EVIDENCE BASED POLICYMAKING: AN OVERVIEW Professor Howard Dalton Chief Scientific Adviser to Defra

1. EVIDENCE BASED POLICYMAKING: AN OVERVIEW Professor Howard Dalton Chief Scientific Adviser to Defra

2. SCAR ad-hoc Working Groups set up to explore co-ordination in priority policy-research areas Denmark: ICT and robotics in agriculture Denmark: Enzyme BioTechnology in Food and Agro-industrial Processing Germany: Renewable Raw Materials and their Application in Non-Food Industries. Ireland: Sustainable Livestock production from Grasslands Italy: Relevant issues for Mediterranean agriculture. UK: Animal Health, Including Emerging Threats, Infectious Diseases and Surveillance. Belgium: Functional Animal Foods………and there are others

3. The challenges for this meeting are: Can we find a common approach to research planning that will enable us to meet the demands of common future policy objectives? Can we create a common process that is sustainable and that will deliver the evidence for the medium and the longer – term?

4. The Defra ‘Evidence and Innovation Strategy’ process Description of the key elements in our ‘Evidence and Innovation Strategy’ process Two examples of Defra policy ‘cases’ Questions that need to be discussed in our breakout sessions.

5. Defra’s use of evidence in policymaking

6. Science governance and quality control • The Science Advisory Council (SAC) • Provides Defra with expert, independent advice • Three working sub-groups • Epidemic Diseases • Science, evidence, and innovation strategy • Governance

7. Evidence and Innovation Strategy: Benefits • Better alignment of our evidence base with the Strategic Outcomes • More robust policy and strategy; • Better utilisation of knowledge and innovation • Greater collaboration to share costs

8. Case 1 Agri-Environment Support Schemes ‘Improving the Environmental Impact of Agriculture’

11. Quantitative predictions of response of bird populations to agricultural change • Manipulation of habitat variables • e.g. whitethroat populations increase by 130% if 2m margins added to 30% of field boundaries • Management needs better information on effects of landscape and habitat quality

12. Chalkhill Blue 1000 Collated Index (Log scale) 100 All Sites Scheme Non-Scheme 10 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

14. Pilot Scheme objective • Evaluate the effectiveness of the measures in delivering biodiversity • Evaluate the uptake of the scheme in different areas • Assess effectiveness of implementation

15. Success factors • Based in detailed ecological study • Trialled at the farm scale and shown benefits • Simple/agronomically feasible • Well targeted • Plans tailored to existing biodiversity interest

17. Case 2 GM Crops and their Impact on the Environment The UK Farm Scale Evaluation (FSE) Studies

18. Several applications for commercial cultivations of herbicide-tolerant GM crops submitted during the 1990sWill herbicide management in GM crops harm biodiversity? – not covered by directive 90/220Intensive herbicide in conventional farming already contributed to decline in several farmland bird speciesTwo-pronged approach: To lobby for change to EU Directive To commission research

19. The farm-scale evaluations of herbicide-tolerant GM crops (FSE) Three year study To test the env impacts due to management of GMHT crops Large geographical coverage > 60 fields per crop Range of farming practices • Field sites legend • Winter oilseed rape fields • Spring oilseed rape fields • Maize fields (yellow) • Beet fields

20. Ensuring high quality science and building confidence Consortium of leading scientific institutions selected after tendering process Independent Scientific Steering Committee appointed to oversee the study Publication of the results in peer-reviewed scientific journals Results considered by statutory advisory committee which produced advice to ministers on implications of results

21. FSE key results GMHT maize would not result in adverse effects on the abundance and diversity of arable plants and invertebrates if grown and managed as in the FSEs GMHT oilseed rape and beet would results in adverse effects on broad-leaved arable weed populations if grown and managed as in the FSEs, which are likely to result in adverse effects on organisms at higher trophic levels (e.g. farmland birds) Provided the basis for landscape models of GMHT plant impact and gene flow predictions

22. UK Government decision Evidence-based decision on individual GM crops: To agree in principle to the commercial cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant maize if grown and managed as in the FSE (subject to certain conditions) To oppose the commercial cultivation of the relevant varieties of GM beet and oilseed rape using the management regime tested in the farm-scale evaluations http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/statements/mb040309.htm

23. ….and finally.. How do we now put into place a common approach to evidence based policy making? One that is workable across Europe and one that can help us to address those multifactoral issues that directly affect us in our national contexts This is an issue that I hope the two breakout sessions will consider