EVIDENCE AND INNOVATION STAKEHOLDER FORUM 17 APRIL 2014
The Agri-food industry was provided with an opportunity to help inform the
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s (DARD) budget plans for
future research.
Stakeholders from research, industry and other rural interests were invited to the
annual Evidence and Innovation Stakeholder Forum in Greenmount Campus,
Antrim on 17th April to provide DARD with a clear understanding of the priorities
of industry and the challenges they face so that the Department’s research
budget can be tailored to provide maximum support.
Addressing delegates at the Forum, DARD’s Louise Warde Hunter said: “Cooperation is the key to success and I have been impressed by the level of cooperation between industry and government in funding the DARD research
portfolio.
“That engagement demonstrates that we are travelling in the right direction and I
want to build upon that. Joint funding of projects to maximize the work we can do
will become more important going forward as budgets become increasingly
squeezed.”
Louise Warde Hunter addresses the Forum
Jason Rankin, Agrisearch, speaking after the event said “The annual DARD
Research, Evidence and Innovation Stakeholder event provides us with a
valuable opportunity to interact and engage with representative of other agri-food
industry organisations to input directly into the development of future DARD
research funding calls."
Robert Moore, Chair of the Ulster Arable Society, reiterated that saying, 'The
DARD Stakeholder Forum is an important and informative event which allows
stakeholders from across the Agri-food Industry to put forward and discuss
research needs best suited to the future development of the sector. However,
delivery is very dependent on sufficient funding being forthcoming in future and
that is an area where the retail sector could contribute as they also have a vested
interest in a strong and efficient food production industry. Ongoing and properly
funded research is vital to the future success of our industry.'
Geraldine Fee, Colette McMaster, John Speers, Louise Warde Hunter, Norman
Fulton and Alistair Carson
Participants had the opportunity to discuss research and innovation priorities in
small working groups. Those discussions were lively and wide ranging and gave
the Department staff useful information to help them assess the priorities for its
evidence and innovation portfolio in 2015. A short report from each of the four
working groups and a copy of Louise Warde Hunter and Dr Alistair Carson’s
presentation follows.
PMB1: Performance in the Market Place
Chair: Colette McMaster
A broad range of interests were represented at the PMB1 breakout session,
including red meat, poultry, arable, dairy, animal feed, fruit, mushrooms and agritechnology. The attendees were split into six sub-groups, each with a DARD
representative to help facilitate discussion and address any queries around the
Evidence & Innovation process. All attendees engaged in an open and
productive debate about the list of potential evidence gaps that had been
identified by PMB1.
Each sub-group was invited to prioritise the gaps and the composite view
identified that the following gaps were most important from their perspective:
increased efficiency in production systems; soil and growing medium
management; and, enhancing competitiveness, integrity and resilience in the
local food supply chain.
Stakeholders highlighted a number of areas which they felt were particularly
important including: the potential for the genetic improvement of livestock; soil
management; data-based decision making; and maintaining the high reputation
of the local agri-food industry. They emphasized the need for joined-up
collaborative research in the UK and on the island of Ireland where appropriate
and the importance of knowledge transfer. They suggested that a number of the
research gaps were areas where it would be more appropriate for industry to
take the lead rather than DARD. It was generally agreed that the gaps were
broad enough to encompass all necessary research topics and no additional
gaps were suggested by stakeholders.
The Chair thanked all attendees for their constructive participation and
emphasized the importance of stakeholder input in the Evidence & Innovation
process. The views expressed at the event will be taken into consideration in
prioritising and finalising the list of PMB1 evidence needs.
PMB 2: Social and Economic Infrastructure of rural areas
Chair: Norman Fulton
A wide range of interests, including agriculture, environment, food and rural, were
represented at the breakout session. There was an open and productive debate
within the 3 sub-groups, and across the whole group, around the PMB2 evidence
gaps identified.
Using a high, medium, and low ranking system the 2015/16 needs were
prioritised. There was a general consensus that the highest priorities should be;
the economic effects of LFA/ANC support in Northern Ireland; plant health
economics; cost effective animal disease control; and refinement in the
application and disbursement of rural development funding to increase positive
and sustainable impacts on the rural economy, community and environment.
Although three additional evidence gaps were initially suggested it was
subsequently agreed by all that they could be incorporated into existing
proposals, or were not within the remit of PMB 2.
The PMB chair welcomed the views received and gave an undertaking to
consider these fully in the process of prioritising and finalising the list of PMB 2
evidence needs for the Department’s 2014-2015 Research Work plan.
PMB 3: Animal, Fish and Plant Health and Animal Welfare
Chair: Geraldine Fee
Stakeholders in this working group mainly comprised those from the livestock
sectors with some arable and fruit growers. No fisheries industry stakeholders
attended as no fisheries projects had been proposed. Stakeholders had the
opportunity to comment on the proposed PMB 3 Evidence and Innovation
priorities for 2015/16 and to reprioritise four projects previously highly ranked at
the 2013 stakeholder event. They also had the opportunity to put forward
additional project ideas.
Some thought estimated project costs would assist with decision making but the
Chair indicated that the projects were at too much of a concept stage to make
that possible.
An apple grower was keen for research into alternative cold storage methods as
apple growers had suffered financial losses by investing in alternative methods
themselves in the absence of sufficient research. Alternative methods for crop
pest and disease control was also suggested following EU bans on previously
available and widely used chemicals. It was also felt that the PRRSv proposal
could be expanded to include pleurisy as an ongoing PHD project was viewed as
not wide enough in scope.
There was broad agreement on the top priorities for the 2015-16 projects with
Johnes, BVD, PRRSv and TB featuring highly. There was less consensus on the
reprioritisation of 2014/15 projects. The Chair welcomed the views received and
will ensure they help inform the Department’s prioritisation of 2015-2016
research work.
PMB4: Sustainable Environment
Chair: John Speers
Stakeholders in this working group were advised of some of the various drivers
that DARD are involved with currently, such as the Nitrates Action Programme
Going For Growth, addressing Climate Change and broader sustainability. This
encouraged an open and productive debate within the 4 sub-groups around the
PMB 4 Evidence and Innovation (E&I) gaps already identified by DARD for
2015/2016.
All 4 sub-groups unanimously agreed that the following E&I gaps were of highest
importance:
managing
soil
nutrient
status
to
balance
production
with
environmental protection; effective mitigation measures for agricultural diffuse
sources of pollution; and research to support development of an Agricultural
Land Use Strategy.
Some E&I gaps received a lower ranking as research was already being done
elsewhere and so this would be duplication of work. There was also a lack of
knowledge/qualification within the sub-group on particular research topics.
The opportunity to identify additional evidence needs was welcomed by those
present. Suggestions included: a re-examination of the physical structures of
waterways in agricultural land; integration of policies relating to land, water and
soil; and greater integration between agricultural production and the environment
which supports it, especially on nutrients. These additional gaps were agreed by
all present as being of high importance.
The PMB 4 Chair thanked stakeholders for their contributions which would be
presented at the plenary session and would also be considered in the process of
prioritising and finalising the list of PMB 4 E&I needs for 2015-2016.
Stakeholder forum
presentations 17 April 2014.PPT