EVIDENCE BASED POLICYMAKING: AN OVERVIEW

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 Foodsand 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
Defras 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

9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
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
13
(No Transcript)
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

16
(No Transcript)
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
• gt 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/statem
ents/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