Industry reaction to controversial Wellesbourne proposals

• 11-23-2009 4:27 PM

  Gemma Spence Joined on 10-01-2008 Posts 202

  Industry reaction to controversial Wellesbourne proposals Reply Contact News that the University of Warwick plans to absorb Warwick HRI Wellesbourne into a school for life sciences has been met with condemnation across the industry. Read what leading figures in horticulture have to say below. Click on the reply button above to add your voice to the debate.   For more information on the Wellesbourne proposals and Horticulture Week's Save Our Science campaign — which is calling for the Government to match-fund growers' HDC levy contributions to help secure the future of horticultural R&D — see our Save Our Science Big Issue page.

• 11-23-2009 4:29 PM

  In reply to

  Gemma Spence Joined on 10-01-2008 Posts 202

  Re: Industry reaction to controversial Wellesbourne proposals Reply Contact Gerry Hayman, representative, British Tomato Growers Association   I am writing to you on behalf of the British Tomato Growers' Association, which represents commercial tomato producers in the UK. I am also a member of the Vegetable Consultants Association, which has also made its views known to you on this matter and of the Horticultural Development Council. I have had very close links with the research programme at Wellesbourne since the transfer of staff and resources there following the closure of the Glasshouse Crops Research Institute at Littlehampton and the major investment in glasshouse facilities at your site. Although we were bitterly disappointed by the loss of GCRI, which led the world in applied research on topics such as biological crop protection, crop nutrition, energy use and product quality, we accepted promises made about the continuation of industry focussed research in the new facilities funded by MAFF.  Since then we have seen a continued erosion in the funding of applied research and in the facilities available for this. We are dismayed that this is now threatened even further by the planned changes to the research programme at Warwick HRI and the proposed shift away from applied to strategic research.  British growers currently face enormous commercial pressures, not least in relation to energy and environmental issues. Ironically we believe that this situation offers considerable research opportunities, in alternative and low carbon technologies, for instance, which could benefit not only our sector but the national economy and environment. We are not opposed to strategic research, but need to be still in business to be able to benefit from its longer-term deliverables.  We are particularly concerned about the focus of biotechnology and biogenetic programmes. There are already being funded elsewhere, the University of Nottingham and the John Innes Centre being examples. In the short term this has actually presented us with some commercial problems as tomatoes always seem to be chosen to illustrate the great GM debate.  Will the nation really benefit from the availability of a purple GM tomato with enhanced anthocyanin content when such nutrients are already available by selecting a good and varied diet?  Solving non-existent problems just to prove it can be done is not good science in our view.     We would welcome an opportunity to debate these issues before it is too late.

• 11-23-2009 4:33 PM

  In reply to

  Gemma Spence Joined on 10-01-2008 Posts 202

  Re: Industry reaction to controversial Wellesbourne proposals Reply Contact Phillip Effingham, chairman, Brassica Growers Association, and director, Marshalls   I write with respect of my roles as Chairman of the British Brassica Growers Association and Director of Marshalls, a large growing and packing operation serving the major UK Retailers. It has come to our attention, sadly indirectly, that the University is considering this merger which will effectively move considerable resource away from applied research and development for industry and concentrating on more fundamental plant science. As an Industry we are extremely concerned with yet more erosion of the near market and associated technology transfer elements at a time when food security is high up on the Government's agenda. The loss of these valuable resources is irrevocable and extremely damaging to an Industry very much subject to market failure. At the time of transfer of Warwick HRI to Warwick University by Defra we were fully appraised at the time of the current financial situation surrounding that. The further loss of the Kirton facility was difficult for us but we believed it would help support the critical mass at Wellesbourne but never did we believe that the large scale removal of such valuable applied R&D would be a result. If it is not too late, we would request most earnestly that within the School of Life Science you would consider the provision of significant applied R& D resources which would preserve some of the existing areas of expertise. Our Association and Marshalls are very much involved in high quality vegetable production which is facing severe challenges in the light of EU pesticide and other environmental changes. Without a substantial critical mass of scientific skills and resources, alternative resources nearer to market would fall wide of key objectives.   We were disappointed at the shortfall in Industry consultation with regard to this move and avail ourselves to discuss potential which could be created within the new structure. We fully understand the operating difficulties within the current financial structure but is seems absurd that at a time when Government is recognizing the strengths and importance of home production with all its associated challenges that we seek to remove one of the most valuable scientific resources which underpin it.

• 11-23-2009 4:36 PM

  In reply to

  Gemma Spence Joined on 10-01-2008 Posts 202

  Re: Industry reaction to controversial Wellesbourne proposals Reply Contact David Gwyther, director general, Horticultural Trades Association   The role of Wellesbourne has always been fundamental in generating applied research which is essential for the hard-pressed horticulture sector. Its disappearance from the arena will leave us with a very limited R&D resource (both human and physical) in the UK at a time when the sector is having to deal with the ramifications of new legislation (e.g. on pesticide use) as well as the need to innovate and improve productivity.  It also has an increasing role to play in delivering the Government`s environmental and health agendas, given the contributions of both ornamental and edible plants to absorption of carbon and excessive rain waters, dealing with light and sound pollution, improving behaviour on the streets and in schools, improving recovery rates, and promoting healthy eating.       We would urge you and your senate to reconsider this decision most urgently.  I did raise the matter in a meeting with the Defra Secretary of State earlier this week, and know that that Department shares our concerns.

• 11-23-2009 4:42 PM

  In reply to

  Gemma Spence Joined on 10-01-2008 Posts 202

  Re: Industry reaction to controversial Wellesbourne proposals Reply Contact Peter Kendall, president, NFU   Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the formation of a School of Life Sciences at Warwick University, although the very short deadline for response is not particularly helpful. Considering the importance of Warwick HRI for carrying out industry-relevant research, I would have expected to see a longer period of engagement and consultation with industry over these plans. I urge you to delay taking any further decisions until further  consultation activities with industry stakeholders ha ve taken place.   It appears that the changes could reduce the focus on applied and translational research at Warwick HRI in favour of fundamental and basic research. If so, this would be extremely unstrategic and poorly timed considering the government's focus on translation and skills through the new Food Research Partnership, the BBSRC's attention on food security and their new 5-year plan, which includes significant statements about translation, impact and industry engagement, and the wider government agenda on food security and climate change, and UK fruit and vegetable production in particular following the first report of Defra's Council of Food Policy Advisers. None of these initiatives will be delivered without skills and expertise, and stability, to underpin them.   I believe every effort should be made to protect and boost the capacity for Warwick University to take the lead on translation, particularly in the horticultural sciences. This must include retention, and indeed building up, of the facilities and staff capable of doing the necessary field and glasshouse trials and long term studies and of contributing to translating this research into commercial practice. Following the closure of Kirton, I am concerned this move will further erode the UK's R&D capability in support of the horticulture industry.   While it is difficult to tell from the names of the suggested research areas in your email, they do not give me confidence that the full value of Warwick HRI will be retained in the move to a School of Life Sciences.   I very much hope these views will contribute to shaping the new school and I look forward to hearing more detail of the plans.

• 11-26-2009 6:11 PM

  In reply to

  Gemma Spence Joined on 10-01-2008 Posts 202

  Re: Industry reaction to controversial Wellesbourne proposals Reply Contact Bill Hudson, horticultural contractor   This appears to  be complete madness and rushed through without any consultation with growers  or lead bodies. Once these facilities and staff have gone they will not be  replaced. This amalgamation is ill thought out and will lead to the closure  of Wellesbourne in the near future.   Applied horticulture research needs increasing not reducing, particularly with the reduction of agrochemicals and the need for the UK to produce more protected veg salads and  ornamentals.   Defra needs to be involved and further funding put in to an  already small pot!