and felt this could be an opportunity to make significant progress through appropriate research.
59. The CSA asked members for views on climate change as a CCT and asked how it might be shaped as a programme from 2011.
60. Members felt there were two important areas; adaptation and mitigation. A policy environment was needed for adaptation for land-users, for instance, providing land-use options in the water management, crop systems and soil areas (etc). Mitigation is broader and more diffuse and requires a variety of measures and a more bottom-up approach. There may be a need to develop alternative markets. The social implications of climate change need to be studied. There are also opportunities to develop ideas from the science base in this area.
61. Members felt that there were some key 'researchable' areas for Scotland under this theme - e.g. water management, livestock systems in warmer, wetter climates, the impact of regulation on sustainability. The key activity for land users may be responding to policy on climate change (e.g. greenhouse gas emission legislation) rather than coping with climate change per se.
62. Members felt the panel had not touched on the capacity issue and wanted to know how committed SEERAD was to maintaining capacity. They felt this was a critical decision for SEERAD. They did not feel there would be a significant difference in Scotland in respect to climate change scenarios.
63. The CSA noted that SNIFFER had identified a diversity of climate change trends across Scotland which implies that there is no one solution for Scotland as a whole. Members thought this was a question of scale and suggested that even if Climate Change was not so difficult an issue for Scotland, the perception of it might be and this could have large impacts on policy decisions.
64. The CSA also asked members to consider the Cross Cutting Themes and whether the CCTs should be more generic. Members suggested there was a need to look at approaches to managing change in ecosystems to deliver multiple goods of which the protection of biodiversity is one. Without an integrated approach there might, for example, be a risk of one community of scientists pursuing research to underpin protection of biodiversity, whilst another treats biodiversity as a constraint on the delivery of other outcomes The CSA agreed that SEERAD would need to consider the concept of differing approaches to governance issues and how different research communities may have differing viewpoints which would need to be taken into consideration in any policy developments. Taking a systems approach should assist with this.
65. The CSA also asked members for their views on the challenges and impacts of climate change in the area of animal diseases. Members suggested that, in addition to changes in weather patterns encouraging the spread of pathogens and vectors into areas previously free of these, human activity was also of importance in the spread of animal diseases. While the former mechanism could forecasted to some extent, the latter was much more difficult to predict.
66. The CSA also asked members for their views on whether a new CCT might be on Sustainable Communities. Members suggested there was a need to consider institutional capacity which was looking at how communities take more decisions on their future. This included knowledge resources, networking resources and mobilisation capacity but should also include natural science linking social approaches with technological advances. Migration to rural areas could bring opportunities but not all rural areas in Scotland are the same and research needs to take the differences clearly into account. There are also clear similarities in some challenges presented by urban and rural communities and making a distinction between these is not always useful. Members felt that research aimed at what makes a sustainable community should be supported in future.
67. The CSA asked members whether they felt that the work in the current Programme 4 fitted with SEERAD objectives. Members considered that this focus was a useful way of linking sustainable agriculture to food chain issues but this did not really need a separate CCT. Members cautioned against commissioning too many CCTs and felt that these should remain as high level objectives.
68. After this lengthy discussion and consideration of what should be the high level drivers for the future SEERAD Research Strategy, members suggested that the following areas were suitable as the main 'Themes' for further discussion:
- Local responses to global change.
- Sustainable Communities
- Strategic frameworks for policy development
69. The CSA noted that given the general discussions within the SSAP in earlier meetings, it was clear that a fourth 'Theme' for discussion would encompass the need to maintain key research facilities and capacity e.g. soils data base, living collections.
70. Dr Saunderson confirmed that the first part of the consultation would be taken forward through discussions with key stakeholders including policy interests, the SEERAD 'family', the MRPs and industry and other stakeholder groups. The 4 themes identified in the SSAP discussion (the 3 outlined at paragraph 68 above and the fourth outlined at paragraph 69) would form the basis for discussion on the clear understanding that these were not set and were open to change through the consultation exercise. She confirmed that the aim is to produce a draft outline strategy (themes and general directions for research post 2011) for discussion at the SSAP open meeting in September.
Item 7: Other Business
Defra Changes
71. Steven Hill advised members of the Renew Defra Programme and some of the proposed changes to the Defra management structure. The Defra Chief Scientific Adviser will remain a full member of the Management Board but his main role will change to being one of challenge rather than including management responsibility for the Science & Evidence Group.
Date of Next Meeting
72. The next meeting of the Panel will be held on Tuesday 22 May 2007. The Secretariat to consider whether to hold a two day meeting and advise members well in advance.
Actions: Secretariat to
- Amend SSAP Annual Report
- Amend SEERAD 2nd Annual Report
- Provide definition of science and research
- Consider format of Biodiversity conclusions paper
- Consider format for meeting in May
- Provide outline timetable for consultation on research strategy framework
David Gani to:
- Provide summary of RAE review process
Maggie Gill to
- Provide summary of HEFCE/BBSRC Review
SSAP Secretariat
July 2007