Contents
Page No.Executive summary / 1
Section 1 / Introduction / 5
Project objectives / 5
Policy context / 5
Review of recent data / 6
Approaches adopted / 7
Section 2 / Scope and classification of UK soil research / 9
Soil research envelope / 9
Functional themes / 10
Section 3 / Collecting and presenting the data / 12
Collection of programme data / 12
Presenting the data / 13
Summary of database / 15
Section 4 / Profile of the UK soil research programme / 16
Themes / 16
Funding patterns / 18
Other inputs / 20
Users / 22
Frascati classification / 22
Primary purpose / 23
Providers / 23
Section 5 / Assessment of the UK soil research programme / 25
Consultation / 25
Scale and scope / 27
Quality / 28
Skills and capability / 31
Organisation and management / 31
Section 6 / Meeting user needs / 35
Science-policy-practice model / 35
Science users / 36
Policy users / 36
Practice users / 37
Knowledge transfer / 39
Relationships / 40
Intellectual property rights (IPR) / 40
Section 7 / International comparisons / 42
The Netherlands / 42
The United States / 43
Australia / 45
Key points / 46
Section 8 / Future directions / 47
Science and technology opportunities / 47
Socio-economic drivers / 49
National capability / 51
Section 9 / Conclusions and recommendations / 52
Section 10 / Acknowledgements / 56
Section 11 / References / 57
Annexes
Annex 1 / Describing and measuring R&D / 58
The Frascati Manual / 58
The primary purpose of Government SET / 59
Annex 2 / Inventory of UK soil research / 60
Annex 3 / Consultation / 68
Organisations interviewed / 68
Organisations providing written comments / 68
Annex 4 / Bibliography of UK-based Soil Science research by Evidence Ltd / 69
Annex 5 / Attendees at consultation meeting on 30 September 2003 / 78
Annex 6 / Acronyms used in the report / 79
i
Executive summary
1 The aim of this audit commissioned by Defra and SNIFFER was to review programmes of UK Soil Research from 1995 to the present, to recommend future directions for soil research and to identify improvements in the management of soil research so that funders, providers and end users could maximise the value of the research. Carrying out a soil research audit was one of the proposed actions in the draft Soil Strategy for England.
2 For the purpose of this audit, soil was defined as the zone of terrestrial cover that is characterised by biological activity and generally is no more than 1m deep. We did not encompass the engineering definition of soil as being any natural material that is granular and uncemented, irrespective of depth.
3 The first stage of the work was to collect data on soil research from all funders involved in the UK and organise this at programme level. Nine themes were used to classify each soil research programme. These themes were basic science, food and other biomass production, air and water quality, water movement, soil protection, biodiversity, soil disturbance, cultural heritage and monitoring.
4 The primary source of information for the database of UK soil research was the funders of this research. Each known funder in the UK was considered. Most were contacted and a dialogue established by phone and email to collect, refine and validate their database entries. Consideration of some smaller funders was limited to scrutiny of their publications and website, particularly where little or no funding was found.
5 Our remit was to assess work at the programme level, as distinct from project level. However, nationally there are only a handful of research programmes that are exclusively soil oriented – a few of the Defra programmes and the NERC Soil Biodiversity research are examples. Much of the work supported by the research councils, and some departmental research, is funded by discrete project grants, or contracts, often within a defined envelope, or programme. It was relatively easy to identify funders’ programmes that had at least some relevance to the audit. However, even though the overall programme aims might be relevant to the audit, not all the grant-aided projects within each programme were necessarily relevant.
6 A summary of the database showing some key features is presented in Annex 2. It lists the 188 research programmes by theme. Within each of the nine themes we have ranked the programmes by funder then by size. Expenditure figures for two key years are included in this table – for 1997-98, the first year with almost complete financial records and, and for 2002-03, the latest available. An electronic version of the complete Excel database is available from Defra.
7 We have aggregated the results of the audit to profile the national picture and to show strategic trends. A striking feature is the markedly uneven distribution of the research programmes across these themes. Basic science, air/water quality, food/biomass production and soil protection account for over 90% of the expenditure in both years. In contrast, water movement, soil disturbance, cultural heritage and biodiversity combined add up to only 4% of the expenditure in 1997-98, increasing modestly to 8% in 2002-03, this increase being almost entirely attributed to a three fold increase in biodiversity research.
8 Support for underpinning Basic science has increased slightly over the period. Within this broad and somewhat unstructured theme, there has been a progressive shift away from funding of individual, unconnected research grants in responsive mode. Responsive mode, however, is still the main funding mechanism of the research councils.
9 Overall funding of soil research from 1995 to 2003 has been relatively constant in real terms at £25-28m per annum (i.e. based on 2000-01 prices). Three organisations dominate the funding of soil research. These are Defra (including both ex-MAFF and ex-DETR parts of the Department), BBSRC, and SEERAD (previously SERAD and SOAFD). Together they accounted for 89% of funding in 1997-98 and 74% in 2002-03. The dominant position of former government agriculture departments and the BBSRC (formerly the Agricultural and Food Research Council) reflects the historical importance of agriculture research as a driver of soil research in the UK.
10 Private sector funding is a small but critical part of the total because it often provides the direct link to users. The best documented examples are levy and LINK funding. Costs were not available for the other main private sector programmes. Overall, excluding levy and LINK, we estimate the private sector contribution to be somewhat over £1m per annum.
11 Research institutes and contract research organisations are the main providers of departmental research programmes. ADAS, IGER and RRes dominate as providers for MAFF/Defra and Defra. CEH was a significant provider for DETR/Defra and is now for Defra. In Scotland, two research institutes – MLURI and SCRI, and the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) are the main providers for the SEERAD programmes. Most of the relevant research in N Ireland, funded by DARDNI, is done in house.
12 Bibliometric analysis of UK peer-review publications in soil research and closely related fields was carried out by Evidence Ltd to measure productivity and scientific quality. Evidence sought to identify all refereed UK publications in soil research from 1995 onwards. By citation analysis we drew conclusions about the global impact of this UK research effort, compared to soil research in other countries and in comparison to other areas of UK research.
13 As well as creating an inventory of research programmes with a soil dimension, we collected information and views from funders, providers and users of soil research. This was done through structured interviews with individuals or small groups in key organisations. We developed interim conclusions from these interviews and then held a larger stakeholder meeting to test our findings before producing the final report and recommendations.
14 A number of issues have emerged from both our data analysis of soil research funded since 1995 and our consultations. Few of the current policy questions, which are the main drivers of the research agenda in the UK, are soil specific. Hence the important research priorities are questions that have a soil component as part of a bigger, often environmental, question. The consequence for providers is that much soil research is now part of a multidisciplinary activity, requiring a range of skills and an ability to work as part of a team.
15 Scientific outputs are used to increase the knowledge and understanding of soil functions and soil processes. Science is a global commodity and results obtained in one country can be applied in another. Bibliometric analysis has shown UK work to be comparable in quantity to other developed countries of similar size and above average in quality. The quality of UK science is important not only in terms of making a useful contribution to global understanding. It also provides a crucial underpinning to teaching and training, particularly of the next generation of researchers.
16 Government policies are now the main drivers of soil research funding in the UK. A part of research council spending is devoted to thematic or coordinated programmes aimed at delivering Government’s science and innovation strategy. Almost all Government departmental and agency funding is aimed at the development and implementation of policy, mainly on food/biomass production, air/water quality, soil protection and biodiversity.
17 Some of the soil research carried out in the UK in recent years was targeted directly at improving commercial practices, usually in the field. Some is funded by individual companies as part of their business activities with the primary aim of direct benefit to that business. Similarly pre-competitive research may be funded by organisations representing a particular group of businesses. The commodity Levy Boards carry out research on behalf of their levy payers.
18 To help us in the assessment of UK soil research, we looked at the current state of soil research in three comparator countries, the Netherlands, the United States and Australia. We recognise that the economic importance of agriculture is greater in those countries than in the UK and that this may have a bearing on the scale and scope of soil research.
19 The main strategic points we draw from these glimpses at soil research in other research systems are recent reforms to the Dutch research system to sustain selected centres of competence and excellence in research and teaching; the continuing roles of government departments of agriculture in the US and the Netherlands in nurturing soil science and extension; the strong natural resources management context of soil research in Australia and to a lesser extent in the US and the Netherlands; and the clear signals that Australia, the Netherlands and the US view soil as a renewable natural resource that can be irreversibly damaged and have strategies for its protection and conservation that are backed by R&D.
20 Our overall view is that now is a time of great opportunity and challenge for soil research, both in the sense of increasing fundamental knowledge of natural systems and of tackling some of the big contemporary environmental issues of climate change, pollution and remediation and sustainable land management.
21 There was widespread agreement that the future of soil research has to be multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary and international. The marrying of soil science and molecular biology is one obvious thrust. Another key area of interest to many users is the development of remote sensing and in-situ sensor techniques to enable the prediction of the soil behaviour at the catchment and national level.
22 Our detailed conclusions and recommendations for action to ensure the successful future of UK soil research are given in Section 9. They cover the following topics
Maintaining UK research capability
Role of the Soil Science Advisory Committee (SSAC)
Thematic balance of soil research
Future direction
Efficient procurement
Research for policy development
Research for farmers and land managers
Responsibility for knowledge transfer
Dealing with intellectual property rights (IPR)
1 Introduction
1.1 The aim of this audit commissioned by Defra and SNIFFER was to review programmes of UK Soil Research from 1995 to the present, to recommend future directions for soil research and to identify improvements in the management of soil research so that funders, providers and end users could maximise the value of the research. The audit aimed to inform the soil research community as a whole.
Project objectives
1.2 The following sequential objectives for the audit were agreed with Defra.
1. To define the scope of the audit, defining scientific boundaries and a trial research classification framework by theme to identify users and stakeholders.
2. To profile UK soil research, including a comprehensive database of programmes classified by theme.
3. To collect views of user organisations on relevance of the research, it’s delivery and knowledge transfer and the need for an overall strategy.
4. To analyse the research against national need and undertake international benchmarking of programmes, organisation and management.
5. To recommend future directions within a strategic framework, together with management improvements for the organisation, delivery and utilisation of soil research in the UK.