The World Agri-Tech Innovation Summit hit the UK capital this week. Attendees could agree on at least one thing – the terrible British weather.
Besides that, one theme was consistent among attendees: regulation is not keeping pace with innovation.
GMO and gene editing, particularly, need to be embraced in the UK and Europe to enable the development of crops that are more nutritious, resistant to pests and disease, resilient to climate change and more beneficial to the environment.
There was good news on this front. The UK’s Food Security and Rural Affairs Minister Daniel Zeichner took to the stage to announce the next steps toward implementing the Precision Breeding Act, which aims to harness the benefits of gene editing technology in England.
“This government recognises that food security is national security,” he said. “That is why we are introducing legislation to unlock precision breeding to boost Britain’s food security, support nature’s recovery and protect farmers from climate shocks. With these measures, our agriculture sector will be at the forefront of innovation across the world.”
The pressure is now on for the EU to follow suit with a clearer regulatory pathway to market. “We can expect regulation in genomics to be implemented in 2027,” said Stefan Schwarz from KWS Group. “It’s exciting on the one hand but we need more investment in breeding tech to make this work in reality.”
But there are sceptics. The Soil Association, for example, wants mandatory requirements for the identification and traceability of gene edited foods in the supply chain. It believes 85% of the public have concerns about gene editing and its long-term unforeseen implications.
These fears only serve to illustrates the need for retailers to engage, finally, with the concept of gene editing and educate their consumers about the benefits. Such a move will only help steer the upcoming regulatory framework.
Farmers want communication, collaboration and cash
Too much tech, not enough ag? It’s a common gripe from farmers that they are last to be considered whenever the agtech sector flashes its new shiny toys.
But farmers are not resistant change. Phil Bicknell, CEO at the newly merged UK Agri-Tech Centre, told me the “three Cs” of communication, collaboration and cash are needed to help farmers adopt newer sustainable practices.
Helen Browning, CEO of the Soil Association, also gave the farmer perspective. “Everybody is looking to farming and land as the solution to their problems,” she said. “We can do that but it’s a very changing environment for farmers to have to deal with. The incentives and the policy mechanisms surrounding us are still in flux.”
Events such as World Agri-Tech can help foster communication and collaboration. Concerning cash, the expectations are that funds will increasingly come from public/private partnerships, agrifintech solutions from banks and innovative blended finance solutions.
Yes, farmers have been stung before. But if it works, they will use it. Case in point, don’t pitch ag biologicals as ‘environmentally friendly’, Biotalys CEO Kevin Helash told me. Pitch it because it works.
Can we say with confidence that bioherbicides work? No, believes Oxford University spin-out Moa Technology, which is using both chemical and natural active ingredients in its herbicide development efforts. With the use of conventional chemical inputs still dominant in the UK, it’s time to be more agnostic about the use of both synthetic and natural ingredients in crop protection, Moa’s chief technology officer, Dr Shuji Hachisu, told me. This agnosticism will likely help continue to fuel the already super-hot regen ag market, which allows the limited use of chemical fertilisers.
Where are the carbon credits?
The carbon credit market is another sector where there is some sceptics amid few facts about the total number of carbon credits sold by European farmers. But industry sees potential for carbon capture on the basis of supportive policy developments.
Companies like Agreena, which launched in 2020, are facilitating this market. Given that nearly 40% of the EU is farmed land, there’s a significant potential for carbon sequestration and credit generation, the company believes.
Both Phil Bicknell and Patrick Pagani from European farmer group Copa-Cogena told me they have confidence that carbon credits will prove a viable income source for farmers. The EU, for example, is developing a comprehensive policy framework for carbon credits in the agriculture sector, centred around the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF).
But the market is still developing, and a lack of standardisation makes it difficult to quantify total credit sales. That means data is crucial. Sectors, therefore, like regen ag and MRV (measurement, reporting, and verification) are hot trends keenly eyed by investors. Projects in Europe, meanwhile, are keen to garner greater knowledge about soil health. Understanding soil health is crucial for adapting agricultural practices and maintaining food production in changing conditions.
In this vein, Henry Dimbleby, formerly the UK’s food tsar and now managing partner of Bramble Partners, told me he believes that knowledge about the connection between human health and soil health is set to explode.
But the need for data raises questions of trust. Will farmers trust ‘big ag’ with their data and allow companies to access and use it? Can ‘big ag’ be trusted to deliver the innovation that’s needed for a more environmentally sustainable and productive food system? These are concerns that need to be addressed.
There are other issues about whether policy will prove effective. The European Court of Auditors, for example, has just reviewed the EU’s reform of agriculture subsidies and found a “noticeable gap” between farming incentives and the EU’s overall green targets.
Is the traditional VC business model the best fit for agtech?
VC firms are the primary business model driving agtech investments. But given that we don’t know if we have yet reached the bottom of the VC contraction cycle the jury is still out on whether the traditional VC model is the best one for the agtech sector.
Venture capital funds usually have a lifespan of around 10 years. Given the timelines in ag, some doubt if this provides the time to deploy the capital and make a return.
By way of example, the agtech investment community “can’t do anything” without farmers and landowners, said Eduardo Mufarej, co-chief investment officer at the investor Just Climate. “Sometimes I think we disregard this element and think adoption is easy.”
Time to rethink the model?
AI needs ‘humans’ in the loops
Robotics and AI are clearly other huge trends. Feroz Sheikh, chief information and digital officer at Syngenta Group, explained how the company is combining agronomic knowledge with cutting-edge AI capabilities, enabling it to “empower growers to make data-driven decisions that drive productivity, profitability, and sustainability”.
But ‘humans’ in the loops are needed. “AI won’t replace agronomists”, I was told by Claudia Roessler from Microsoft.
Roessler also hosted a table at the Women in Food and Agriculture breakfast, concluding that: “Women in the agriculture industry today are well-positioned to effect global change.”
Given that the industry suffers from two big problems that potentially hinder innovation: ageing farmers and a dearth of female-fronted businesses, it begs the question: what’s more important for the sector – more women or more young people? We need more young women in ag, was Enko CEO Jacqueline Heard’s neat response.
Stay tuned for more reports from the World Agri-Tech Innovation Summit in London. Next up is the World Agri-Tech Innovation Summit in Mexico, where it’s likely attendees won’t be complaining about the cold and rain.
