AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION

TWENTY-SIXTH COMMISSION MEETING

9th DECEMBER 2004

THE THISTLE HOTEL, WESTMINSTER, LONDON

MINUTES

Members

Professor Malcolm Grant
Julie Hill
Anna Bradley
Helen Browning
Dr David Carmichael
Dr Ed Dart
Dr Matthew Freeman
Professor Robin Grove-White
Judith Hann
Dr Rosie Hails
Professor Keekok Lee
Dr Derek Langslow
Professor Jeff Maxwell
Dr Sue Mayer
Dr Paul Rylott
Justine Thornton


Secretariat

Dr Paul van Heyningen
Craig Johnson
Laura McMahon
Tonima Saha


Introduction and Apologies

1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the Commission’s twenty-sixth meeting and thanked them for attending.



2. Apologies had been received from Dr. David Buckeridge, John Gilliland and ChiChi Iweajunwa.



3. The minutes of the last Commission meeting had been finalised with all comments incorporated into them. The Commission agreed they were an accurate record of proceedings.



4. The Chair announced the resignation from the Commission of Professor Phil Dale who would be retiring from his other work commitments in March and wanted more time to arrange for this. The Chair confirmed that he had written to Professor Dale thanking him for his commitment and input to the Commission since its inception. He regarded Professor Dale as a key member of the AEBC who had been true to his principles, and had been able to articulate and defend his position throughout. He thanked him for his hard work not only on the Commission but also on the Science Review panel and the GM Debate Steering Board, which were no longer convened. On behalf of the whole Commission and secretariat he wished Professor Dale a happy retirement.



5. The Chair also announced that Emma Knox had been promoted within the DTI and had therefore left the secretariat. He congratulated Miss Knox on her success and thanked her for her hard work in supporting the Commission.


Matters of Report


6. The independent review of the AEBC by Dr.Neil Williams was published on 2 December 2004. A full discussion on the report would follow later in the meeting.



7. The secretariat had received a letter of response from Mrs. Beckett to the Commission’s open letter on the wider issues raised by the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs). Copies of the letter would be circulated to members electronically and posted on the website shortly.



8. Defra and DTI had published their strategy on non-food crops on 5 November. The strategy looks at the current and future uses of non food agriculture in the UK and sets out the main policies for the next few years. It can be viewed on the Defra website.



9. The Food Ethics Council was launching its report “Just Knowledge: Governing Research on Food and Farming” on December 10th. The report examines how public engagement can play a greater part in science and asks what else can be done to make the research system more robust. Several members would be attending the launch and a summary of its findings would be available at the end of the meeting.



10. Professor Gordon Conway FRS had been appointed as DFID's Chief Scientific Adviser. Gordon Conway, an agricultural ecologist who had spoken to the AEBC at their meeting in Manchester in 2003, was the first person appointed to this new, part-time post, which aims to promote progress towards DFID's PSA objectives and targets by identifying where new science and technology can contribute to poverty reduction and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).



11. A vote on whether to authorise the import of genetically-modified (GM) maize MON863 had been referred to the European Union's Environment Ministers after the Member States failed to reach a qualified majority on the issue on November 29. The controversial vote had already been delayed two months earlier, when environmental organisations' claims about health risks prompted several countries to ask for more information on this variety of maize. Environment Ministers must now achieve a qualified majority in favour of MON863 imports; if they fail to do so within three months - as has happened with two other GM-crop cases in the recent past - the file will return to the Commission, which is likely to adopt it. Meanwhile, Member States voted down a Commission proposal to overturn national bans on EU-approved GM crops in five Member States on November 29



12. An update had been received from Defra on GM developments – copies were available at the meeting.


Update on coexistence


13. Dr. Linda Smith – head of GM policy, science and regulation at Defra – gave an update on coexistence measures being adopted in other EU states and the strategy currently being developed in England. She informed the Commission of the following:



• Three EU Member States have issued detailed proposals on co-existence. These are Denmark, Germany and Luxembourg. In each case their proposals can be characterised as primary legislation, which will enable more detailed coexistence measures to be set in subsequent regulations. For example, the primary legislation would not include details such as provisions for monitoring coexistence.



• While each EU Member State is responsible for developing its own proposals national coexistence measures are still subject to scrutiny by the European Commission. It is therefore not yet clear what final form the proposed legislation will take.



• Other Member States are in the process of developing proposals but the details of these are not yet confirmed. An example of this is the Netherlands whose national coexistence plan appears to propose an industry-led voluntary approach. Spain appeared to have no coexistence measures in place, despite the fact that it was the only member state where GM crops were currently in cultivation.

More details of the coexistence measures in other EU Member States can be found here


14. Dr. Smith explained that Defra were currently working with the devolved administrations to assess the information gathered from the workshops on coexistence that had taken place during autumn 2004. This would lead to a package of options being developed which would go out for consultation in 2005. Defra felt there was no immediate urgency for measures to be finalised since it was unlikely that the commercial growing of GM crops in the UK would commence before 2008. It would be more important to present a comprehensive and well thought out package and take advantage of being able to examine regimes adopted in other countries.



15. Some progress had been made in discussions with the organic farming sector in understanding their needs and exploring options to operate at a lower threshold than 0.9 per cent Adventitious Presence (AP). Dr. Smith explained that setting absolute thresholds may not be the best way forward and that a system that delivered an AP “as low as possible” below the 0.9 per cent without engaging in expensive testing may be looked at.



16. There had been discussion with industry bodies and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the question of economic redress in cases where the level of AP was above 0.9 per cent. Preliminary talks



17. had indicated the Secretary of State was in favour of industry bearing the burden of redress in the first instance (as set out in her statement on GM crops of 9 March 2004). Setting up a statutory mechanism for compensation would be very complex and require primary legislation. The question of environmental liability had not yet been looked at in detail and the development of an insurance based compensatory system had also not progressed any further. No conclusion had been reached on GM-free zones.


Discussion on the review of the AEBC


18. The Chair introduced the session by summarising the main points of the report.



19. The main recommendation was that the AEBC should not continue. It should complete its current work programme by the end of the financial year 2004-05.



20. A letter to the Chair from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs Hewitt) thanked Members for their dedication and said that Ministers now intend to consider the recommendations of the independent review very carefully, with an aim to reach a decision shortly. They will however ensure that they engage with stakeholders prior to making decisions on the future of the AEBC or a successor body. The letter also asked the Commission to continue to carry out their current work programme, but bearing in mind the Review’s recommendations.



21. The Chair also reported on his recent meeting with Mr.Morley and explained that the Minister was minded to agree with the review that the Commission had come to the end of its present life, but was keen to ensure that the AEBC’s good work and role could be transferred to another body or bodies, whether existing or new.



22. Government had not however made any firm decisions and agreement needed to be reached between Defra, DTI and the devolved administrations. The favoured option that was emerging would be to widen the remit of existing bodies to ensure that they could carry on the work, particularly in public engagement and openness.



23. The Chair had discussed with Mr. Morley the possibility of integrating GM with the wider sustainable agriculture picture, and that various committees might take on part of the AEBC's role (e.g. Sustainable Development Commission, Don Curry's Sustainable Food and Farming Implementation Group, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution [RCEP], Sustainable Food and Farming Research Priorities group and Defra’s Scientific Advisory Council)



24. The Minister had been advised by the Chair that any response by government should be a single and complete statement not only on the discharging of the AEBC’s duties but also on the future of the work it would have covered. The statement should therefore detail how its roles will be incorporated into a new or existing body or bodies and what steps would be taken to ensure an open and transparent method of working.



25. The Chair added his personal reaction to the report, stating that he thought it was rather flat in the way that the reviewer had dealt with the verbal submissions. He was also disappointed that only 11 members had responded and felt there had been a narrow trawling of opinion that did not adequately reflect the broad range of opinions on the Commission. He felt it had failed to capture the political turbulence of the time when the AEBC was established. He did however concur with the overall recommendation that the AEBC should cease to exist in its present form once the current workstreams had been completed satisfactorily.



26. During the discussion with the whole Commission, the following points were made:



• No Members disagreed with the main recommendation of the report that the AEBC should be dissolved. There was strong emphasis on the need to transfer its role to a new or existing body or bodies. Very careful attention should be focussed on the terms of reference and the remit of the bodies concerned to ensure the AEBC’s independence, open and transparent methods of working and public engagement activities were continued.



• There was disappointment from some members with the narrow framing and overall tone of the report and although it was acknowledged that the guidelines from the Cabinet Office for reviewing advisory bodies had been closely followed, it was felt that these had been a constraint that did not allow for the whole picture to be fully analysed. The AEBC had been unique and experimental in its membership and remit and there had been insufficient recognition of this. The analysis had therefore been quite superficial and had glossed over the painstaking negotiation that had taken place in order to bring together the array of views represented on the Commission in its reports. This was not a criticism of the reviewer, but of the review process.



• Some Members felt that the report was mistaken in its assumption that it was impossible for a body like the Commission to be analytical and investigative on the one hand but also to achieve consensus through negotiation and debate on the other. The Coexistence report had shown that these two were not mutually exclusive.



• It was hoped that when the role of the AEBC was passed on to another body that it would be recognised that to succeed in its aims, time would be needed to reflect on the vast array of views and that “quick fixes” should not be sought.



• The Commission decided that it should concentrate on the legacy that it would leave and focus on lessons learned and advise on improvements for future bodies undertaking the roles currently filled by the AEBC. This was felt by all to be more productive than dwelling on the report.

The Chair closed the session by asking Members to forward their opinions on the report to him and to focus on what they thought should happen in the future. He would collate the correspondence and produce a collective response to pass to Government.

Action: Members

Non-Food Agriculture public engagement exercise


27. The Chair asked Dr. David Carmichael to introduce and chair the session on non-food agriculture, on behalf of the core group running the workstream (which also included Dr.David Buckeridge, Dr. Rosie Hails and Julie Hill).



28. Dr. Carmichael explained that the group had decided to undertake a public engagement exercise to look at public attitudes to the uses of non-food agriculture and biotechnology. By using a series of case studies, they would try to find out the social, ethical, environmental and economic issues that might be of concern to people.



29. The Commission did not contain the expertise to carry out this exercise on its own and the group had therefore engaged Corr Willbourn Research and Development to act as consultants. Dr. Carmichael invited Corr Willbourn to give a presentation to the Commission on its proposal and the methodology it would employ.


A full copy of their presentation can be found here (for easier viewing why not try the PDF version)


30. In discussion, the following points were made:



• The consultants would note as far as possible any change in attitudes and opinions during the process, although this would only be qualitative analysis.



• Analysis of secondary thought processing referred to the underlying thoughts that often hid behind peoples’ articulated reactions. The consultants would report on any evidence of this only if it was explicit.



• The response to the information folder that participants took away to examine and update during phase three would not form part of the report, but it would help participants organise their thoughts and opinions so that when they were reconvened in the final seminars they were more focussed on the matters that concerned them and the knowledge they had gained in the interim period.



• Corr Willbourn needed to ensure that the generic health and safety, environmental, social, ethical and other issues were neither lost nor over-emphasised by focusing on specific case studies. Without being too prescriptive, they would ensure that the respondents were given the chance to take all these issues into account.



• The separation of respondents by socio-economic status was queried. This was for practical reasons rather than in order to try and distinguish between the groups in the analysis. Clear differences would be reported if found, but were not expected.



• The case studies of examples would be rewritten in a simpler style by Corr Willbourn, with the factual material being drawn from the case studies prepared by the core group. The secretariat would circulate these original case studies to the whole Commission for comment.


Action: secretariat


• The core group would be inviting a select group of informed stakeholders with some knowledge of non-food agriculture to the workshops. It would also be helpful if Members could make themselves available to join in at the workshops in addition to those already invited. The dates of the workshops would be circulated along with the case studies by the secretariat.


Action: secretariat


• The final report on the exercise would be produced by Corr Willbourn and would be the main output from the workstream with perhaps a brief introductory statement from the Commission.

The Chair closed the session for lunch.

Afternoon session


31. Dr. Matthew Freeman introduced the workstream and reminded Members of the four main questions the project was trying to address, namely:


• What are the key drivers behind agricultural biotechnology research agendas and how are they balanced?


• What mechanisms exist to ensure public attitudes and aspirations and Government policy priorities are taken into account when research agendas are set?


• How well do these mechanisms work?


• What have been the implications of the above for research and development?

The project was being conducted in a modular fashion and had a number of interrelated strands: background information gathering (completed); a written consultation (in progress); a public and stakeholder engagement exercise (2 of the 3 stages completed); and two case studies (in their early stages). The aim for today’s meeting was to discuss the findings so far from the public and stakeholder engagement exercise, make progress on the case studies, and begin to think about emerging themes and conclusions.

Discussion on public and stakeholder engagement exercise


32. Dr. Freeman invited Rebecca Morris from Opinion Leader Research to give a presentation on the public and stakeholder exercise they were running on behalf on the Commission.



33. Ms Morris explained that the methodology was a 3 staged approach, with the aim of moving from spontaneous responses to more informed decisions. Six public groups had been involved along with a farmers group, a scientists group, and a group of field advisory staff. A report of stage 1 had been circulated and stage 2 had recently been completed. Stage 3 was due to take place in February 2005.


A summary of the key findings from stage 1 and some emerging themes from stage 2 are outlined in the attached presentation: click here, (for easier viewing why not try the PDF version)


34. In discussion Ms Morris added the following points:


• Participants had felt that although the public should have a say in setting research agendas, they needed to be able to make an informed choice through a deliberative process so e.g. surveys on the street were not appropriate. There was little consensus on the timing of engagement (“upstream” or later) or the mechanism, though participants felt that ethical issues were an area where they should be involved.


• Participants felt that the quality of scientific secondary education and scientific broadcasting had declined and this affected the public’s ability to contribute to such discussions.


• The lack of trust and transparency in the current system was a main reason why the public wanted to have a greater input into research agendas. They recognised that for the public to be involved would take a large effort on behalf of the participants but many themselves would be willing to make such an effort.


• Although participants had a rather more short-term view on research in stage 1, prioritising those issues that had immediate or direct impact on their lives, when explored further in stage 2, participants recognised and were enthusiastic about research with longer-term goals and no immediate application.


• Participants were supportive of wealth creation goals and these were high on the government’s agenda at the moment, however they were trust issues over commercialisation of research.


In discussion the following points were raised by Commission members:


• It was noted that the report from stage 1 had shown the primary source of information for most people was the media, and also that they did not trust this or other sources of information. Therefore it was suggested that one of the Commission’s recommendations should be for an independent source of information that the public could rely on.


• It was noted that scientists had been wary about wider stakeholder involvement as they felt decisions would be based on intuition and emotions. Similarly, some of the public participants were wary about their own involvement, feeling that they did not have the right level of knowledge to be able to take responsibility for such decisions. It would be important to clarify in the next stage of discussions that there was a distinction between decision- making and involvement. For example, people could be encouraged to talk about their aspirations for the future without having to understand and discuss scientific terms.


• Some felt that ‘advancing knowledge’ had been linked to underpinning wealth generation in the earlier discussions and it would be useful to explore people’s attitudes to advancing knowledge for its own sake.


• At the next stage it would be useful to explore in more depth how and when the public should be involved in research agenda setting. The distinction should be made between strategic level decision-making and decisions on specific grant committees. However, it was noted that it would be difficult for participants to come to any solutions in a day’s workshop, as this was an issue that people had been struggling with for years.


• It would be interesting to further explore the issues around trust and its relationship to commercial influence.


• It would be useful to get someone from a very high level from e.g. BBSRC to get a perspective on the general direction of policy.


Discussion on case studies


35. Dr. Freeman noted that the papers that had been provided were very much early drafts, to stimulate discussion. The aim was that, when completed, they could be stand-alone documents and would be used to illustrate how the drivers identified by the Commission influenced research agendas in practice. They would however be cross-referenced with the other strands of work. Their focus would be on UK research, whilst recognising that there were other wider influences.


Plant breeding case study ( Paper AEBC 04/20A)


36. The next steps would be to collect more information and get input from a range of people in both public and private sector plant breeding as a form of ‘peer review’.



37. In discussion the following points were raised:
• Professor Phil Dale’s paper had provided a useful starting point and the case study would build on this, as well as using the information collected by the group to challenge and test their initial perceptions. The process of learning from their starting position and the ‘journey travelled’ were important and should be noted.


• Some of the assumptions in the draft paper were queried. It was felt that more information was needed on research at the Plant Breeding Institute/Plant Breeding International (PBI) before and after privatisation, as well as a consideration of what was expected of PBI at the time - what goals it was intended to meet and whether it was serving its purpose before privatisation. The case study could then look at how things had changed since privatisation of PBI and whether any research areas or products had been neglected as a result. It could then move on to consider what was expected from plant breeding now and whether it was sufficient in meeting current needs.


• It was felt that although there may be a number of plant breeding companies in the UK, few of these were actually practising plant breeders and activity in the UK was mostly marketing etc Input from stakeholders with knowledge of commercial plant breeding was required.


• The issues around intellectual property rights and plant variety protection would be considered as an important factor in the field, but it was agreed that the group could not do full justice to the issues due to time constraints and other priorities so these would not be considered in depth.


• The case study should include a reflection of the broader policy context e.g. the shift from food production to wider environmental concerns, agricultural and trade policies that changed the profitability of different crops.

Soil Science Case Study (Paper AEBC 04/20B [insert link])


38. Dr. Freeman noted that the case study had so far taken a historical look at soil science but would now try and look at some of the questions that arose from this. The group had started with the perception that soil science was in decline, but their studies had suggested that research in this area had fluctuated over time and now seemed to be in a fairly healthy state. For example, in the 1980s financial pressures on research resources meant that soil science decreased as it had reached a plateau in terms of development other areas with greater innovative potential were prioritised. Later, soil science increased again as technical developments and changing policy questions gave it new direction and overall it seemed difficult to criticise the direction of soil science given the pressures and drivers over time.



• This study also highlighted concerns over losing future potential and expertise if a certain area of research (e.g. pedology, mineralogy and surface chemistry) was allowed to diminish because it was currently not seen to be a priority.


• It was noted that it would be useful to talk to the research councils, as well as industry, including the agro-chemical industry and the soil association.


• It would be interesting to consider within the field of soil science whether certain areas were of higher priority than others, or more likely to deliver than others, and if any gaps arose.


Discussion on emerging conclusions


39. Dr. Freeman stated that the research agendas group had held an early discussion on emerging themes and conclusions and would welcome thoughts from all Members. In discussion the following points were raised:



• The Commission should consider adding a ‘starting principle’ that basic research was a necessary prerequisite for wealth creation, and important in its own right. Basic research should be supported, but researchers should have a responsibility to look for practical applications developing in their work. Discussions on exploitation of science should include use in understanding processes, including public sector uses and not just commercial exploitation.



• It should be made clear that although wealth creation is important, it should not be the overriding aim and the principles of sustainability should be followed, incorporating environmental, social and economic values.



• It would be necessary to clarify the arguments for public engagement, what was meant by it, and how it could be practically achieved. This needed to include not just the governing principles but also the wider political context and issues such as trust in government and the mood for public engagement. The Commission’s project should also refer to other work being conducted on public engagement and the need for better collaboration in this.



• There was a feeling that research agendas were not in line with sustainable development objectives but further evidence was needed to support this. It was suggested that it might be useful to discuss this with the Defra Sustainable Food and Farming Research Priorities Group.



• It had been suggested that better coordination in research was needed and the possibility of a single overarching body to oversee this had been raised. This could be presented as support of the BBSRC recommendation for a single Sustainable Agriculture Research Committee. However, there was some potential contradiction with this and the feeling that a plurality of drivers and funding from different sources was important.



• It was suggested that openness and transparency was only really possible at a high strategic level as at the level of specific grants, individual projects and people were being discussed where it would not be appropriate to discuss openly. It was noted that the Freedom of Information Act would come into force on 1 January 2005 and this would affect Government Departments and Research Councils.



• It was discussed whether the needs of small farmers, especially those using non-conventional farming systems, differed from the needs of larger scale farms and, if so, whether their voices were sufficiently heard in research agenda setting systems. Some felt that it was unlikely that all their research needs were met e.g. in terms of varietal choice.



• The new Science Forum that was announced in the recent Pre-Budget report (chaired by Tom McKillop) should be looked into as part of this study.



• The levy bodies were also important in some sectors and it should be considered whether they could be recommended to follow the same principles in research agenda setting as the public bodies.

Discussion on future work of the Commission


40. The Chair noted that in light of the recommendations of the AEBC review, it would be important to finish the current work by March/April 2005. It was agreed that both workstreams were on track to finish by this date.



41. It was agreed that the next meeting of the Commission would be on 23/24 February as already scheduled. The following meeting would be planned for the end of March, at which point material would be finalised and approved for publication. The aim would be for all the work to be published by end April 2005. All future meetings would be in London.



42. It was agreed that it would be helpful to have a professional facilitator such as Corr Willbourn to help the Commission consider their successes and failures over the last few years and their experiences with public engagement activities. An independent report could then be produced by the moderators which would be useful to any future body, and could also address the Review’s recommendation that the AEBC write a paper on its experiences with public engagement.