Against a background of stagnant UK crop yields and stalled agricultural productivity growth, agribusiness consultant James Wallace challenges projections made for the economic impact and return on investment of UK taxpayer investment in agriculture-related research. To drive much-needed improvements in UK agricultural productivity, the government must focus R&D funding decisions more on the needs of the farming industry (the market), and move away from the current researcher (supplier) led process. The 30:50:50 Innovation Agenda launched recently by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture identifies the need for clear, consistent and measurable targets for UK agriculture over the long-term. Such targets should also be applied to R&D funding priority decisions, he argues.

 

George Freeman MP, former UK Science Minister and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture (APPGSTA), recently called for a radical policy reset to improve productivity in UK agriculture by harnessing the latest advances in agricultural science and innovation. 

 

In particular, he asked why, when the UK is a world leader in terms of high-impact academic publications in the agriculture-related sciences, we continue to lag behind our competitors in agricultural productivity growth.

 

The All-Party Group has set out a 30:50:50 Innovation Agenda for UK Agriculture as a challenge to the industry and research community to reframe the policy and R&D agenda for UK agriculture, with a long-term goal to deliver a 30% increase in agricultural production by 2050 while reducing farming’s environmental footprint by 50%. 

 

How can taxpayer-funded R&D be better prioritised and organised to deliver against these objectives and help farmers to produce ‘more from less’?

 

As a member of the seed trade who for many years has been involved in contracting and using research, I fully agree with Mr Freeman. Productivity improvement is absolutely key to a competitive and profitable agricultural industry. We have a strong, publicly funded agri-science base, but it is not sufficiently focused on helping farmers improve their productivity.

 

Mr Freeman was speaking at a recent Agri-Tech-E conference at NIAB in Cambridge, where there appeared to be a consensus among delegates that the organisation of UK agricultural R&D needs to be much more market-focused.

 

Currently, UK research funding priorities are largely determined by the research community (the suppliers), rather than by industry (the consumers). The result is that immediate issues affecting productivity and profitability in the industry are not adequately considered.

 

R&D funders such as BBSRC and Innovate UK seek project proposals in general areas of interest from the research community. They then determine the projects for funding largely based on how they advance and expand scientific knowledge. Success in the research community is focused on academic publications rather than on economic impact and value.

 

In my experience, there is little interest within current R&D funding mechanisms in seeking a proper, objective assessment of the expected productivity or economic benefits when proposals are submitted and assessed for funding.

 

This system has enabled UK research institutes and universities to generate a high output of quality papers in the agriculture-related sciences, third only behind China and the United States, as Mr Freeman notes.

 

But when agricultural productivity growth in the UK lags behind other nations whose farming industries are much more closely involved in setting R&D priorities, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, New Zealand and the USA, it is surely time to reset the balance.      

 

We need look no further than Britain’s flagship crop science institute, the John Innes Centre (JIC) in Norwich, for an insight into the scale of the problem. Renowned internationally for its high-quality science and league-topping performance in academic publications, JIC’s demonstrable impact at farm level is rather less impressive.

 

In a section entitled ‘Commercial and Societal Impact’ on the JIC website, the first three examples of ‘household successes’ - John Innes Compost (developed in the 1930s), Maris Piper potatoes (introduced in 1966) and Maris Otter barley (introduced in 1965) – are simply decades old. 

 

(And in fact, Maris Piper and Maris Otter were both bred at the former Plant Breeding Institute in Cambridge, not at the John Innes Centre).

 

The JIC website’s statement that “the John Innes Centre returns £15.22 to the UK economy for every £1 invested” is equally open to challenge, since it is not based on past performance but on theoretical and highly optimistic forward projections over the next 10, 15 and 25 years. 

 

The JIC impact report includes, for example, a section on peas with resistant starch to combat obesity and diabetes, offering a projected economic boost of £5.4bn to the UK plus NHS savings of £510m and social care savings of £566m over 25 years. A fantastic benefit for eating peas! However, it would require everyone, every day of their adult life, to eat at least a can of premium priced peas. Great for the pea trade but not realistic as a diet. And no one in the food industry has taken up the idea since it was published nearly ten years ago.

 

In a report on how £300m has been spent since the turn of the century on its “Revolutionising Wheat” projects, BBSRC claims a much more modest return to the UK economy of £4 for every £1 invested. Yet even this level of return is difficult to justify in practice, since Defra statistics in line with on-farm experience show UK wheat yields flat-lining between 2004 and 2024. In fact, the 2024 national average wheat yield was 7.3 tonnes per hectare compared with 8.0 tonnes in 2000 - and 7.7 tonnes in 1984!

 

Similarly, under “outputs and outcomes”, all the claims made by BBSRC relate to scientific publications such as “30% of publications are in the top 10% of the most cited documents globally”. But citing publications does not pay farmers’ bills, nor feed people. Have we had any real return from the £300m investment of our money?

 

These examples highlight the urgent need to re-focus research priorities and taxpayer investment on work that can deliver a real benefit to farm-level productivity and profitability.

 

And this is precisely why, as in other industries, we must move to a more market-led process, rather than one directed by suppliers. To improve industry performance, the industry must be much better represented in setting R&D priorities. We need proper scientific and economic assessments of industry needs to identify where the greatest benefit can be delivered.

 

It is also time to adopt a standardised approach to reporting research impact and return on investment, based on (recent) past performance rather than future projections. 

 

By independently establishing how research can improve yields, reduce inputs and reduce risk factors on a gross margin per hectare or livestock number basis, we can calculate the potential annual national benefit. The cost of research to resolve the issues can then be compared with the potential benefits. The projects showing the greatest potential return then determine our research priorities. 

 

The government’s recently announced “Accelerating Development of Practices and Technologies” (ADOPT) fund is a welcome step in the right direction. It makes sense to involve farmers more in testing and trialling new technologies on farm. Once the scheme is established, the government should require all R&D projects to have a final module meeting ADOPT or similar criteria involving the industry. Such a commitment to having the results applied and tested on farm will help to focus researchers’ efforts on what the industry needs to improve productivity.

 

I agree with George Freeman’s view that a vibrant agri-tech sector is key to UK and global food security. The UK has valuable agricultural R&D resources in terms of people and facilities. But if we are to meet the 30:50:50 challenge, those resources must be targeted where the greatest benefits can be obtained. Research priorities must be determined scientifically and objectively, with a central role for industry in that process.

 

In summary, to drive much-needed improvements in UK agricultural productivity, the government must develop an agricultural R&D funding decision-making process based more on the needs of the farming industry (the market), and moving away from the current researcher (supplier) led process. 

 

We are facing a war – a tariff war – and if the UK farming industry is to survive it must have the tools to improve productivity now.

 

The 30:50:50 Innovation Agenda identifies the need for clear, consistent and measurable targets for UK agriculture over the long-term. Such targets should also be applied to R&D funding priority decisions.

 

James Wallace is an independent agribusiness consultant. After graduating with a BSc in Agriculture at Edinburgh University and MSc from the London Business School, he has spent his career working in the UK seeds and plant breeding industry. He is a former board member of the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) and the Euroseeds Cereals Sector as well as serving on numerous industry advisory committees and working groups. He is a strong advocate of the improved sustainability, protein security and climate impact potential of increased investment and innovation in home-grown pulses such as peas and beans.