Strategy for R&D and Technology Transfer 2011 to 2016 - Policy Objectives

Collaboration between research centres is actively encouraged, to make best use of specialist skills available at specific institutes, and to give best value for money.

The overall aim is to produce a balanced, economically and environmentally positive programme that incorporates both strategic long-term research and more immediately exploitable applied research, accompanied by an effective grower support service.

Of most immediate concern to the BBRO now is the imminent accessibility of European markets to imports of sugar from the developing nations, linked with reductions in quota and prices under the revised Régime, and the likely impact of new pesticides regulations (Plant Protection Products Regulation 1107/2009 and Sustainable Use Directive 2009/128). Therefore, enhancement of the UK industry’s competitiveness must remain the prime objective of the research programme, the focus being placed on yield and quality to maximize margins and profitability. Consequently, the findings of the independent review of its strategy, commissioned by the BBRO in 2001 and implemented over succeeding years remain relevant:

• that the future “return on investment” is dependent on the BBRO ensuring that its research programme is tightly focused on deliverable benefits as determined by the Board in consultation with growers.
• that the grower support programme should use past data more effectively, select appropriate vehicles to increase the speed of uptake, evaluate grower uptake, and continue to improve independent “BBRO branding”.
• that the main contractors should continue to work closely together.

The BBRO priorities for research since 2000 have sought to maximise the environmental benefits, including wildlife and landscape, to be obtained from the presence of profitable sugar beet in arable rotations. A programme to optimise the judicious use of agrochemicals in weed and pest management, to enhance biodiversity and other environmental objectives is now reporting. Positive results have already been delivered and promise further advantages as research results accumulate over the coming years.

• Reduced availability of crop protection products following the recent adoption by the EU of the new Plant Protection Products Regulation 1107/2009 and the Sustainable Use Directive 2009/128. The regulation may cause significant loss of products and also encourage ‘substitution’ (the replacement of a product by a less hazardous one with a similar spectrum of activity) whilst the Sustainable Use Directive aims to promote Integrated Pest Management more strongly. Both could lead to loss of active ingredients leading to, for example, reliance on a single group of insecticides – increasing the risk of resistance developing. Loss of nematicides, triazole fungicides and herbicides may reduce options for the control of free-living nematodes, foliar diseases and weeds. The relatively poor efficacy of remaining active ingredients could result in a large drop in gross margins.
• Regard must continue to be paid to the public demand for sustainability in agriculture, as articulated through Defra’s three key priorities for structural reform, as outlined in its Business Plan:-1. sustainable food production, 2. enhancement of the environment and biodiversity, 3. a strong and sustainable green economy resistant to climate change. The BBRO programme must continue to include objectives that reduce the carbon footprint of sugar production by minimising inputs of both energy and chemicals whilst simultaneously enhancing the proven benefits that the crop provides to biodiversity. Protection of the fertility and structure of soils must be a high priority, as are the measures currently in place to monitor and ensure that production of the crop meets agreed standards of safety and environmental goals. These objectives demonstrate, through research, innovation and knowledge transfer, BBRO’s commitment to Defra’s priotities for food security and ‘sustainable intensivity’ by ensuring that:- sugar beet production is resilient, profitable and competitive; increases in production are obtained in a sustainable manner; sugar beet is farmed in a way that minimises greenhouse gas emissions; waste is minimised by re-use and re-processing.
• Specific environmental objectives must be maintained in the quest for yield. Particularly important are those to reduce the unnecessary use of pesticides and fertilisers applied to the crop, and to comply with regulations controlling waste, pollution and landscape e.g.  NVZ and soil management requirements with Cross Compliance, and the reduction of diffuse pollution as promoted by the Catchment Sensitive Farming Initiative within the Water Framework Directive. Following removal of compulsory set-aside, the Campaign for the Farmed Environment aims to recapture and exceed the environmental benefits provided by former set-aside land by encouraging growers to adopt land management practices working along three key schemes: resource protection, farmland birds and wildlife habitats. National targets have been set. Some of the management practices are voluntary, others have congruence with the environmental objectives of Government Departments offering sugar beet growers opportunities for payments in agri-environment schemes and should be promoted through the technology transfer programme.
• The UK is well placed, in comparison with other EU member states, to take advantage of its long season, high yields, good beet quality and relatively low factory costs, to remain among the most competitive producers in Europe; survival as an industry depends upon this. The aim therefore is for the UK beet industry to expand competitively; we should be striving ever harder to raise yields above the 2009 record average exceeding 70 adjusted tonnes per hectare for the industry to remain profitable. This should be possible, within the timescale set for the planned reductions in support prices under the new Sugar Régime, and with current technology. Growers are already achieving much more than 70 t/ha, with the best exceeding 100 t/ha, thus raising the benchmark necessary to maintain margins at a level necessary for beet to remain competitive within the arable rotation. Reductions in input costs may prove difficult to achieve, given the current economic climate, but initiatives should be sought to explore possibilities which will further enhance profitability.
• The value of the crop to the processor both for white sugar and for bioethanol, and the need to maintain sugar content and quality during a longer campaign.
• The changing views of the ultimate customers of the industry, including customers for sugar, animal feed and other finished products.
• Changes in crop management necessitated by trends in UK weather patterns e.g. rainfall amount and distribution which, experience shows, can change rapidly. Evidence that climate is changing continues to be published; already the growing season begins earlier with early drilling and more crops are being left in the field until required for processing although the two recent winters have highlighted the risk associated with frost damage.
• The potential for collaboration with other levy organisations both in research and technology transfer has been a major feature of BBRO research and is expected to develop further. Levy-funded research on sugar beet has created leverage for public funding which should be further exploited. The industry must take advantage of Government activities to promote industry/government partnerships in funding and implementation of research, in particular the Technology Strategy Board (TSB), sponsored by government departments particularly the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Defra and Research Councils. The levy boards need to work together to identify common goals and approaches.
• The importance of an effective grower support programme to deliver the output of the research programmes to the end user, to identify shortfalls in beet management on farms and to promote improved practice in these areas.

• Increase intrinsic sugar yield per hectare by identifying and growing the best varieties, and ensuring the establishment of healthy crops in well-managed and fertile soils. To this end it is necessary to optimise the inputs of nutrients in relation to soil analyses and the nutrient content of organic manures as part of an integrated nutrient management (INM) approach to decisions on nutrient inputs, and timing of these, for the crop.
• Reduce root losses both in the field and during transport to the factory. Soil conditions must allow the crop to be harvested efficiently. Harvesting machinery must be set to defoliate or top the beet efficiently and avoid damage to roots at harvest. Subsequent mechanical handling operations as beet is transported to, and within, the factory must minimise root damage.
• Optimise the use of crop pesticides by ensuring that they are delivered only to their targets, at the correct time and in the correct amounts. The aim is to avoid off-target effects on the environment and consumer and to reduce the risk of resistance evolving in pest, weed and pathogen populations. This should ensure that key active ingredients such as the neonicotinoids (which have facilitated enormous reductions in the use of insecticides and, after changes in EU pesticide regulations, could be used increasingly) remain available to the industry for as long as possible.
• Improve the environmental impacts of the crop and industry including the effects on biodiversity and bird life both within the crop and around it. Restricting cropping to the profitably-productive areas of fields leaves opportunities to enhance the environmental benefits of uncropped areas such as headlands. Careful management of pests and weeds could maintain them at levels that are not competitive with the crop but which are of positive advantage to flora and fauna. Opportunities might exist in this area for future funding within the higher level payments of the agri-environment scheme.

Financial pressures on the industry as outlined above continue to demand a re-adjustment to diminishing prices whilst public and regulatory pressures to cut pesticide inputs, use inorganic fertilisers efficiently, and control wastes serve to reinforce the industry’s long-established aim to reduce the costs of growing the crop. Much has been done to achieve this aim in recent years but much more is possible and this, coupled with the improved yields promised by new varieties of sugar beet, should enable growers to increase sugar beet yields and profitability, even without the advantages of the GM technology that the EU industry is currently denied. Although extreme frosts damaged many crops in 2010, resulting in a disappointing yield, root yields in recent years have exceeded 70 t/ha, and objectives to consolidate and build on this success, reducing production and processing costs over the coming years are the highest priority. The objective of both grower and processor must be profitability. For growers, this requires an effective and rapid technology transfer programme, to ensure that the crop to be processed is produced as economically as possible.
    
The congruence of the industry’s need and the public’s requirement to reduce inputs to achieve environmental benefits should continually be brought to the attention of HMG, appropriate NGO’s and the popular press. Active promotion of the positive net environmental contribution from growing sugar beet is a legitimate objective of the technology transfer programme.
    
The need remains for strict accountability of levy-funded Research and Technology Transfer through rigorous monitoring of each objective against pre-set milestones. An essential requirement for achieving value for money is the close co-ordination of individual programmes, especially those involving different sites or research organisations, together with appropriate involvement in HMG Schemes.