|
THE
INSTITUTE OF HORTICULTURE 1. The Institute of Horticulture (IoH) is the professional organisation representing horticulture. The Institute has in excess of 2000 members concerned with all aspects of horticulture, commercial production, environmental horticulture, landscape design and maintenance, social horticulture, education and research. The Institute has members employed by HRI, but they have not been involved in the preparation of this response. The main authors are Professor J. Moorby, President of the IoH and Professor G.R. Dixon, President-Elect of the IoH. Short statements on their links with HRI are at Annexe 1. 2. The main
question posed in the letter of 14 December 2001 is whether HRI should
The IoH maintains strong links with HRI because it is the major UK source of knowledge and information relating to the research and academic base of horticulture. Staff of HRI support many of the IoH initiatives that aim to provide cogent and coherent analyses of the academic and industrial needs of horticulture. They do this as individuals and not as formal representatives of HRI. In this manner they contribute to the corporate objectives of the IoH, to represent, explain and publicise professional horticulture nationally and internationally. Nationally there has been joint responsibility for conferences, meetings and in the study of the needs for technology transfer for the UK industry. Internationally there is collaboration in furthering the work of the International Society for Horticultural Science 4. ( Para. 10ii ) HRI's national and international standing In the decade since HRI was established from the Institute for Horticultural Research the organisation has gained an enviable world class reputation for the quality of its scientific research. The HRI has the only critical mass for horticultural research in the UK. Despite the financial and organisational traumas that have beset the organisation, and which have been completely beyond it control, the staff and management have been able to maintain the world wide recognition of its expertise. At the same time HRI has become a focus for the UK horticultural industry providing a source of knowledge and information vital to the commercial success of the industry. We understand that this opinion reflects the recent assessment of a Visiting Group to HRI conducted by BBSRC that has resulted in an increase in the BBSRC funding for HRI. 5. ( Para 10iii)
Mission, scientific R & D strategy and collaboration The scientific strategy of HRI has to a very large extent been governed by MAFF/DEFRA's policy concerns because it has provided a large proportion of HRI's funding as direct commissions. This funding has been in continuous decline for the last decade. The footnote to the financial forecasts in Table 6 of the latest HRI Corporate Plan state that the Corporate Plan was agreed by DEFRA Ministers on 24.1.02. The figures in Table 3 suggest that there would be no further decline in funding between 2000/1 and 2005. Yet only two weeks later, at the launch of the draft report of the Spedding Enquiry, Lord Whitty announced that further cuts were probable. This was confirmed by the inclusion of the revised forecasts in Table 6, agreed by DEFRA officials on 18.2.02, in the Corporate Plan. These show a further 21% decrease in commission income by 2005. How can HRI or any organisation make sensible plans when the funding is changed so arbitrarily and so quickly? It is understood that these cuts reflect DEFRA's desire to increase spending on research on animal diseases and to allow for salary equalisations within DEFRA itself. The IoH views these as totally unacceptable trade-offs that disadvantage major sectors of the UK horticulture. The horticultural industry rapidly applies novel technology to sustain its economic viability and the availability of scientific advances should not be imperilled by government desires to further subsidise the livestock sector. It defies logic to divert support from an unsubsidised successful industry significant to the nation's health and welfare ( "Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption is second only to reducing smoking in diminishing cancer and coronary disease"-Imogen Sharp, Department of Health ) and transfer it to failing 'lame cow'industries. Since its inception the main concern of HRI has had to be survival. It is of great credit to the professional ability of the HRI staff that the scientific standing is so high. If the many reductions in funding had been sensibly planned, and the plans adhered to, then HRI would have been even better able to adapt its scientific strategy. The strategy currently in place is robust and was appropriate to both to the needs of the UK horticultural industry and the funding HRI was told would be available from DEFRA. HRI attracts numerous
visiting workers, students and collaborators from many countries. It also
does some work, funded by DfID, on problems faced by developing countries
and maintains the international Brassica genebank. HRI staff collaborate
successfully with researchers in UK universities and research institutes
and HRI is now expanding its horizons by links between its sites and the
Regional Development Agencies. The strengths of HRI are in its staff and the intellectual property they generate. Their dedication and industriousness is evident to even the most casual and uninformed visitor or reader of their publications. The knowledge they produce range from the forefront of biological research such as defining the genetic basis of vigour in Brassica to topics of immediate application to industry such as understanding the relationship of temperature to plant growth that can reduce growers' fuel costs by up to 20%. Weaknesses relate
to the organisational and administrative burdens placed on HRI by outside
influences such as DEFRA and BBSRC. These collectively have failed to
provide a cogent framework that relates research output to scientific
and industrial needs. HRI's survival depends on a plethora of short-term
contracts. These place undue demands on staff time, both the time needed
to obtain them and also on reporting on their progress. This is a misuse
of the talents of the staff and also limits their ability to translate
the work into a technology useable by the 7. ( Para 10v )
Other immediate or future functions HRI does the best it can, in spite of MAFF/DEFRA and BBSRC, by interaction with the Horticultural Development Council ( HDC ) and other industrial and quasi-industrial bodies. In its struggle for survival chasing and supporting the large number of small contracts and the overburdening need to support large overheads from current income diminishes the time and opportunities of staff to liaise properly with end user industries. 9. ( Para 10vii ) Engagement with other communities There have always been good links between HRI staff and those in universities and other academic, scientific and industrial bodies. For example, there are links with Universities in Birmingham, Warwick, London, Oxford and Reading and HRI staff are involved with learned and professional bodies and serve as advisers to HDC Crop Commodity Panels. These links frequently involve joint research projects, the joint supervision of research students and occasional lectures by HRI staff on topics where they have specific expertise. The value placed on these links by the universities is supported by the list of 36 Honorary Professorships, Lectureships and Fellowships listed on page 89 of the 1999/2000 HRI Annual Report. 10. ( Para 10viii ) Promotion of sustainable horticulture In the absence of an official definition of 'sustainable horticulture', despite a formal request from the IOH, we can only guess at what is meant. There are several possibilities. If 'sustainable' means financially sustainable, ie profitable, the horticultural industry is growing in value without the help of subsidies and the research done by HRI supports this growth by answering problems and identifying opportunities. If 'sustainable' implies ways of reducing inputs then much of the work at HRI has this aim. The work on plant nutrition and fertiliser application uses mathematical models to make the most effective use of fertilisers. Crop protection research uses studies of the life cycles of pests and pathogens to identify potential predators for use in biological control techniques, to predict the best ways to use pesticides and the prevention of pollution is aided by work on the movement of pesticides through the soil. Much of the plant breeding effort is concerned with the identification of genetic resistances to pests and diseases and their incorporation into new varieties. In the longer term, work on genetic modification will allow much of this work to be targeted more efficiently. If by 'sustainable' DEFRA means 'organic' then HRI have been collaborating for several years with the Elm Farm Research Centre and Henry Doubleday Research Association on organic vegetable production. In addition HRI is now building new facilities at East Malling specifically for work on the production of organic fruit and ornamentals. The finance for this was obtained in open competition from the Competitive Capital Modernisation Fund as was that for the new Genomics Centre at Wellesbourne. 11. ( Para 10ix ) Exploitation of intellectual property The IoH believes that
the exploitation of intellectual property by HRI is as good The IoH understands that any intellectual property produced from BBSRC-funded research is owned by HRI. The high costs of protection and development for the market mean that HRI has to find industrial partners to exploit this property. We believe HRI does this effectively. The situation with regard to intellectual property produced using MAFF/DEFRA funds seems to be different. Here the ownership of the property remains with DEFRA; although HRI obtains a proportion of the profits of any exploitation. In these circumstances the exploitation should be the responsibility of the owner, ie DEFRA, and HRI cannot be criticised if DEFRA fails to exploit the property adequately. 12. ( Para x )
Knowledge transfer The problem of technology
transfer has been exacerbated because the funding provided by MAFF/DEFRA
has consistently moved away from the 'near market'. Technology transfer
was for many years the responsibility of the National Agricultural Advisory
Service( NAAS ) followed by the Agricultural development and Advisory
Service ( ADAS ) but as this organisation moved into the private sector
its advisory role declined and the need to provide advice was not transferred
to HRI. The IoH is already on record in its submission to the Spedding
Enquiry that technology transfer in the UK is piecemeal and uncoordinated.
This regrettable situation is no reflection on HRI. MAFF/DEFRA has been the biggest customer of HRI research and should know the standard of service provided by HRI. The personal experience of both authors has been that collaboration with individual HRI staff has been good. There have been no organisational difficulties imposed by HRI and enquiries suggest this experience is typical. Requests for information are handled rapidly and accurately at both the scientific and management levels. 14. ( Para 10xii ) Transparent policy and openness of operations The innumerable published reviews of HRI over the last few years surely mean that the workings of HRI have been open to scrutiny. In addition, the draft Scientific Strategy of HRI was available for comment on the internet for some months. The Corporate Plan has been published and the Annual Report is freely available. The only occasion of which the IoH is aware when there has been an accusation of secrecy was in the lead up to the closure of Stockbridge House. In view of the speed with which this action was forced on HRI by MAFF, and the large number of redundancies involved, some secrecy was probably inevitable. Nevertheless, it was stated in the press at the time that MAFF and the other funding agencies were kept fully informed throughout. 15. ( Para 10xiii ) Role of Board of Directors One author knows from personal experience on the Board of Directors of HRI that it was often presented by a fait accompli by MAFF and had little freedom of movement. The IoH does not know whether the situation has changed, but the lack of resolution about the status of HRI, despite the published wish of HRI to change, suggests a lack of initiative in MAFF and subsequently DEFRA. This situation must be resolved. 16. ( Para 10 xiv ) Possible change from NDPB status It is always possible to do things differently, but will they be done as well? Over the last two decades the entire system of research provision has been torn up by its roots and re-inspected interminably for political expediency over two decades. Now is the time to allow organisations such as HRI sound and predictable financing and allow them to get on with what they are trained to do, service science and the industry. Further manipulation in order for the Civil Service to appear to be active will do vast damage and achieve no tangible benefits. No UK university has the facilities or staff that would enable it to take on the role of HRI. The reductions in funding over the last 15-20 years mean that none of the BBSRC institutes have spare capacity. If funding was diverted from HRI to other institutes they would have to recruit extra staff and duplicate the facilities already available in HRI. This would involve extra expense, disperse the expertise present in HRI, result in a loss of focus on horticultural problems and reduce the opportunities for cross-discipline systems based research. This is not a sensible option. 17. ( Para 10xv ) Government help The answer is obvious for the reasons given above. Most of what the government has done recently has hindered HRI rather than helped it. For example, in the absence of any government support for the establishment of the now world-renowned Brassica gene bank HRI had to obtain funding from the 'Save the Children' charity. The most important things the government could do to help HRI would be to reduce uncertainty, to stick to agreements and undertakings and to introduce some consistency of funding. It has not done this for several years. HRI critically requires a period of financial stability provided by assured funding of its infrastructure. It was patently obvious that this vital resource could not be funded from its current account income. The government must provide an agreed and acceptable level of core funding and then allow HRI to get on with its job without bureaucratic hinderance. 18. ( Para 10xvi ) Changed status from NDPB When HRI was established
as a NDPB in about1993 the Board of Directors was given to understand
that this was a temporary situation and that HRI would become a Statutory
Corporation. This has never taken place, and whether it would be an improvement,
the IoH cannot say, but some resolution must occur if HRI is to prosper.
If for no other reason, there needs to be a change so that the Board of
Directors has more freedom of action and all the staff are employed by
HRI, and not three different organisations as at present. The IoH believes for the reasons given, and developed further below, that HRI should continue to provide a comprehensive research service to the UK horticultural industry. Abolition is not, therefore an option. The legal status of HRI must be resolved as matter of urgency. Various suggestions have been listed by DEFRA but are too vague to be useful. 'Privatisation' has been addressed by several other fora and has been discounted by all. What does 'market testing' mean. This phrase usually assumes that there is a new product for sale and is being tested on an unsuspecting market. In the present context what is for sale and to whom? What is HRI, or DEFRA, to 'contract out' from? If this refers to contracting the research currently done by HRI to other organisations this would be very damaging and is considered in detail above. The final option suggested is 'internal restructuring', but there has been nothing else for the last decade or more, usually forced on HRI because of the actions of MAFF/DEFRA. What is really needed is consistency. Ideally this would be a period of stability to allow the HRI staff to show that the current strategy can work. Stable funding my not be possible, but there should be no rapid and unannounced changes. The government is supposed to work on a three year cycle but there has been little evidence of this in MAFF/DEFRA.
Annexe 1 Professor J. Moorby's links with HRI : 1974-1979 PSO at the
Glasshouse Crops Research Institute, since incorporated into HRI.
1968-1978 Plant Pathologist
responsible for vegetable and field crop pathogens at the Throughout this career
I have enjoyed close links and collaboration with individual research
staff and groups in HRI and its predecessors; contributed to research
assessments, peer reviews and policy groups that have directly influenced
the programmes of work undertaken by HRI. Currently I have close links
for sources of knowledge and information especially for the HORTIPS project,
partnerships in joint research projects and through national and international
scientific bodies. Quinquennial Review
of Response by 14/15 Belgrave Square |